Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political solution)?

["Ed Bradley" <edward.w.bradley@prodigy.net>]

Disposal of High Level Radioactive Waste in deep ocean trenches (>10 km
depth) may not be a good idea if the waste is still generating heat.  Please
reference a recent Scientific American article (11/99) about methane
deposits frozen in ice at those depths.  These deposits are quite
substantial.  Sudden releases of methane would provide additional ammunition
for the greenhouse folks.

Ed Bradley, CHP
edward.w.bradley@prodigy.net


----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political solution)?


> I can't agree that we will "need" geologic disposal. Actually, there is an
> alternative nuclear waste disposal method that would be far more economic
> and much more safe. That alternative is oceanic disposal [not subseabed
> disposal, but simply-- solidify the waste, take it out over a deep ocean
> trench (> 10 km depth), and  push it overboard]. Despite many attempts, we
> could find no credible scientific scenario where this method could result
> dire consequnses to either human health or to the environment. Perhaps
> someone else could identify such a scenario. You are certainly welcome to
> try, but it would likely be an excercise in futility. While oceanic
disposal
> may be the best technological solution, it is probably the least
acceptible
> politically.  Based on the history of nuclear waste policy to date,
> scientific considerations are unimportant  and  politics is overriding.
> Isn't that a shame?         jjcohen@prodigy.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Andrew Tompkins <jatalbq@mindspring.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political solution)?
>
>
> >Mark,
> >
> >I always advocated calling it the Yucca Mtn. "Piggy Bank" or
"Depository".
> >It is technically far easier to reprocess 20 year old spent fuel than 1
> >year cooled material.  The option of removing it from storage and
> >reprocessing it is great if you are worried about future energy supplies.
> >You still ultimately need geologic disposal for spent fuel and vitrified
> >glass logs.
> >
> >Andy Tompkins
> >Woodstock, GA
> >
> >
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html