http://www.physorg.com/news96560922.html

That supposedly intelligent people would propose such a catastrophy . . . during the series of "above ground" nuclear detonations in Nevada, one scientist warned his family to leave the area. And when asked about the other "DownWinders", his reply: ie. It will give us an opportunity to study the effects of exposure to radiation on the general population!
And . . .Dr Mengla was not a bad person . . . his interest was science!
The 2.3 Million years IS THE HALF LIFE, AND WILL REMAIN LETHAL FOR TEN TO FIFTEEN MILLION YEARS
Roy Stewart,
Phoenix AZ

I think that this may be an outdated view of this technology.

It is possible that using a thorium based reactor will be a much better solution.

Visit the Thorium Power website for more.

thx
gbj

This whole article sounds like a "bait bit" by some reporter with a viewpoint.

"-- GNEP would allow large quantities of cesium 135—a radionuclide with a half life of 2.3 million years—to be disposed in the near surface and pose serious contamination problems for many thousands of years."

?? What the heck is the reporter talking about? When's the last time anyone proposed disposal of any waste in any place other than Yucca? Is Yucca what is being referred to? If so, what is the specific problem?

ditto discussion of "waste transport".

etc. etc. etc.

These points seem relevant to me:

i) We need to design means to reduce worldwide fossil carbon emissions by about 75% at least, by 2050 or sooner if possible.
ii) Developing peoples have a right to expect at least an equal share of the remaining emissions rights. Therefore people in developed countries had better start planning for 95% carbon emissions reductions ASAP.
iii) I can see no liklihood of any presently known technology except nuclear combined with solar generated electricity, achieving this goal with any semblance of organization remaining in society. Even with draconian measures, efficiency and conservation alone have a potential to achieve only perhaps 1/3 of the needed reductions without totally breaking down the social system as we know it, eg. reverting to pre-industrial pre-modern society.
iv) I have no faith in CO2 sequestration. It is unproven, inefficient and results in extremely dangerous waste repositories which will, forever into the future, if a leak develops be likely to kill any mammal caught in a low-lying area for a great distance, expecially downslope. Compared to waste streams from nuclear plants (limited known lifetime, hard solid wastes, extremely small amounts), CO2 sequestration is just WAY more hazardous.
v) Even for nuclear to achieve what is required of it (replacement of most other present means of generating electricity such as coal, natural gas) society will be very stiffly challenged to build stations fast enough. 1000+ new plants in USA by 2050 means a new one must be commissioned every 1 1/2 weeks starting in 2020. That still leaves transport fuel and space heating to be accomplished by solar energy (and wind, wave, tidal, biomass etc), a HUGH project on its own, and likely less achievable than above.

And BTW, yes, there is lots of fission fuel remaining at reasonable cost. If it ever gets to that, useful radioactive elements can be filtered out of seawater at a cost per thermal energy unit approaching present market price of crude oil, obviously using part of the resulting energy produced to do the filtering.

This made me think :

Or as Alvarez has put it more bluntly in conversation, "You can’t just park some of the most highly radioactive wastes in the world at a landfill and assume that by so doing you have kept them safely removed from humans for the next 2.3 million years."


We really have to start finding a viable source of alternative energy. Spend lots of billions on it and offer huge prizes for anyone who can come up with something new.