On Sep 2, 2006, at 7:00 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> nuclear waste problem is not only far from solved but that
> there is not presently any reliable indication that we
> have the capability to solve it in the foreseeable future
> with the requisite level of certainty.

We have set the values of "foreseeable future" very long and of
"level of certainty" very high; far higher than any other technology.
Perhaps that is appropriate, given the long half-life of some of the
more dangerous radioactives, but perhaps it is silly.  I mean, the
theoretical lifetime of certain chemical poisons we "store" in the
environment is essentially infinite, and they get less attention.
(Indeed, one of my constant amusements is the juxtaposition of
"biodegradable" materials and landfills (garbage dumps) specifically
designed NOT to allow biological degradation.)

It bothers me significantly that the current crop of nuclear waste
disposal IS so long term: "make it go away for 10000 years."  I'd
rather see "storage" based on the idea that within 500 years we'll
want to do something else with it.  (There's probably an amusing
SF story involving successful permanent disposal of waste dooming
a near-future civilization that discovers that they NEED a particular
"waste product" that is now completely inaccessible.)

BillW

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