Re: Fw: Russian Waste Repository

[AndrewsJP@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 6/2/2001 12:28:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 

RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:



> You still need to dispose of the radwaste from reprocessing.  You still 

need 

>  to dispose of the radwaste from reprocessing.  You still need to dispose 

of 

>  the radwaste from  reprocessing.....

>  

Ruth, I agree with most of what you say, but...



Of course we do.  Two issues are here, however.  One is disposal of unwanted 

dangerous materials "forever," and the other is recovery of usable materials 

for the continued generation of electricity for thousands of years.



Seems to me that the first is issue is solved by fixing the materials 

chemically and isolating the material until it is no longer dangerous.  

Vitrification and desert storage or burial appear to be appropriate.  For low 

level wastes, the vitrification process is not necessary because the amount 

of material is small.  Similarly, for low level wastes even desert storage is 

not necessary if isolation can be obtained for a reasonable period of time.



The second issue is vitally important to assure power for the future of the 

world. Reprocessing is required to fuel the breeder reactors of the future. 

Without reprocessing, there will ultimately be a decline in the production of 

electricity while demand increases. On a world scale this could be 

politically catastrophic but will occur well past our lifetimes.



The public issue is of greater importance than many of the RADSAFE group seem 

to realize.  This is mostly from ignorance of the issues.  I talked to an 

environmental engineer yesterday.  (I bought a computer from him.)  We talked 

about nuclear power when he discovered I was a Health Physicist.  "Nuclear 

power plants are dangerous," he said.  "So are other power plants," I said.  

Dams break! Steam plants explode (though none recently). "Well, waste is 

dangerous," he said.  I said, "What waste accident have you heard about that 

makes you think that?"  He had no answer. My point is that the public only 

hears from the antinuclear folks.  Not from the technical side.  Seems to me 

that the issues that we are discussing here "in private" should be those that 

are on the letters pages of the news papers all over the country.  We are 

preaching and arguing to ourselves instead of to those who we should be 

talking to.



How do we decide what is important? One of the ways I use is to use the 

principles of "important performance."  This weights each of the 

(independent) performance issues by an importance factor.  It quickly leads 

one to common sense decisions because unimportant issues are not given great 

value in the decision process. For example, from recent discussion threads, 

who should care very much if the waste enters the volcanic system and gets 

into "my" lava rocks, or misses the subduction zone and sits on the bottom, 

or all goes in one place or gets dispersed, or even gets dumped only halfway 

to the dump location to save money in transport. None of these are very 

important! The important thing is isolation and inert form. Then all the rest 

don't matter very much.



On and on....



You all have a nice weekend.  



John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.