10 ms·

Richard Rhodes brought this up in an interview. He made it a point for critics who say nuclear waste can't be safely disposed of through burial. Well, we have p

Richard Rhodes brought this up in an interview. He made it a point for critics who say nuclear waste can't be safely disposed of through burial. Well, we have pretty good natural evidence that nuclear fission products can remain buried and undisturbed for a pretty long time!

mystified5016 1y ago
It was undisturbed until humans came around and specifically went looking for uranium and dug up the spent reactor fuel. Which is kind of a problem for future burials because humans exist now and want and know how to find uranium. The time between humans cracking the atom and the excavation of this nuclear waste is only a few decades. It took less than a hundred years for humans to find this nuclear waste in the ground. Your argument is not well-founded. Burying nuclear waste for it to be discovered and excavated in less than a century is not nearly long enough.
krunck 1y ago
This is nonsense. Yep, after 2 billion years this thing is now safe to touch. But that had nothing to do with it's burial. We at least have pretty good evidence that nuclear fission products can be exposed to groundwater/hydrothermal fluids for a pretty long time.
- sliken 1y ago
  Not sure I'd call it safe to touch. Getting with 5cm for an hour gives you as much radiation as a 8 hour flight. I wouldn't want touch it, make jewelry from it, or any substantial near promity. Not to mention if it was "only" a billion years ago it would be MUCH MUCH worse.
joe_the_user 1y ago
I don't disagree that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely under good conditions[1]. But I think a fallacy to claim that natural phenomena should inherently be considered "environmentally safe" in human terms. There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution). [1] The problem with nuclear reactors isn't that their pollution couldn't disposed of with ideal methods but that when they run by for-profit corporations, you will always have the company skirting the edge of what's safe 'cause corporations just go bankrupt with catastrophic events and so their risk-reward behavior isn't the risk-reward optima for humanity.
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  What are the conditions under which nuclear waste buried a mile deep in bedrock will post a risk to society?
  - Loughla 1y ago
    Burying it in a cheaper place that happens to flood occasionally?
    - legitster 1y ago
      Insisting on only worst case scenarios is such a bad faith argument. OP specifically asked about deep repositories. It would be like having a discussion about green energy and insisting that people should assume dams will fail or that blades are going to fly off of turbines.
  - brians 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
      Can you link me?
  - bobmcnamara 1y ago
    1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely 2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pdf https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pd... 3) exploding waste barrels due to corner cutting in kitty litter selection exposing surface workers and contaminating the work area - only 1/2 mile down but this type of accident is depth independent https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump... 4) fires 5) lack of a safety culture 6) communicating to future peoples not to mine here 7) long term structural stability and management (ex: Morsleben radioactive waste repository and Schacht Asse II)
datatrashfire 1y ago
Except for Finland nobody has actually created a long term geologic disposal site. Like so many problems, the issue is dominated by political coordination, not physical limits.
- acidburnNSA 1y ago
  The US built WIPP. It's not licensed for commercial waste but it sure is a long term geologic disposal site.
andrewflnr 1y ago
From another perspective, its safety lasted almost exactly as long as it took for humans to come around. That window is now closed for future deposits. (I'm pro-nuclear but that's a hilariously bad argument.)

mystified5016 1y ago

It was undisturbed until humans came around and specifically went looking for uranium and dug up the spent reactor fuel. Which is kind of a problem for future burials because humans exist now and want and know how to find uranium. The time between humans cracking the atom and the excavation of this nuclear waste is only a few decades. It took less than a hundred years for humans to find this nuclear waste in the ground. Your argument is not well-founded. Burying nuclear waste for it to be discovered and excavated in less than a century is not nearly long enough.

krunck 1y ago

This is nonsense. Yep, after 2 billion years this thing is now safe to touch. But that had nothing to do with it's burial. We at least have pretty good evidence that nuclear fission products can be exposed to groundwater/hydrothermal fluids for a pretty long time.

sliken 1y ago
Not sure I'd call it safe to touch. Getting with 5cm for an hour gives you as much radiation as a 8 hour flight. I wouldn't want touch it, make jewelry from it, or any substantial near promity. Not to mention if it was "only" a billion years ago it would be MUCH MUCH worse.

joe_the_user 1y ago

I don't disagree that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely under good conditions[1]. But I think a fallacy to claim that natural phenomena should inherently be considered "environmentally safe" in human terms. There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution). [1] The problem with nuclear reactors isn't that their pollution couldn't disposed of with ideal methods but that when they run by for-profit corporations, you will always have the company skirting the edge of what's safe 'cause corporations just go bankrupt with catastrophic events and so their risk-reward behavior isn't the risk-reward optima for humanity.

Manuel_D 1y ago
What are the conditions under which nuclear waste buried a mile deep in bedrock will post a risk to society?
- Loughla 1y ago
  Burying it in a cheaper place that happens to flood occasionally?
  - legitster 1y ago
    Insisting on only worst case scenarios is such a bad faith argument. OP specifically asked about deep repositories. It would be like having a discussion about green energy and insisting that people should assume dams will fail or that blades are going to fly off of turbines.
- brians 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    Can you link me?
- bobmcnamara 1y ago
  1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely 2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pdf https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pd... 3) exploding waste barrels due to corner cutting in kitty litter selection exposing surface workers and contaminating the work area - only 1/2 mile down but this type of accident is depth independent https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump... 4) fires 5) lack of a safety culture 6) communicating to future peoples not to mine here 7) long term structural stability and management (ex: Morsleben radioactive waste repository and Schacht Asse II)

datatrashfire 1y ago

Except for Finland nobody has actually created a long term geologic disposal site. Like so many problems, the issue is dominated by political coordination, not physical limits.

acidburnNSA 1y ago
The US built WIPP. It's not licensed for commercial waste but it sure is a long term geologic disposal site.

andrewflnr 1y ago

From another perspective, its safety lasted almost exactly as long as it took for humans to come around. That window is now closed for future deposits. (I'm pro-nuclear but that's a hilariously bad argument.)