"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Anthony Matonak wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it
out of the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a
safe
place !

What's absurdly simple about devising 'containment' for radioactively
and
thermally hot chemicals, that must remain hermetically sealed for the
order
of millions of years?

They don't have to remain sealed for millions of years. I think most of
the stuff only needs to be stored for a few thousand years at most and
the worst stuff is pretty safe after a few hundred.

I think even a few tens of years calms the stuff down quite a lot.

Graham
If you are talking tritium or stromium 90 totally decayed is more like it.
One other thing .....one wonders about is talking about sealing everything
in sight.
Not recycling or the eco impact of the unmined nuke material ....many speak
of a grain
creating mass disaster at every corner.What about the tons in the ground
unmined on mass disaster?
Are we to believe that we have naturally occuring toxic waste sites?
Dating back before the pyamids,etc.,etc......
Maybe moses should have been arranging a super fund to clean up Nevada and
Austrialia.
And Noah checking his ark insurance policy for radiation poisoning from
uranium fields in Libya.
(Sort of unclear on whether he knew where he was ...much less if he cruised
over Libya)



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----