Why don't we dump nuclear waste into volcanos?

[Skeptic]

To Nemesis

Deathridesahorse lives in Perth. That is the single largest population centre in Western Australia - rather a nice city - I have been there 3 times. However, it is a long, long way from most of Western, South and Central Australia. It would be really easy to arrange for the hypothetical nuclear waste dump to be 1000 kms or more from Perth or any similar sized city. As I said, Australia is rather big!

Since it would, as I said before, be quite safe to live right next to, or even on top of, the dump, It is clear that separation would carry no risk to life or to the natural environment. Setting up such a dump would be a major service to humanity and to the natural world, and would bring billions of dollars into Australia. There are no grounds to object that are rational. The only grounds are based on pure, irrational emotion.

[milifestyle]

Back in 1995 when i was studying horticulture, a lecturer told our class that "treated pine" has a 40 year guarantee. It had a 40 year guarantee because it had been made for 40 years at the time and the original treated timbers were still going strong. That being the case we could probably expect it to have a 50 plus year guarantee by now.

The point is... Has Nuclear waste been around for 10,000 plus years to be able to say it will break down sufficiently in that period of time?

What if after the first 1000 years it starts to increase in strength and not break down ?

What if it leaks or has a reaction with a potentially undiscovered mineral a kilometre underground ?

Sending it into space is the most logical and safest method for disposal. But again, politics will step in and convince science it is safer to bury it here and let our families 10,000 years from now deal with the consequences. Heck its cheaper to dig a hole than it is to send a regular shipment of self destructable rockets into space.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by milifestyle

Back in 1995 when i was studying horticulture, a lecturer told our class that "treated pine" has a 40 year guarantee. It had a 40 year guarantee because it had been made for 40 years at the time and the original treated timbers were still going strong.

Creosote. pure and simple.But in some wet areas the creosote was washed out into the local water and the wood rotted away .As did the people who drank the water.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

To Nemesis

Deathridesahorse lives in Perth. That is the single largest population centre in Western Australia - rather a nice city - I have been there 3 times. However, it is a long, long way from most of Western, South and Central Australia. It would be really easy to arrange for the hypothetical nuclear waste dump to be 1000 kms or more from Perth or any similar sized city. As I said, Australia is rather big!

Since it would, as I said before, be quite safe to live right next to, or even on top of, the dump, It is clear that separation would carry no risk to life or to the natural environment. Setting up such a dump would be a major service to humanity and to the natural world, and would bring billions of dollars into Australia. There are no grounds to object that are rational. The only grounds are based on pure, irrational emotion.

If it is so safe to live right on top of it, then why do you not suggest putting it in your backyard instead of Australia. That was my point. You suggested you were willing to live right next to it or right on top of it, yet you suggested a place far away from where you live.
Not only that, you can't just assert that it would be safe with no data. Where are the studies, the experiments that prove your dump hypothesis. Furthermore, emotions are not always irrational, and for people to hesitate to live near toxic nuclear waste dumps is perfectly sane and rational. Emotions may not always be totally logical, but they do have high survival value.

[milifestyle]

Yes! Exactly.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by jezzer

Same reason you don't feed a baby chili, it would make a horrible mess that noone wants to clean up.

...and the best answer of 2008!

[milifestyle]

The best thing to feed a "Baby Chili" is Manure - preferably dry bovine. That way it will grow into a "Big Chili"

[Skeptic]

To nemesis

If you look at my first post, you will see that I specified certain criteria for safe dumping. That is : desert, very arid conditions, in a geologically stable area, and preferably well away from people. The latter is for political, not safety reasons.

Australia and the deserts of southern Africa meet these criteria. I am not sure of any other sites that do. My own back yard certainly does not. I live on New Zealand's north coast, and it is very wet and very geologically unstable.

Even the proposed dump site in Nevada does not - it is arid, but not sufficiently geologically stable. However, until a nation with the requisite conditions offers to help, dangerous waste will be dumped in unsafe sites.

About knowing the 10,000 year degrade period. That is not too difficult. Nuclear decay is a well studied process, and is utterly predictable. We study the initial decay of the waste, and can predict with exactitude what future decay will bring. 10,000 years will not make it totally unradioactive. However, as I pointed out, a little radioactivity is OK. 10,000 years is enough to lower its radioactivity to a level that would permit dumping in a city land-fill.

Just to make one thing clear. The most dangerous part of the decay of nuclear waste is the first few years, when short half life isotopes spit out radioactive particles in large numbers at high energy. Before dumping it into a final repository, it is necessary to store it, underwater for cooling, in a secure warehouse. 20 years is enough to permit the worst of the decay to occur. After that, it is possible to store it long term with little hazard, if the conditions above are met.

There is a lot of experience with the hazards of nuclear waste already. Enough to show that the more extreme claims of risk are just hogwash. In the early days, it was sealed in 200 litre steel drums and dumped at sea. Those drums would have rusted into little pieces and released tonnes of nuclear waste into the deep ocean, decades ago.

In spite of several studies into the ecological effects of this release, no damage has ever been seen. The Soviets even dissolved fresh nuclear waste in acid, and pumped it into the Arctic Ocean. Again, no ecological damage from this has been measured.

Let's not get paranoid about this. Nuclear waste is a problem that can be handled, as long as people behave rationally and forget their silly paranoid emotional superstitions.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

To nemesis

If you look at my first post, you will see that I specified certain criteria for safe dumping. That is : desert, very arid conditions, in a geologically stable area, and preferably well away from people. The latter is for political, not safety reasons.

Australia and the deserts of southern Africa meet these criteria. I am not sure of any other sites that do. My own back yard certainly does not. I live on New Zealand's north coast, and it is very wet and very geologically unstable.

Even the proposed dump site in Nevada does not - it is arid, but not sufficiently geologically stable. However, until a nation with the requisite conditions offers to help, dangerous waste will be dumped in unsafe sites.

About knowing the 10,000 year degrade period. That is not too difficult. Nuclear decay is a well studied process, and is utterly predictable. We study the initial decay of the waste, and can predict with exactitude what future decay will bring. 10,000 years will not make it totally unradioactive. However, as I pointed out, a little radioactivity is OK. 10,000 years is enough to lower its radioactivity to a level that would permit dumping in a city land-fill.

Just to make one thing clear. The most dangerous part of the decay of nuclear waste is the first few years, when short half life isotopes spit out radioactive particles in large numbers at high energy. Before dumping it into a final repository, it is necessary to store it, underwater for cooling, in a secure warehouse. 20 years is enough to permit the worst of the decay to occur. After that, it is possible to store it long term with little hazard, if the conditions above are met.

There is a lot of experience with the hazards of nuclear waste already. Enough to show that the more extreme claims of risk are just hogwash. In the early days, it was sealed in 200 litre steel drums and dumped at sea. Those drums would have rusted into little pieces and released tonnes of nuclear waste into the deep ocean, decades ago.

In spite of several studies into the ecological effects of this release, no damage has ever been seen. The Soviets even dissolved fresh nuclear waste in acid, and pumped it into the Arctic Ocean. Again, no ecological damage from this has been measured.

Let's not get paranoid about this. Nuclear waste is a problem that can be handled, as long as people behave rationally and forget their silly paranoid emotional superstitions.

I understand what you're saying, if the waste is handled properly and monitored well, it can likely be very safe. However, people 's fear at having one of these dumps in close proximity is understandable. After all, there are accidents and such. It's not a perfect process, and people's fears about those imperfections are understandable. Most people are not just going to have blind faith as you advocate. Additionally, the group of people closest to the dump have an understandable gripe as to why they were chosen to be the toxic nuclear waste dump people. Do they get to vote on it. Why should they bear all the risk?

You cant tell someone they are being irrational, when you are asking them to take your risk.

[Skeptic]

To nemesis

If the criteria I stated are met, there will be few, possibly no people living near the nuclear waste. And if the few people living within 100 km of the dump are truly upset about it, I guess they can be offered payment to go live somewhere else. If they do not move, they are still not at risk.

The point is that this is the best of all possible options for disposing of nuclear waste. It is not difficult. It just requires people to think about it in a rational manner.