> As James said a while back (and I'm paraphrasing), "just take the waste back
> to the mining site, and spread it thin". Nuclear waste is less radioactive
> in the long term, than uranium ore.

There are a couple of flaws with that reasoning:
1.  If it were less radioactive, it would have a longer halflife than raw
uranium.  It doesn't.  Shorter halflife=>faster breakdown=>more
radiation.
2.  Spread thinly, it would find its way into groundwater, or rivers.
Even if it WERE less radioactive, small amounts of radioactive
materials internally are more dangerous than larger amounts
externally- remember, our skin stops quite a bit of radiation of
some types (gamma rays?  I think).
3.  Is radioactivity the only problem with that waste?  Even if it
weren't radioactive, it's still "heavy" metal isotopes, and last I
looked, those are the sort of materials that slowly build up in
our bodies until they reach toxic levels.

It seems a good idea to me to capture some of that wasted
heat energy from the radioactive wastes.  Right now we just
keep it cool as best we can by pouring water over it so it doesn't
get hot enough to catch fire.  Why not run a few big Stirling
engines?  Even capturing 10% of that waste heat is more than
we do now.

Mike H.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist