nytimes.com— The Bush administration will recommend enlarging the proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada?s Yucca Mountain, rather than open another.
Nov 7, 2008View in Crawl 4
oh please. i guess you can't convey humor sans /sarcasm. RTFA, then think about how s**t gets passed, and then think about reading 17 packed binders of Nuclear dumping write-up, chortle, then get back to me.
Vitrify it, encase it in concrete, and dump it in the rifts between the continental plates so it gets sucked under the Earth's crust. Safe, cheap, and easy.
Reusing it would make more sense. When we first started distilling crude oil, gasoline was this highly volatile by-product noone wanted, and it was poured into streams or burned. Now it's the number one distillate. As we learn more about nuclear power, we will learn how to reuse the by-products. Storing it in a returnable manner is the most logical choice.
There's some concern that spent fuel rods, in concentrated locations, might bombard each other with enough particles to cause them to undergo changes and eventually go critical.
"what if an earthquake or similar event"An earthquake would be caused by the plates moving under one another, which would presumably bury the casks."causes the casks to rupture and release large amounts of plutonium into the water?"Plutonium is a solid, you know, and it would be vitrified, so it would be inert anyway.
hetmanNov 7, 2008
"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." So Vegas is just going ot have to suck it up for awhile.
awtrippNov 7, 2008
oh please. i guess you can't convey humor sans /sarcasm. RTFA, then think about how s**t gets passed, and then think about reading 17 packed binders of Nuclear dumping write-up, chortle, then get back to me.
Closed AccountNov 7, 2008
How about I dont ask anything from my country so I don't have to give anything back to it. Deal? Get the hell out of my life.
honestabeNov 8, 2008
Vitrify it, encase it in concrete, and dump it in the rifts between the continental plates so it gets sucked under the Earth's crust. Safe, cheap, and easy.
bemenakerNov 8, 2008
Reusing it would make more sense. When we first started distilling crude oil, gasoline was this highly volatile by-product noone wanted, and it was poured into streams or burned. Now it's the number one distillate. As we learn more about nuclear power, we will learn how to reuse the by-products. Storing it in a returnable manner is the most logical choice.
bemenakerNov 8, 2008
You can burn the plutonium in a reactor as fuel.
solidcubeNov 9, 2008
There's some concern that spent fuel rods, in concentrated locations, might bombard each other with enough particles to cause them to undergo changes and eventually go critical.
honestabeDec 3, 2008
"what if an earthquake or similar event"An earthquake would be caused by the plates moving under one another, which would presumably bury the casks."causes the casks to rupture and release large amounts of plutonium into the water?"Plutonium is a solid, you know, and it would be vitrified, so it would be inert anyway.