[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy -- no nuke waste problem, just doesn't exist ....

--------------------
--------------------

(Scott Nudds) wrote:
: >It appears to me that if such a repository had been constructed and was
: >ready for operation, it would have been filled by now.  Filled with fuel
: >waste that was not reprocessed, and waste that will just have to be dug
: >up again if it is to re-enter the fuel cycle.

wally taylor wrote:
: You really should research before you respond.  The facility that
: Commonwealth Edison (near your neck of the North Woods, I believe) built
: at Morris Illinois, has been storing fuel for, lets see, 35 years? They
: have had no accidents and it really is a quiet operation.  Been there,
: seen it.

  There are no permanent repositories in the U.S. Hence the repository
you are referring to is not permanent, and hence not the kind of
repository that was being referred to.

  You will find if you consult the Usenet archives, I am in favour of
long term storage, but opposed to the aledged "disposal" proposals.


wally taylor wrote:
: Finally Scott, "dug up"?  the fuel in Morris has been cooling in large
: tanks of water, the preferred method of storing fresh spent fuel, and
: until dry casking came on line, the only way available for comercial
: reactors.

  Of course it has.


wally taylor wrote:
: It amazes me that the people of this american continent will put up with
: the boondoggle that nuclear waste disposal has become.

  It amazes me that people continue to propose expanded nuclear power
given the boondoggle that it has become.



wally taylor wrote:
: What do you suppose the curie content of an amount of spent nuclear fuel
: that has been stored for ten years is compared to the curie content of
: fresh out of the reactor spent nuclear fuel?

  That would depend on the amount of fuel the reactor holds.  The
numbers I have state that the radioactive content of a 1GW LWR is
something like 5 billion curies.  After 1 year of storage it is 1/10
that and after 10 it is something like a factor of 2-3 lower than that.
So, my very rough estimate would be 170 million curies after 10 years.


wally taylor wrote:
: What do you suppose is the curie content of the soil where you live?

  How much soil?  2% Uranium ore contains roughly 7mCi/g, the EPA puts
5pCi/g as the maximum allowable amount of surface soil radiation for
residential property.  I don't know the radiation level at my feet as I
have never measured it.


wally taylor wrote:
: What do you suppose is a safe radiation level?

  What is safe?  I suppose we can agree that background levels are safe.
Anything above this is less safe, with decreasing safety as radiation
levels rise.  Background radiation levels are 100 mrem/year.


-- 
<---->
References: