Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/28/06 11:04 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Your post was along the lines of dispersing the waste into fine enough amounts that radiation levels would be "natural" again.

I never said "natural" levels, just that it should be diluted (rather than concentrated) when stored. I am over-simplifying the idea to convey it quickly.

You stressed the nature part. Simply braking the waste into chunks and dropping it into multiple holes doesn't solve anything. It would create multiple radioactive holes. The process of breaking the waste into small enough amounts that it wouldn't meaningfully contribute to radiation levels would be prohibitively expensive.

There is no point in going so far as to equalize the waste with the background radiation, and I stressed the nature part because ecological concerns are the main thing getting in the way of nuclear waste disposal.

Draconias, you do understand what uranium is like "in nature," right? The uranium is trace amounts encapsulated in other [non-radioactive] rock..

Actually, that's blatantly false in some uranium mines. I particularly know of some Russian uranium deposits which are concentrated enough to have evidence of nuclear reactions actually occurring in the rocks (essentially, miniature meltdowns). That's not trace amounts.

I see a point being brought up is that the only reason we have incidents inwhich the waste is accidentally leaked into the surrounding environment is because of human err, yet you still support the practice, because in theory nothing it wrong with the idea, it's just the human err.

Well, it may be so that it works well in theory, but when a slight human err can cause drastic, lasting negative effects on an entire ecosystem, I think there is something that needs changed. Human err is always going to happen. I'm not saying we need to stop the practice, but something needs to be changed or improved.

But it's a pity that you can't substantiate the single concrete claim you made. Next time, huh?

Are you referring to the assertion that 99% of waste can be re-processed? If so, I have provided not only a credible source, but one which is anti-nuclear. To argue a pro-nuclear position based on their data is to debate using a site which is biased in your favor. Nonetheless, you still can't acknowledge its veracity. Next time, maybe you should. Or are you referring to the claim that radioactive waste can be safely stored? If you doubt that, perhaps you should consult any textbook on nuclear chemistry and tell me the radiating power of gamma radiation and what materials can be used to contain it.

At 11/29/06 06:45 PM, Begoner wrote: Are you referring to the assertion that 99% of waste can be re-processed?

You said France reprocesses 99% of their nuclear waste. If I were you I'd get checked out for Alzheimer's.

You said France reprocesses 99% of their nuclear waste. If I were you I'd get checked out for Alzheimer's.

Actually, it is you who should take that test. Here, again, is the link which states that 99% of nuclear waste can be re-processed. It is not specifically about France, but that's completely irrelevant -- I was simply saying nuclear waste can be easily re-processed and that I believed France excelled at such programmes. In fact, I was right on the money with the 99% figure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/flash/0,618 9,181369,00.html

At 11/28/06 03:40 PM, Begoner wrote: Of course, nuclear waste can be re-processed -- I believe France excels at such a practice and can reduce nuclear waste by 99% with such programmes.

Sorry Begoner, but this is the last reply, I've hit my quote of indulging smart-asses today. Check back later!

Sorry Begoner, but this is the last reply, I've hit my quote of indulging smart-asses today. Check back later!

So you're claiming that you're correct because of minor semantics? I claimed that I believed France could re-process radioactive waste and salvage 99% of the material. It turns out that such a programme is currently underway at a nuclear re-processing plant that's not it France. The status of the French plants is unknown. In either case, which country can achieve that goal is tangent to my point that it is possible and is being done. Instead of focusing on that, you chose to argue an extremely minor detail. Luckily, I have no quote or I would have stopped long ago.

At 11/28/06 09:27 AM, 2good2b4goten wrote: I've recently been studying on this and it got me thinking. Are you for or against nuclear power?

Around the world there are over 400 nuclear power plants which create 17% of the worlds power, for one reason... its cheap. But is it more of a question that we dont have a choice, we NEED to have the nuclear power to keep our technological slant going upwards?

I'm sure of you are all quite aware of the damage they can and will evidentially create. Not the emission of the nuclear rays exactly, but the harmful nuclear waste. At this given point in time we are just dumping it so our future generations can deal with it. Whether it be in oceans, underground or in massive concrete tanks in the middle of nowhere.

Even with these unadventured landscapes as home to the waste the rays can still travel far, and with more and more waste being dumped and more land being filled are we running out of space? Stephen Hawking says that we need to fix this problem now, or it will create an enviormental disaster by the year 3000.

By taking a look at uraniums half life of 760 Million years... A.K.A just 1kg of Uraninum will take 2.2952x10^11 years (229 Billion Years). Thats just 1kg, most nuclear power plants have the ability to withdraw over 1000 tons of waste per year. Times that by the 400 plants operable today and you get 400,000 tons of waste a year.

Are we really leaving this problem for later, hoping that in the future we can somehow alter or fix the atomic properties of Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 (the types of uranium) in a sense almost like alchemy?

But even knowing all this, I am FOR nuclear power but only as mentioned before. We NEED it now, its not a choice.

Express your views, I'm aware my contents is somewhat bias so feel free to flame :P

Yay a nuclear topic, my absoulute favorite topic ever. Guess what? Most of the stuff you said is wrong.

The damages of nuclear waste are extremely exagerated. First of all Uranium 235 and 238 are hardly nuclear waste. 235 is the fuel used in reactors so the majority of it has been broken down into atoms of a lower atomic number by the time the fuel rods come out. I would hardly call 235 "waste".

U-238 is a low level radioactive waste, it's an alpha emitter and actually used as shielding in some x-ray rooms and as slugs in large projectiles. Obviously it isn't too dangerous if it's present in every day places like the doctor's and dentist's office.

A really long half life doesn't mean that something is automatically more dangerous. The longer the half life the slower the radioactive element is spitting out radiation.
For example: the radioactive isotope chlorine-38 has a half life of 2.48 hours. This means that it is dumping out radiation at an extremely high rate.

When the nuclear industry prepares radioactive waste for long term storage it is sealed into a matrix of glass. So basically the waste is mixed into sheets of glass. This makes the waste highly corrosion resistent and insoulable in water. On top of that the sheets are packed into stainless steel tubes with multiple layers of protection, water proofing, and corrosion resistance.

Another possible solution to nuclear waste that is being seriously considered is "remix and return" where radioactive waste is mixed with uranium mine mill tillings until it is dilluted to natural background levels of radiation.

And another little fun fact is that if you add up all the radioactive isotopes in coal ash from coal power generation it is actually greater then the total weight amount of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants.
In simpler words, coal powerplants emit more nuclear waste in the long run then nuclear plants.