Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
Sorry if I am not taking this sufficiently seriously, but this is what the article made me think of...Cyrus wrote:Holy shit.
Cyrus wrote:Holy shit.
gg3 wrote:As for nuclear wase, we should be calling it "nuclear recyclables." Yesterday's used fuel rods that can be reprocessed into tomorrow's new ones.
Between now & then they can be stored in swimming pools at the reactor sites, where you can keep a good eye on them and know they're not sneaking out to cause a climate catastrophe.
And the low-level stuff is not a big deal, especially compared to the radiation released through burning of coal (yes, coal is full of radionuclides, all of which go merrily floating up into the sky when the stuff is burned...).
manu wrote:For those of you who are for nuclear energy, can we bury the nuclear waste in your backyard? No one else seems to want it.
EnergyUnlimited wrote:manu wrote:For those of you who are for nuclear energy, can we bury the nuclear waste in your backyard? No one else seems to want it.
manu wrote:As far as I have heard, most states dont want nuclear waste in their State. The last I heard was Nevada rejecting a proposed nuclear dump way out in some canyon. Not much multiplyed by thousands of new reactors is alot. What are you going to do with all the atomic bombs?
manu wrote:For those of you who are for nuclear energy, can we bury the nuclear waste in your backyard? No one else seems to want it.
Starvid wrote:manu wrote:I have no complaints. Hell, they could put the spent fuel canisters in my basement if they'd like.
pretty pics.
manu wrote:Starvid, that site didnt convince me at all.
manu wrote:First the final dump isnt even built and you have had waste since 77.
manu wrote:Second its bullshit govt propaganda meant to make everyone feel all cozy and warm.
manu wrote:What about the polluted water? Just flush it out into the big ocean?
manu wrote:More jobs??? Yes, for the dumb people who want to shorten their lives by working around hazardous waste.
manu wrote:Another thing is that they say it is encased in concrete and steel. After 500 years it will be safe. Unfortuanately concrete and steel will not last 500 years so down the line it will leak. Where it leaks to no one will know.
MC2 wrote:[
Seriously, people really need to lose their "Jane Fonda does China Syndrome" mentality left over from the seventies and enlighten themselves about nuclear technology and relative risk.
We will be lagging seriously when we finally break ground on the next new NPP, but it will happen. Thanks to Hollywood and other misguided morons for sticking the U.S. far behind the (nuclear) power curve...
Starvid wrote:Actually, if you work with nuclear waste deep underground you will recieve far less radiation than if you, for example, sit in the office. Deep down you are shielded from cosmic radiation (remember that radiation shield made out of 500 metres of rock?). And the cosmic radiation is far more intense than that given off by the spent fuel canisters.
It's pretty hard to make it leak. How do you make a slightly irradiated hammer "leak"?
And does it really matter if a sealed off rock vault is slightly more radioactive in a few hundred years than it is now, if it's still going to be less radioactive than the seaside cliffs in Bohuslan where I am going on vacation next week?
Australian scientists have found a new and cheaper way to filter and safely store nuclear waste.
Zhu Huaiyong, associate professor with Queensland University of Technology (QUT), told Xinhua on the telephone on Friday that his research team has discovered how to create nanofibres, which are millionths of a millimetre in size and can permanently lock away radioactive ions by displacing the existing sodium ions in the fibre.
"We have created ceramic nanofibres which attract and trap radioactive cations (positively charged ions), possibly forever," he said.
According to Zhu, the ceramic material can last much longer than the radioactivity of a radioactive ion. While other material such as plastic or steel, couldn't.
The ceramic nanofibres are made from titanium dioxide, a mineral Australia abounds in and used in white paint. They are also much cheaper to make than metals like steel, and chemically stabler.
"The fibres are in very thin layers, less than one nanometre in width, and the radioactive ions are attracted into the space between the layers," he said.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests