Space disposal I ve been on a rampage today looking for stuff that needs to be completely redone So I rewrote the section on space disposal It no longer contains any speculation on the feasibility of space disposal using technology that hasn t been created yet More importantly it now refers to a reliable source I hope I haven t hurt anyone s feelings but it really needed to go Thanks These are people who nearly had seizures when we launched Cassini at Saturn with a few kg of Pu 238 in it Even if we had a magical propulsion system for launching actinides into space for free I doubt that politically people would tolerate the booster failure risk rate If 1 of these things are going to fail and go into the ocean why not just include the other 99 as well while we re at it At least if you pick your spot you can drop casks into ocean crustal subduction zones which has been suggested A number of incidents A number of incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store This comes from near the end of the article and I think it needs a citation needed flag Not only could people get uptight about this because it doesn t sound entirely neutral I d like to read about these incidents Copyvio 11 December 2006 Not being sure of the Australian laws on copyrights I tagged the section as Copyvio since it was a direct cut and paste The information is good but the copyright is suspect What part of Aus copyright laws are you unsure about I m pretty sure I can help our laws are pretty broadTalk User Fissionfox Sacrifice zone I couldn t find the reference to sacrifice zones in the Jan 2007 Scientific American Can Indeed i was just in the periodical library here in Zurich at the Uni and was leafing thru i had scientific american and a couple others pretty sure it was SA yet ill double check tomorrow yet it was near the back a two page review concerning the los alamos area and the various parties there and it clearly stated 109 or 106 i think sacrifice zones across the states and that makes sense i m suprised its so few and all i was interested in was that there were 100 and that this was an interesting fact to put out there and it was up to someone else to put the link to what was from a scientific journal and is indeed factual yes i am terrible all the glory and none of the tedious work yet my typing is slow so its someone elses job to insert all the detailed linkages ill put the major works i used at the bottom of the page in the reference section yet i do nt usually detail all the linkages in the actual article number by number unless i got the stuff of the net anyways i always try and work with facts from reputed sources and highly regarded scientific texts yet ill get the exactitudes in the morning as i say i m pro nuke energy yet i want the facts out there as to its issues and problems so we can do it right cover ups in this industry are foolish its things of this nature that have hurt the international nuke industry in the past if they took better care and were more critical and honest about its problems we would nt have had so many of them already and there has to be a coordinated long term intelligent plan to deal with the waste disposal issues or were going to have a serious nasty mess on our hands the facts and problems need to be thrown at them so they are forced to deal and solve them they need some pressure to design the best nuke power industry product lifecycle management from design concept to disposal i m thoroughly against some monolithic no checks and balances uber party competition and for healthy competition we need the dirty little details on the industries so people are forced to compete at the highest level and we end up with the best products and systems hiding the nasty details from the public is the wrong way to go on this one Some comments There is a big difference between any detectable contamination and a place which is uninhabitable forever The reference