What about nuclear wastes?

The whole idea of nuclear doesn't impress me. Look at Chernobyl and what it did to it's generation of youths. That' a catastrophic effect on what nuclear radiation can do on us. Not to be concern with the disastrous effects when it can't be controlled is a vast crime. Also, what to do with nuclear wastes? Encasing it in concrete for the next half million years isn't a solution. We need better methods of generating safe, clean and cheap energy that won't kill us all or disfigure us all and mess up the earth even more than it is all ready. The question is are we trying to serve man kind or kill it off? We need better energy alternatives not more caos to pay for.

D.A.S.

7 Replies

  • OK, D.A.S. you are anti-nuclear. That is fine. I sure don't hear any solutions from you that will meet the very substantial energy needs of the future.  

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous

    Well, how about we find some way of attaching those concrete blocks filled with nuclear waste to a cruise missle and launch them into outter space!  Maybe send them into another universe/galaxy. No longer our problem:) Or send it directly into the sun, let it melt...somehow....

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous

    In reply to Anonymous:

    what if your rocket explodes before it goes where its going. now you have a widespread containment isue that has been atomised to the four winds of the globe.!

  • In reply to Anonymous:

    In the U.S., nuclear waste is stored in pools or in dry casks. Some believe it should be processed for re-use as is done in France. But U.S. scientist Ed Lyman said that nuclear processing plants create large amounts of low-level waste. He pointed the incident in France as a reminder of the danger of dealing with even those low-level radioactive materials. Resource for this article: Explosion in French nuclear facility kills one, injures four.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous

    In reply to erikaM:

    What is all the doom and gloom about with anything nuclear? Where is the science and creativity?, even the memory of successful use of nuclear technology is gone from all practical, public and professional discussion. Sufficient brainpower must be brought to the issue now, as the national economy is being driven to accelerating collapse by the Fed/Wall St. cabal. A new economic order must be created immediately and a new nuclear fueled energy grid is absolutely necessary in supporting this urgent campaign for the defense of the nation and the protection of the population. Nuclear waste is the nation's treasure, employed in the Integral Fast Reactor technology, we have the capacity to fuel the United States national economy for 1,000 years. Lighten up,  let's get our our heads out, we need enthusiasm for scientific discovery, brainpower and labor, for the great future in store.

  • First of all, I'd like to present a statistic that would, and should, interest absolutely everyone. If you look at the deaths per kilowatt hour generated, nuclear power barely even makes the scale. In deaths/trillion kilowatt hours, nuclear power boasts a mortality rate of -- wait for it -- 0.01%. This INCLUDES Chernobyl. There has never been a single death in relation to nuclear power in the US in nuclear power's entire history. www.forbes.com/.../

    Another problem with discussing Chernobyl as a reason to stop nuclear power is that the circumstances under which it happened are unique. The type of nuclear reactor used at Chernobyl is called the RBMK. It was an inherently unsafe, inefficient, and paradoxical design, which was used ONLY in Soviet Russia. The RBMK's design included something called the positive void coefficient. This means that, the hotter the reactor became, the more steam would be generated, which means more water would be pumped in, which caused more steam, which required more water and so on and so on until meltdown. This faulty design combined with the unique Soviet politics of "hide, ignore, deny" meant that people completely inexperienced and completely wrong for the job were hired, and basic safety regulations were completely overlooked.

    As for nuclear waste, we HAVE a solution. Burying it in concrete, deep underground, IS a solution. It completely isolates the waste--which I'd like to point out is actually quite minimal. For every single nuclear power plant in the US, 100 to be exact, the tonnage of unusable waste amounts to 60 tons per year. That's it.

    If you want to talk about cheap clean energy "that won't kill us all or disfigure us all and mess up the earth even more than it is all ready," you need to look at coal-fired power plants. Another fun fact-- the amount of highly radioactive uranium-- yes, URANIUM-- emitted from the smokestacks of ONE SINGLE COAL PLANT could power a fission reactor for one year. Not to mention greenhouse gases, other HIGHLY radioactive isotopes, fly ash, and toxic chemicals blown out of the smokestacks, every second of every hour of every day. If you want to be outraged at unclean, inefficient energy generation, start looking at coal.
  • It's amazing what people will think when they do not have all the facts.

    An article came out in the Wall Street Journal with a controversial title of “There is no such thing as nuclear waste” (see online.wsj.com/.../SB123690627522614525.html). This article has been moved to a subscribers only area. If you are interested, I have copies of the original unabridged version.
    Basically, it described something that nuclear insiders have known for years. The real nuclear waste problem is NOT a technical problem, but rather a political one.
    Older folks may remember when Gerald Ford (who quite literally, nobody voted for) had decided to temporarily suspend reprocessing in 1976 (under the guise of the anti-proliferation). He did this since reprocessing produces plutonium (which by the way is a very good reactor fuel) which is also easily made into bombs. Then in 1977 Jimmy Carter (who I did not vote for) made that suspension permanent. Ronald Reagan suspended that moratorium in 198?.

    As you can see from the article in the link above, France, reprocesses their fuel. In the 30 years where nuclear power has produced 75% of their power, all of their nuclear waste, which they call “isotopes for which there is no known use”, fits into one room in the basement of the Hague.

    So our whole issue of “nuclear waste” could go away with the stroke of a pen. Now nearly 40 years later, the terrorists (Iran and North Korea) have their own nuclear programs and have no need to steal plutonium from reprocessing plants.

    You would think that if the general public knew this information, so many more would be advocating nuclear power. In addition to providing all of us with rewarding careers, this would go far in making the US energy independent.
Related Content