Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Nuclear Energy Waste is Buried. Does it make sense to you?
Here's some rough facts. Hold on to your chair. U-238 rods, after a given amount of sacrificial depletion are less stable, and not safely usable for nuclear reactors. Greater amounts of the lower portions of these rods actually become Plutonium.
.
A conservative estimated half-life of the ore mix in this form is about 16 million years. To those not scientifically minded, this means that it would take 32 million years for the ore to theoretically no longer emit deadly radioactivity and be safe for open environment exposure
The problem:
The best radioactive encasement that technology can produce to date is able to safely protect us from these deadly emissions for a generous estimate of 2200 years. After this amount of time the radioactivity will breach through the encasement.
.
Currently, the only solution to this is to someday begin to pull the waste and put it into a new encasement. This is a very expensive solution that has not been fortified financially by the waste itself, and nothing is being given any serious considerations yet as we are just 'leaning on the current encasement plan" for now. We are hoping that someone will develop either a way to neutralize the waste, use it further for energy, or figure out a final stage burial method for these waste rods.
.
In the meantime, we are still bury the waste every day.
I do know about nuclear energy and its great efficiency level. That no other pollutants are created and the only questionable area is the warming of sea water by certain power plants and the potential of catastrophic meltdown. These are some things to consider also.
Can we really call it "clean" power when we are left with such high potential waste. How safe are we if a plant were taken to a heavy artillery air strike?
I'm not talking about a threat to the birds that hang out on top of the reactor to keep warm either. Many plants and storage areas are not at all out in the middle of nowhere, and where is the middle of nowhere on a 25,000 circumfrance when it comes to depleted U-238 rods to Plutonium?
Nuclear waste is kept accessable, and is constantly monitored. This is currently written into the power costs of course, since it is being done now. It is not buried deep but as said, is accessable. As we see the problem, why do we still add to it before even a foresight of a solution?
6 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
it's like burying a nuclear time bomb for our grandchildren to fix"maybe" or just die off....sick and should be stopped at all cost..
wtf our we doing to our children unreal
Source(s): heart - Anonymous1 decade ago
Burying it is like trying to burying a problem.
If you bury it deep underground, if something goes wrong, like a fire, a leak, or an earthquake, by the time you notice there's a problem, it'll be too late.
This is stuff we need to keep an eye on, not bury & forget.
Also, U-235 is generally used as fuel, not U-238.
________
MEGA LOL at whoever said "shoot it into the sun".
And if the rocket blows up, as many rockets do (even 2 shuttles full of people so far), THEN WHAT?????
One exploding rocket full of plutonium would be enough to give cancer to practically everyone on earth. NOT A GOOD PLAN.
_____
There ARE proposals to bury waste, and bury it deep. See "Yucca Mountain".
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The nuclear issue hasn't fully impacted humans yet, it seems we act only when the situation is dire. I don't understand why as a species we can't accept that prevention is the best cure for any problem. Is that such a difficult concept?
The same thing is going on with CFL bulbs. The regular incandescent light bulbs are being phased out by law so all you will be able to use is the "energy efficient " CFLs. Most people don't realize that the mercury in the bulbs is toxic waste and is illegal to throw into your garbage can. Some of my friends have been just throwing them out because they had no idea. You are supposed to take it "somewhere" to have it recycled but no one seems to no where. Most of the time you have to take them to a larger city that deals with them.
The mercury in the garbage dumps will eventually find its way into the ground water and our drinking water. A half a gram of Hg is sufficient to contaminate 5 million gallons of water or 200 Olympic-sized pools.
If you break a bulb in your house you are supposed to evacuate your pets and children, open windows and doors to allow out gassing, wear clothes and rubber gloves you intend to bring to the toxic waste facility, wipe-push up the mess with a towel and bag everything up.
I broke a bulb in my house and freaked out because I have small children (one that already has neurological issues from heavy metals) I called the poison control center and they told me to vacuum it out of my carpet. I did, trusting them, and later found out I had spread the mercury all over my house by dispersing it with my vacuum. Plus, my $800 vacuum was contaminated and unusable. You are supposed to CUT your carpet out where the spill was. You can't put your clothes in the wash machine or you'll contaminate your machine forever plus the water you use.
There are stories of people having to call hazz mat in to deal with broken bulbs in homes and work places.
I simply can't believe that CFL's are being touted as such a solution when no one here is considering the resulting waste and contamination. Parts of Europe have banned them, especially for the use in children's bedrooms. How in the world can they be feasibly considered a safe household good? Are we completely nuts here? Remember Asbetos?
I'm so tired of people brushing these issues off as nothing two worry about. I care about the future of the children of this world we are poisoning, let alone the damage we are inflicting on all the rest of the living creatures.
How can we be so negligent?
- 1 decade ago
you are really "not too smart". nuclear waste is so so so much less of a problem than CO2. what do you think is better completely destroying our envirorment by burning fossil fuels or by making some nuclearwastee which is easily taken care of.
this huge meltdown your talking about is not whatsciencee fiction has displayed it as. yes there is radiation but no it dosent explode into a huge mushroom cloud.
about the airstrike... any plane that could get past our airforce anddefensee systems to drop bombs on a nuclearpower plantt is probablyy a person who could more easily send us a nice nuclear present from space that is more likley to succseed and would do many times more damage due to the fallout which could travel across the entire country.
about burrying it.. its underneath mountains i mean look online... even if it were pored out in a hole that deep the mountain would absorb all of the radiation that is emmited.
so go get back to your 7th grade project and lie to your classmates
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- E TrainLv 51 decade ago
First off we dont bury it we cover it up in containers under the ground. Burying it is like forgetting it, we have to constantly monitor it. I say we shoot it all to the sun and the sun will burn it all up.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I ask where did the fuel come from? Answer the ground! What is wrong wit putting it back?