[ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo

[jjcohen]

I certainly agree with your comments. When I proposed deep
oceanic disposal of nuclear waste, I did not have spent fuel in
mind. It is a shame that since Pres. Carter's unfortunate decision,
nuclear waste and spent fuel have been considered synonymous.
The only sensible policy would be to reprocess spent fuel,
recover useful fissionable nuclides and  fission products,
and then, dispose of the residual waste into the deep
ocean trenches.
Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message -----
From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo


>
> For those of us who see expanding nuclear power as necessary
> for the continuation of civilization into the distant future, there is a
> powerful argument against seabed disposal of spent fuel: with
> today's thermal reactors, 95+% of the energy in the original fuel
> is still there
>
> Currently available fast-reactor technology can extract that energy.
> To dump it into the ocean would be unconscionable.
>
> When we finally have a rational nuclear energy deployment, and
> only the true waste -- the fission products -- has to be disposed
> of, then let's put it on the ocean floor, where it belongs.
>
> For now, let's let the Greens carry the day on this one, and be
> thankful that we have the Law of the Sea to protect us from ourselves.
>
>          George Stanford
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> At 08:25 AM 4/15/2005, James Salsman wrote:
> Douglas Minnema wrote:
>
> >...  The United States along with most other nations signed the London
> >Convention in October, 1993, banning until the year 2018 the disposal of
> >radioactive materials at sea....
>
> I think the National Academies' report of 6 April clearly suggests the
> need to immediately abrogate from that agreement.
>
> We have withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 so we
> can build a missile defense system which has, to put it mildly, failed
> essentially all of its recent tests, not to mention being plagued with
> cost overruns and accusations of test rigging misconduct.  Surely the
> clear and present threat of nuclear waste dump ignition is enough to
> get out of the London Convention.  Anyone can get a complete list of
> all the nuclear waste disposal ponds from the Internet Archive.
>
> Are the responsible officials going to act on this immediately, or
> will they leave those of us near the dump ponds as sitting ducks?
>
> Who will join me in a 10 CFR 2.206 petition to the NRC on this matter?
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe