It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Radioactive Waste Crisis

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Source




A Mountain Almost 70 Years High

Before the month of January is out, the US Department of Energy's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future will unveil the result of its two year-long investigation into what to do with the accumulated radioactive waste at the country's nuclear power plants. By this year's end, that waste will constitute a mountain 70 years high, with the first cupful generated on December 2, 1942 at the Fermi lab not far from Chicago when scientists first created a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

There remains no viable solution for either the management or certainly the "disposal" of nuclear waste. Yet, the one recommendation that will not be contained in the DOE report is to stop making any more of it. While a child would never be allowed to continue piling up toys in his or her room indefinitely, failing to tidy up the mess, the nuclear industry continues to be permitted to manufacture some of the world's most toxic detritus without a cleanup plan.

A sneak peak last July at the Commission's draft report confirms that no new miracles are to be unveiled this month. Its preferred "solution" appears to be "centralized interim" storage, an allegedly temporary but potentially permanent parking lot dumpsite for highly radioactive waste that, based on past practices, will likely be targeted for an Indian reservation or a poor community of color.


I have this argument with quite a few people. Should we be using a product that we have no way of disposing the highly radioactive waste?

We all know back in the day they used to dump these barrels into the ocean, which who the hell knows what that did down there or what impact on life that had. But, the most disheartening thing about that is it's the best we can figure out to do with the stuff...

I would like to know anyone that is for Nuclear energy and what their means are to deal with the waste. No only do we have events like Chernobyl and Fukushima but we have the waste that is deadly and we have no idea what to do with it.

Why we still used nuclear is beyond me.

Any thoughts?

Pred...




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Let it keep piling up until we can somehow get it all into space.. I don't have much experience with this stuff, I was thinking down the line eventually we may find a use for it? It's also hard to tell how much there actually is too, how big is the mountain lol



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I used to be for nuclear power, but its just too dangerous. Not just waste from product, but the potential for dirty bombs


We need to get past the past. We achieved great things in becoming so knowledgeable. We should figure out how to take care of this waste and stop the nuclear plants. I know we do vitrification here in the Hanford area, but I can't seem to get an answer as to whether its feasible to send that stuff into the sun (I went to a museum and handled a price of the vitrified waste, so it probably is safe, or I will start getting sick).

What we need to do is RD&D batteries. That is what is holding back wind and solar. There are other sources, biodiesel is viable for when power is needed.

One thing I don't understand is wind. Cars go fast, why don't we have cars that have generators that not only keep it running at those higher speeds, but also charge the batteries (or hey if it just utilizes less energy from the battery, then this ~40 mile limit can be broken) unless this is already being utilized, then in that case electric vehicles are still in the research phase.

Sorry for my rant. I just feel that we can harness the different energies that are there in a more natural way.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
If humanity could build a space elevator (hella long way off, I know) we could either chuck it into the sun or keep it on the moon until we may find something useful to do with it. In the short term I am all for burying it well below the water table in mountain ranges, as the plan has been. But considering how badly the government messes things up I don't trust them to carry through in any effective manner.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Sheer madness. And yes I agree we should stop using it until we know how to solve the issues it has created.

One proposal I saw a few years back was brilliant. To dig down a few kilometers to Pangea Rock in Western Australia, create large cavers in it, fill it with the world's nuclear waste and when full, fill it with concrete right up to ground level so that it is sealed for good.

I thoght Australia should agree with that since we are taking from the ground here and selling it internationally.. to me it was a way Australia could maintain some responsibility for the role it plays in assisting to create the problem.

But.. Western Australian politician's were dead against it and the whole proposal died a miserable death. The reasoning for not wanting is was more one of Fear of the Unknown than any good understanding of the science required to succeed... or the need to actually be at the forefront of solving the issues in the near future.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


I can't help but think how "nuclear power" makes a Country a potential "target" for political evil.

Especially, with all the hatred going 'round, these days.

Hatred seems to be at epidemic levels, far surpassing that of any eventual radioactive levels!




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Why dont they just stick it all in a few massive apollo type rockets and send them directly into the sun?
?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I thought the same too, but could you imagine a challenger type incident happening with a rocket loaded with nuclear fuel?

Very expensive and dangerous, for now.

Pred...



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Agree with this post. Do have a question, how high is 70years?? I don't understand why a small country, geographically small, like Iran would want to get into this. Where will they store the waste, where will the people go in case of an accident?

Also it is becoming evident that there is no place on this planet that cannot have an earthquake. What are we thinking?

To me this is one of the most obvious self destructive things we do, using this as a power source to solve a problem today and creating a problem for which we have no solution that will definate pose a hazzard to our health tommorow.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join