Concerns Over US Nuclear Waste

[Turborama]

Run time: 03:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdYt_L-Wj8   Posted on YouTube: August 07, 2010 By YouTube Member: AlJazeeraEnglish Views on YouTube: 1618   Posted on DU: August 09, 2010 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 517

 
The effects of the Gulf oil disaster have fuelled demand for alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power.

It's advocates say it produces less greenhouse gases and is better for the environment, but, there is still no long term way to dispose of the radioactive substances safely.

Al Jazeera English's Rob Reynolds reports from Carlsbad in New Mexico.

[TheWraith]

1. Reprocess it.

97% of spent nuclear fuel rods are still usable uranium, just contaminated with neutron absorbing byproducts that need to be removed before it can be reused. Imagine the wastefulness if you used a battery until it was only 97% full, then pulled it out and replaced it.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. How many people have died from it?

Nuclear energy is not a trivial thing, and not to by trifled with, but our (we = Left-wingers) disdain for the atom has become a mirror-image of similar anti-science crusades on the Right: anti-Drugs, anti-Evolution, anti-Stem Cell, anti-Evil Spirit. (The Religious Right is also predominantly, though not universally, anti-nuke.)

Meanwhile, nuclear power plants deliver about 20% of our electrical energy without CO2. The "external" carbon footprint, from mining, refining, transport, etc., is similar to that of wind, and it will shrink as uranium mining becomes simpler, industry converts to electric energy, and as fuel cycles become more efficient.

Generation IV reactors will be much more efficient by far, extracting not the usual ~1% of nuclear energy, but nearly all of it, and leave no residual radioactivity. India is building two pilot plants that can burn up used fuel ("dangerous radioactive reactor waste"). Canadian "CANDU" reactors can already use spent fuel, but it hasn't been economical -- uranium is pretty cheap and very common.

Yes, we will still need the wind farms and the solar cells on roofs and the other innovations that are to come. And better efficiency can not be overlooked. It's not an either-or thing. But likewise, it shouldn't be pressed into a Right-Left or a God-Devil thing, either.

--d!

[greiner3]

3. Holy shit Batman;

Half life of a radioactive sample is the time it takes for one half of the original quantity to turn into a non-radioactive material. This DOES NOT mean that it is then safe. You still have half of the radiation. Let another time period go by of another half life of the original material and then you have 1/4 of the original radioactive material. Continue this until there is no radiation emitted.

Since biology was my major I only worked with carbon and its isotopes. I had to look this one up;

Plutonium 239 is a man-made radioactive isotope. Plutonium 239 is used to make nuclear explosives. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,110 years, which means that it would take 240,000 years to decay to a safe amount. Plutonium 239 decays exponentially into lead, but it causes concerns for humans because the tiny particles of plutonium react with oxygen and water and can be extremely flammable. Since the half-life of Plutonium 239 is so high (even in comparison to the carbon 14 half-life of 5,730 years) humans must be very cautious of the way they dispose of plutonium. Scientists are looking for safe ways for disposing plutonium.

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/decay1.html

So I guess the question is whether the government guy was ignorant of the time or he was lying. 1/4 million years aint hay!

[Turborama]

4. Holy shit, indeed

Thanks for the research and posting the extremely disturbing results.