Final deposit of nuclear waste

[The Brain]

For whatever reason I have been reading up on nuclear waste recently, specifically the final deposit of same. I already knew that the current plans are ridiculous overkill, but I got some suspicions confirmed.

When I look at shit I am initially most interested in the basic foundations. So I read some reports to try to find out what exactly the Swedish final deposit is supposed to prevent (measured in deaths, financial loss etc). Since then, you know, you'd know how much to invest in this prevention. As I suspected I couldn't find any explicit scenario measured in these terms, only in radiation doses to local humans (which may be acceptable). What I did find (or get confirmed) was that they don't seem to have a system to assign values to received doses (or other negative consequences) at different points in time. The interest, so to speak. Which is major fail. They completely avoid the elephant that a guy getting some dose in 1,000 years is NOT the same (in a meaningful way) as the guy getting it today. Thousands and thousands of pages but the question "is this investment sound" remains unasked. Which is a bit silly since in other fields you always discuss safety and human lives in a money perspective (like when discussing whether you should improve a dangerous stretch of road etc).

Regarding overkill: worrying about what happens to waste once you bury it in bedrock is irrational. I knew this before. What I didn't know is that according to the people whose livelihoods depend on this irrational stuff the special safety barriers (copper capsule surrounded by special clay) make no really significant difference. If you just throw the fuel into the tunnels you still don't get any dangerous doses to local people, even in 10,000 years.

Note: obviously I know why all this is. It's all politics and the thousands of science experts involved in the effort are either too simple (the vast majority) or too smart (a tiny minority) to bite the hand that feeds them. I am mostly posting this so that others who may not know a lot about this stuff can get some info that is coming from neither the environuts nor the scientists-who-have-found-a-convenient-mealticket.

I am not an expert on the situation in other countries, but since Sweden and Finland are at the forefront of waste deposit I don't feel like I'm missing major stuff. I understand that the US civilian deposit is a clusterfuck? What of the military shit?

[LaCroix]

i read some article three years ago about nuclear waste. i think the link ended with .edu, and discussed the situation with an anecdote of what's happening in france. anyway, what i took from it was that those who worry and fret over nuclear waste are simply ignorant. seems that conclusion is still justified

[CountDeMoney]

Launch it into space.   Not at the sun, because there could be radioactive blowback, but point it elsewhere into the void.

As long as the container is strong enough, even a launchpad incident or atmospheric fuck up wouldn't wreak too much havoc.

[Ideologue]

They completely avoid the elephant that a guy getting some dose in 1,000 years is NOT the same (in a meaningful way) as the guy getting it today.

Why?

[Admiral Yi]

Turn it all into tank rounds to blow up bad guys.

[Neil]

Launch it into space.   Not at the sun, because there could be radioactive blowback,

So you're worried about radioactive blowback across the 150 million kilometres between the sun and the Earth?  As opposed to the constant solar emission of radiation?

This is why the public shouldn't be allowed to have a say in things like this.

[CountDeMoney]

Launch it into space.   Not at the sun, because there could be radioactive blowback,

So you're worried about radioactive blowback across the 150 million kilometres between the sun and the Earth?  As opposed to the constant solar emission of radiation?

This is why the public shouldn't be allowed to have a say in things like this.

I know the difference between Imperial and Metric, which means I'm more qualified than NASA.

[The Brain]

They completely avoid the elephant that a guy getting some dose in 1,000 years is NOT the same (in a meaningful way) as the guy getting it today.

Why?

Think interest.

One of the reasons is that there are huge uncertainties about this dose in 1,000 years. Will he get it at all (a lot can happen in 1,000 years)? Even if he does get it will it be medically significant given 1,000 years of medical research?

200 years ago in Sweden the government started to worry about the future supply of fine oak for warships. So a program of planting oak was implemented. The trees are about ready for harvest now. Yet somehow it's not extremely important from a naval warfare perspective anymore...

[Ed Anger]

Launch it into space.   Not at the sun, because there could be radioactive blowback, but point it elsewhere into the void.

As long as the container is strong enough, even a launchpad incident or atmospheric fuck up wouldn't wreak too much havoc.

That space is needed for my 'launch Timmay into the sun' program.

[Razgovory]

Dump it in Somalia.

[Ideologue]

They completely avoid the elephant that a guy getting some dose in 1,000 years is NOT the same (in a meaningful way) as the guy getting it today.

Why?

Think interest.

One of the reasons is that there are huge uncertainties about this dose in 1,000 years. Will he get it at all (a lot can happen in 1,000 years)? Even if he does get it will it be medically significant given 1,000 years of medical research?

200 years ago in Sweden the government started to worry about the future supply of fine oak for warships. So a program of planting oak was implemented. The trees are about ready for harvest now. Yet somehow it's not extremely important from a naval warfare perspective anymore...

I dunno.  It seems more to me like building dikes that can still block unlikely, but possible, high water levels.  Sure, the flood may not come for 20, or 200, years, but do we want to bet that people can breathe underwater by then?

Valuing present-day convenience over future potentials has caused some pretty messy problems already.

I agree in general that high marginal expenditures to prevent marginally possible problems is in general wasteful (e.g., over-secured airports and federal buildings), but over very long timeframes marginal possibilities tend to occur (e.g., an asteroid or comet strike).

Granted, you know more about nuclear waste disposal than I do, and I can't speak to the specifics of this problem (my understanding is that nuclear waste is indeed unfairly villified).  Also, I understand the mathematical notions here--it's basically Judge Hand's formula for negligence, that is, if the burden is greater than probability and graveness of the liability (as expressed in dollar, or here krona, terms), then no duty exists.  However, I question how applicable that is in a situation where the scope of liability as is known is high, and minimization of liability, due to medical advances, Hulkism, or the dense metallic construction of our machine bodies, is highly speculative.

But like I said, you know about nuke stuff than me.  The only stuff I've ever read about nuclear waste disposal is the frankly cool--although I expect you find it wasteful--effort to come up with warning tokens for Yucca, which our potentially retarded, non-Anglophone descendants will still take seriously, and not try to rob the motherfucker like a pharoah was buried there.

[HVC]

dump it into the Mariana Trench.

[mongers]

I live under 100 miles downwind on the prevailing winds from COGEMA La Hague, which is just across the English Channel from here. So I have a vested interest in seeing this problem solved.

I would hate for anything to happen to those facilities.

[The Brain]

They completely avoid the elephant that a guy getting some dose in 1,000 years is NOT the same (in a meaningful way) as the guy getting it today.

Why?

Think interest.

One of the reasons is that there are huge uncertainties about this dose in 1,000 years. Will he get it at all (a lot can happen in 1,000 years)? Even if he does get it will it be medically significant given 1,000 years of medical research?

200 years ago in Sweden the government started to worry about the future supply of fine oak for warships. So a program of planting oak was implemented. The trees are about ready for harvest now. Yet somehow it's not extremely important from a naval warfare perspective anymore...

I dunno.  It seems more to me like building dikes that can still block unlikely, but possible, high water levels.  Sure, the flood may not come for 20, or 200, years, but do we want to bet that people can breathe underwater by then?

Valuing present-day convenience over future potentials has caused some pretty messy problems already.

I agree in general that high marginal expenditures to prevent marginally possible problems is in general wasteful (e.g., over-secured airports and federal buildings), but over very long timeframes marginal possibilities tend to occur (e.g., an asteroid or comet strike).

Granted, you know more about nuclear waste disposal than I do, and I can't speak to the specifics of this problem (my understanding is that nuclear waste is indeed unfairly villified).  Also, I understand the mathematical notions here--it's basically Judge Hand's formula for negligence, that is, if the burden is greater than probability and graveness of the liability (as expressed in dollar, or here krona, terms), then no duty exists.  However, I question how applicable that is in a situation where the scope of liability as is known is high, and minimization of liability, due to medical advances, Hulkism, or the dense metallic construction of our machine bodies, is highly speculative.

But like I said, you know about nuke stuff than me.  The only stuff I've ever read about nuclear waste disposal is the frankly cool--although I expect you find it wasteful--effort to come up with warning tokens for Yucca, which our potentially retarded, non-Anglophone descendants will still take seriously, and not try to rob the motherfucker like a pharoah was buried there.

My impression is that "my" reasoning gets in some trouble when you have "total loss scenarios". The worst case scenario for nuclear waste disposal is that some individuals get somewhat higher doses than natural and that some of them die. Or very simplifed and conservatively: say 1000 dead people. The key point is a finite number of people in a limited area. We know what we are willing to pay to save one life (it is known from other discussions on safety) so we can make a reasonable estimate how much we can rationally spend on the deposit (including interest calculations for lives saved in the future). The worst case scenario for greenhouse gases OTOH is Venus on Earth, ie death of all humans (with the usual caveats about spacetravel or robotic bodies etc). In that situation it gets harder to estimate what we should reasonably spend today to avoid it. NB I only use greenhouse gases as an example, I am not discussing which energy generation technologies we should use.

The only technical thing to remember about nuclear waste is that the effect of a failed waste deposit is a moderate increase in the levels of radiation that are present naturally. Naturally occurring radiation from the bedrock kills people every year (mostly smokers). Failed waste disposal would mean a local increase in this. As far as disasters go it's very mild (and occurs slowly, if people still use modern technology they will measure the increase and can take steps like move 50 miles away). There are inhabited areas in the world where naturally occurring radiation is a lot stronger than what the failed waste deposit would generate.

[Ideologue]

That's the thing.  The loss is not solely in human life, but also property.  Which is, of course, why we seek out crap places like Nevada to bury nuclear waste, but as you note, a thousand years is a long time.  Climate shift or other increases in the habitability of an area may have to be considered, and increased hardening may be wise if there is a possibility the loss of billions of dollars worth of Jetsons houses.  So it's not just the total loss scenario that must be considered, but a far more complicated problem of futurism.

As you say, though, it's not like a neutron bomb going off, although I think a lot of people may believe it is; and there's the assumption of risk aspect of living near a nuclear waste dump (though the only groups of people that make me angrier than the NIMBY assholes are Scots separatists and Tea Partiers).

Of course, the future ones may not even know it's a nuclear waste dump, because they might be stupid.