10,000 is years not enough?

[cheerful_deviant]

This is the foolishness of government bureaucracy:

A federal appeals court ruled that the leak-safety standards for the long-awaited nuclear waste depository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain were too weak, in that the Environmental Protection Agency would regard the facility as safe for only 10,000 years (almost five times the length of time since the birth of Jesus). One National Academy of Sciences panel had recommended against the site unless leak safety could be certified for at least 300,000 years. In August 2005, EPA issued a revised durability standard, now claiming the site would be free of unsafe leaks for a million years. (Context: 110 years ago, science had not even discovered radioactivity.) [New York Times, 8-10-05]

To put this in perspective, 10k years ago, the last ice age was just wrapping up, Mammoths and Mastadons still roamed the earth and humans were just figuring out farming and staring to build permanent homes.

But that's not enough time for the feds, (do they actually think the USA will still be here in 10k years?) now they want 300k years.

But not to be out done, the EPA now says it will be good for a million years!

Give me a freakin break people, there is simply no way to engineer anything to last for that amount of time. It really is an almost inconceivable amount of time for most people to even grasp. Most structures that are built today have a design life of about 30 to 100 years. The average is probably 50 or so, especially for an underground structure.

It should also be noted that while they argue about 10,000 years vs. 1 million years, the waste is being stored in structures that were designed to last 50 to 100 years or so and many are already beyond their design capacities.


The really funny part is that they will probably be digging the stuff up in 60 years when they find a use for it.

 

[CharleyH]

This is the foolishness of government bureaucracy:



To put this in perspective, 10k years ago, the last ice age was just wrapping up, Mammoths and Mastadons still roamed the earth and humans were just figuring out farming and staring to build permanent homes.

But that's not enough time for the feds, (do they actually think the USA will still be here in 10k years?) now they want 300k years.

But not to be out done, the EPA now says it will be good for a million years!

Give me a freakin break people, there is simply no way to engineer anything to last for that amount of time. It really is an almost inconceivable amount of time for most people to even grasp. Most structures that are built today have a design life of about 30 to 100 years. The average is probably 50 or so, especially for an underground structure.

It should also be noted that while they argue about 10,000 years vs. 1 million years, the waste is being stored in structures that were designed to last 50 to 100 years or so and many are already beyond their design capacities.


The really funny part is that they will probably be digging the stuff up in 60 years when they find a use for it.

I can't discuss government officials right now, except from an insider POV, which means they all need to get laid, just not by the prostitutes they do.

 

[Couture]

This is the foolishness of government bureaucracy:



To put this in perspective, 10k years ago, the last ice age was just wrapping up, Mammoths and Mastadons still roamed the earth and humans were just figuring out farming and staring to build permanent homes.

But that's not enough time for the feds, (do they actually think the USA will still be here in 10k years?) now they want 300k years.

But not to be out done, the EPA now says it will be good for a million years!

Give me a freakin break people, there is simply no way to engineer anything to last for that amount of time. It really is an almost inconceivable amount of time for most people to even grasp. Most structures that are built today have a design life of about 30 to 100 years. The average is probably 50 or so, especially for an underground structure.

It should also be noted that while they argue about 10,000 years vs. 1 million years, the waste is being stored in structures that were designed to last 50 to 100 years or so and many are already beyond their design capacities.


The really funny part is that they will probably be digging the stuff up in 60 years when they find a use for it.

Maybe we could get the Egyptians to build some pyramids to store it in?

If all else fails, we can shoot it at someone.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Maybe we could get the Egyptians to build some pyramids to store it in?

If all else fails, we can shoot it at someone.

Sorry, they're only 5000 to 6000 years old... and they're falling appart. Not exactly leak proof.

 

[Couture]

Sorry, they're only 5000 to 6000 years old... and they're falling appart. Not exactly leak proof.

According to some doctrines, the earth is only a little bit older than that and won't be around for very much longer. Why bother to bury it at all?

 

[cheerful_deviant]

According to some doctrines, the earth is only a little bit older than that and won't be around for very much longer. Why bother to bury it at all?

And according to another doctrine, aliens were supposed to have picked up the faithful a few years ago shortly before the place was foreclosed on, so to speak.

If memory serves, the aliens were a no-show.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

As I recall, some ofthe radioisotopes of Plutonium have a half-life of something like 500,000 years. That means that half of it will have decayed into some other element in half a million years. It'll stay dangerous--both for its radioactivity and its extreme chemical toxicity--for a long, long time.

The EPA requirements do seem absurd, but as I recall, what they're looking for are burial sites for the waste: geologic structures which will remain safe and stable for as long as possible. In other words, nothing that's going to shift, lift, or get flooded. You wouldn't want to bury that stuff near the San Andreas fault, for example, or near New Orleans.

The USA might not be here in 10,000 years, but the radioactive waste will be. It's a big problem.

 

[Couture]

As I recall, some ofthe radioisotopes of Plutonium have a half-life of something like 500,000 years. That means that half of it will have decayed into some other element in half a million years. It'll stay dangerous--both for its radioactivity and its extreme chemical toxicity--for a long, long time.

The EPA requirements do seem absurd, but as I recall, what they're looking for are burial sites for the waste: geologic structures which will remain safe and stable for as long as possible. In other words, nothing that's going to shift, lift, or get flooded. You wouldn't want to bury that stuff near the San Andreas fault, for example, or near New Orleans.

The USA might not be here in 10,000 years, but the radioactive waste will be. It's a big problem.

Two words. Space elevator.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

This may be over simplistic on my part, but I've often wondered why the stuff couldn't simply be launched into the sun.

Radiation wouldn't be an issue, because the sun is basically one huge nuclear fireball. Our atmosphere is the only thing that keeps us from dying of radiation poisoning from the sun.

The only risk I see in it would be during the launch process. Vehicle explosions are rare, but have occurred.

Anyone care to clue me in as to why this never gets mentioned as a possible alternative?

 

[Couture]

I was kind of kidding Wildcard.

It may be possible one day - with a space elevator or some other VERY efficient lifting mechanism. The problem has to do with the amount of energy necessary to lift the radioactive/toxic waste into space. To be profitable, energy expended/energy gained, the material would have to be VERY bad shit. One accident, and we would be in a world of hurt.

 

[LadyJeanne]

This may be over simplistic on my part, but I've often wondered why the stuff couldn't simply be launched into the sun.

Radiation wouldn't be an issue, because the sun is basically one huge nuclear fireball. Our atmosphere is the only thing that keeps us from dying of radiation poisoning from the sun.

The only risk I see in it would be during the launch process. Vehicle explosions are rare, but have occurred.

Anyone care to clue me in as to why this never gets mentioned as a possible alternative?

Er, what happens during a 'vehicle explosion'? Like, do you wipe out a city? A country? And spread radiation everywhere?

Or we don't have the technology to hit the sun? Too expensive? Who pays for the launch?

 

[Couture]

And according to another doctrine, aliens were supposed to have picked up the faithful a few years ago shortly before the place was foreclosed on, so to speak.

If memory serves, the aliens were a no-show.

Can you prove that the Heaven's Gaters aren't hitching a ride back to the homeland inside the mothership? You are seriously lacking in faith my friend.

I propose the Heaven's Gate theory be taught in every astronomy class. Besides, there are huge gaping holes inside astronomy theory. Holes that even light can't escape out of. Holes that could only be of Heaven's Gate design.

It will be up to the students to decide which theory is correct.

 

[R. Richard]

The EPA requirements do seem absurd, but as I recall, what they're looking for are burial sites for the waste: geologic structures which will remain safe and stable for as long as possible. In other words, nothing that's going to shift, lift, or get flooded. You wouldn't want to bury that stuff near the San Andreas fault, for example, or near New Orleans.

Dr_M:
I have been involved, very peripherally in the Yucca Mountain matter. [I was a consultant in a previous life.] The opponents have pretty much abandoned attempts to paint Yucca Mountain as a ticking time bomb. All of the studies thus far have shown that the site is safe and will probably remain so until robots can be developed to handle the waste. [Robots, actually telefactoring devices, are run by computers. Computers do not do well in heavy radiation environments, but they now know how to build radiation resistant computer systems.]

The problem that is now causing trouble is the possibility of a train accident while they haul the nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The train accident problem is real, but is not a major one. The trains hauling the nuclear waste can be routed through at odd hours and at slow speeds. There is still a very small problem.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

A federal appeals court ruled that the leak-safety standards for the long-awaited nuclear waste depository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain were too weak, in that the Environmental Protection Agency would regard the facility as safe for only 10,000 years (almost five times the length of time since the birth of Jesus). One National Academy of Sciences panel had recommended against the site unless leak safety could be certified for at least 300,000 years. In August 2005, EPA issued a revised durability standard, now claiming the site would be free of unsafe leaks for a million years. (Context: 110 years ago, science had not even discovered radioactivity.) [New York Times, 8-10-05]

What I really want to know is just why the person who wrote this was so positive that Jesus was born two-thousand years ago, when no one has proven that he was born at all?

Or would I be missing the point here?

I live in Nevada. We already know that no matter what the EPA or the constituants say, Yucca Mtn will be a "go." This is just fluff and fodder for the few who are capable of giving a shit one way or the other.

 

[angela146]

The only risk I see in it would be during the launch process. Vehicle explosions are rare, but have occurred.

Anyone care to clue me in as to why this never gets mentioned as a possible alternative?

OK, I'm not a nuclear scientist, nor a rocket scientist and I don't play one on TV, but let's give this a shot...

The space shuttles have launched a little more than 100 times. Two of them have blown up (although one of those was on re-entry which isn't an issue for sending stuff into the sun).

Let's call that a 1% chance of blasting a load of nuclear waste all over southern Florida.

Now, the shuttle holds a payload roughly the size and weight of a semi-trailer.

That means that (if past performance continues) we would have a Chernoble-like nuclear disaster for every 100 trailer loads of waste.

So, how many tailer loads of waste are we talking about? Divide that by 100 and start doing your disaster planning.

Oh, by the way, plutonium and uranium are really heavy *and* they have to be encased in lead in order to keep them safe. Hence, you probably won't be able to cram the shuttle bay more than 1/3 full and still be able to get the thing into orbit.

Oh, by the way, you still need to load up enough rocket fuel to get the stuff to the sun.

Oh, by the way, doesn't it cost like a few hundred million dollars to launch the space shuttle? Wouldn't it be cheaper to scrap all of the nuclear plants and replace them with solar power or hydro power?

Oh, by the way, in case you were thinking of using "ordinary" rockets, their kablooey rate isn't much better than the shuttle (we just don't hear about it too much since they don't carry people). Besides, most of them don't carry big honkin payloads.

I'll leave you to argue about the picky little details (like the exact payload of the shuttle, the exact failure rate of launches, the amount of material to be launched, the exact cost etc.).

When you are done with that, it's still *A REALLY BAD IDEA*.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Launching nuclear waste into space is a very good idea on paper. In practice, if you have a catastrophic failure during launch, not only have you contaminated a sizeable are, but that area is your launch site, making it unuseable for future missions.

One option no one is discusing, is dropping the stuff into the deep ocean trenches. At this point, we use water to contain the radioactivity. A few miles down, the sheer pressure would crush the container, no matter what you tried to contain it with, but that self same pressure would also contain the radioactivity.

Of course, you are also taking about huge potential for enviormental disruption of eco systems we are barely even cogniznat of.

No matter where you put it, it will remain dangerous, if not in it's final resting place then in transit to that resting place. It's a problem that isn't going to go away. So it's something we should approach with the long term in sharp focus.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

What I really want to know is just why the person who wrote this was so positive that Jesus was born two-thousand years ago, when no one has proven that he was born at all?

That's what I was thinking...

Q_C

 

[Liar]

The only risk I see in it would be during the launch process. Vehicle explosions are rare, but have occurred.

Anyone care to clue me in as to why this never gets mentioned as a possible alternative?

U just said why.

The stuff we want to bury weighs quite a bit, if I'm not mistaken. So blasting it into space would also make the cost skyrocket.

Pun very much intended. I'll be here all week.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

U just said why.

The stuff we want to bury weighs quite a bit, if I'm not mistaken. So blasting it into space would also make the cost skyrocket.

Pun very much intended. I'll be here all week.

Liar absolutly correct, look at your periodic table and you'll see Uranium or U is below lead, making it quite heavy. Something on the order of 1180 pounds per cubic foot. Making the moving even relativly small quantities something of an effort. Lifting any sizeable quantity into space would be a monumantal undertaking to say the least. And as others have pointed out, any accident would be catastrophic.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

As I recall, some ofthe radioisotopes of Plutonium have a half-life of something like 500,000 years. That means that half of it will have decayed into some other element in half a million years. It'll stay dangerous--both for its radioactivity and its extreme chemical toxicity--for a long, long time.

The EPA requirements do seem absurd, but as I recall, what they're looking for are burial sites for the waste: geologic structures which will remain safe and stable for as long as possible. In other words, nothing that's going to shift, lift, or get flooded. You wouldn't want to bury that stuff near the San Andreas fault, for example, or near New Orleans.

The USA might not be here in 10,000 years, but the radioactive waste will be. It's a big problem.

The half-lives involved are very long. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but your 500k seems about right. And I don't disagree with the principle of finding a stable are to bury the stuff in.

What seems foolish to me is the idea that any system engineered by humans will still be around in a million years. Even the toughest stainless steel and most durable plastics drgrade over time and a million years is an abundance of time. Factor into that decay the constant bombardment of the materials by radiation and I simply don't see how any one can say with any certainty that the housing will last even 10,000 years, never mind a million.

 

[LadyJeanne]

The half-lives involved are very long. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but your 500k seems about right. And I don't disagree with the principle of finding a stable are to bury the stuff in.

What seems foolish to me is the idea that any system engineered by humans will still be around in a million years. Even the toughest stainless steel and most durable plastics drgrade over time and a million years is an abundance of time. Factor into that decay the constant bombardment of the materials by radiation and I simply don't see how any one can say with any certainty that the housing will last even 10,000 years, never mind a million.

I suspect that because we can't guarantee even 10,000 years, increasing the requirement to 1M years is just a roundabout way of trying to kill the project altogether.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The half-lives involved are very long. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but your 500k seems about right. And I don't disagree with the principle of finding a stable are to bury the stuff in.

What seems foolish to me is the idea that any system engineered by humans will still be around in a million years. Even the toughest stainless steel and most durable plastics drgrade over time and a million years is an abundance of time. Factor into that decay the constant bombardment of the materials by radiation and I simply don't see how any one can say with any certainty that the housing will last even 10,000 years, never mind a million.

I worked at Argonne National Laboratory for a while, and they were doing a lot of work on waste disposal. That was some time ago and I don't know what the plan is now, but back then all liquid wastes were being solidified, either by adsorbtion onto activated clays (a kind of super kitty litter), or by a process called vitrification, where the wastes were mixed with silicon and fused into glassy nuggets. So the waste isn't going to be sloshing around in 55 gallon drums or held in leaky tanks or anything like that. More likely it would be stashed in concrete bins. I don't know what the lifetime of concrete is, exposed to that kind of radioactivity, but the engineers can make pretty good estimates. I imagine that's what they're talking about.

The last I heard, they were thinking of putting the stuff in abandoned salt mines, which apparently are extremely stable geologically, and then filling the mines with concrete. That was before the Yucca Mountain project though.

Deep sea burial makes me shudder with horror. Plutonium reacts violently with water, and salt water is notoriously corrosive. Once that stuff is down there, you have no idea of what's happening with it and no way to fix it of something goes wrong. One leak and the whole thing would go up.

A space launch would be prohibitively expensive and dangerous. I forget what it takes to put a pound into orbit. Something like $50,000 or so. Plus, one launch mishap and you're looking at a disaster that would make Chernobyl look like peanuts. Not only is Pu radioactive, but it's one of the most toxic substances known, and it doesn't go away like an oil spill does.