Talk:Radioactive waste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

how reliable are sources [10] and [11]? The papers are written by Kenneth J. Dillon who has no qualifications in the field ( he has a docotate in history) and the papers have no references. are the arguments in the papers valid? no personal attack intended. sorry about the spelling.

cheers, Ben

More could be added to describe the vitrification plants being built by the US government.

True enough, IP 12.150.68.29. Andrewa 16:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's probably room for some more explanation of the way radioactive decay and particularly decay chainit's impact waste management. The statement The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time seems obvious but it's perhaps misleading. It will eventually be true for any radioactive material, but there can be periods of time when waste increases in radioactivity owing to the buildup of decay products which are more radioactive than the waste was. It's quite common for waste to increase in radioactivity for a while and then decrease, other waste decreases then increases then decreases, some has even more wobbles in the curve. The best example is probably a fresh, unused uranium reactor fuel element... You can stand next to it now, but if it's stored for a few hundred years the decay products will build up again, and yowie! Thorium is even worse. Andrewa 16:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


How relevent is this article. They say that waste should not be burried, so where does that leave the US government program to burry the waste under some mountain? [1]

Contents

[edit] more!

I think this article needs to contain more information about high-level waste:

the contents of high-level waste
quantitative evaluation of the hazards and evolution with time
make the paragraph about waste disposal more clear

--Philipum 11:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Philipum:

Good source material for "the contents of high-level waste", or at least for the fission products in used fuel: [2]

Andrewa:

Build up of decay products in uranium eventually would make it about seven times as radioactive as it was when it was fresh - but this takes hundreds of thousands of years. A few hundred years results in only a small increase. Natural uranium ores are likewise about seven times as radioactive as the uranium they contain, the difference being the decay products.

Fresh thorium is only about 1/3 as radioactive as uranium, but its decay chain establishes equilibrium relatively quickly - over only a few decades - at a little over 3 times the initial radioactivity.

This is all fairly easily calculated using source material at [3]

Build-up of radioactivity can occur, but it's not a significant issue.

There's a fair amount of work needed on the waste disposal bit - I'll take a look when I've got time.

[edit] Proliferation

Pu240 is roughly four times as radioactive as Pu239, because it has 1/4 the half-life (6564 as against 24110 years, see |data on nuclides). However, this half-life is still so long that the increasing purity of Pu239 as Pu240 decays really doesn't affect the proliferation argument significantly.

Actually, handling ANY sort of plutonium is very difficult: it's all highly radioactive, regardless of any contaminants.

Yes, you are right about the half-lives. However, I think it should be a period between 10000 years and 20000 years after disposal (rather a long time anyway) where we have rather pure isotopic content of Pu239 in still large amounts, that can be relatively easily chemically separated from the rest of the waste. --Philipum 15:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Around 10,000 to 20,000 years from now, the amount of Pu240 contaminating the Pu239 in these "mines" will be around 25% to 50% of what it is now, whatever that happens to be for any particular batch.

I think it's right to be concerned about leaving dangerous radioactive materials where future generations might be affected by them. However, I think the risk we should be mainly considering is that of leakage of these materials into the environment by various routes, both foreseen and unforeseen. One of the possible routes is indeed mining, where future generations' mining operations intersect long-forgotten waste depositories.

I don't think the far-future proliferation issue is really an important scenario. Either our techological civilization will have advanced to the point where the availability of relatively pure plutonium in mines is an irrelevance, or the people around won't have the faintest idea what plutonium is or what they could do with it.

Near term proliferation is a real issue, and it's perfectly possible to make bombs using reactor-grade plutonium. It's just not the material you'd use if you had the choice. evilC 18:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you. The half-life of Pu240 is about 6500 years and that means that 50% the amount will have decayed after 6500 years and 75% after 13000 years and 88% after 20000 years. Thus, around 13000 to 20000 years from now, the remaining amount will be 12% to 25% of what it is now. But I agree with you this is not a real issue, however the point here is to be precise in the article.
In the near term, I would not say it is perfectly possible to make bombs using reactor-grade plutonium. I would rather say it is possible, but unpractical: when detonating a plutonium nuclear bomb, you have to start the chain reaction at a very precise time in the implosion process (chemical explosives surrounding the bomb would be blown first), and the fact the Pu240 is a proliferous neutron emitter causes the trigger to start too early. As a result, the bomb is not reliable: it can fizzle, or explode with greatly reduced power. Moreover, Pu240 is very hot and radioactive and it makes the bomb manufacturing very difficult. --Philipum 07:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget that after 10,000 years the amount of Pu239 will also have decreased; after 20,000 years it'll be little more than half what it is now. Your 10,000 and 20,000 years were approximate; so are my 50% and 25%.

Pu240 is only four times more radioactive than Pu239. Pu239 is too radioactive to handle without heavy shielding and remote handling equipment. The presence of a few percent, or even 30%, of Pu240 makes no real difference to this.

The fact that Pu240 is a neutron emitter makes the design of a nuclear bomb using reactor grade plutonium more like the design of a bomb using enriched uranium: you wouldn't rely on a trigger at all. You're right about the uncertainty of the yield of such a bomb, although even a minor rogue state could do "better" than a fizzle, and a terrorist organization couldn't make any kind of plutonium bomb. However, a bomb of admittedly rather uncertain yield would actually be easier to make with reactor grade plutonium, than with bomb grade plutonium.

evilC 07:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you were right with the 25% to 50%, I were wrongly giving the 240Pu contents relative to the initial plutonium, but I forgot that the Pu239 content decreases as well. Concerning how impractical it is to build a bomb with reactor-grade plutonium, I found my information in the book Before it's too late - A scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy by B.L. Cohen (Plenum Press 1983). By looking at the references the author gives I judge what he says is reliable, althought the way he has to describe it is probably biased in favour of nuclear energy. Maybe you are right that a state could make reasonable bombs with reactor-grade plutonium, while terrorists would't have any chance. However, I still disagree with your last statement that the bomb would actually be easier to make with reactor grade plutonium, than with bomb grade plutonium. I think it is the opposite: a plutonium production reactor, designed not to produce energy but rather to provide easy and rapid fuel removal, can be operated at low temperature and normal pressure, and use natural uranium. It is also cheaper and smaller. --Philipum 10:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, we're talking at cross-purposes a bit. A state wanting to make a plutonium bomb would almost certainly make its own bomb grade plutonium in such a reactor. But if we're worrying about someone mining an old waste depository for plutonium to make bombs, either reactor grade or bomb grade would suit their purposes. The reactor grade bomb would be easier for them to make (basically, like Little Boy rather than the much more sophisticated Fat Man), but would be "inferior" in yield and predictability. 193.131.176.54 11:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Still, I believe that it would be easier to make weapon-grade plutonium than to mine plutonium from a deep repository. --Philipum 06:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think it depends partly on whether the plutonium is mixed with fission products. If it's already separated, that's one major job already done for you, to weigh against the mining work. It's also not all that easy to build plutonium production reactors: you need substantial quantities of high purity graphite or heavy water, if you're using natural uranium. Clive 08:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No one buries separated plutonium. The US considered it once to eliminate surplus weapons grade plutonium, but decided to burn it in a reactor as MOX. Some countries intend to bury nuclear fuel without reprocessing to save reprocessing costs. Others reprocess so they can extract the plutonium and burn it as MOX. pstudier 23:12, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

It's still under consideration in the UK, see the |Report of the Working Group on Plutonium - the reason being that there's already far more separated plutonium in the UK than existing reactors can burn as MOX in their projected lifetimes, and there are currently no plans to build any new reactors. Reprocessing is also used to extract unburnt uranium from used fuel, because neutron absorbing fission products poison the chain reaction long before all the U235 is consumed. Clive 06:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Cohen

I'm not sure about the Bernard Cohen book that you've provided a link to, Pstudier. I think it ought to be marked in some way as "disputed". Where an article in Wikipedia itself is disputed, there's a clear method of stating that; but I'm not sure how to mark a reference.

I'm not even sure that a reference to it is called for, since you're not referring to it as a source of any information. Many of the claims made in it, if presented as fact in Wikipedia itself, would cause uproar.Clive

As discussed above, I have read works of Bernard Cohen. Thank you for pointing out he is disputed! His books are dangerously convincing. The author has a very skilful way of providing precise information while omitting aspects that do not serve his purposes. A good basis for debates! --Philipum 06:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that if the nuclear power article can include a link to the explicitly anti-nuclear World Information Service on Energy (WISE), then this article can include the Cohen link. Perhaps the link should read

or

pstudier 21:37, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

That sounds entirely fair. I hadn't followed the WISE link - I wasn't aware what it was like! Clive 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transuranic waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&diff=3543071&oldid=3543034

This edit confused classes of nucleus with level. I think it is also wrong about peapons production, but that depend on how the inconsistencies are resolved.

I am deleting the paragraph. --David R. Ingham 19:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring it with minor modifications. Although it is probably unscientific to classify waste based on source rather than on what nucleotides are in it, transuranic waste is a legal definition in the US. See Why WIPP. pstudier 22:35, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

You haven't explained the context in which this makes sense. It is inconsistent in ordinary or scientific English. Arn't we supposed to discuss things questionable before keeping them before the public? --David R. Ingham 03:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

From the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [4]

Transuranic waste

Material contaminated with transuranic elements that is produced primarily from reprocessing spent fuel and from use of plutonium in fabrication of nuclear weapons.

So I was wrong and the waste is classified by what it is. However, there is no reprocessing of commercial fuel in the US and there never has been on any large scale. So almost all is generated by the military. From Why WIPP WIPP, or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, became the nation's first operating underground repository for defense generated transuranic radioactive waste on March 26, 1999.

I read somewhere, but don't have the reference handy, that WIPP is not allowed to dispose of civilian waste. I'll add more later. pstudier 04:00, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

From [5] In 1982, TRU waste was redefined in DOE Order 5820.2A as "...without regard to source or form, waste that is contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranium radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 years, and concentrations greater than 100nCi/g ...."

and

TRU waste is classified as either contact-handled (CH-TRU) or remote-handled (RH-TRU) depending on the radiation dose rate of the waste container. For waste to be classified as contact-handled, the maximum radiation dose rate at the surface of the waste container cannot exceed 200 millirems per hour.

pstudier 04:45, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I didn't find the original paragraph problematic at all, although a little clarification would have helped. Used fuel (whether from civilian or military reactors) contains transuranics, but they're not separated from the fuel in civilian practice in the USA (they are in several other countries). So the only sources of transuranic waste that aren't mixed with fission products are military - in the USA. Clive 10:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't expect my deletion to be controversial, or I would have discussed it more at first. I now see why weapons production is mentioned. I really didn't get it before. I think we must first define transuranic waste, which comes mostly from power reactors and is decreased by reprocessing and use in reactors, and then define low level transuranic waste, as was originally done. The important thing I know about transuranic waste is that it has very long half lives, on the order of millions of years, which makes it impossible to keep track of but still much more radioactive than the natural uranium and thorium it came from. (To keep in perspective, coal burning puts stable element carcinogerns with infinite life into the bioshere.) I suppose it may be the decay modes of transuranics that require different handling at low levels. --David R. Ingham 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Updated --David R. Ingham 15:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about the "putting into perspective" - that's one of Cohen's many specious statements. Firstly, stable element carcinogens are typically many orders of magnitude less carcinogenic than radioactive carcinogens. Secondly, nuclear reactors create new radioactive material, whereas coal-fired power stations merely move stable element carcinogens (and uranium and thorium) out of geological storage into the biosphere;

Ahem, how can you use the word "merely" here? This is uranium and thorium that probably would have stayed out of the biosphere roughly forever (the elements of the 16 known Oklo, Gabon reactor are still in place after 1.5 billion years). Coal plants dump it into the air we breathe. I see no reason why we can't bury transuranics so they stay in place as well as the Oklo materials, and I see no reason we need ever breathe them.

although they have infinite lives, their life in the biosphere is not infinite. It should be noted that all the stable element carcinogens in coal-fired exhausts are naturally abundant in the environment, and we and the whole biosphere have evolved in their presence; they're of local importance around power stations (and domestic coal fires), but of no significance whatsoever on a global scale. (Unlike the CO2 produced in coal burning.) Clive 12:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The same argument goes for the transuranics-- the amount of radiation from them is of no global importance once they're buried. As for what specific alpha-emitters we evolved in the presense of, even discussing that presumes that your body can tell one alpha from another. Actually, they all have pretty much the same amount of energy (due to the basic alpha process), and the producers are all chemically actinide rare-earths which behave biologically in similar ways, and the main variable is the alpha dose you get (a function of half-life and isotope dose). Which is controlled by how much you let loose into the biosphere before you bury it. As for evolution, I hardly think it adapted us to tolerate U and Th and of course Po (remember where that comes from), but not Np or Cm. Evolution gave you enough resistance to cancer to reach puberty and raise your first crop of kids, which means its more or less done with you by age 30. So long as your alpha-emitter dose is not high enough to give you cancer before then, evolution is likely to be "blind" to it. Be it thorium or be it americium. Sbharris 05:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is no longer misleading or hard to understand.--David R. Ingham 15:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Maybe I should not have gone so far as to delete the paragraph twice.

[edit] Disposal of High Level Wastes

The detail on appointment of committee in 2003 by UK government to advise on nuclear waste disposal is lacking reference. The facts purported in this part also are left wanting of reference.

There is the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in UK and has been around since 1978.

I cannot find a report, study or paper on this site or available on request containing information on shooting spent fuel to space.

link RWMAC

[edit] Coal and pollution

I don't see mention of coal, which I understand is the or at least a major cause of radioactive pollution. "Nuclear pollution" redirects here now so this must be the place to put it. (I didn't see the deleted "nuclear pollution" article, but I assume it would have been merged if it mentioned coal.) Since "nuclear pollution" redirects here, I think I will redirect "radioactive pollution". --David R. Ingham 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No, coal is NOT a major source of radioactive pollution, this is another pro-nuclear myth. Coal doesn't contain any highly radioactive material other than minute quantities of short half-life decay products of uranium and thorium, and they and the long half-life elements coal contains are only present in quantities similar to those everywhere else in the environment. Clive 13:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The precise statement is that we can't have a coal-fired power plant located inside the fence of a nuclear power plant because it would emit too much radiation. Simesa 06:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

According to material on the USGS website, coal doesn't have any more radioactive material than the average crust, so it would be equivalent throughing dirt in the air. It's a deceptive comparison. Also, people who are knowledgeable, and rational, about radiation and nuclear power are not concerned about the amount of radiation release during normal operation of a plant. They are worried about unintentional releases. -- Kjkolb 15:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that clive is wrong, fly ash from coal burning can contain lots and lots of radium, this radium content can make it unsuitable for use in cement for making houses. I am sure that the Ra content can be much higher than the UK dustbin limit of 400 Bq Kg-1, as Ra-226 is one of the worst radioisotopes (much worse by Bq than Pu-239) then the radioactivity of coal ash is something which should be considered.Cadmium 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you see my response. :-) Also, what little radioactive isotopes there are concentrate in the fly ash, so it is analogous to spent fuel rods, as it can be sequestered. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if it needs to be sequestered 'like fuel rods' then it is radioactive waste, and thus is a topic to be covered in this article. Also I would like to see some reference to some of these statements if this is covered on the main page. I'm not all that convinced that this is just pro-nuke propaganda. --DV8 2XL 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Which text books do you base your thougts on ? the Nuclear chem texts have something to say on the subject ? Jiri Hala's text Radioactivity, ionizing radiation, and Nuclear Energy does consider the whole subject in a NPOV manner, and it does state (on page 350) that coal ash containing cement can result in the radon level in a house being very high. While the activity in the coal is quite low, most of the coal burns to form inactive gases, the activity is concentrated into the fly ash.
Radium is something which cannot sequestered safely in fly ash, radium might be fixed in one place (which I doubt) but the radon-222 is very mobile. Rn-222 is viewed as a major pest in the radiochemical community as it is so mobile and able to form alpha emitters which absorb on dust and can be inhaled.Cadmium
Sorry about the sequestration confusion. I was just trying to make the nuclear industry's comparison (coal exposes the public to more radiation than nuclear) fairer, as they exclude the fuel rods from the amount of radioactivity because it does not have to be released into the environment, if it is properly disposed of. Fly ash is usually landfilled or used in concrete or road building. It could also be sequestered, so it is just a question of whether the radioactivity is high enough for that to be necessary. It is not an inherent radiation release.
The whole comparison between nuclear and coal is very poor, anyway. As I said before, very little radiation is released during normal operation of a reactor. Nobody who is knowledgeable and rational about radiation is worried about releases on that level. Only large, unintentional releases have enough radiation to be a concern.
Fly ash is more radioactive than coal and it might be a good idea not to use it to build houses with (since radon could concentrate in an enclosed space), but it is still very low, about the same as black shales and less than phosphate rocks. Coal's uranium concentration is usually 1-4 ppm (higher in a small percentage of locations) and fly ash is 8-20 ppm, while the average concentration in the Earth's crust is 2.8 ppm. Thorium concentrations in coal are also usually 1-4 ppm. The amount of thorium in fly ash is not given, but it seems reasonable to assume that it would be similar to uranium, which is 8-20 ppm. The average thorium concentration in the crust is 10 ppm. Uranium in fly ash is 2.9 to 7.1 times more concentrated than average crust, and thorium is 0.8 to 2 times more concentrated, if the assumption made earlier is reasonable. Uranium and thorium are definitely concentrated during the burning of coal, and fly ash has somewhat higher amounts than the average crustal concentration, but it is not enough to be a concern in most situations, building construction being a possible exception. Therefore, fly ash cannot be considered a significant threat, just like a normally operating reactor. -- Kjkolb 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement

This was edited out:"Eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements; for example, after 40 years 99.9% of radiation in spent nuclear fuel disappears"

With the stated reason: (The statement "after 40 years 99.9% of radiation in spent nuclear fuel disappears" is incorrect. Upon viewing that website, it was referring to the radioactivity of the power plant minues the SNF.)


Quote from the link:"For instance, a newly-discharged light water reactor fuel assembly is so radioactive that it emits several hundred kilowatts of heat, but after a year this is down to 5kW and after five years, to one kilowatt. In 40 years the radioactivity in it drops to about one thousandth of the level at discharge."

Looks to me like they're talking about the fuel. DV8 2XL 18:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement #2

I removed:

A permanent solution for disposal of high level radioactive waste has been mooted by The Mineral Planning Group. This involves first vitrifying the waste (see above) then placing waste in purpose designed canister (based upon the Whittle Eathquake bomb that was specifically constructed to penetrate deep into solid concrete). These canisters are then transported to an internationally agreed location/s above the Deep Oceanic Trench where the sea is at its deepest above the earths crust and thick sediments have built up before being drawn down into the mantle by plate-tectonic movement. The canisters (shaped like a rocket with specially hardened casing, are then released to fall some 6km+ by gravity and penetrate deep into the sediments. Plate tectonic movement will safely yet inextricably carry the waste deeper and deeper into the earths mantle from whence the radioactive material originated for it to be finally absorbed into the molten magma. This concept places the waste as far from human habitation as one can acheive on earth and ulitamately removes any risk. It is recognised that there would be a need for internationally agreed protocols in order to transport the waste through international waters and this is likely to be a long and drawn-out process. However, the solution is founded on solid scientific/geological concepts and will hopefully be adopted rather than continuing to store such waste on or near the surface of earth and its biosphere. If there are sound reasons for rejecting the concept please put them forward in an edit and let the matter be fully aired.

First, it was in the wrong section ("accidents"). Second, there are no references. Third, we don't debate, we report. This paragraph needs work before inclusion. Simesa 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The waste would take so long to go 6 km (40,000 years at the fastest subduction rate of 15 cm/year) that there's not much point. For centuries, it would be very close to the surface. Also, by the time it reached the mantle wouldn't it's radioactivity have greatly decreased anyway? -- Kjkolb 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applications of Radioactive Waste

What is now called nuclear waste could have some applications. Beyond plutonium reprocessing, it could be used in irradation (cesium 137), portable electric sources (strontium 90 and others), and other applications. For more information, see the document Nuclear By-Products : A Resource for the Future at [[6]] (since it is an archived document, it does have errors in it). Recycling the waste at least be listed as an option, so not only discarding a valuble resorce will be listed. Polonium

[edit] Seperate article: Radioactive waste management?

I have setup Radioactive waste management to redirect here, because this article deals with how radioactive waste is managed and disposed of, but the specific management of radioactive waste could be made into its own article, though it might strip this article of a lot of content. I am not willing to strip this article without a little bit of consensus though. --Matthew 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of two topics as the term 'waste' presupposes the need for disposal. There are other radioactive materials, of course, however they are not necessarily waste and are dealt with under their own headings. That being said I would support renaming this article Radioactive waste management as it is the more appropriate title and redirecting to it from here.--DV8 2XL 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be possible to separate them and we may reach that point in the future, but I think it should stay together for now. If we do a separation, perhaps it should be between high and low level waste. I prefer that the article be named "radioactive waste", since it is shorter and it is expected that disposal will be discussed, but it isn't that big of a deal as long as one redirects to the other. -- Kjkolb 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Kjkolb is right: if it ain't broke don't fix it. --DV8 2XL 17:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced - it would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making proliferation infeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries. Would someone like to blend GNEP into this article? Simesa 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&diff=43084994&oldid=43074797

Maybe I am having a "blond moment" (in my case redhead) but I don't see the reason for reverting two paragraphs with so little explanation. David R. Ingham 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] School paper?

Found this addition from a while ago. Looks like it basically covers little new, but copying it here anyway. --Christopherlin 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste

Humans have always had a need for power. In the past 100 years, many advances have been made to provide us with cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy. Nuclear energy is one of those advances. It provides the United States with almost 25% of their total energy. But there is also a darker side to nuclear energy. The waste products that result from it are deadly to all life.

Nuclear energy has existed for more than 50 years, and provides more than 25 countries half of their power. There are to ways to make nuclear energy: fission and fusion. Nuclear fusion occurs only in stars, but humans have harnessed fission, and it is actually quite simple. When a neutron is projected into an atom of uranium or plutonium, the atom splits, releasing energy in the form of heat. This reaction continues, which heats water. The water turns to steam, which rotates turbines. These turbines provide electricity. Many people praise nuclear energy. They believe that it is a clean, cheap, and affordable way to make energy. On the contrary, many people argue that nuclear energy is dangerous and too risky. They believe this because the waste products that result form the production of nuclear waste, are not only deadly, but will stay that way for hundreds of thousands of years.

The reason nuclear waste is so deadly is because it releases unstable amounts of radiation. After an atoms energy is released, the atom still radiates energy. When the number of radioactive particles disinigrates, the radioactive emission is said to lessen. The problem is, the time that it takes for the elements to lessen enough is hundreds of thousands of years. Many attempts have been made to permanently store and dispose of nuclear waste. The future of life on Earth could be at risk if a permanent disposal of these wastes is not created.

The U.S., along with many other countries has suffered incidents where radioactive waste has escaped from containment. The main reason for this is because radioactive waste management facilities are only temporary. There are only a few ways to store radioactive wastes. One of the most common, however, is burying it in a rock formation. The wastes are sealed tightly in corrosion resistant containment cylinders, and then buried in a rock formation. Other structures have also been built to contain the wastes. The methods work well for the most part, but there is one major problem. The materials used to house the wastes are not capable of lasting nearly as long as the waste itself. In future centuries, the wastes will most likely leak out of their containment, contaminating our planet permanently.

If the wastes are going to eventually leak through their containment and eventually destroy our planet, why not put it somewhere where it will not affect anything. That solution may lie at southwest Nevada. Yucca Mountain stands 5,575 ft. and is in complete isolation from almost any life for miles. The DOE (Department of Energy) is studying the mountain to determine if it is suitable for storing radioactive waste. If they approve, tunnels will be dug that will be 1000 feet deep, and 112 miles long. If this idea works, America’s commercial and government nuclear wastes will be stored there. That is good news for us, but what about future life on Earth. If life- forms inhabit the Earth when we are gone, the nuclear waste could very well harm them. It may seem that nuclear waste is impossible to get rid of.

When humans are gone from Earth, there will still be hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste sitting under Yucca Mountain. The DOE estimates that in the next 1000 centuries, 1% of all nuclear waste will have escaped from containment. Several other ideas have been thought of to permanently dispose of the wastes. Ideas like sending the waste into space, and melting it into ice sheets could occur in the near future. These methods will permanently dispose of nuclear waste. No idea is perfect, though. It is extremely important that some of these ideas come into play.

In conclusion, nuclear energy is an important resource for providing energy for the world. The materials that result from the production of nuclear energy are deadly to all life. Disposing the waste is vital to our planet, and the life on it. It is our duty, as humans, to dispose properly of the wastes we have created.

[edit] Can an atomic bomb get rid of nuclear waste?

I once heard a suggestion, that a plausible way to get rid of nuclear wastes is to blow them up, deep underground, with a atomic weapon. This could be in the same type of deep holes used to test underground nuclear explosions. There are still some nations that test atomic weapons underground. Why not use deep underground atomic bomb explosions to get rid of nuclear waste?204.80.61.10 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Works Cited

Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. Nuclear Waste: The 10,000- Year Challenge. New York: Franklin Watts, 1990.

“The New Clear Threat.” World Watch May- June 2003: 30. EBSCO Host Master File Select. Vestal Middle School Library, Vestal, NY. 30 January 2006 <http://web.24.epnet.com>

World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association. 20 January 2006 <http://www.world-nuclear.com>

There are several obvious issues with this. First, tests are very expensive things conducted to get precise measurements - adding large amounts of spent nuclear fuel would complicate the calculations. Second, Nevada would never stand for it, and that's where the U.S. tests nuclear weapons (see Nevada Test Site). Third, using weapons to dispose of nuclear waste would blur the line between military and civilian uses, a line the nuclear power industry doesn't want blurred. Fourth, we may want to reprocess that fuel someday. Fifth, but certainly not least, the U.S. has some interest in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - and would we want over 30 nations having an excuse to develop nuclear weapons - Iran, for example. Technically, the idea has enough merit to warrant research - but geopolitically, forget it. Simesa 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
My first question would be "why would it help?" - putting radioactive material next to a nuclear explosion would certainly get it subjected to a large number of neutrons, which would probably change some of the isotopes into other isotopes. But I don't understand why one would expect the result to be less radioactive (or less dangerous) than what you put into it.
BTW, the first citation led me to Amazon: [7] - it seems to be labelled as "juvenile audience". I'd like something a bit more authoritative-sounding, like something by a nuclear scientist, to back up this idea. --Alvestrand 10:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the "Works Cited" belong to the article "School Paper". My suggestion is just an idea a friend made, and it sounded like a credible way to deal with a large, world-wide problem that affects everyone on the planet and will do so for many years. Second, I was hoping that setting off an underground atomic bomb near a large amount of nuclear waste would reduce the amount of radioactive material in the world today. Material that if left alone, could be radioactive for thousands of years. I am sure it would still be radioactive, and dangerous. There just would not be as much to worry about. There would be a lot of radioactive holes in the deep underground, (holes that could be there anyway thanks to atomic testing), but, (in theory), there would be a lot less radioactive waste on the surface of the Earth. Nuclear waste we have to deal with one way or another. [User:204.80.61.10|204.80.61.10]] 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

The Russians did some work on this as part of their Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy. The results were not promising. There are many less drastic and more effective ways ofdealig with nuclear waste. --DV8 2XL 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Forget it! As noted, nuclear bombs MAKE nuclear waste, they don't get rid of it. When a nuke "blows something up," it doesn't just vanish into the 5th dimension. All that happens is that it's heated and spread around. It also gets radiated, but if the radioactive isotopes we want to get rid of could be destroyed by radiating them with neutrons or gamma rays, they wouldn't be coming out of a nuclear reactor to begin with! Think about it. Sbharris 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Many of the longlived actinides can indeed be destroyed by radiating them with neutrons, so a thermonuclear device ( which produces a large flux of 14MeV neutrons ) could theoretically be used to destroy some of the waste. You are however correct that it would be far more sensible to use a fast neutron reactor, or maybe even a fusion reactor, to generate such neutrons, as it would without doubt be safer, controllable, and could extract energy in the process. 137.205.192.27 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space disposal

I've been on a rampage today, looking for stuff that needs to be completely redone. So I rewrote the section on space disposal. It no longer contains any speculation on the feasibility of space disposal using technology that hasn't been created yet. More importantly, it now refers to a reliable source. I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings but it really needed to go. -- Captaindan 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. These are people who nearly had seizures when we launched Cassini at Saturn with a few kg of Pu-238 in it. Even if we had a magical propulsion system for launching actinides into space for free, I doubt that politically people would tolerate the booster failure risk rate. If 1% of these things are going to fail and go into the ocean, why not just include the other 99% as well, while we're at it? ;). At least if you pick your spot, you can drop casks into ocean crustal subduction zones (which has been suggested). SBHarris 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiming waste into the Sun

An anonymous editor added text saying that it would be cheaper to send waste to the nearest star rather than the Sun due to the Earth's escape velocity being more than half that of solar system's escape velocity. However, getting the waste outside of the solar system is different than getting it all the way to the nearest star, which is over four light years away. If you want to get the waste there in a reasonable amount of time, you're going to need a lot more fuel than it would take to get to the Sun. Also, the spacecraft would have to be designed to last thousands or millions of years, depending on how fast you could get it moving (it's too late for me to do any calculations right now), which would be much more expensive than something you are going to just aim into the Sun. Even if it was cheaper than sending the waste to the Sun, it would not be much cheaper and there is still the problem of launch failures and the huge number of launches it would take to get rid of all of the waste. -- Kjkolb 07:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A number of incidents"

"A number of incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly, simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store." This comes from near the end of the article, and I think it needs a "citation needed flag." Not only could people get uptight about this because it doesn't sound entirely neutral, I'd like to read about these incidents.

[edit] Copyvio 11-December-2006

Not being sure of the Australian laws on copyrights, I tagged the section as Copyvio since it was a direct cut-and-paste. The information is good, but the copyright is suspect. Simesa 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/d/Talk%7ERadioactive_waste_5e99.html"