4 ms·

Barrels don't last when filled with nuclear material. The radiation embrittles the materials over time, they wouldn't last 100 years. And then all that crap wil

Barrels don't last when filled with nuclear material. The radiation embrittles the materials over time, they wouldn't last 100 years. And then all that crap will be released into the ocean and swerve all over the world.

bell-cot 2y ago
Assume that the folks building the barrels know about the embrittlement, and have both a decent budget and some experienced engineers to mitigate the problem. Also note my phrase "bury them". Radwaste is not some magical Sealed Evil in a Can. If bound in compounds with substantially higher density that the ocean sediments, and emplaced a few tens of meters below the sea floor, then gravity will quite strongly discourage its upward migration.
- Kon5ole 2y ago
  Four decades of studies by experienced engineers and a very decent budget to figure out how to store US nuclear waste has resulted in 0 solutions so far. I think we can safely assume that dumping it at sea is not an option.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    We have solutions in the US, but politicians keep playing games. Yucca mountain has been authorized and de-authorized back and forth for decades. It isn't an engineering problem at all.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      True-ish - but those game-playing politicians don't have much freedom of choice, if they want to keep their jobs. The US nuclear establishment has earned itself a "bungling pathological liars" reputation with the public. Why would the average voter react well to any "we'll store a whole lotta Bad Stuff near you" plan?
jenadine 2y ago
Nuclear material is put in glass which can last many thousands of years. Geological studies of the locations where the nuclear waste is burried show that it would take millions of year for the isotopes to escape. Meanwhile, the effects of low dose radiations on health are vastly exaggerated. Every industry is releasing pollution in the ecosystem that are way more toxic and dangerous. And these get barely any attention for some reasons.
natmaka 2y ago
Indeed, officially the casks conceived during the 1980's are OK, however in 2011 the MIT discovered that "Cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is studying whether the casks can be used for 100 years as some hope." https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/researching-safer-nuclear-energy/ https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/...

bell-cot 2y ago

Assume that the folks building the barrels know about the embrittlement, and have both a decent budget and some experienced engineers to mitigate the problem. Also note my phrase "bury them". Radwaste is not some magical Sealed Evil in a Can. If bound in compounds with substantially higher density that the ocean sediments, and emplaced a few tens of meters below the sea floor, then gravity will quite strongly discourage its upward migration.

Kon5ole 2y ago
Four decades of studies by experienced engineers and a very decent budget to figure out how to store US nuclear waste has resulted in 0 solutions so far. I think we can safely assume that dumping it at sea is not an option.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  We have solutions in the US, but politicians keep playing games. Yucca mountain has been authorized and de-authorized back and forth for decades. It isn't an engineering problem at all.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    True-ish - but those game-playing politicians don't have much freedom of choice, if they want to keep their jobs. The US nuclear establishment has earned itself a "bungling pathological liars" reputation with the public. Why would the average voter react well to any "we'll store a whole lotta Bad Stuff near you" plan?

jenadine 2y ago

Nuclear material is put in glass which can last many thousands of years. Geological studies of the locations where the nuclear waste is burried show that it would take millions of year for the isotopes to escape. Meanwhile, the effects of low dose radiations on health are vastly exaggerated. Every industry is releasing pollution in the ecosystem that are way more toxic and dangerous. And these get barely any attention for some reasons.

natmaka 2y ago

Indeed, officially the casks conceived during the 1980's are OK, however in 2011 the MIT discovered that "Cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is studying whether the casks can be used for 100 years as some hope." https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/researching-safer-nuclear-energy/ https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/...