And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Subject: Re: NUCLEAR WASTES
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 99 12:31:54 -1000
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: pacal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------SNIPPETS----------
>I fail to see how having a stable democracy stacks up against 240,000 years
>when, in the approximately 6,000 years of recorded history, we have lost
>several whole civilizations, democratic or not.
>
>It certainly doesn�t give me the confidence to believe that the welfare of
>our descendants is being properly considered.
>
>Why do they need to do this? Is it because it is beyond the skills of the
>scientists who enriched these materials for profit to now degrade them for
>safety? Or is it that the industry, having made a profit that has now been
>spent, will not provide the money for the scientists to deal with the waste
>problem responsibly?
>
>I would be pleased to hear from suitably qualified people whether my
>understanding of the problems are correct, or my fears unwarranted. Until
>we can be absolutely positive of the safety for future generations we must
>not allow any move to push nuclear wastes �out of sight, out of mind!
---------SNIPPETS----------
Aloha kakou,
I participated in the 1991 International Conference on Plutonium in
Omiya Japan -- I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject, but
enough to tell you that your fears reflect that that of the speakers
at the conference. Plutonium has a very long half-life (your 240,000 years
estimate is at the high end, but even a conservative estimate of 40,000 years
is long enough, yes?). Nils-Axel Morner Ph.D., researcher in the field
of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics presented the most commonly discussed
ideas for containment and storage, which are deposition in Antartica, deep
sea subduction zones, salt beds, sedimentary clay, bedrock, and open storage.
Morner dismisses all "closed" deposition ideas as dangerous, and suggested
an open, above-ground storage area was the only viable solution for long
term. The most likely storage method is glassification -- encasing the
waste.
Yes, Australia (like many places) could be used for storage of
nuclear waste, but there is another fundamental problem that you didn't
mention, which is transportation. The caskets (B-type) they use to
transport waste
just aren't made to withstand conditions that can occur during transportation;
ship fires and sinkings.
The short version on fires and sinkings (My source is Paul Leventhal Ph.D.,
president of the Nuclear Control Institute) is that the B-type has been
tested against 800 degrees C. for 30 minutes. This is a standard test, and
was meant to cover all forms of transportation. The mean duration of ship
fires, however, is 23 hours at sea, 20 hours in dock. The mean temperature
is a minimum 800+ degrees C. Failure of the B-type (under the minimum 800
deg. C.)
is estimated by the International Atomic Energy Association itself
at 9 hours.
As far as sinkings go, IAEA immersion tests are at 200 meters for one hour
and 50 meters for eight hours. The Pacific ocean, as you know, is slightly
deeper than that.
IAEA has stifled questions from International Maritime Organization, stating
that further regulation "could eventually impose serious restrictions on the
transport of radioactive material by sea." So much for safety concerns.
>From Morner: "International trading with the waste is a shameful way of getting
rid of one's own problems and impose them on another country. In this trading
the developing countries are bound to be the loser... We note that the military
junta in Argentina signed an agreement of taking care of Japan's nuclear waste
in 1977, that the USA in 1986 bought an 800 m2 large are[a] (for 600 USD)
in Somali for nuclear waste deposition (not denied despite official demand for
this to UNESCO from the INQUA Neotectonics Commission), and that China has
agreed in principle to bury German nuclear waste in the Gobi desert (letter of
agreement signed in 1987)."
Transporting nuclear waste anywhere is a dangerous proposition, and we still
don't have an effective way to store it long term. Most of the speakers at the
conference agreed that keeping it in the country it was made is the least
hazardous proposal, and that storing it above ground for easy maintenance and
access is the least hazardous storage method.
Hope this info is of some help.
john mcclain
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
