🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred,
There is a very slight chance discovered by two scientists. The DOE
confirmed their calculations. BUT, it is so small that I don't worry
about it;  it is a mathematical possibility.


>Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote:



>Quarks like a duck wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

>Woopsy! Sorry bud. No nuclear explosion. The decay products can include
>hydrogen, and the radiation can produce free hydrogen and oxygen by
>interacting with the water, but nuclear explosion is not even possible
>if you just pour the plutonium rich spent fuel into a big tub. Since
>this is way too stupid for anyone but a mentally deficient Japanese
>reprocessing plant, I don't see that we should be worried about it as a
>mater of principal. As for the heat. This is dropping rapidly for the
>first few years, and the power density level is quite low by the time we
>get the PU out of it and get around to consolidating it. A natural
>design would put the glass boules into an iron or copper matrix, so the
>heat is easily sucked out. We are, I think, talking about power levels
>of a few hundred watts for several liters of material. A lot if it is
>suspended in a very good vacuum, but not much if it is in intimate
>contact with the rock wall around it. Try this one on for size. We drill
>into a good rock strata, drop a drill head down that drills angular
>holes in, and then fills each hole with one boule, steps up and to the
>side, drills the next hole and inserts the next boule. This would
>distribute the heat very nicely and allow a lot of boules to be inserted
>with very little disruption of the rock wall. Frankly, I think we have a
>lot more to worry about than the carefully disposed of waste.

Just shows your ignorance...


The former Soviet Union is covered with the stuff. The Arctic Ocean is
radioactive "so to speak." Seafood and sealife off the coast of the UK
and former northern Soviet Union is radioactive. That means people are
eating radioactive wastes.