Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Volunteer Towns Sought For Nuclear Waste

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-all-at-once dept.

Earth 279

Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Wingfield writes in Bloomberg that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future has sent a draft report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu recommending that US communities should be encouraged to vie for becoming a federal nuclear-waste site as a way to end a decades-long dilemma over disposing of spent radioactive fuel and says this 'consent-based' approach will help cut costs and end delays caused when the federal government picks a site over the objections of local residents, 'This means encouraging communities to volunteer (PDF) to be considered to host a new nuclear-waste management facility,' says the commission. Chu named the panelists after Obama canceled plans to build a permanent repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain after the Yucca site was opposed by politicians from the state. 'The United States has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay,' says the report. The Blue Ribbon Commission cited as a 'success' the US Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, which has accepted and disposed of some defense-related nuclear waste for more than a decade demonstrating that that 'nuclear wastes can be transported safely over long distances and placed securely in a deep, mined repository.' With the right incentives, 'there will be a great deal of support' for a waste site near the New Mexico facility, says former Senator Pete Domenici."

cancel ×

279 comments

How About D.C.? (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941794)

There's been quite a toxic environment in Washington D.C. for the last several Presidencies. So why not store this nasty stuff in D.C.?

Re:How About D.C.? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941808)

I might suggest Marshall, Texas [techdirt.com] . No containment necessary.

Re:How About D.C.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942062)

They're not doing anything illegal. They're defending their legally held patents. End of story.

Or NYC. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942150)

NYC is a crowded, crime-ridden, often filthy, concrete jungle of a depressing nerve-wracking shithole place to live that's full of rude assholes and people who think even the most casual eye contact is an advanced form of aggression. Those are the decent neighborhoods and it gets much worse. And if you ever have to drive a car, I sure hope you love traffic! Oh and if any sort of natural disaster or anything of that sort were to happen, a big city with at most a 3-day food supply is the very last place you would ever want to be.

The place is a monument to everything that is soul-less and dehumanized about society. A nuclear waste storage facility would be an improvement. Then the residents can worry about something else other than the ridiculously high cost of living, the gang violence, and crying about 9/11.

Re:Or NYC. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942684)

Glad I am not the only one who hates New York City. There are people who absolutely love NYC and I have to wonder why it would be. The place is just ugly to be in. And where I live now, many people "aspire" to be like New Yorkers as if they were all more sophisticated and intelligent somehow. I spent a week in New York and that was all I needed to know. It's simply the most frustrating and infuriating place I have ever been and is worse than the Washington DC area if that's even possible.

The place does need a heavy dose of sanity and if it came in the form of nuclear waste, so be it.

The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942650)

As that is the typical pattern when the decision is made where to dump the waste. Whether it be liquor stores, guns, or crack.

It's only a matter of time. If you live in the ghetto it's time to move.

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941894)

In DC, life expectancy drops by two years for every stop you take along the red line, IIRC. There is a lot of poverty.

As a city, there is also a high population density. It would be a very stupid place to put nuclear waste.

Don't we have a site near Yucca Mountain where we have test-exploded about a thousand nuclear bombs? What about doing it there?

And yes, we felt the need to test nuclear bombs quite frequently, it seems. Sometimes mankind seems quite primitive, even with the most advanced and destructive weapons in the world.

Re:How About D.C.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941940)

As a city, there is also a high population density. It would be a very stupid place to put nuclear waste.

Whoosh

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941966)

Don't we have a site near Yucca Mountain where we have test-exploded about a thousand nuclear bombs? What about doing it there?

We can't store stuff there - it's radioactive!

Re:How About D.C.? (2)

barlevg (2111272) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942212)

In DC, life expectancy drops by two years for every stop you take along the red line, IIRC. There is a lot of poverty.

Is this a joke? Because for anyone actually familiar with the DC area, this makes no sense. The red line actually serves some of the most affluent areas of the DMV. At one end, you have Rockville [wikipedia.org] and Bethesda [wikipedia.org] . In the middle, you have ultra-wealthy Dupont Circle [wikipedia.org] , trendy Chinatown [wikipedia.org] and Union Station [wikipedia.org] . As you head out of the city in the other direction, yes, you have some less affluent neighborhoods, but East Montgomery County is hardly slums, and the only people who think so are people from Bethesda [justupthepike.com] .

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942738)

I wasn't convinced that DC would be a good spot, but after what you wrote, I'm much more convinced now.

"trendy chinatown"? Really? There are more Chinese things outside of "chinatown' than in chinatown. I can scarcely tell why it is even called chinatown at all. I live here in the DC area at the moment and I have to say, I have never been among such petty, psychotic, paranoid and suspicious people in my life. The people here all make my skin crawl. I frequently do "nice things" for essentially no particular reason and people respond on awe or extreme skepticism. And arrogant sense of entitlement that I see in the more (so called) "affluent" areas only proves that they actually eat the shit they are shovelling.

It's all about "government industry" out here and you pretty much need to leave your old fashioned ideals and notions of goodness outside if you want to be "successful" by their measure.

Re:How About D.C.? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942284)

How about we just put it in the basements of the senate, congress, and the supreme court? No poor person will ever be allowed close enough to any of those to be adversely affected, I assure you.

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942718)

Oh no please! imagine a successful mutation of these people!

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941972)

I am afraid DC might go super critical already all on its own.

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942422)

Sigh. Another teabagger. DC is a majority African-American area, putting a waste dump there would be racist. Why am I not surprised here?

Re:How About D.C.? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942662)

Sigh. Another teabagger. DC is a majority African-American area, putting a waste dump there would be racist. Why am I not surprised here?

That hasn't stopped them before has it? "But it might be racist!"

Look at the country, and tell me when anything healthy is ever dumped in the ghetto.

Re:How About D.C.? (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942754)

African-Americans are ALWAYS the minority. It doesn't matter if they have the numbers, they are always the victims and deserve more benefits, breaks and special programs, or didn't you get the memo?

For the record, I firmly believe that "racism" is persisted on the present endorsement of special programs and benefits for people of African decent. It's time to end racism and let everyone compete equally.

Re:How About D.C.? (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942532)

Funny but like cockroaches I doubt it would hurt those buggers.

But this shows exactly what is wrong with NIMBY bullshit. Instead of somewhere like Yucca where scientists had studied the problem and come up with a deep, dry, solid hole in the middle of nowhere you are gonna have a bunch of states, probably in the south as our economy is beyond rotten, which is probably THE worst possible place you could put the stuff thanks to all the rain and tornadoes!

It is time we told the NIMBYs to STFU and let scientists instead of politicians work to solve the problems. Because if we don't do something about the NIMBYs frankly won't a damned thing get built because it will always piss off someone.

The NIMBYs say " We don't want to store the waste for nuclear (use reprocessing and cut down on the waste is what we should do, but heaven forbid that might be smart) and we don't want solar because its an eyesore, or wind because it is noisy, or coal because it is messy, but you damned well better make sure you give us enough power to blast our ACs all summer!"

The NIMBYs remind me of those damned teabaggers, who cheer the three wars while at the same time demanding their taxes stay low like it is their God given right to more MONIES! Nom nom nom. Where do they think the money for the three wars they are cheering is gonna come from, Chinese Santa Claus?

The Ghetto. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942640)

That is where the nuclear waste will surely be dumped. Bet on that.

Good luck with that! (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941802)

Most citizens don't even RTFS, figuratively speaking.

Springfield (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941816)

Try Springfield, they'll do it and they can use the money!

Why? (5, Insightful)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941826)

Why not do the smart thing and REUSE all of that "waste"? It's actually decent fuel and if you reuse it it becomes significantly less hazardous...

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941860)

Why not do the smart thing and REUSE all of that "waste"? It's actually decent fuel and if you reuse it it becomes significantly less hazardous...

Because the terrorist. Why do you hate America?

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941862)

The process of re-refining that "waste" is the same that's used to create weapons grade material. Don't get me wrong, I believe they should be reusing it but I can see why people would be worried about allowing it.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941904)

No it can't. [depletedcranium.com]

Re:Why? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942312)

Exactly. It's easier to start from natural uranium than to try to refine the mixed isotopes from reprocessing.

Re:Why? (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941910)

The process of re-refining that "waste" is the same that's used to create weapons grade material. Don't get me wrong, I believe they should be reusing it but I can see why people would be worried about allowing it.

So what? There are enough sane people in the world to manage weapons grade material.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941934)

Don't you know? Terrorists are super smart completely invincible secret agents that can escape any jail and break into any nuclear fuel processing facility in the world and take whatever they want and they can't be stopped by anything known to man. Therefore we can't recycle it otherwise we're putting America's children, or something...at risk. Also because Jesus.

Re:Why? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942208)

and they can't be stopped by anything known to man

Well, yeah, they can be stopped. It would require less effort than our current policies, in fact. But sometimes asking people to not do something they really don't have to do is incredibly difficult.

All it would take is for the US to stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Particularly since they don't do this openly and honestly, but covertly and deceitfully via intelligence agencies. One example [wikipedia.org] is the 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government and its replacement with a dictator. That's just one example. There are many.

That incident happened a long time ago, the people who perpetrated it passed away a long time ago, etc., so it's openly acknowledged that this happened. You'd be a fool to think nothing like that goes on today. You'd also be a fool to think the citizens who have to live under such dictators don't hate us for that. Some of them surely are crazy or desperate, or both. All of them understand they would stand zero chance in conventional warfare against a world superpower. Thus terrorism is bred.

A bit more plausible than the whole "they hate us for our freedoms" bullshit theater for the masses, to make a gross understatement.

Anyway, the idea that our leaders would have the wisdom, humility, decency, and self-respect to admit that this is wrong and never do things like this again... well, that's a much bigger (though far less amusing) joke than your tongue-in-cheek post.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942232)

Holy fuck no. I mean, I realize you Americans are scared of shit of plutonium thanks to your rabid environmentalists, and carter. But hey, if you want to cut your nuclear fuel supplies in half. Please keep sending your waste to Canada, S.Korea and Japan so we can have cheap, inexpensive fuel. I mean we all really like it.

Or you can grow a fucking pair and jump all over the environmentalists and nimby's for being fucking idiots.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942328)

Holy fuck no. I mean, I realize you Americans are scared of shit of plutonium thanks to your rabid environmentalists, and carter. But hey, if you want to cut your nuclear fuel supplies in half. Please keep sending your waste to Canada, S.Korea and Japan so we can have cheap, inexpensive fuel. I mean we all really like it.

Or you can grow a fucking pair and jump all over the environmentalists and nimby's for being fucking idiots.

The purpose of the environmentalism is to enforce a kind of soft tyranny. Cheap, abundant, easily accessible energy means fewer people crying out for government to do something about energy, something that everyone uses and everyone needs. The general concept is that government is never going to voluntarily endorse and encourage something that gives people one less thing to worry about. They enjoy appearing to do so because that appeals to the masses, but they do not wish to actually do it. The larger and less local the government, the more true this is. Thus, the local and state governments are not nearly so bad as the federal government with respect to this tendency.

This is from Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince":

Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.

Unlike 1984, The Prince actually was intended to be something like a manual.

Re:Why? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942412)

I tried reading and understanding what you wrote but it was so convoluted it made no sense. I think you are the idiot.

Re:Why? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942430)

It's funny, that core bits of wisdom can be found in works that are over 400 years old. But you're right. There's probably a good reason why modern environmentalists are called watermelons.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942168)

Give the communities the mineral rights to the spent fuel.

It's more than a source of nuclear fuel (and I don't necessarily mean plutonium: only a small fraction of the U-235 gets used up in a thermal reactor, and the other transuranics are burnable in a fast-flux reactor). There are billions of dollars worth of rhodium, which is in a stable isotope. Rhodium is more valuable than gold even at today's gold price.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=46164&mesg_id=46304 [democratic...ground.com]

Re:Why? (1)

technoCon (18339) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942692)

+1

Except there's a small problem, our esteemed President Jimmy Carter made fuel reprocessing illegal, citing non-proliferation concerns. Or maybe fears of giant killer rabbits, idunno. So, whoever got the contract would need to get a waiver. Or secede. And with nukes, they could get away with it. All even sentences of this paragraph are spoken in jest. Or are they?

Ridiculous idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941866)

So, anyone NOT think this group came up with a ridiculous idea? They've apparently been lead to believe that NIMBY means "Nuclear In My Backyard Yes" instead of "Not In My Back Yard". People are supposed to say "we want this here"? How poverty stricken does an area need to be to get local consensus on that? Detroit? Worse? And how many of the folks who later claim they did not agree would be suing because "the nukular caused autism"?

Re:Ridiculous idea (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941932)

The problem is that nobody in their right mind would agree to this as the Federal Government is already being sued for failure to clean currently used sites. They're way behind schedule on work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and I have no particular faith that this would change in the future.

OTOH if we can get a site in a red state perhaps we can at least get some social justice out of this.

Re:Ridiculous idea (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942276)

The problem is that nobody in their right mind would agree to this as the Federal Government is already being sued for failure to clean currently used sites. They're way behind schedule on work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and I have no particular faith that this would change in the future.

That's the real problem. There is a track record. People who might otherwise be open to this idea can see how poorly it has been handled in the past. Now they're not so open to this idea. If you want cooperation, the trick is to not create these situations in the first place.

OTOH if we can get a site in a red state perhaps we can at least get some social justice out of this.

It's very rare I see anyone advocate their notion of "social justice" by any means other than some kind of force or threat of force. That's a shame. Persuasion based on sound reason is a far nobler path. Certainly the things that could go wrong with nuclear waste represent force. Nuclear radiation is not going to have abstract debate with anyone. If that's a joke, well, there are more amusing ones.

That has to be what you meant, too. Otherwise you could call it "justice" when people knowingly take a risk and it doesn't work out so well for them. They're definitely not victims because they made a conscious, informed decision and reaped the results. And only a very petty and childish mentality would want to separate adults from the consequences of their actions. No victim means no injustice. However, that would apply to all states. Even the "blue" ones.

Incidentally, the color red has been associated with leftist thought, particularly its more extreme forms such as communism, for about a century. It seems like the "red state = Republicans" is therefore misnamed, or some kind of intentional newspeak. They're definitely assholes, but they are not leftist assholes. Not that it matters much to me. I'd like to see a US federal government that is about 20% the size and power of the one we know today, with any remaining slack being picked up by the states as intended by the whole notion of federalism. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans intend to do that. Compared to that, the issues they squabble over are trivial and useless.

Re:Ridiculous idea (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942816)

>>It seems like the "red state = Republicans" is therefore misnamed, or some kind of intentional newspeak

Yeah, that has always bugged me, too. According to Wikipedia, it was Tim Russert who coined it, arbitrarily, but it always seems very counterintuitive to me.

Re:Ridiculous idea (2)

carlzum (832868) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942012)

The idea is rational, the only question is if it's practical. I bet lucrative incentives are more cost effective than fighting legal and political opposition. Something like the Alaska Permanent Fund would be very appealing to poor communities. It makes perfect sense to at least explore the idea.

"Consent-based" approach (1)

traindirector (1001483) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942228)

I bet lucrative incentives are more cost effective than fighting legal and political opposition.

Indeed. It's a wonder the federal government isn't using the usual "consent-based" approach to usurp powers that fall to the states, such as setting drinking age and speed limits: threaten to withhold a significant portion of the state's federal funding, which most states are quite reliant on for one service or another.

Or maybe this is a new strategy meant to avoid offending honorable Senator Leghorn when that old trick is used against his state.

Just make sure the wealth keeps rising to the top and there'll be an endless supply of impoverished communities around the country lining up to take this "consent-based" salvation.

Re:Ridiculous idea (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942018)

This idea first came from an episode of Not ^Necessarily The News in the 1980s. It's amazing how they are now taking it seriously.

Comedy Central was co-owned by HBO. If only The Daily Show could dip into the N^NTN archives at HBO for this segment and run it. Or someone could get it up on YouTube? (It is still not released on DVD, reaired on HBO Comedy, nor streaming AFAICT; only available as a Best Of VHS tape, and I don't know if this segment (at least two parts) is on that tape.)

Re:Ridiculous idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942086)

The reason they ask permission of the communities is obviously that they want to recreate the community founder made of compressed highest grade nuclear waste at the community center. As a bonus, the dwellers get a real hot spot right in the center where the action is. That will surely activate the community and make it more lively.

Re:Ridiculous idea (4, Insightful)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942352)

They've apparently been lead to believe that NIMBY means "Nuclear In My Backyard Yes" instead of "Not In My Back Yard"

NIMBY shouldn't even be an issue at Yucca Mountain. It is located on one of the biggest military sites in the nation, right next to the place we tested some 900 nuclear weapons. It is as far from anyone's back yard as can be and right next to a radioactive wasteland.

China? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941882)

Send it all to China!

Re:China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942426)

Send it all to China!

We could recycle it except we signed a treaty barring us from doing so because it is too easy to turn it into nuclear weapons. Sending it out of the country seems like an even worse idea.

Re:China? (1)

an unsound mind (1419599) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942690)

So send it out to Canada instead. Or France. Or Japan.

Uh... The Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941920)

Considering the expense of long term (centuries) management of nuclear waste, let's just deal with the solution permanently by contracting out to say, SpaceX, and send it on a one way trip to El Sol.

Re:Uh... The Sun (2)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941958)

What if the rocket blows up?

Re:Uh... The Sun (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942024)

We don't do that with chemical poisons like mercury and arsenic that will be toxic forever. Why have a double standard for the hazardous materials from nuclear operations?

Re:Uh... The Sun (3, Insightful)

cratermoon (765155) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942154)

Check the cost of safely putting a kilogram of payload into a sun-diving trajectory. Check the density of uranium and plutonium, and the total volume of waste just sitting there waiting to be dealt with, forgetting for the time being the stuff that's still to come. Get back to to us with your findings and comparison with the cost of other radioactive waste disposal methods. Show your work.

Why not just turn it off? (4, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941924)

How about a day, announced a month or so in advance, where all nuclear power plants in the US are simply turned off? For 24 hours.

How about delivering a 50lb sack of coal ash to every single household in the US the day after, so they can see what the result of coal-fired power plants really is? It would need to include a full-color brochure listing all of the toxic substances that come out of the chimney from a coal plant as well.

If we did these things there might be less opposition to dealing with nuclear waste. Oh, and how about some PSAs showing a huge mountain of materials saying that nobody could go near this for 10,000 years and then show the small trash can that shows what is left after reprocessing.

Instead of doing any of these things we are allowing the pseudo-environmental movement to control the discussion to the point where we will be shutting down nuclear plants in the US, we will be shutting down coal plants in the US and we will have a new electrical system whereby there is power during the day and nothing at night. If you are rich and can afford 100KWh of batteries, you might have lights and TV at night. Maybe, until someone passes some regulations saying that it is discriminatory and unfair.

The US is clearly headed down the path of unreliable electric power with limited capacity. How will this affect future generations? Well, you can bet that computers in the home will not be a big deal in the future - unless they run on batteries that are charged up during the day.

i like drinking pseudo clean water (0)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942006)

and breathing pseudo air that doesnt cause pseudo cancer and pseudo pulmonary disease.

the pseudo environmental movement are the only pseudo people who seem to pseudo care if pseudo industry pours pseudo mercury and pseudo lead into the pseudo environment where it is pseudo absorbed by pseudo children.

Re:i like drinking pseudo clean water (3, Insightful)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942654)

No, see, chemical issue are /actual/ problems. You know, like coal ash, and carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, nuclear waste, while mildly radioactive, is an easily contained solid, and is produced in tiny quantities when compared to fossil fuel ash. Someone who actually gives a shit about the environment would do their research on nuclear power (and not from Greenpeace's website), learn what the /real/ safety concerns are, and push for solutions to those concerns. They would not, mind, push to eliminate the smallest mining/waste footprint per joule, lowest fatality count per joule, lowest land-use per watt technology we have, renewables included.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists always worry me: how is it you can be concerned about all the right things and still get such a wrong answer?

Re:Why not just turn it off? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942184)

WIthout about 10 million dead babies and misformed born babies in twe lost worldwide due to radioactivity you would be spreading propaganda. And we had enough of that shit. So just turn those damn things off. And leave them off.

Re:Why not just turn it off? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942214)

10 million dead babies? Caused by nuclear power?

Source please.

Re:Why not just turn it off? (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942610)

"WIthout about 10 million dead babies and misformed born babies in twe lost worldwide due to radioactivity you would be spreading propaganda. And we had enough of that shit. So just turn those damn things off. And leave them off."

Trolol.

Sorry, there are no dead babies as a result of nuclear power. None misformed either. There are several million misinformed babies (such as yourself) as a result of the dogmatic opponents of nuclear power, but that's not really what we're talking about.

Re:Why not just turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942240)

How about a day, announced a month or so in advance, where all nuclear power plants in the US are simply turned off?

Because the last time they did that, California had massive blackouts and billions in debt load.

Also, because some of us still have responsible utilities running their electric system.

Encourage me... (1, Funny)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36941938)

So, Harry Reid, how much "encouragement" will you need to use Yucca Mountain? Another trillion or two do it for you?

Re:Encourage me... (4, Interesting)

The Man (684) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942396)

I lived in Las Vegas for 12 years. There was absolutely no way we wanted that stuff stored at Yucca Mountain; it is a geologically active area and every proposed transport route for the waste went through the city. All that would be mere hypocrisy if not for the fact that Nevada has no nuclear power plants and derives virtually none of its electricity from nuclear sources outside the state. This is completely orthogonal to whether nuclear power is a good idea, whether it can be made safe, whether fast reactors are better, whether waste should instead be reprocessed or turned into glass or shot into space, and just how bad coal or hydro or other sources are for us and the rest of earth's inhabitants. It's nothing more complicated than the fact that Yucca Mountain is at best a mediocre site, the local residents don't want it, and the waste is generated elsewhere for the primary benefit of people who do not live in Nevada. That should have been sufficient to make the feds look elsewhere 15 years ago, but for some reason it wasn't. That the state won the fight is cheering; that a fight was even necessary is an appalling violation of states' rights. Finding a geologically suitable site in a state with nuclear power plants and residents who trust the government to transport and store the waste safely in their vicinity is an excellent idea. If they'd done that in the first place, we'd all have billions of dollars back -- and we'd probably have a nuke dump, too. But it certainly wouldn't be at Yucca Mountain; the federal government has abused and betrayed Nevadans from the day the state was admitted to the union, and there is absolutely no way its residents will ever trust it with their lives and property. That they gain little or nothing from nuclear power serves only to reinforce their already compelling case. Let those who like the federal government and think it's full of good, kind, well-meaning and competent public servants take the waste from their own power plants instead. It's the right thing for everyone.

Re:Encourage me... (3, Insightful)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942622)

Let's face it, nobody wants the stuff near them. That's what NIMBY means.
Nevadans don't trust the government? Welcome to the club.
Find another site? Why? The BANANAS will act all butt-hurt no matter where. Let's face it, even if Yucca Mountain isn't the perfect site, it's still a hell of a lot safer than leaving all that crap in pools at reactor sites.

use it to do away with faggots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36941984)

put it in some anal lube and watch those dick smokers waste away. flush them down the toilet when it's all over.

ground water contamination? (3, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942026)

if there is one thing deep mines do, it is flood. where does all the water go? oh, "somewhere else"? Great, now its laced with plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.

im sure that nuclear waste can be stored safely, somewhere, some how. but the current nuclear industry is so obsessed with lying, disinformation, and corruption, that i wouldn't trust it to clean the dishes at a restaurant let alone run something like the Fukushima plant.

(which, of course, we were told was 100% safe and not a shitty old design like Chernobyl, and that thered never be another meltdown).

these folks do not seem to understand the basic difference between right and wrong. if you want people to support you, stop lying to them. this plan seems to be exactly the opposite: a PR stunt to make people accept something they dont want to accept.

i.e. instead of reorganizing the entire industry to be based on honesty, and education, and transparency, they are instead reorganizing a gigantic PR campaign to make their opponents 'shut the fuck up', some kind of bizarre Rahm Emanuel strategy.

when the next US disaster happens, it will cause yet another backlash, and we will be back where we were after three mile island. the problem is not about 'nuclear power', it is about incompetent managers and politicians who cannot seem to grasp the concept that they exist to serve the people and to do it honestly, responsibly, and transparently.

Re:ground water contamination? (3, Insightful)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942290)

If a consensus of scientists is good enough to declare AGW to be a problem, then why can't a consensus of geologists declare that a mine won't leak?

BTW: It should have been obvious from that start that Yucca Mountain was Too Close to California to succeed.

Re:ground water contamination? (4, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942302)

>plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.

It has to be absorbed by the body first. Wikipedia has a reference that claims that only .04% of ingested plutonium oxide stays in the organism.

Multiply the LD50 for injected plutonium by 2500 to get an LD50 from water contamination, and you get some non-alarming numbers for toxicity. The cliche is to compare it to caffeine.

http://russp.org/BLC-3.html [russp.org]

Re:ground water contamination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942628)

if there is one thing deep mines do, it is flood. where does all the water go? oh, "somewhere else"? Great, now its laced with plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.

Yeah because they're just going to chuck a bunch of fuel rods down in a cave somewhere AMIRITE?

Dumbass. GTFO the Internet.

Ugh (4, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942034)

Honestly as time goes on my patience for other humans gets thinner.
We're not allowed to make safer, more efficient reactors.
We're not allowed to recycling spent fuel rods.
We're not allowed to build a secure site to house the waste material.

My fellow humans don't realize that with their unreasonableness, spent fuel rods are being kept in over sized swimming pools on site.

Now you might be wondering what the problem is with this set up. Well our outdated nuclear power plants are conveniently right next to rivers that some people get drinking water from.

I'm not saying something will go wrong, all I'm saying is that if something does go wrong it'll be a lot worse than it would be if we just recycled the fuel rods or had them at a secure holding facility.

This is the major reason why Japan was such a disaster. Outdated reactor design and spent fuel rods kept on site. It could have all been avoided if we just had the guts to decapitate the BANANA's heads and place them on pikes as a warning to potential BANANAs.

But let's say we decommission all of our nuclear power plants tomorrow. The rods need to be kept somewhere. The irradiated reactor housing needs to be put in storage. We can't magically make them disappear.

I know they want us all to go back to living in mud huts but damn it I want electricity in my mud hut [earthbagbuilding.com] .

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942448)

We're not allowed to make safer, more efficient reactors.

Does the near immediate availability of weaponizable materials to everyone operating such a reactor sound "safe" to you? (On the old technology, it would require a while to pull off AND be hardly an undetectable maneuver). Or do you simply think you'll be able to go to the world and say "yea, only we get to have this"?

We're not allowed to recycling spent fuel rods.

Maybe someone in the US has more exact details on how this works out over in Europe... Greenpeace may not be the most credible organization here, but the whole reprocessing story reeks. Somehow at least, all European countries that reprocess still end up with significant amounts of dangerous waste...

We're not allowed to build a secure site to house the waste material.

Well, you could allow yourself, it is just questionable what legislative area would welcome this thing. Property values will plummet, transports will have to go through to the site quite often and overland (rather unsafely), and no one will be able to guarantee security and so on past the next five-ten years. Politics don't go that far...

My fellow humans don't realize that with their unreasonableness, spent fuel rods are being kept in over sized swimming pools on site.

True, that's dangerous, but what's even more unreasonableis that nuclear power plant operators can work for profit all while not taking care of their trash and insurance (yes, they should be required to have full insurance up to chernobyl style accidents) properly...

Re:Ugh (3, Informative)

an unsound mind (1419599) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942706)

I'm gonna answer your questions in order.

First, it's not weaponizable. Problem solved.

Greenpeace isn't the most reliable organization. Problem solved.

Guaranteeing security for the next five-ten years is trivial. That part of the problem solved. Heck, the transports can handle being abandoned.

They should have full insurance up to Chernobyl style accidents? Nevermind the fact that a Chernobyl style accident is physically impossible with any US reactor? You're just giving them impossible requirements.

Why does it have to be a town? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942044)

Have you seen the United States from the air? It's mostly not-town.

The answer is simple (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942052)

Afghanistan. We control it. It's remote. A great place to dump nuclear waste.

Re:The answer is simple (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942806)

even simpler - vote harry reid out of office and then Yucca can be opened.

I'd say (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942110)

Put them near the backyard of the CEO/Owners of the Power Station.

If Nuclear Energy is safe and all that, they won't mind having glow-in-the-dark flowers.

Re:I'd say (1)

an unsound mind (1419599) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942730)

Glow in the dark flowers? They wouldn't. Radioactivity wouldn't leak from the containers; and even in the case you intentionally made the containers leak, it'd still not make the flowers glow. That would require exponentially more radioactivity - nevermind the fact that that much radioactivity would not only kill anyone in that house, but likely everyone on a very large radius.

It'd just be an ugly, huge steel container. Reprocessed waste still lasts for 1000 years, so assuming their homes aren't in groundwater or earthquake-prone areas, it'd be a perfectly safe option, for them and others alike. Unreprocessed waste is less dangerous but also lasts longer... and it's a perfectly viable fuel.

Yucca Mtn is the best choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942134)

Stick it in Yucca Mtn - that is where it belongs! We've spent a great deal of money making it so - and now we just abandon this safe site?

Idiots!

Re:Yucca Mtn is the best choice (1)

The Man (684) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942382)

And where do YOU live, sir? In a state with nuclear power plants? Far away from Nevada? Right. It's just as meaningful for me to say that your basement is the best choice.

studies show deceptive propaganda causes fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942162)

hugh pickens writes; there's nothing to fear about stuff that only matters to the walking dead neogods, as long as we believe.

others (not paid shills like hugh) write;

still showing up here there & everywhere

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/planet are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

diaperleaks group worldwide.

I volunteer Dallas. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942170)

Yessirree, proud Texan here.

I volunteer Dallas. It's a nice big city in the heart of real America.

Every Texan would be proud to have this great American tribute to American Americanyness in our backyard.

Re:I volunteer Dallas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942716)

I hate responding to trolls, but the man has a good point... Get it under the water table and it wouldn't be too bad putting it here...

Breeder reactor? (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942202)

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that a few breeder reactors could solve the problem by running from the waste over and over until whatever is left might make you sneeze. I've wondered about this, but aside from cost (as if permanent storage isn't costly), is there really anything wrong with that idea? I know that breeders can potentially be used to make plutonium, but it's not like the US doesn't have that capability already.

Re:Breeder reactor? (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942442)

What's wrong is that the US is scared shitless and nuclear isn't "cool" anymore. Laws blockade breeders from working efficiently, government would rather help their friends in the coal industry get another premium, and eco-nuts are doing their best to discredit any and all source of power, with nuclear getting a spectacular amount of flak for some reason.

Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. (5, Interesting)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942242)

Hanford Washington U.S.A. would love the waste sent
their way. That would be listed as the State of Washington
in the article.

Hanford lost out to Yuca mountain many years ago, lost a lot of jobs
over night. They were planning on storing nuclear waste at Hanford.

Even create a religion "OMMMMM do not dig for 100,000 years."
(Yes it was actually put forth as a plan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site [wikipedia.org] claims
two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume
are located here, so it makes a lot of sense.

Some place has to be found and fast as reactor storage pools
are becoming full and a danger in themselves.

I used to operate a nuclear reactor producing Plutonium for DoD at
Hanford, so know well of the desire of becoming a nuclear burial site.

Re:Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942432)

Hanford's near a river. There was significant local opposition to storing high-level waste there. Site management has a large hurdle to overcome in earning public confidence.

Throw it away? Far, far away? (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942260)

I've actually wondered if there was any practical downside, other than problems before getting it up, to the Futurama solution: just stick it in a rocket and blast it off in a random direction. Preferably without a return address.

Re:Throw it away? Far, far away? (2)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942298)

Rockets have something like a 1-2% failure rate, and you'd need quite a lot of them.

Re:Throw it away? Far, far away? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942310)

I've actually wondered if there was any practical downside, other than problems before getting it up, to the Futurama solution: just stick it in a rocket and blast it off in a random direction. Preferably without a return address.

I suppose you could use Viagra for your first issue, the problem with lofting highly radioactive material into space is two fold:

1. It's expensive. Very expensive.
2. Although modern rockets are fairly reliable, they occasionally go screwy and get blown to little tiny bits in order for it not to land on people as large, uncomfortable bits. Doing this with a ton or so of highly radioactive material is frowned upon (see "dirty bomb" for more information).

Somalia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942266)

Surprised that "they" are not dumping there already? or are they? don,don dooooon

Lets build a LFTR in Norway! (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942268)

We can build it inside a mountain somewhere so even the fanatics feel safe and then we can start burning nuclear waste!
Then we export the energy as electricity and in just a few years we build up another fund bigger than the oil fund!
Hmm, does nuclear fund or electricity fund sound best? Or maby just e-fund.

Sure it will cost a tad to build the plant, but we'd ofcource charge for receiving the nuclear waste we'll partially use as fuel to offset that...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (2)

skegg (666571) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942280)

With the right incentives, 'there will be a great deal of support' for a waste site near the New Mexico facility, says former Senator Pete Domenici.

If the volunteering originates with the constituents: then good.
But if from the politicians: then only as long as the politician suggesting such an arrangement lives just as close to the dump site -- along with their family -- as any other resident in their electorate.

Does American electoral law require that politicians largely reside in the electorate they represent?

The carlsbad site (1)

doug141 (863552) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942316)

currently stores low level waste at ambient temperature, like contaminated tooling. A special on TV said they are not equipped for the heat given off by nuke plant waste.

The Moon (2)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942388)

With all the NIMBY politics, it seems cheaper to just drop the stuff on the moon. Physical security of the site is guaranteed for the foreseeable future (and it becomes a non-issue when lunar travel becomes trivial). And the fears of exposing our descendants to radiation is also a moot point as you already need radiation protection on the moon. The worst natural disaster would be an asteroid strike, which still presents negligible risk to Earth. The worse human disaster would be a launch failure, but it's still lower than what coal power plants do. Heck, it's also retrievable when we decide that breeder reactors aren't so dangerous, or we could just build one on the moon for a colony.

Some math: the US produces 3,000 tons of high-level waste per year, and our super heavy lift rockets can generally get 50,000 kg to the moon for $1 billion. $60 billion per year would be an extra ($60 billion / 800 TWh) $0.075 per kilowatt hour. Currently, nuclear energy pays $0.001 per kilowatt hour for waste disposal. So, we'd need to get our launch prices down by one order of magnitude before this is economically feasible, which, with 60 extra launches guaranteed per year, might be doable through economy of scale. As for danger of a rocket failing to launch, that'd release about 50 tons of waste into the atmosphere, compared with Coal's 5 metric tons per gigawatt hour (2,000 TWh * 5 / GWh = 10 million tons per year in the US). (Sorry for mixing metric and imperial tons and other shortcuts, but this is paper-napkin math.)

Actually, screw that, if we were being rational we could just burn/aerosolize high-level waste and add 0.03% to the impact of coal. OTOH, since we aren't rational, by dropping it on the moon we get to improve our super heavy launch capacity by pandering to the fears of the anti-nuke zealots.

Harry Reid Is A Monster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942392)

The yucca mountain plan was light years better than any other waste storage plan (especially the highly insecure on-site storage we use today). Anyone in congress who thinks we need to "get a panel of scientists together to brainstorm some ideas" is someone cloaking a political objection in "science". It's a real shame Yucca was aborted, especially since the christing facility has already been built.

I wonder if things would be different if the current senate majority leader [senate.gov] had retired a few years ago. Oh, and if Steven Chu didn't toe the line on stuff like this.

Google Incentive (1)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942424)

Have Google sweeten the pot with a fiber optic rollout to the town free of charge - you might have tech startups move into the town that could find uses for nuclear wastes and produce something useful with it, with all the added publicity for the town, the site, and the arrival of a highly-touted ISP program.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942474)

look at your 5oft, so on, FreeBSD went bunch osf gay negros

Carpetbaggers shall descend: (2)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942488)

The problem is not finding a community that wants the site.

It's that as soon as they say they want it, no matter how well informed they are, interest groups will descend saying "We must save these poor ignorant people who are being used by the nuclear lobby". Or, "We must save these people from being deceived by the anti-nukes"

I'm sure they'd say that about Los Alamos where large numbers of the people work for a nuclear weapons lab and know more about rad hazards than almost any other community save for perhaps Arzamas-16 (Now called Sarov again.) .

I've seen this happen before in New Mexico when I lived there. The chief of the Mescalero tribe started making a deal to have a rad waste site on some of their land. Parts of it are some of the most inhospitable you can find in the US.

All of a sudden, groups showed up saying that the Mescaleros were just too uninformed to understand what they were doing and had to be protected. (It was amazingly patronizing.)

Now, the problem was taken care of by the tribe itself. They put it to a vote and voted it down. That's fine. That's how democracy works.

But you can bet that the carpetbaggers on both sides of the issue will turn up like flies around roadkill.

I'd already suspected something like that would happen with the Mescaleros. My company processed credit cards and such for Ski Apache and Inn of the Mountain Gods, two of the tribal businesses, So, I'd dealt with them a good bit and knew they were no fools regardless of how they decided it.

Onkalo (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942520)

The Finns store their waste in a rock 500m deep below and fill it with concrete aftereards.

The facility will be finished in 2100 and should last 100.000 years.

They even have plans to communicate with the future beings using symbols in carved rock.

All can be seen in the documentary "Into eternity".

The Springfield where the Simpones live MR burns (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942568)

Will take it

3 headed fish? (1)

king_grumpy (1685560) | more than 2 years ago | (#36942700)

Always wanted to catch me a three headed fish. Where do I sign up?

Trinidad, CO, USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942704)

The one town in this country I think could be considered more deserving than Washington, DC is of course Trinidad, CO. Its the biggest wasteland of dead end, mindless stupid corrupt people outside of the beltway.

Nuclear Default Swaps!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36942724)

I say we turn to Wall Steet. The banking industry has proven quite adept at dealing with toxic assests. Why not let them create some more exotic and preposterously crafted collateralized debt instruments that would spead the risk of nuclear waste across anyone dumb enough to deal directly with the stuff?

Oh, that's exactly what's going on here, isn't it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...