Why the Nevada nuclear disposal site is a GOOD idea

Kuciwalker · May 8, 2003, 23:31

- and people who say otherwise are complete morons

Look at it this way - there is already a whole bunch of nuclear waste. It's got to go SOMEWHERE. Are those who argue against the site saying that the current storage facilities are somehow safer?

Well, if so, they are morons.

There is no way that a simple building that houses nuclear waste is safer than a mountain. Yes, in 100 years some may leak into the water supply. Well, I've got news for you - it can do that from where it is too. And the current storage facilities are MUCH more likely to leak than the Nevada site.

chequita guevara · May 8, 2003, 23:35

Yeah, let's put it on a fault, where the ground has lots of cracks right down to the aquafers.

What a great idea. Next, we could start distrubiting guns to crackheads so they could sell them for food money.

Kuciwalker · May 8, 2003, 23:41

Yeah, lets keep it in modified industrial WAREHOUSES

near the nuclear facility, what a wonderful idea. IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE, and if stored in a nice lead box, the chance of anything happening is minimal. Yes, 100 years from now it may break, but by then we can do something different with it.

I just had an even better idea, though

why don't we give it to Canada? Let them deal with it

MRT144 · May 8, 2003, 23:42

i agree skywalker. too bad the left has too many ****ing morons and misinformation mongers to allow anything related remotely to nuclear power to get through the government.

chequita guevara · May 8, 2003, 23:51

Obviously we need a permanent storage site, at least until we get a space elevator and can fling the stuff into the sun. I just think there are better places to put it than a techtonically active part of the US which sits over an aquifer. It's just stupid.

Kuciwalker · May 8, 2003, 23:57

Active in geological terms doesn't mean active in human terms. The time scale is completely different.

GePap · May 9, 2003, 00:04

Yes, but nuclear waste has a half-life that runs long enough to see geological.

I don;t particularly care, and I have heard about some experiments to resuse nuclear waste..more reaserch into this would be nice.

Pekka · May 9, 2003, 00:04

Just ship it in Iraq and put it on Polands quarter

.

j/k

Felch · May 9, 2003, 00:06

How about we drop it into a volcano?

asleepathewheel · May 9, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Obviously we need a permanent storage site, at least until we get a space elevator and can fling the stuff into the sun. I just think there are better places to put it than a techtonically active part of the US which sits over an aquifer. It's just stupid.

here here, put that shite on a rocket to the sun. That way you destroy the waste and create an archvillian. Or put it on a rocket to Russia, with Saddam's ass.

MRT144 · May 9, 2003, 00:22

maybe we can shoot it into the core of the planet

Geronimo · May 9, 2003, 01:03

Dumping it into a volcano would very efficiently create a big messy chernobyl II come next eruption methinks.

MichaeltheGreat · May 9, 2003, 02:09

Actually, a completely feasible case was made some years ago for burial in deep ocean sediments @ > 12,000 feet depth. There are a large number of geologically stable, fundamentally lifeless areas of the ocean floor where sediment layers are hundreds of feet thick and sediment migration in virtually none.

Between the left whining about "ocean dumping" and the lessened pork barrel revenue for right-connected contractors, the idea was stillborn, even though it's demonstrably the most sound idea both technically and economically.

DRoseDARs · May 9, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Active in geological terms doesn't mean active in human terms. The time scale is completely different.

Yeah, the difference being we can keep the promises made on the Human time scale. We can't do that with the Geological time scale, but the half-wits pushing this malarky down Nevada's throat seem to think they can... "It'll NEVER leak even ONCE in 10,000 years. Our promise to you: Money Back Garuntee.

"

If you can launch space probes near the sun, you can launch nuclear waste INTO the sun and be done with it. And you could do the smart thing and ABANDON nuclear power production all together and focus on less risky technologies. Then you'd only have to worry about what you've got, not what you'll have.

First of all, the government has cut corners trying to make the Yucca Mountain site a reality and have only done a half-assed job on doing environment studies of the site. The simple fact is they can't POSSIBLY make a seismically active location safe for 10,000 years (the time they believe the radioactivity of the waste will decay below lethal levels). All the putt-putting about "Oh, we can't keep it where it's made because it'll be a target for terrorists" and "Oh, we've already begun construction of the repository" and "Oh, we can make these SUPER-ULTRA-EXTRA special concrete canisters to keep it sealed for a REALLY SUPER-DUPER LONG TIME!!!" won't change the fact that the Yucca Mountain site will never be a safe storage place for a period of time LONGER than written Human history thus far.

orange · May 9, 2003, 03:41

Quote:

- and people who say otherwise are complete morons

Look at it this way - there is already a whole bunch of nuclear waste. It's got to go SOMEWHERE. Are those who argue against the site saying that the current storage facilities are somehow safer?

Well, if so, they are morons.

There is no way that a simple building that houses nuclear waste is safer than a mountain. Yes, in 100 years some may leak into the water supply. Well, I've got news for you - it can do that from where it is too. And the current storage facilities are MUCH more likely to leak than the Nevada site.

airtight logic

TheStinger · May 9, 2003, 03:45

What about antartica- sure a few green whingers are gonna complain but aprt form the moss ther is no life at the center, the penguins and seals will be safe. International terrorists aren't gonna be able to get it.

There easy solution

Imran Siddiqui · May 9, 2003, 04:07

Yes it should go to Nevada. The government owns like 50% of the land in that state, so there won't be extra-exorbitant costs with every single shipment made.

DRoseDARs · May 9, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The government owns like 50% of the land in that state, so there won't be extra-exorbitant costs with every single shipment made.

The government also owns large chunks of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Norath and South Dakota, and Washington State. Parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah are even MORE desolate and remote than Nevada. Further, around New Mexico the seismic potential is much less than that of Nevada. More, Las Vegas is less than 100 miles from Yucca Mountain and is one of the nation's fastest growing cities. Damn right they're concerned about their aquifer.

Also, the state of Nevada is threatening not only to sue to prevent any further progress on the repository, but there's been rumbling that if that fails we'll charge for shipments. It's a State's rights vs. Federal rights issue to some.

Nubclear · May 9, 2003, 06:15

Ship it over here to Utah. Please.

chequita guevara · May 9, 2003, 12:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, a completely feasible case was made some years ago for burial in deep ocean sediments @ > 12,000 feet depth. There are a large number of geologically stable, fundamentally lifeless areas of the ocean floor where sediment layers are hundreds of feet thick and sediment migration in virtually none.

Between the left whining about "ocean dumping" and the lessened pork barrel revenue for right-connected contractors, the idea was stillborn, even though it's demonstrably the most sound idea both technically and economically.

Actually, I think ocean dumping is a good idea. Put it in presureized canisters and drop the stuff in the Marianas Trench. Eventually it'll get sucked back into the Earth.

gsmoove23 · May 9, 2003, 12:19

I'm all for the antartica idea, encase it in a layer of ice that won't melt for 10,000 years.

Sava · May 9, 2003, 12:23

IIRC, some of the biggest opponents of this are the local Republican politicians in Nevada. But sure, let's be like Rush Limbaugh and ignorantly blame the "left".

chequita guevara · May 9, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I'm all for the antartica idea, encase it in a layer of ice that won't melt for 10,000 years.

10,000 years isn't good enough.

Japher · May 9, 2003, 12:27

Quote:

But sure, let's be like Rush Limbaugh and... blame the "left".

Works for me

(I love paraphrasing)

If it's going to nevada, why don't we just replace all the neon lights with the rods? Save a lot of electricity don't ya think?

MRT144 · May 9, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, some of the biggest opponents of this are the local Republican politicians in Nevada. But sure, let's be like Rush Limbaugh and ignorantly blame the "left".

NIMBY transcends political parties.

MichaeltheGreat · May 9, 2003, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Actually, I think ocean dumping is a good idea. Put it in presureized canisters and drop the stuff in the Marianas Trench. Eventually it'll get sucked back into the Earth.

Trenches aren't the way to go, because they're extremely active. There's a lot of mid-ocean wastelands where you're equisdistant from crust-forming zones (like the Mid-Atlantic ridge) and subduction zones. Out in the Pacific, there's some spots that are over 1000 miles from any notable geologic activity.

The higher density of the containers means they would eventually bore themselves into sediment, get covered up, and sink to the bottom. Migration studies showed that even if the containers corrode, you wouldn't see significant movement of radionuclides for hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years.

Sava · May 9, 2003, 12:34

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144

NIMBY transcends political parties.

exactly my point...

DaShi · May 9, 2003, 12:36

Can't we just send it all to asia like we do with rest of our hazardous junk?

MichaeltheGreat · May 9, 2003, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
If you can launch space probes near the sun, you can launch nuclear waste INTO the sun and be done with it. And you could do the smart thing and ABANDON nuclear power production all together and focus on less risky technologies. Then you'd only have to worry about what you've got, not what you'll have.

(a) Nuke power infrastructure is essential to a lot of countries economically, and it can be operated safely.

(b) Do you have any idea of orbital lift cost? With Delta IVs, it's about $4,400 a pound. It takes more than that to move out of orbit. Before you get all excited about that, remember that the dilution and shielding of the rad waste is far heavier than the waste itself. To transport it in small packages, 20 to 1 is probably a close weight ratio, so your pound of payload is 1/20 of a pound of waste. $88,000 per pound of waste into orbit, plus all those greenhouse gasses, plus the extra cost out of orbit, and the risk of payload loss and reentry....

You greenies really need to learn a bit about how stuff actually works.

MRT144 · May 9, 2003, 12:39

you mean marines dashi?