From: kocks@leland.Stanford.EDU (Peter Kocks)
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:28:57 GMT

In article <82343@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1678600048@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> |Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?
|> 

I suggest that we simply "store" the waste, as opposed to, dispose of the waste.
Most people are concerned with the long half lives of heavy radioactive particles
and our ability to dispose of them safely for 10,000 of years.  Unfortunately,
this type of argument, or concern, is not justified given the options we have 
with regard to energy production and the necessary waste associated with its
production.  Consider the following.

1).  Radioactive particles which have long half lives decay slowly.  This
statement should be incredibly obvious and is critical in the understanding
of radioactive waste.  Since particles which decay slowly only emit
radiation occasionally, they are less dangerous that particles which decay
quickly and emit lots of radiation.  The other important factor is the
density of the radioactive material: the more dense, the more dangerous.
The point of all of this is that it is wrong to think that simply because
a waste has a long half live, it will be dangerous for a long time.  There
is of course some very dense, long half life, radioactive material in
the waste stream, but the quantity is very small compared to the waste
created by other means of energy production and this waste material tends
to be very high in energy and can, given the correct market forces, be used
in a commercial setting again.

2)  Almost all other waste DOES NOT HAVE A HALF LIFE at all.  Consider heavy
metals that are part of the waste stream as a result of burning coal.  They
do not have half lives and almost all of them (I think in fact all) are
serious hazardous wastes.  The amount of heavy metal waste we get from 
burning coal is huge compared to that obtained from fission.  Not to mention
the C02 in the air or the huge gaping holes across our fine land from
mining coal.  Those holes are creating water problems that will last for
at least a 1,000 years if not 10,000 of years.

3)  If I am given the choice of keeping track of all the hazardous waste
created by mining an burning coal compared to the substatially smaller amount
of waste created from mining uranium and the even smaller amount of highly
radioactive waste.  I would take the small amount of more hazardous waste
any day.  For the next several generations we will have to keep track of
all hazardous waste we are producing today, both heavy metal and radioactive.  
I do not believe in disposing of either of these wastes, rather I would
contain them and monitor them.  If given the choice between monitoring 
some very, very, radioactive hazardous waste which occupies the space of
lets say a bag of fertilizer and some very hazardous heavy metal waste which
occupies the space of an entire football field,  I'ld take the radioactive
waste.  

4)  The point is we have to watch our waste anyway, so why not only 
watch the smallest amount we can.  I propose storing highly radioactive
waste above ground and keeping an eye on it.  I don't like the idea
of "disposing" of radioactive waste.  I also don't like the idea of
disposing of heavy metal waste.  


|> 
|> Chernobyl was a long string of incredibly stupid moves.  Starting with a
|> brain dead design, followed by an assinine decision not to build a
|> containment vessel.  You can get more radiation from a couple of chest
|> x-rays than was released at Three-Mile Island.
|> 

Accidents will happen, but they must be taken in context.  Chernobyl was
aweful and will undoubtly cost several thousand lives in the end.  But, 
how many people have died from the carcinogenic particulate matter
emitted from coal burning plants?  Hard to tell, but it is a lot more
than zero.  Nuclear reactors provide you with the opportunity to
create energy without causing the loss of life in the community
surrounding the plant.  Coal does not.  You will kill people in the area
if you burn coal. 


|> 
|> If you are concerned about this, I suggest that you never get any x-rays,
|> travel by plane, or live near any place that has exposed granite.
|> The diferences in the level of background radiation between various parts
|> of the US alone, is several orders of magnitude greater than the
|> largest allowable release from a nuclear plant.
|> | 

Three mile island was also several orders of magnitude smaller than
the radioactivety for Mt. Saint Helen.


--Peter Kocks
  kocks@chemistry.stanford.edu


P.S.  Obviously there are other forms of energy than nuclear and
coal.  We should use them if they are safe.  But, in most cases
where a nuclear power plant was not built, a coal buring plant
(or two) was built in its place.