Ok, but the net release of radiation is the same or less. And when you compare the mass involved with the mass of the earth, waiting thousands of years for it to settle down is not an issue. Compare the area of the U-238 mine, actually the area of the U-238 that was mined, with the available area of the earth. This far (FAR) exceeds a factor of 200,000. Also, the spent fuel rods contain about 94% irradiated Uranium, 1% plutonium isotopes and 5% various other isotopes. So the problem is even less. Only 6% of the original fuel rod is radiating at an accelerated rate. The resulting radiation level is not 200,000 times the radiation of the original U-238. Over the short term, it is much higher, but in 1,000 years it will be much lower. Reprocessing can separate the U-239 from the U-238 and thereby reduce the physical volume of the stuff we have to worry about. Our hang up is on storage of the concentrated high level waste as a means of disposal. Any method of permanent storage would have to prevent the waste from getting into the hydrological (water) cycle, and it would also have to be placed in a geologically stable area where events like earthquakes and volcanoes would not disturb the storage site. At present, two alternatives are to bury containers of nuclear waste in natural salt formations where there is no presence of water, or in deep (1000m) disposal vaults in granitic rock. But, there is always the chance that it will get back into contact with humans in its concentrated form. A better solution would be to, literally, break it up into finer and finer solution and spray it over the surface of the earth. Sounds absolutely mad doesn't it? But that really is the safest way to do it. Soil naturally contains a variety of radioactive materials - uranium, thorium, radium and the radioactive gas radon which is continually escaping to the atmosphere. Naturally-occurring radioactive materials are widespread throughout the environment, although concentrations are very low and they are not normally harmful. Practically, taking a single part of a single rod, breaking it up and dumping it into the ocean to be diluted the rest of the way is a perfectly sensible method for solving the energy crisis. But you couldn't convince anyone of it. Aren't you glad I'm not on the NRC? Have to run, I hear a black helicopter coming. --- James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin mailto:jamesnewton@piclist.com 1-619-652-0593 phone http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com > -----Original Message----- > From: pic microcontroller discussion list > [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Jason S > Sent: 2004 Aug 25, Wed 17:20 > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: [OT:] Nuclear waste storage - arguments on > design lifetime > Importance: Low > > The half-life of U-235 (as used in nuclear reactors) is 700 > million years. > Naturally occuring uranium is mostly U-238 which has a > half-life of 4.5 billion years. > > It gives off so little radiation that at the Science Centre > near hear they have a display on density with large bricks of > aluminum, lead, and uranium that visitors can pick up to feel > the differences in weights. > > Pu-239 (the isotope of plutonium used in atomic bombs, and > one of the more stable waste products of nuclear power > production) has a half life of 24,000 years. It's 200,000 > times more radioactive than naturally occuring uranium. > Pu-241 is another waste product and it has a half life of 14 years. > > Jason > > From: "James Newton, Host" > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:52 PM > > > > Says who? Why? > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out > subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See > http://www.piclist.com/#topics > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics