3 ms·
What about the not so high level nuclear waste? Is that not also dangerous? How much of that is there?
by achenet 3y ago
What about the not so high level nuclear waste? Is that not also dangerous? How much of that is there?
- mplewis 3y agoYou’re the one arguing against nuclear power; where are your sources for its damage? What about the “not so high level” waste from coal which results in trillions of dollars of health issues worldwide?
- achenet 3y agoI'm not. I'm actually French, and generally prefer nuclear over coal. I'm simply pointing out that this graphic may be somewhat misleading, because it only focuses on a part of nuclear waste. Obviously coal is pretty awful as well, from air pollution to mercury in the oceans.
- m2fkxy 3y ago- Very-low activity (TFA): 30% of total volume, negligible activity, they are stored in soft containers. - Low- and medium-activity, short-life (FMA-VC): 60% of total volume. They are compacted and poured in concrete, then stored. - Low-actiity, long-life (FA-VL): 6% of total volume, disposal method is under study. The two categories below represent >99% of total radioactivity: - Medium-activity, long-life (MA-VL) 3% of total volume, they are compacted. - High-activity, long-life (HA-VL): 0.2% of total volume, they are vitrified. MA-VL and HA-VL are then stored in stainless steel caskets, to be disposed in deep, geologically stable repositories (Cigéo in France, Onkalo in Finland, ...).