> In the case of nuclear vs
> solar energy, nuclear wins by a wide margin on the basis of 
> cost/benefit,
> even when you take into account the externalities.

That's true, as long as you cost the externality

    "and then we put the waste somewhere where it will be safe
     and non polluting for a few hundred thousand (literally) years"

at little or nothing or

        'too hard so we'll ignore it'

or

        'waste?, what waste?".

Or if you count the externality

        'generations that come after us who this may affect'

(about 10,000 generations)
as
            'outside the scope of the current cost benefit analysis.

Estimates of the age of human civilisation  vary, but if we start from 
a bit pre Hamurabi, the nuisance lifetime of some atomic waste is over 
20 times the duration of total known human 'civilisation to date. .

Of course, many byproducts have a shorter or much shorter half life.

Pu239        24,000 years
Pu240         6560 years

Ra226        1600 years
U238        4.5 billion years (almost edible fwiw)
Iodine 129        17 million years (not at all nice stuff)(thyroid)
Strontium 90     29 years (body calcium replacer)

To a vague generalisation, the longer the half life the lower the 
activity, BUT specific chemical and radiological properties of some 
radionucleotides may make them much more significant than their HL 
suggests, or even more significant for shorter HLs.

eg Iodine 129 affects the thyroid and offers up close and personal 
beta and gamma treatment.

Strontium 90 replaces body calcium generally and bone notably and 
provides a zero distance beta irradiation source.

U238 is almost edible (hard on the teeth) and even U235 is bearable 
stuff as a solid.

The "problem" with DU used in tank and warthog penetrators and which 
is U235 poor is both that it is dispersed as a gas and a fine powder 
on impact and, significantly, that the clever people who provide it to 
the military decided it wasn't good enough to stick with naturally 
sourced material but also added reactor processed material to the mix 
so you get a little more than you expect.

Good DU in weapons comment

        http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=118

Very nice discussion of the medical aspects of internal contamination 
with Uranium.

        http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Medical-Effects-Mar99.htm

A US gulf war Desert Storm vet who was in the general vicinity of the 
Abrams and Thunderbolts when they were doing their thing with DU 
should not be surprised to find they have 0.1 to 1 mg of DU in their 
body now. Some may have more, many less. Whether this much matters 
vastly depends on all sorts of factors and whether the vet is you. The 
above paper will help assess some of the implications, should there be 
any.

Note that natural uranium is the main starting point for 'all this' 
and about the most benign of any of the radioactive materials 
involved. If the above report puts you off tangling with U238 you may 
wish to think much more carefully about the other materials that the 
process creates.

_____________

Excellent radionucleotide half life and activity level and radiation 
type and energy table.

    http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tbl2-rad-prop.pdf#search=%22%22half%20life%22%20radioactive%20table%22

OKish treatment on nuclear waste here

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

NIMBY - is your back yard near one of these places in the US?
James' is (only approximately)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg

        Bigger version

                http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg


1957 perspective

        http://darwin.nap.edu/books/NI000379/html/108.html




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