Why so? Arsenic is toxic/hazardous, and won't 'not be a threat' for LONGER than 10,000 years, do we need to wait before saying how dangerous it is? You're expressing attitude, but not reasoning.
I actually presented a rational idea. But many are in denial of the facts or are simply ignorant of them. I'm pretty sure you aren't ignorant.
-- Rick C. +++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging +++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Untrue. We don't need experimental verification of the decay of isotopes; we've mapped the decay processes, we KNOW the time sequence. Why the need to wait for milennia?
What do you expect: knowledge, or understanding, or satori?
Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You're an abject idiot. No jury required for that accurate assessment.
It doesn't 'cool'. And being buried at a singular location, it is not a "threat". Maybe mommy didn't teach you all of the right meanings of words.
We absolutely can say. We can say that 10,000 years of coal and other expenditures would certainly do harm.
Wake the f*ck up.
Yes, we know the isotopes will be dangerous for many, many years. The issue is how to keep them safe for that long when we don't have the science to be able to say we can.
Did I really need to spell that out for you? Have you never heard any of the discussion of nuclear waste disposal?
-- Rick C. ++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging ++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Like the very old nuclear reactor at Chernobyl?
Or the twenty of France's fifty nuclear reactors that are now off-line because the steel casting orginally installed weren't quite as good as they needed to be?
New technology frequently promises better safety, but it doesn't always deliver. Doing something a new way opens up new possibilities for getting it wrong.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
So, like natural toxic minerals, we leave it in the ground in a place where we expect stratified accumulation rather than rapid erosion or eruptive disturbance. Geological knowledge is required, and we have that. Today is not 'when we don't have the science'.
Every underground nuclear test 'disposes' of isotopes in this way, but without a discussion phase. The 'discussion of nuclear waste disposal' that you seem to be referring to is a political process of telling all persons that they are right, carried on by fence-sitters who call themselves politicians. That process isn't really safety-based, fact-heavy, or convincing. Why would anyone want to hear more of that?
The Fight over Nuclear Power, by Fred Schmidt, is a good overview of that discussion environment; it's toxic.
Interesting that you think we have a storage solution when the scientists don't agree on that.
-- Rick C. ----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging ----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
I shouldn't have expected you to be able to read and understand. I thought you were smarter than AlwaysWrong, anyway.
I don't think the science is the problem. The problems are politics and public opinion.
Then again, in the Netherlands, there was talk of storing waste in cavities in salt domes. That's stupid. Salt domes are plastic and not very stable. That's why salt forms domes. Another reason is that the salt is mined. That's where the cavities come from. The cavities are temporary, by the way. The plasticity of the salt makes them collapse over time, crushing whatever is inside. Finally, salt is corrosive, eating up whatever container the waste is packed in in short order. Did I mention that salt is soluble in water? It could be a nasty trap for future generations trying to get at the salt.
But I see no problem in storing waste deeply in a billion-year-old layer of solid dry rock.
Jeroen Belleman
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.