Talk:Radioactive waste/Archive 1

Early comments
how reliable are sources [10] and [11]? The papers are written by Kenneth J. Dillon who has no qualifications in the field ( he has a docotate in history) and the papers have no references. are the arguments in the papers valid? no personal attack intended. sorry about the spelling.

cheers, Ben

More could be added to describe the vitrification plants being built by the US government.


 * True enough, IP 12.150.68.29. Andrewa 16:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's probably room for some more explanation of the way radioactive decay and particularly decay chainit's impact waste management. The statement The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time seems obvious but it's perhaps misleading. It will eventually be true for any radioactive material, but there can be periods of time when waste increases in radioactivity owing to the buildup of decay products which are more radioactive than the waste was. It's quite common for waste to increase in radioactivity for a while and then decrease, other waste decreases then increases then decreases, some has even more wobbles in the curve. The best example is probably a fresh, unused uranium reactor fuel element... You can stand next to it now, but if it's stored for a few hundred years the decay products will build up again, and yowie! Thorium is even worse. Andrewa 16:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How relevent is this article. They say that waste should not be burried, so where does that leave the US government program to burry the waste under some mountain? 

more!
I think this article needs to contain more information about high-level waste:
 * the contents of high-level waste
 * quantitative evaluation of the hazards and evolution with time
 * make the paragraph about waste disposal more clear

--Philipum 11:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Philipum:

Good source material for "the contents of high-level waste", or at least for the fission products in used fuel:

Andrewa:

Build up of decay products in uranium eventually would make it about seven times as radioactive as it was when it was fresh - but this takes hundreds of thousands of years. A few hundred years results in only a small increase. Natural uranium ores are likewise about seven times as radioactive as the uranium they contain, the difference being the decay products.

Fresh thorium is only about 1/3 as radioactive as uranium, but its decay chain establishes equilibrium relatively quickly - over only a few decades - at a little over 3 times the initial radioactivity.

This is all fairly easily calculated using source material at

Build-up of radioactivity can occur, but it's not a significant issue.

There's a fair amount of work needed on the waste disposal bit - I'll take a look when I've got time.

Proliferation
Pu240 is roughly four times as radioactive as Pu239, because it has 1/4 the half-life (6564 as against 24110 years, see |data on nuclides). However, this half-life is still so long that the increasing purity of Pu239 as Pu240 decays really doesn't affect the proliferation argument significantly.

Actually, handling ANY sort of plutonium is very difficult: it's all highly radioactive, regardless of any contaminants.


 * Yes, you are right about the half-lives. However, I think it should be a period between 10000 years and 20000 years after disposal (rather a long time anyway) where we have rather pure isotopic content of Pu239 in still large amounts, that can be relatively easily chemically separated from the rest of the waste. --Philipum 15:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Around 10,000 to 20,000 years from now, the amount of Pu240 contaminating the Pu239 in these "mines" will be around 25% to 50% of what it is now, whatever that happens to be for any particular batch.

I think it's right to be concerned about leaving dangerous radioactive materials where future generations might be affected by them. However, I think the risk we should be mainly considering is that of leakage of these materials into the environment by various routes, both foreseen and unforeseen. One of the possible routes is indeed mining, where future generations' mining operations intersect long-forgotten waste depositories.

I don't think the far-future proliferation issue is really an important scenario. Either our techological civilization will have advanced to the point where the availability of relatively pure plutonium in mines is an irrelevance, or the people around won't have the faintest idea what plutonium is or what they could do with it.

Near term proliferation is a real issue, and it's perfectly possible to make bombs using reactor-grade plutonium. It's just not the material you'd use if you had the choice. evilC 18:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree with you. The half-life of Pu240 is about 6500 years and that means that 50% the amount will have decayed after 6500 years and 75% after 13000 years and 88% after 20000 years. Thus, around 13000 to 20000 years from now, the remaining amount will be 12% to 25% of what it is now. But I agree with you this is not a real issue, however the point here is to be precise in the article.
 * In the near term, I would not say it is perfectly possible to make bombs using reactor-grade plutonium. I would rather say it is possible, but unpractical: when detonating a plutonium nuclear bomb, you have to start the chain reaction at a very precise time in the implosion process (chemical explosives surrounding the bomb would be blown first), and the fact the Pu240 is a proliferous neutron emitter causes the trigger to start too early. As a result, the bomb is not reliable: it can fizzle, or explode with greatly reduced power. Moreover, Pu240 is very hot and radioactive and it makes the bomb manufacturing very difficult.  --Philipum 07:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget that after 10,000 years the amount of Pu239 will also have decreased; after 20,000 years it'll be little more than half what it is now. Your 10,000 and 20,000 years were approximate; so are my 50% and 25%.

Pu240 is only four times more radioactive than Pu239. Pu239 is too radioactive to handle without heavy shielding and remote handling equipment. The presence of a few percent, or even 30%, of Pu240 makes no real difference to this.

The fact that Pu240 is a neutron emitter makes the design of a nuclear bomb using reactor grade plutonium more like the design of a bomb using enriched uranium: you wouldn't rely on a trigger at all. You're right about the uncertainty of the yield of such a bomb, although even a minor rogue state could do "better" than a fizzle, and a terrorist organization couldn't make any kind of plutonium bomb. However, a bomb of admittedly rather uncertain yield would actually be easier to make with reactor grade plutonium, than with bomb grade plutonium.

evilC 07:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, you were right with the 25% to 50%, I were wrongly giving the 240Pu contents relative to the initial plutonium, but I forgot that the Pu239 content decreases as well. Concerning how impractical it is to build a bomb with reactor-grade plutonium, I found my information in the book Before it's too late - A scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy by B.L. Cohen (Plenum Press 1983). By looking at the references the author gives I judge what he says is reliable, althought the way he has to describe it is probably biased in favour of nuclear energy. Maybe you are right that a state could make reasonable bombs with reactor-grade plutonium, while terrorists would't have any chance. However, I still disagree with your last statement that the bomb would actually be easier to make with reactor grade plutonium, than with bomb grade plutonium. I think it is the opposite: a plutonium production reactor, designed not to produce energy but rather to provide easy and rapid fuel removal, can be operated at low temperature and normal pressure, and use natural uranium. It is also cheaper and smaller. --Philipum 10:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, we're talking at cross-purposes a bit. A state wanting to make a plutonium bomb would almost certainly make its own bomb grade plutonium in such a reactor. But if we're worrying about someone mining an old waste depository for plutonium to make bombs, either reactor grade or bomb grade would suit their purposes. The reactor grade bomb would be easier for them to make (basically, like Little Boy rather than the much more sophisticated Fat Man), but would be "inferior" in yield and predictability. 193.131.176.54 11:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Still, I believe that it would be easier to make weapon-grade plutonium than to mine plutonium from a deep repository. --Philipum 06:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think it depends partly on whether the plutonium is mixed with fission products. If it's already separated, that's one major job already done for you, to weigh against the mining work. It's also not all that easy to build plutonium production reactors: you need substantial quantities of high purity graphite or heavy water, if you're using natural uranium. Clive 08:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No one buries separated plutonium. The US considered it once to eliminate surplus weapons grade plutonium, but decided to burn it in a reactor as MOX.  Some countries intend to bury nuclear fuel without reprocessing to save reprocessing costs.  Others reprocess so they can extract the plutonium and burn it as MOX.  pstudier 23:12, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

It's still under consideration in the UK, see the |Report of the Working Group on Plutonium - the reason being that there's already far more separated plutonium in the UK than existing reactors can burn as MOX in their projected lifetimes, and there are currently no plans to build any new reactors. Reprocessing is also used to extract unburnt uranium from used fuel, because neutron absorbing fission products poison the chain reaction long before all the U235 is consumed. Clive 06:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Cohen
I'm not sure about the Bernard Cohen book that you've provided a link to, Pstudier. I think it ought to be marked in some way as "disputed". Where an article in Wikipedia itself is disputed, there's a clear method of stating that; but I'm not sure how to mark a reference.

I'm not even sure that a reference to it is called for, since you're not referring to it as a source of any information. Many of the claims made in it, if presented as fact in Wikipedia itself, would cause uproar.Clive


 * As discussed above, I have read works of Bernard Cohen. Thank you for pointing out he is disputed! His books are dangerously convincing. The author has a very skilful way of providing precise information while omitting aspects that do not serve his purposes. A good basis for debates! --Philipum 06:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that if the nuclear power article can include a link to the explicitly anti-nuclear World Information Service on Energy (WISE), then this article can include the Cohen link. Perhaps the link should read


 * The Nuclear Energy Option, pro-nuclear book online by Bernard L. Cohen with chapter on nuclear waste.

or


 * The Nuclear Energy Option, controversial pro-nuclear book online by Bernard L. Cohen with chapter on nuclear waste.

pstudier 21:37, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

That sounds entirely fair. I hadn't followed the WISE link - I wasn't aware what it was like! Clive 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Transuranic waste
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&diff=3543071&oldid=3543034

This edit confused classes of nucleus with level. I think it is also wrong about peapons production, but that depend on how the inconsistencies are resolved.

I am deleting the paragraph. --David R. Ingham 19:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring it with minor modifications. Although it is probably unscientific to classify waste based on source rather than on what nucleotides are in it, transuranic waste is a legal definition in the US. See Why WIPP. pstudier 22:35, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

You haven't explained the context in which this makes sense. It is inconsistent in ordinary or scientific English. Arn't we supposed to discuss things questionable before keeping them before the public? --David R. Ingham 03:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

From the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Transuranic waste

''Material contaminated with transuranic elements that is produced primarily from reprocessing spent fuel and from use of plutonium in fabrication of nuclear weapons. ''

So I was wrong and the waste is classified by what it is. However, there is no reprocessing of commercial fuel in the US and there never has been on any large scale. So almost all is generated by the military. From Why WIPP WIPP, or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, became the nation's first operating underground repository for defense generated transuranic radioactive waste on March 26, 1999. I read somewhere, but don't have the reference handy, that WIPP is not allowed to dispose of civilian waste. I'll add more later. pstudier 04:00, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

From In 1982, TRU waste was redefined in DOE Order 5820.2A as "...without regard to source or form, waste that is contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranium radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 years, and concentrations greater than 100nCi/g ...."

and

''TRU waste is classified as either contact-handled (CH-TRU) or remote-handled (RH-TRU) depending on the radiation dose rate of the waste container. For waste to be classified as contact-handled, the maximum radiation dose rate at the surface of the waste container cannot exceed 200 millirems per hour.''

pstudier 04:45, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I didn't find the original paragraph problematic at all, although a little clarification would have helped. Used fuel (whether from civilian or military reactors) contains transuranics, but they're not separated from the fuel in civilian practice in the USA (they are in several other countries). So the only sources of transuranic waste that aren't mixed with fission products are military - in the USA. Clive 10:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't expect my deletion to be controversial, or I would have discussed it more at first. I now see why weapons production is mentioned. I really didn't get it before. I think we must first define transuranic waste, which comes mostly from power reactors and is decreased by reprocessing and use in reactors, and then define low level transuranic waste, as was originally done. The important thing I know about transuranic waste is that it has very long half lives, on the order of millions of years, which makes it impossible to keep track of but still much more radioactive than the natural uranium and thorium it came from. (To keep in perspective, coal burning puts stable element carcinogerns with infinite life into the bioshere.) I suppose it may be the decay modes of transuranics that require different handling at low levels. --David R. Ingham 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Updated --David R. Ingham 15:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about the "putting into perspective" - that's one of Cohen's many specious statements. Firstly, stable element carcinogens are typically many orders of magnitude less carcinogenic than radioactive carcinogens. Secondly, nuclear reactors create new radioactive material, whereas coal-fired power stations merely move stable element carcinogens (and uranium and thorium) out of geological storage into the biosphere;
 * Ahem, how can you use the word "merely" here? This is uranium and thorium that probably would have stayed out of the biosphere roughly forever (the elements of the 16 known Oklo, Gabon reactor are still in place after 1.5 billion years). Coal plants dump it into the air we breathe. I see no reason why we can't bury transuranics so they stay in place as well as the Oklo materials, and I see no reason we need ever breathe them.

although they have infinite lives, their life in the biosphere is not infinite. It should be noted that all the stable element carcinogens in coal-fired exhausts are naturally abundant in the environment, and we and the whole biosphere have evolved in their presence; they're of local importance around power stations (and domestic coal fires), but of no significance whatsoever on a global scale. (Unlike the CO2 produced in coal burning.) Clive 12:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The same argument goes for the transuranics-- the amount of radiation from them is of no global importance once they're buried. As for what specific alpha-emitters we evolved in the presense of, even discussing that presumes that your body can tell one alpha from another. Actually, they all have pretty much the same amount of energy (due to the basic alpha process), and the producers are all chemically actinide rare-earths which behave biologically in similar ways, and the main variable is the alpha dose you get (a function of half-life and isotope dose). Which is controlled by how much you let loose into the biosphere before you bury it. As for evolution, I hardly think it adapted us to tolerate U and Th and of course Po (remember where that comes from), but not Np or Cm. Evolution gave you enough resistance to cancer to reach puberty and raise your first crop of kids, which means its more or less done with you by age 30. So long as your alpha-emitter dose is not high enough to give you cancer before then, evolution is likely to be "blind" to it. Be it thorium or be it americium. Sbharris 05:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is no longer misleading or hard to understand.--David R. Ingham 15:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Maybe I should not have gone so far as to delete the paragraph twice.

Disposal of High Level Wastes
The detail on appointment of committee in 2003 by UK government to advise on nuclear waste disposal is lacking reference. The facts purported in this part also are left wanting of reference.

There is the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in UK and has been around since 1978.

I cannot find a report, study or paper on this site or available on request containing information on shooting spent fuel to space.

link RWMAC

Coal and pollution
I don't see mention of coal, which I understand is the or at least a major cause of radioactive pollution. "Nuclear pollution" redirects here now so this must be the place to put it. (I didn't see the deleted "nuclear pollution" article, but I assume it would have been merged if it mentioned coal.) Since "nuclear pollution" redirects here, I think I will redirect "radioactive pollution". --David R. Ingham 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No, coal is NOT a major source of radioactive pollution, this is another pro-nuclear myth. Coal doesn't contain any highly radioactive material other than minute quantities of short half-life decay products of uranium and thorium, and they and the long half-life elements coal contains are only present in quantities similar to those everywhere else in the environment. Clive 13:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The precise statement is that we can't have a coal-fired power plant located inside the fence of a nuclear power plant because it would emit too much radiation. Simesa 06:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

According to material on the USGS website, coal doesn't have any more radioactive material than the average crust, so it would be equivalent throughing dirt in the air. It's a deceptive comparison. Also, people who are knowledgeable, and rational, about radiation and nuclear power are not concerned about the amount of radiation release during normal operation of a plant. They are worried about unintentional releases. -- Kjkolb 15:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sure that clive is wrong, fly ash from coal burning can contain lots and lots of radium, this radium content can make it unsuitable for use in cement for making houses. I am sure that the Ra content can be much higher than the UK dustbin limit of 400 Bq Kg-1, as Ra-226 is one of the worst radioisotopes (much worse by Bq than Pu-239) then the radioactivity of coal ash is something which should be considered.Cadmium 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you see my response. :-) Also, what little radioactive isotopes there are concentrate in the fly ash, so it is analogous to spent fuel rods, as it can be sequestered. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if it needs to be sequestered 'like fuel rods' then it is radioactive waste, and thus is a topic to be covered in this article. Also I would like to see some reference to some of these statements if this is covered on the main page. I'm not all that convinced that this is just pro-nuke propaganda. --DV8 2XL 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which text books do you base your thougts on ? the Nuclear chem texts have something to say on the subject ? Jiri Hala's text Radioactivity, ionizing radiation, and Nuclear Energy does consider the whole subject in a NPOV manner, and it does state (on page 350) that coal ash containing cement can result in the radon level in a house being very high. While the activity in the coal is quite low, most of the coal burns to form inactive gases, the activity is concentrated into the fly ash.


 * Radium is something which cannot sequestered safely in fly ash, radium might be fixed in one place (which I doubt) but the radon-222 is very mobile. Rn-222 is viewed as a major pest in the radiochemical community as it is so mobile and able to form alpha emitters which absorb on dust and can be inhaled.Cadmium
 * Sorry about the sequestration confusion. I was just trying to make the nuclear industry's comparison (coal exposes the public to more radiation than nuclear) fairer, as they exclude the fuel rods from the amount of radioactivity because it does not have to be released into the environment, if it is properly disposed of. Fly ash is usually landfilled or used in concrete or road building. It could also be sequestered, so it is just a question of whether the radioactivity is high enough for that to be necessary. It is not an inherent radiation release.
 * The whole comparison between nuclear and coal is very poor, anyway. As I said before, very little radiation is released during normal operation of a reactor. Nobody who is knowledgeable and rational about radiation is worried about releases on that level. Only large, unintentional releases have enough radiation to be a concern.
 * Fly ash is more radioactive than coal and it might be a good idea not to use it to build houses with (since radon could concentrate in an enclosed space), but it is still very low, about the same as black shales and less than phosphate rocks. Coal's uranium concentration is usually 1-4 ppm (higher in a small percentage of locations) and fly ash is 8-20 ppm, while the average concentration in the Earth's crust is 2.8 ppm. Thorium concentrations in coal are also usually 1-4 ppm. The amount of thorium in fly ash is not given, but it seems reasonable to assume that it would be similar to uranium, which is 8-20 ppm. The average thorium concentration in the crust is 10 ppm. Uranium in fly ash is 2.9 to 7.1 times more concentrated than average crust, and thorium is 0.8 to 2 times more concentrated, if the assumption made earlier is reasonable. Uranium and thorium are definitely concentrated during the burning of coal, and fly ash has somewhat higher amounts than the average crustal concentration, but it is not enough to be a concern in most situations, building construction being a possible exception. Therefore, fly ash cannot be considered a significant threat, just like a normally operating reactor. -- Kjkolb 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement
This was edited out:"Eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements; for example, after 40 years 99.9% of radiation in spent nuclear fuel disappears"

With the stated reason: (The statement "after 40 years 99.9% of radiation in spent nuclear fuel disappears" is incorrect. Upon viewing that website, it was referring to the radioactivity of the power plant minues the SNF.)

Quote from the link:"For instance, a newly-discharged light water reactor fuel assembly is so radioactive that it emits several hundred kilowatts of heat, but after a year this is down to 5kW and after five years, to one kilowatt. In 40 years the radioactivity in it drops to about one thousandth of the level at discharge."

Looks to me like they're talking about the fuel. DV8 2XL 18:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed statement #2
I removed: "A permanent solution for disposal of high level radioactive waste has been mooted by The Mineral Planning Group. This involves first vitrifying the waste (see above) then placing waste in purpose designed canister (based upon the Whittle Eathquake bomb that was specifically constructed to penetrate deep into solid concrete). These canisters are then transported to an internationally agreed location/s above the Deep Oceanic Trench where the sea is at its deepest above the earths crust and thick sediments have built up before being drawn down into the mantle by plate-tectonic movement.  The canisters (shaped like a rocket with specially hardened casing, are then released to fall some 6km+ by gravity and penetrate deep into the sediments.  Plate tectonic movement will safely yet inextricably carry the waste deeper and deeper into the earths mantle from whence the radioactive material originated for it to be finally absorbed into the molten magma. This concept places the waste as far from human habitation as one can acheive on earth and ulitamately removes any risk. It is recognised that there would be a need for internationally agreed protocols in order to transport the waste through international waters and this is likely to be a long and drawn-out process. However, the solution is founded on solid scientific/geological concepts and will hopefully be adopted rather than continuing to store such waste on or near the surface of earth and its biosphere. If there are sound reasons for rejecting the concept please put them forward in an edit and let the matter be fully aired." First, it was in the wrong section ("accidents"). Second, there are no references.  Third, we don't debate, we report.  This paragraph needs work before inclusion. Simesa 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The waste would take so long to go 6 km (40,000 years at the fastest subduction rate of 15 cm/year) that there's not much point. For centuries, it would be very close to the surface. Also, by the time it reached the mantle wouldn't it's radioactivity have greatly decreased anyway? -- Kjkolb 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Applications of Radioactive Waste
What is now called nuclear waste could have some applications. Beyond plutonium reprocessing, it could be used in irradation (cesium 137), portable electric sources (strontium 90 and others), and other applications. For more information, see the document Nuclear By-Products : A Resource for the Future at [] (since it is an archived document, it does have errors in it). Recycling the waste at least be listed as an option, so not only discarding a valuble resorce will be listed. Polonium

Seperate article: Radioactive waste management?
I have setup Radioactive waste management to redirect here, because this article deals with how radioactive waste is managed and disposed of, but the specific management of radioactive waste could be made into its own article, though it might strip this article of a lot of content. I am not willing to strip this article without a little bit of consensus though. --Matthew 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point of two topics as the term 'waste' presupposes the need for disposal. There are other radioactive materials, of course, however they are not necessarily waste and are dealt with under their own headings. That being said I would support renaming this article Radioactive waste management as it is the more appropriate title and redirecting to it from here.--DV8 2XL 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might be possible to separate them and we may reach that point in the future, but I think it should stay together for now. If we do a separation, perhaps it should be between high and low level waste. I prefer that the article be named "radioactive waste", since it is shorter and it is expected that disposal will be discussed, but it isn't that big of a deal as long as one redirects to the other. -- Kjkolb 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Kjkolb is right: if it ain't broke don't fix it. --DV8 2XL 17:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced - it would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making proliferation infeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries. Would someone like to blend GNEP into this article? Simesa 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&diff=43084994&oldid=43074797
Maybe I am having a "blond moment" (in my case redhead) but I don't see the reason for reverting two paragraphs with so little explanation. David R. Ingham 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

School paper?
Found this addition from a while ago. Looks like it basically covers little new, but copying it here anyway. --Christopherlin 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste

Humans have always had a need for power. In the past 100 years, many advances have been made to provide us with cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy. Nuclear energy is one of those advances. It provides the United States with almost 25% of their total energy. But there is also a darker side to nuclear energy. The waste products that result from it are deadly to all life.

Nuclear energy has existed for more than 50 years, and provides more than 25 countries half of their power. There are to ways to make nuclear energy: fission and fusion. Nuclear fusion occurs only in stars, but humans have harnessed fission, and it is actually quite simple. When a neutron is projected into an atom of uranium or plutonium, the atom splits, releasing energy in the form of heat. This reaction continues, which heats water. The water turns to steam, which rotates turbines. These turbines provide electricity. Many people praise nuclear energy. They believe that it is a clean, cheap, and affordable way to make energy. On the contrary, many people argue that nuclear energy is dangerous and too risky. They believe this because the waste products that result form the production of nuclear waste, are not only deadly, but will stay that way for hundreds of thousands of years.

The reason nuclear waste is so deadly is because it releases unstable amounts of radiation. After an atoms energy is released, the atom still radiates energy. When the number of radioactive particles disinigrates, the radioactive emission is said to lessen. The problem is, the time that it takes for the elements to lessen enough is hundreds of thousands of years. Many attempts have been made to permanently store and dispose of nuclear waste. The future of life on Earth could be at risk if a permanent disposal of these wastes is not created.

The U.S., along with many other countries has suffered incidents where radioactive waste has escaped from containment. The main reason for this is because radioactive waste management facilities are only temporary. There are only a few ways to store radioactive wastes. One of the most common, however, is burying it in a rock formation. The wastes are sealed tightly in corrosion resistant containment cylinders, and then buried in a rock formation. Other structures have also been built to contain the wastes. The methods work well for the most part, but there is one major problem. The materials used to house the wastes are not capable of lasting nearly as long as the waste itself. In future centuries, the wastes will most likely leak out of their containment, contaminating our planet permanently.

If the wastes are going to eventually leak through their containment and eventually destroy our planet, why not put it somewhere where it will not affect anything. That solution may lie at southwest Nevada. Yucca Mountain stands 5,575 ft. and is in complete isolation from almost any life for miles. The DOE (Department of Energy) is studying the mountain to determine if it is suitable for storing radioactive waste. If they approve, tunnels will be dug that will be 1000 feet deep, and 112 miles long. If this idea works, America’s commercial and government nuclear wastes will be stored there. That is good news for us, but what about future life on Earth. If life- forms inhabit the Earth when we are gone, the nuclear waste could very well harm them. It may seem that nuclear waste is impossible to get rid of.

When humans are gone from Earth, there will still be hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste sitting under Yucca Mountain. The DOE estimates that in the next 1000 centuries, 1% of all nuclear waste will have escaped from containment. Several other ideas have been thought of to permanently dispose of the wastes. Ideas like sending the waste into space, and melting it into ice sheets could occur in the near future. These methods will permanently dispose of nuclear waste. No idea is perfect, though. It is extremely important that some of these ideas come into play.

In conclusion, nuclear energy is an important resource for providing energy for the world. The materials that result from the production of nuclear energy are deadly to all life. Disposing the waste is vital to our planet, and the life on it. It is our duty, as humans, to dispose properly of the wastes we have created.

Can an atomic bomb get rid of nuclear waste?
I once heard a suggestion, that a plausible way to get rid of nuclear wastes is to blow them up, deep underground, with a atomic weapon. This could be in the same type of deep holes used to test underground nuclear explosions. There are still some nations that test atomic weapons underground. Why not use deep underground atomic bomb explosions to get rid of nuclear waste?204.80.61.10 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Works Cited

Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. Nuclear Waste: The 10,000-	Year Challenge. New York: Franklin Watts, 1990.

“The New Clear Threat.” World Watch May- June 2003: 30. EBSCO Host 	Master File Select. Vestal Middle School Library, Vestal, NY. 30 	January 2006 

World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association. 20 January 2006 


 * There are several obvious issues with this. First, tests are very expensive things conducted to get precise measurements - adding large amounts of spent nuclear fuel would complicate the calculations.  Second, Nevada would never stand for it, and that's where the U.S. tests nuclear weapons (see Nevada Test Site).  Third, using weapons to dispose of nuclear waste would blur the line between military and civilian uses, a line the nuclear power industry doesn't want blurred.  Fourth, we may want to reprocess that fuel someday.  Fifth, but certainly not least, the U.S. has some interest in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - and would we want over 30 nations having an excuse to develop nuclear weapons - Iran, for example.  Technically, the idea has enough merit to warrant research - but geopolitically, forget it. Simesa 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My first question would be "why would it help?" - putting radioactive material next to a nuclear explosion would certainly get it subjected to a large number of neutrons, which would probably change some of the isotopes into other isotopes. But I don't understand why one would expect the result to be less radioactive (or less dangerous) than what you put into it.
 * BTW, the first citation led me to Amazon: - it seems to be labelled as "juvenile audience". I'd like something a bit more authoritative-sounding, like something by a nuclear scientist, to back up this idea. --Alvestrand 10:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the "Works Cited" belong to the article "School Paper". My suggestion is just an idea a friend made, and it sounded like a credible way to deal with a large, world-wide problem that affects everyone on the planet and will do so for many years. Second, I was hoping that setting off an underground atomic bomb near a large amount of nuclear waste would reduce the amount of radioactive material in the world today. Material that if left alone, could be radioactive for thousands of years. I am sure it would still be radioactive, and dangerous. There just would not be as much to worry about. There would be a lot of radioactive holes in the deep underground, (holes that could be there anyway thanks to atomic testing), but, (in theory), there would be a lot less radioactive waste on the surface of the Earth. Nuclear waste we have to deal with one way or another. [User:204.80.61.10|204.80.61.10]] 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
 * The Russians did some work on this as part of their Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy. The results were not promising. There are many less drastic and more effective ways ofdealig with nuclear waste. --DV8 2XL 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget it! As noted, nuclear bombs MAKE nuclear waste, they don't get rid of it. When a nuke "blows something up," it doesn't just vanish into the 5th dimension. All that happens is that it's heated and spread around. It also gets radiated, but if the radioactive isotopes we want to get rid of could be destroyed by radiating them with neutrons or gamma rays, they wouldn't be coming out of a nuclear reactor to begin with! Think about it. Sbharris 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the longlived actinides can indeed be destroyed by radiating them with neutrons, so a thermonuclear device ( which produces a large flux of 14MeV neutrons ) could theoretically be used to destroy some of the waste. You are however correct that it would be far more sensible to use a fast neutron reactor, or maybe even a fusion reactor, to generate such neutrons, as it would without doubt be safer, controllable, and could extract energy in the process. 137.205.192.27 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Space disposal
I've been on a rampage today, looking for stuff that needs to be completely redone. So I rewrote the section on space disposal. It no longer contains any speculation on the feasibility of space disposal using technology that hasn't been created yet. More importantly, it now refers to a reliable source. I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings but it really needed to go. -- Captaindan 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. These are people who nearly had seizures when we launched Cassini at Saturn with a few kg of Pu-238 in it. Even if we had a magical propulsion system for launching actinides into space for free, I doubt that politically people would tolerate the booster failure risk rate. If 1% of these things are going to fail and go into the ocean, why not just include the other 99% as well, while we're at it? ;). At least if you pick your spot, you can drop casks into ocean crustal subduction zones (which has been suggested). S  B Harris 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"A number of incidents"
"A number of incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly, simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store." This comes from near the end of the article, and I think it needs a "citation needed flag." Not only could people get uptight about this because it doesn't sound entirely neutral, I'd like to read about these incidents.

Copyvio 11-December-2006
Not being sure of the Australian laws on copyrights, I tagged the section as Copyvio since it was a direct cut-and-paste. The information is good, but the copyright is suspect. Simesa 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What part of Aus copyright laws are you unsure about? Im pretty sure I can help, our laws are pretty broadTalk User:Fissionfox 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sacrifice zone?
I couldn't find the reference to sacrifice zones in the Jan. 2007 Scientific American. Can User:Benjiwolf be more specific? In any case I don't believe that any place in the US so designated, with the exception of the nuclear bomb test sites. Paul Studier 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed i was just in the periodical library here in Zurich at the Uni and was leafing thru, i had scientific american and a couple others, pretty sure it was SA, yet ill double check tomorrow, yet it was near the back, a two page review concerning the los alamos area and the various parties there, and it clearly stated 109 or 106 i think "sacrifice zones" across the states...and that makes sense...im suprised its so few...and all i was interested in was that there were 100+ and that this was an interesting fact to put out there...and it was up to someone else to put the link to what was from a scientific journal and is indeed factual...(yes i am terrible!...all the glory and none of the tedious work! yet my typing is slow so its someone elses job to insert all the detailed linkages, ill put the major works i used at the bottom of the page in the reference section yet i dont usually detail all the linkages in the actual article number by number unless i got the stuff of the net... anyways i always try and work with facts from reputed sources, and highly regarded scientific texts)...yet ill get the exactitudes in the morning...as i say...im pro nuke energy...yet i want the facts out there as to its issues and problems so we can do it right...cover ups in this industry are foolish...its things of this nature that have hurt the international nuke industry in the past...if they took better care and were more critical and honest about its problems we wouldnt have had so many of them already...and there has to be a coordinated long term intelligent plan to deal with the waste disposal issues or were going to have a serious nasty mess on our hands, the facts and problems need to be thrown at them so they are forced to deal and solve them...they need some pressure to design the best nuke power industry "product lifecycle management" from design concept to disposal...im thoroughly against some monolithic no checks and balances uber-party...competition!!!...and for healthy competition we need the dirty little details on the industries so people are forced to compete at the highest level and we end up with the best products and systems...hiding the nasty details from the public is the wrong way to go on this one...Benjiwolf 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

I will revert the last two and I wait for evidence that any part of the US, other than bomb test sites, are considered uninhabitable forever. Paul Studier 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between any detectable contamination and a place which is uninhabitable forever.
 * The reference is invalid.
 * This is much to much negativity and scaremongering for the first paragraph. It sounds like mankind is in danger of running out of nonradioactive places to live.
 * and one of the main concerns is with the long distance transportation of the waste from across the United States to this area, and the possible several accidents over time that would occur is an exaggeration. Considering that no one has been injured in the US from a radioactive leak in a transportation accident, and that Japan routinely ships spent nuclear fuel to France, it would seem that the transportation is not that big of a deal.
 * Deletion of though the evidence that this would happen is lacking after sea-based burial has become taboo from fear that such a repository could leak and cause widespread damage is unjustified. In spite of the sinking of several nuclear powered submarines, quite a few nuclear bombs, and quite a few nuclear tests, I know of no evidence of significant contamination of the ocean.

to "Pstudier"...& Transport & Ocean Dumping... a discussion
Hey! It was "american scientist" Jan/Feb...sorry...not "scientific american"...one of them should really change the name some...(clearly one did it to get some of the readership of the other with a similar name)...it was a review as i said, by an MIT physics lecturer of the book "The Nuclear Borderlands"...towards the back section in the reviews...in his review he states "permanently uninhabitable"...so thats what i first went with...yet then i looked up and retrieved that DOE document i gave a link to(1), which is possibly one of the sources the book writer got his material from as the DOE mentions 108 sites...and the book mentions 109 sites so i figured they were talking about the same sites...and it is possible he overstated his case to "permanently uninhabitable"...so i went back and adjusted how i phrased it after looking briefly at a couple of the sites the DOE is trying to remediate...and of course no place will ever be "permanently uninhabitable" as of nuclear waste...it may take tens of thousands of years yes...or much more...yet at some point it is livable again...yet the DOE does state in that document that some sites will not be able to be remediated fully, ever, and people obviously wont be able to live on them or drink the water for a long time despite strong efforts to clean the sites up...I completely disagree though with "too much scaremongering"...the article previously just gave no sense at all about the harm of radioactive materials...it was some abstract document about nuclear chemistry and didnt at all give the notion..which is true...that this is the most difficult and deangerous waste we have to deal with and that it can sometimes last very very long time periods relative to out lifespans...also the article gave no sense about the scope and scale of the types of amounts of waste we are dealing with...it really seemed to me the article was covering up the realities that it is a serious problem...yet i am going to add that some of the "sacrifice zones" are smaller sites and research labs where the remediation issues are somewhat simpler and restoral of some areas is simpler and of more reasonable cost...i need to skim thru more of the DOE document to get a better sense of the 100+ sites...

as to transport issues...i agree in the US so far it has been handled highly professionally with few to no mishaps at least that we hear about...(yet remember much of this stuff is classified and for instance in the soviet union accidents may have happened that we just never heard about)(just read that a ukrainian scientist was even imprisoned after questioning the "official" estimates of damage...we dont hear the true story on this one im afraid)..also the US hasnt been transporting much nuclear waste yet...it has been stored on site mostly...now that they have Carlsbad to take some to, there will be much higher rates of transport...they definitely take serious care so accidents dont happen...yet in all their shipments they fully acknowledge that accidents may indeed happen and take it very seriously and plan accordingly...and over time, say many thousands of years of nuclear waste shipments...accidents just by random chance will happen...and surely in countries with lower standards and care...i felt it good to give a sense of this so it can be addressed as people reading the article might want to go into this field or already be in it...and to better plan or concentrate site locations and waste sites accordingly...anyways i worded that carefully...i just said there was serious concern...which there is, just read a shipment log and plan...and that "possible" accidents would occur over time...which is a very mild statement...just read there have been accidents during transport in bolivia with defective shielding and bus passengers got irradiated...it came out in a court in the UK that a shipment had defective shielding...now reading about a guy that salvaged some nuclear scrap laying around in mexico and later they turned his truck into scrap and made it into chairs and furniture legs for shipment to the states and canada...and just the furniture set the alarms ringing as the new truck drove thru a los alamos monitoring site by chance...then they found the roads the guy drove on were heavily contaminated...and these things are very hard to find and hidden from the public even when the find out...you really have to search for this stuff...they avoid publication at all costs or put classification holds...will we hear about a serious leak in china??? i think not my friend...i think when u start digging ur going to find many accidents over time...just in transport...after now reading some of this stuff i may even strengthen my wording on the transport section...

as to ocean contamination...i very much disagree...i will retrieve some articles and give links to some of the islands in the pacific and concerning nuclear waste in the seas...i think its a serious issue...it is totally banned...yet surely occurs anyways...at least buried in land we can keep track of it...that line "evidence is lacking" i think is false and also encourages dangerous behaviors...im taking it out till u come up with some studies showing there is no harm in dumping nuclear waste in the oceans...

anyways i do think that in the states it might be able to be handled with few mishaps and in a responsible manner...and its too critical and valuable an industry for the states to realistically abandon it at this time point...it is tough to get away with a nuclear materials accident or leak...and the standards are relatively high in the US when it comes to radioactivity...its one of the few forms of pollution everybody pretty much takes seriously...yet in many of these other countries i have serious doubt as to their handling of nuclear waste...there is much bribery and corruption still...lack of transparency...we didnt even hear about a massive accident (chernobyl) until they no longer could hide it...nuclear waste and contamination worldwide is a serious problem and i dont think anyone is taking it seriously...the states might be able to mostly remediate a site like oak ridge...yet what of these other countries when they start to have sites like that? even if they wanted as high a standards, they just dont have the money in many cases to be able to pursue them, and we know full well u can get away with whatever u want in some of these countries...Benjiwolf 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you taking seriously the idea of choking the world in its own CO2 in a century? Now many people have died from nuclear radiation, vs coal and gas mining accidents? How many people from nuclear powerplant accidents (even counting Chernobyl which was ridiculously underdesigned with no containment, then had its backup systems deliberately disabled)? Answer, Chernobyl might be responsible, in its entirety, for one SINGLE month of traffic deaths in any given large developed county. Just one. So get some sense of perspective. You're not dying of radiation. You ARE choking. You do far more dangerous things everyday (like drive) than live anywhere near a modern nuke plant.  S  B Harris 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont drive...i use the Swiss Trains...and we use nuclear power for them even i suppose (20-40% of our energy)...and if everyone had safety & ethical standards like CH, the nuclear waste issue wouldnt be so much a problem...yet even here in CH there was a partial meltdown once...anyways my own CO2 footprint is very minimal...as to choking...it'd take a vast increase in CO2 levels for me to start "choking" from it...more appropriately i am "sweating" in it...anyways u are incomprehensible...Benjiwolf 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Choking is a metaphor. It's poisoning you/us, not radiation. And yes, you seem to have a bad case of double-standarditis. We'd do better to go back to a system of electric trains powered by nukes in the US, but our resources and our geography aren't quite as conducive to it. Nor do we have enough mountains and rivers to power the rest-- our country just isn't geographically built that way. All our good hydroelectric sites are already in use. We've traditionally made our living by aggriculture (which if we subsidized to the extent you do, would bankrupt us) and manufacturing (somebody has to make things). We're also quite active in cleaning up the world (Saddam Hussein and his genocide-- even though it wasn't strictly our business to do it-- the rest of the world should have been in on this), while the Swiss have typically sat on their hands, done nothing against world aggression, and basically just counted their money (during WW II, the Nazi's money). All this can save you a lot of energy! The rest of the world cannot live that way, however. I'm glad your personal environmental footprint so low. I suppose your wife and children commute on the Swiss trains also? Families are still needed, you know. Just not large ones. S  B Harris 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

to the doctor
"double standarditis"??? i said in my edits to this that i am pro-nuclear energy...i am just for some accurate info as to the serious problem of nuke waste so the industry will have to competently address this problem...this article was covering up the realities that there are problems with the nuke energy issue, and that the amounts of nuke waste involved are large...you can be pro-nuke power & anti-nuke pollution...and it is not some rosy world where nuclear energy is our end all and be all, sent from the heavens and devoid of problems...this industry like others needs criticism...and actually i have american citizenship as well, by some accounts still, and my grandfather fought with honors and medals for bravery in WWII in europe...and my brother serves in the US military now in a "special unit"...so lay off...and for the record i felt if saddam was such a problem, which in some ways he was, then he should have been taken out thru espionage, air power, and commando raid...not massive land invasion and occupation... even tho such a scenario puts people like in my brothers area of the military in greater danger perhaps...and i think ull find that the general (Norman S) that used mainly air power in the Gulf War I, who was very successful with a decisive victory...eliminating iraqs capability to aggress, was of a similar opinion before this "foray" into the desert of cheneys and bushies...and did GW find any weapons of serious note after Normans victory...no... Benjiwolf 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

as to Switzerland and world aggression...switzerland has been invaded many times...and thoroughly repulsed the invaders...it attempts international influence thru peaceful and diplomatic means...it has a policy of not engaging in wars in foreign lands...and it was everyones wish...including the allies...that CH remain neutral in WWII...as it has done thruout the last many hundred years...to remain the only safe country where international monetary exchange and diplomacy could be carried out between the various warring parties...they counted everyones money in WWII...and thats what everyone wanted...yet anyways...no one is perfect...and neither is switzerland...

as to trains... there is no excuse for not having a better train system in the states...

as to agriculture...it is a very minor part of the economies to both the US and CH...and the US subsidizes a vast sum of money compared to CH...CH has a small number of farmers...and takes care of them well...like it does its entire population...even though its wealth level per person is lower than americas in many reasonings...the farmers in switzerland are typically actual small farmers that physically work on the land, and not merely business people and investors like so many in the states as well...anyways if people dont want to subsidize farmers so much like in the US or Europe...then theyll have to get used to higher food prices...or the outsourcing of their ag systems to countries with even lower standards for workers, chemicals, and sustainable farming methods...yet i am for cautious re-arrangement of the subsidy systems to encourage better farming methods...

Error?
"...sometimes many thousands of acres[5](&DOE)[6] The DOE wishes to try..." Is the "(&DOE)" an attempt at wiki syntax? Or is it just an error or something? Talk User:Fissionfox 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The italian link is completely wrong!
The italian link takes to a little page about the nuclear fallout.

If there is no correlation the link could be erased.

However, take care of this link about how to use radioactive waste to produce precious metals.
It is from a forum of an italian national television:

http://www.la7.it/community/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=14133&start=1

In the same topic there is also the description of how to produce artificial diamants of 10 carats an "above" of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.

In short, precious metals can be produced from radioactive waste, and the new tabletop particle accelerators of two Universities can do the rest.

The project to burn nuclear waste was also promoted by the Nobel Price Carlo Rubbia, and to produce precious metals is a subproduct of this method of nuclear burning with a linear particle accelerator.

Many posts are in English.

And I think you must give an eye on these too.
Carlo Ceballos obtains PhD on shorter life-span of radioactive waste 05 February 2007 by TNWToday | M&C

http://www.tnw.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=57ba3c4a-4b79-4474-820d-2c1237876169&lang=en

A more general view on this process with a bit of history about particle accelerators for this project (2002?):

http://www.neutron.kth.se/publications/conference_papers/W_Gudowski_FR202_1.PDF

Bye.

(someguy)

this shit is really interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

The nature and significance of radioactive waste, Physics
The following passage "Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia" and the few preceeding it need to be deleted or edited because they present information in biased way. The particles with half-life of "hundreds millenia" are -while not entirely stable - not active enough to be hazardous in any meaningful way. It's a misconception that anything radioactive (i.e. unstable) is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.8.2 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First deep final repositories in 2010?
The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) was commissioned a few years ago, but the first sentence in the geological disposal section says that there won't be one till 2010.

I put in a reference to WIPP, but I did not want to take on the task of rewriting the first part of this section. Perhaps WIPP is not considered a deep final repository? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.15 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WIPP is not for high level waste, only transuranic waste. Paul Studier (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remix & return
The remix & return idea sounds rather unlikely to me. The problem with spent fuel is not just that the Uranium has been refined to a thousandfold concentration. If that were all, it would indeed be a simple matter of remixing it to get the original level of radiation. But the Uranium has been made many times more radioactive. It might be an option for less radioactive waste that has the level of radioactivity of pure natural Uranium, but not for the Uranium itself. For that, it would have to be diluted to a much larger volume than what originally came out of the mine. In other words, it wouldn't fit back in. Or is the idea to dispose of just a fraction of the waste this way? If so, that should be made clear in the article. What percentage could be disposed of this way? Only a tiny fraction, I assume. DirkvdM 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They are saying that after some period of cooling, the waste is about as radioactive as the original uranium ore or less. However the fission products and actinides in spent fuel are chemically different from the original uranium and its decay products, and therefore some like neptunium-237 may not be as well isolated from spreading in groundwater etc. I think it is brought up more to make a rhetorical point, that uranium is already radioactive and in the earth and that fissioning it does not increase radioactivity except in the short run. --JWB (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ocean?
I've heard that due to the mass of most nuclear waste, it is reasonably safe to simply dump it deep into the ocean. Is there any truth to this claim? 71.242.154.167 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a bit in the article about this, under the heading Geological disposal, second-to-last paragraph, starting "Sea-based options for disposal of radioactive waste (...)". Phaunt 09:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't see that before. 71.242.154.167 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The subduction zone option would probably be the safest method of sea dumping, as the waste would be pulled into the mantle and destroyed. However, wouldn't there be a slight possibility that radiation could escape during this process? Due to the nature of high-level waste, it would need to be stored in (probably) lead barrels, which would then melt into the mantle and affect the composition of the mantle itself. Just stipulating, but wouldn't this have an effect on the rest of the world? Leon Xavier (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Just to be precise, the idea is that radioactivity would be dispersed into mantle material and kept out of the biosphere for very long time, allowing time for its natural decay. (2) There is no particular need for lead containers; carbon steel may well suffice.  (3) The amount of container material, waste/or and radioactivity mixed into the mantle would surely be too small to have any effect on the mantle behavior. PJG 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)     —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giersp (talk • contribs)