Awesome Nuclear Power - The Best For Economic Development?

[Alan B]

Sure, there is the 20,000 year half life of Plutonium, but the majority of the radioisotopes have much shorter half lives. The combined activity graph approximates a negative exponential curve, with steep initial declines.

One cannot assume that because the short term stuff is in the majority that somehow the long term stuff can be 'absorbed' in the decay calculations.

The long term stuff must be isolated and treated separately according to it's properties.We are not talking theory or statistics here, but practical treatment of highly dangerous substances.

[Jason]

The "best" option for disposing nuclear waste is to bury it deep underground in the most sparsely populated geologically most stable area that can be found. That would be somewhere out back in South Australia. Maralinga comes to mind. It lies within the 122,188 square kilometre region called Woomera, and is already a prohibited area for defence reasons. The UK used it to test its atom bombs, exploding seven of them there between 1956 and 1963.





It'll still cost many billions of dollars, and there's always the NIMBY problem, but it is the best currently doable solution.

How about the Canadian shield? It's huge, stable, and available.

[Woodbutcher]

They have some storage sites already, and are considering building some more in my neck of the woods.

[laklak]

Build the Mexican wall with it. All you'll need to find the illegals is a Geiger counter.