• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Where 2 Dump the Junk
#1
METI posts map of potential nuclear waste disposal sites
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/07...Xsp6oqQx3m
   
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#2
Shoot, they shoulda used this map when they began considering nuclear - any sane person woulda determined that so many active earthquake fault lines and volcanoes in close proximity (all around Japan) to sites would pose extreme risk - no nukes shoulda been built.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#3
They might consider the flanks of an active volcano island isolated from human activity for their nuclear waste though. Upwelling lava would cover the waste for a good long time. Nuclear material came out of the ground and it might be sensible to put it all back there.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#4
That's interesting. I hadn't thought about lava as a 'cover' but that sounds plausible. Where was it that nuclear material came out of the ground?
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#5
(07-29-2017, 07:03 AM)piajensen Wrote: That's interesting. I hadn't thought about lava as a 'cover' but that sounds plausible. Where was it that nuclear material came out of the ground?

Uranium is mined.  We concentrate it and split it. Planned deep repository would be putting it back in the ground.  I was thinking of the new volcanic island forming in southern Japan.  Dumping high level waste and covering it with some of that low level dirt collected in bags to be covered by subsequent lava flows.  Cheap to transport; favorable on the map.  Volcanoes were marked unfavorable on the map but practically all of Japan is an active fault zone with volcanoes and was unsuitable for nuclear to begin with.  They could name it Radon Island.  The idea is to isolate the material long enough to let the daughters decay.  The long lived isotopes present the biggest challenge but no repository can guarantee isolation for hundreds of thousands of years.  No good solutions, they should quit making more of the waste.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#6
Indeed, thank you for clarifying! I like your thoughts on lava... but, would the heat transport more rads into the atmosphere, or "capture" them quickly... that's a big physics question... previously I was thinking putting waste into old lead mines might be appropriate, but, there's probably a few issues with cracks, caverns, rain infiltration, instability... much like Yucca Mtn presents.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#7
Thought about the heat transfer, that's why the low level dirt on top to minimize radioactive release. Also would look at the geology for well defined vent areas to avoid, what type of basalt flow, is it getting regular flows. At Rocky Flats they dug deep trenches, piled in high level waste and covered with dirt. Same idea, just would rather a nice thick lava flow covered it instead of a wildlife preserve. The goal is to sequester the waste for as many generations as possible.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#8
Nuclear-News does a fine analysis of METI"s nuclear waste dump planning.

To be clear ! No place is 'suitable' for storing nuke waste, never was, never will be https://nuclear-news.net/2017/07/31/meti...sal-sites/
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)