- #1
Jon Richfield
- 482
- 48
Nuclear waste should be an oxymoron, or very nearly so at least. I have some questions here for the professionals on line, but I prefix them with remarks intended partly to give some indication of the level of information that I am requesting, and partly to inform amateurs who might see fit to join in the discussion.
In my opinion, burial or other "disposal" in any form that renders so-called nuclear waste unavailable for practical and profitable future use should be listed as a crime against the planet. Paranoid over-expenditure on eternal repositories is not much better, nor is eternal filibustering to delay and increase the expense of new nuclear facilities. Certainly decent and responsible engineering standards of economy, effectiveness, and safety should be observed, with criminal sanctions against incompetent or malicious violation. Sites such as Hanford (and I am sure that there are others as bad in other countries) are national disgraces, whether they are the product of industrial, mining, or military activities. But that does not mean that sabotage of due process by ill-informed or ill-intentioned persons for purposes of spite or self gratification need be given special consideration as a social virtue.
In particular, let us consider nuclear "waste". The subject is more complex than most amateurs realize, and I strongly recommend that nonprofessionals who wish to refute the content of this note, first consult some of the excellent material to be found on Google. Particularly convenient discussions appear in Wikipedia, as often is the case.
Still, roughly speaking, we have low- intermediate- and high-level wastes. I only mention low-level wastes for completeness; much of it is not radioactive at all and the standards of radioactivity in the rest commonly are so restrictive that it tediously leads to embarrassing incidents, such as when visitors to nuclear plants are not permitted to leave, because it turns out that they are too radioactive to leave and should never have been allowed access to the nice clean plant in the first place, in their disgusting state of contamination. Low-level wastes commonly are no more than ordinary wastes that are segregated in case they happen to contain some traces of radioactive material. The main problem with them is their enormous volume. My personal view, which I do not stop to argue or justify, is that such wastes should be converted or disposed of in the most compact and convenient form practical, and forgotten.
Contrary to what most people think, intermediate-level waste is not a lot worse than low-level waste and can generally be safely handled. It certainly needs responsible attention, and in my opinion (which is too vague to discuss here in detail) there should be more attention given to research into economical and harmless methods of segregating, compacting and dealing with such wastes.
Recently I visited the South African nuclear waste repository at Vaalputs, which incidentally is a remarkable de facto nature reserve in a very nearly desert area (and I mean very, very nearly!) You have never seen anything so side-of-the-Angels. So far, as far as I know, but I do not vouch for it, it contains only low-level wastes. The serious stuff, old fuel and that sort of thing, is still kept at the power station at Koeberg, which incidentally is a remarkable de facto nature reserve in an arid area with not only fine Spring flower shows, but terrific biology and marvellous fishing near the cooling water outlets. The greenies who went into paroxysms about the effect on wildlife, especially marine wildlife, were badly let down by all the organisms who were extremely grateful for the warm water in our icy Benguela current.
Anyway, I think that the Vaalputs repository is a boondoggle, and the on-site storage of high-level waste should be giving some authorities to think furiously.
Okay, that was what I was not interested in saying, much. It was the introductory bit. I'll break off here and start talking about my main point, which deals with high-level wastes, in a separate message.
Continued in next bottle...
In my opinion, burial or other "disposal" in any form that renders so-called nuclear waste unavailable for practical and profitable future use should be listed as a crime against the planet. Paranoid over-expenditure on eternal repositories is not much better, nor is eternal filibustering to delay and increase the expense of new nuclear facilities. Certainly decent and responsible engineering standards of economy, effectiveness, and safety should be observed, with criminal sanctions against incompetent or malicious violation. Sites such as Hanford (and I am sure that there are others as bad in other countries) are national disgraces, whether they are the product of industrial, mining, or military activities. But that does not mean that sabotage of due process by ill-informed or ill-intentioned persons for purposes of spite or self gratification need be given special consideration as a social virtue.
In particular, let us consider nuclear "waste". The subject is more complex than most amateurs realize, and I strongly recommend that nonprofessionals who wish to refute the content of this note, first consult some of the excellent material to be found on Google. Particularly convenient discussions appear in Wikipedia, as often is the case.
Still, roughly speaking, we have low- intermediate- and high-level wastes. I only mention low-level wastes for completeness; much of it is not radioactive at all and the standards of radioactivity in the rest commonly are so restrictive that it tediously leads to embarrassing incidents, such as when visitors to nuclear plants are not permitted to leave, because it turns out that they are too radioactive to leave and should never have been allowed access to the nice clean plant in the first place, in their disgusting state of contamination. Low-level wastes commonly are no more than ordinary wastes that are segregated in case they happen to contain some traces of radioactive material. The main problem with them is their enormous volume. My personal view, which I do not stop to argue or justify, is that such wastes should be converted or disposed of in the most compact and convenient form practical, and forgotten.
Contrary to what most people think, intermediate-level waste is not a lot worse than low-level waste and can generally be safely handled. It certainly needs responsible attention, and in my opinion (which is too vague to discuss here in detail) there should be more attention given to research into economical and harmless methods of segregating, compacting and dealing with such wastes.
Recently I visited the South African nuclear waste repository at Vaalputs, which incidentally is a remarkable de facto nature reserve in a very nearly desert area (and I mean very, very nearly!) You have never seen anything so side-of-the-Angels. So far, as far as I know, but I do not vouch for it, it contains only low-level wastes. The serious stuff, old fuel and that sort of thing, is still kept at the power station at Koeberg, which incidentally is a remarkable de facto nature reserve in an arid area with not only fine Spring flower shows, but terrific biology and marvellous fishing near the cooling water outlets. The greenies who went into paroxysms about the effect on wildlife, especially marine wildlife, were badly let down by all the organisms who were extremely grateful for the warm water in our icy Benguela current.
Anyway, I think that the Vaalputs repository is a boondoggle, and the on-site storage of high-level waste should be giving some authorities to think furiously.
Okay, that was what I was not interested in saying, much. It was the introductory bit. I'll break off here and start talking about my main point, which deals with high-level wastes, in a separate message.
Continued in next bottle...