🚀 go-pugleaf

You're way behing on this discussion. The thermal load alone of the
current nuclear waste in the US would overwhelm Yucca Mnt by 4 times.
The fissures and leaks that are caused by the heat are an enourmous
difficulty.  There is a chance of nuclear explosion. Now we know that
the Soviets have discovered plutonium behaves very unpredicatibly in
relatively short term storage situations let alon 1000 years or eons.

Everytime you fellows say "Its a no-brainer" I'm convinced you don't
use your brains. Next time that phrase comes to mind, maybe should
realize that you sticking your head up your bosses ass. Yes Sir!


greige@bigpond.com (Greig Ebeling) wrote:

>On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:12:58 GMT, none (Quarks like a duck) wrote:

>>greige@bigpond.com (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>
>>>Nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem, the same and
>>>similar techniques have been researched, tested and have been in
>>>production on toxic chemical wastes for nearly 2 decades.
>>
>>
>>There is an enormous difference which is what has not been solved  -
>>the energy of radioactive waste. That is the crux of the matter and
>>has not been resolved. You may say what you want, but you have not
>>asnwered my questions and are just repeating yourselves.
>>
>>Whoever accused me of not having a rational discussion is missing the
>>point that no one has answered my rational questions.

>I presume the "energy of radioactive waste" you are concerned about is
>the residual heat and high levels of radio-activity is nuclear waste
>when it has just been removed from the reactor.

>This is not a problem at all.  The waste is held on site, adjacent to
>the reactor, in concrete lined storage repositories.  It stays there
>for a few decades, until "cool" enough to be reprocessed or treated
>for disposal.  This where almost all the nuclear waste from reactors
>is currently located, with very few problems reported to date.

>If that is your main gripe, then you are worrying about a relative
>no-brainer.


>...Greig