Thank you for your post, I just want to point out that I am not trying to compare nuclear vs fossil waste. It is obvious to me that fossil energies create much more damage than nuclear waste.
Granted the amount of HLW is marginal, yet the *low-level nuclear wastes disposal sites* contains some medium to high level as well, in smaller quantities, by the own admission of their owners. It has been proven that it is practically impossible to separate and triage all of the wastes and some HLW and MLW can be mixed in the lots. Also MLW and HLW have to be stored somewhere, and most companies try to split them in their sites. Creating a coffer for these would require burying HLW so deep underground that the venture is simply astronomical in terms of costs.
You said radically less time, that much is true when you compare to 24K years for HLW, but that still means 30 to 100 to 1-2k years depending on the type of waste. Also when there is abundant rain or/and earthquakes, a small portion escapes the coffer and is leaked into the surrounding environment (underground aquifer, plants, animals, etc.).
Chalk River (Isotope facility - Canada): There has been contamination in the St-Lawrence river since it's creation, as proven by many scientists that took samples in the surrounding wilderness / wildlife. Recently, in March, a project (in French, sorry) has been submitted to create yet a new nuclear waste disposal facility, located less than 1KM of the Ottawa river. The technology has evolved significantly to prevent such leakage, new types of coffers for instance, but there is simply no way a coffer can be 100% leak-proof. Any waste leak damages what it touches, no matter the quantity. Also the major issues with these sites is that given the amount of time they need to remain operational (we're talking centuries), you need to ensure a certain continuity with the next generations. Some future leaders might not prove wise and cut the investments resulting in deficient maintenance.
Agreed, underwater testing did its part as well.
That's correct, but still many children in the Russian Federation and over 5000 people were affected by Thyroid cancer and other illnesses, resulting mostly from drinking milk of local cows. This could have been easily prevented if the authorities actually informed their citizens about the dangers of drinking locally produce food.(Source: World Health Organization)
Couldn't be more true.
1. Chernobyl had very poor safeguard measures. They waited too long to activate the iron poles to block the reaction in the core, and when they did, the heat had melted the conduits so much it wasn't operational anymore. The heroic action of two divers prevented the radiation *soup* from reaching the lower levels that were flooded with water, by activating the pumps. If the *soup* would've made contact with the water below, the resulting explosion would've been of biblical proportions (a radius of approximately 300KM would've been annihilated). Not to mention the amount of workers that also gave their lives to build a big concrete bowl underground in order to catch the *soup*. Truly, it is a miracle that the catastrophe of a complete meltdown of the adjacent reactors was averted.
2. The lead scientist of the project made a series of bad to ridiculously reckless and stupid decisions when he gave the go ahead to proceed with the test, ignoring the warnings from his workers and all employees of the facility. The reactor wasn't even working properly when they begun the test!
3. Authorities waited for days (I think one full week?) before ordering an evacuation of Pripyat and other surrounding towns, and in a classic USSR fashion, kept the whole thing under wrap as long as they could.
Yes nature is stronger than we all think, wildlife has reclaimed the area and actually is thriving according to a recent survey, since there is no human activity anymore. To this day though, some areas surrounding the reactor is still off limits, many *hot spots* remain and are deadly radioactive.
The main problem with these leaks is that it is really hard to measure its effects. People can get sick naturally, or artificially, quite hard to tell unless the victims had direct contact. The wind carries radiation, and I remember for some time there were concerns about the radiation cloud reaching British Columbia coast.
Stating that humans have no impact on Earth's climate is ludicrous. Nuclear energy is *cleaner* until an incident happens or a bomb gets dropped.
My apologies for the long post, this is a subject that I am passionate about and I've gone a bit off topic
HLW represents a very small percentage of waste that and be piled up on a football field (American) a few feet high. Most other waste can decay to a more natural point a radically less time and a lot can be reused and recycled. Nuclear power isn't a solution, not long term, but it is a way to buy us a few decades maybe even a century or two of time if we went for it.
You said radically less time, that much is true when you compare to 24K years for HLW, but that still means 30 to 100 to 1-2k years depending on the type of waste. Also when there is abundant rain or/and earthquakes, a small portion escapes the coffer and is leaked into the surrounding environment (underground aquifer, plants, animals, etc.).
Chalk River (Isotope facility - Canada): There has been contamination in the St-Lawrence river since it's creation, as proven by many scientists that took samples in the surrounding wilderness / wildlife. Recently, in March, a project (in French, sorry) has been submitted to create yet a new nuclear waste disposal facility, located less than 1KM of the Ottawa river. The technology has evolved significantly to prevent such leakage, new types of coffers for instance, but there is simply no way a coffer can be 100% leak-proof. Any waste leak damages what it touches, no matter the quantity. Also the major issues with these sites is that given the amount of time they need to remain operational (we're talking centuries), you need to ensure a certain continuity with the next generations. Some future leaders might not prove wise and cut the investments resulting in deficient maintenance.
As for those incidents, the damage has been done with all the actual nuclear explosions from the era of above ground testing.
Agreed, underwater testing did its part as well.
Chernobyl caused more damage in loss of land than in human life...mostly actual plant workers and first responders were the victims as far as radiation poisoning.
Not to mention Chernobyl used a reactor that the US (and everyone else) didn't use, a ver faulty one at that. It's telling that the USSR didn't have more Chernobyls. What happened there was a perfect storm of horrible designing, atrocious disregard for safety protocols followed by...everyone outside of the USSR, and a suicidal response of "nothing to see here, move along".
1. Chernobyl had very poor safeguard measures. They waited too long to activate the iron poles to block the reaction in the core, and when they did, the heat had melted the conduits so much it wasn't operational anymore. The heroic action of two divers prevented the radiation *soup* from reaching the lower levels that were flooded with water, by activating the pumps. If the *soup* would've made contact with the water below, the resulting explosion would've been of biblical proportions (a radius of approximately 300KM would've been annihilated). Not to mention the amount of workers that also gave their lives to build a big concrete bowl underground in order to catch the *soup*. Truly, it is a miracle that the catastrophe of a complete meltdown of the adjacent reactors was averted.
2. The lead scientist of the project made a series of bad to ridiculously reckless and stupid decisions when he gave the go ahead to proceed with the test, ignoring the warnings from his workers and all employees of the facility. The reactor wasn't even working properly when they begun the test!
3. Authorities waited for days (I think one full week?) before ordering an evacuation of Pripyat and other surrounding towns, and in a classic USSR fashion, kept the whole thing under wrap as long as they could.
The zone around it is teeming with wildlife...and apparently a tourist trap...but its radiation levels are below hazardous levels.
Fukushima was mostly a small leak in the wake of a massive natural disaster. The only deaths recorded were tsunami related, not nuclear related. So far Nuclear power has killed about ten times less people than hydroelectric power (dams breaking apart). Everyone south of the Hoover Dam has a greater risk of sudden death or loss of property than people around Three Mile Island ever did.
Stating that humans have no impact on Earth's climate is ludicrous. Nuclear energy is *cleaner* until an incident happens or a bomb gets dropped.
My apologies for the long post, this is a subject that I am passionate about and I've gone a bit off topic
Comment