Greenpeace Warns Of High Levels Of Nuclear Waste Near Nuclear Plants

Lovely, one more thing to worry about now that they want to build a nuclear reactor in my backyard.

---
Don't want to be an American idiot / One nation controlled by the media / Information age of hysteria / It's calling out to idiot America.--Green Day

Yeah, I have family that live in the Oshawa area, not far from the Pickering and Darlington nuclear power plants. Apparently, from what I`ve heard, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of sickness in the area.

---
Dave Ruston

I find this appalling on so many levels.

1) One Billion dollars is considered too great a cost to reduce existing radioactive contaminate release.
2) Forty six billion dollars are on the table for new reactors with no set standards
3) The total lack of knowledge about the state of current research in tapping the quantum field, zero point, the vacuum, etc. (Whatever you want to call it.) This ties into number 3 and the huge amount of capital involved..
4) Nuclear plants should not even be considered until the waste problem is addressed among other reasons.
5) A 13 year old report recommends that radiation levels be reduced by 70 times and further reduced by 350 times the existing amount per liter of water.


Are we the dumbest of the dumb in this area? It sure looks like it to me.

Don't let them build a Candu.

I always argue we need a few Nuclear Reactors in Alberta, because most of our power is generated from coal or natural gas. The oilsands uses a huge amoung of NG everyday, and we need to replace that energy with something or home heating costs will drive many Albertans into the streets. (but Americans will be toasty warm).

Nuclear is something we can do now, and there are ways to make the reactors much cleaner than a Candu is.

As an aside, I've been trying to visualize 'tritum' from a chemical perspective for a while now. Trituim is radioactive hydrogen. Hydrogen is one electron, orbiting a neutron and proton. 'Radioactive' means it emits neutrons. So 'trituim' is an electron orbiting a proton? It should be unstable, and a a great source of electricity. (mutters to self).

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

<a href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-deception.htm">http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-deception.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=7783%2d81%2d5">http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=7783%2d81%2d5</a><p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

"4) Nuclear plants should not even be considered until the waste problem is addressed among other reasons."<br />
<br />
Waste has a solution:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/future.html">http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/future.html</a><br />
<br />
Geomelted material lasts 200,000 years and is harder than concrete.<br />
<br />
Then again, the anti-nuke squad would probably be against putting back deep underground as well.<br />
<br />
I surmise that the only solution they would endorse is no nuclear program at all.<br />
<br />
Too bad we didn't have fusion reactors, that tritium would make excellent fuel for one of those.<p>---<br>If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

This however presupposes the fact that pointed-haired-dilbertized manager types with reducethebudgetitus would NOT be allowed to compromise reactor design and maintenance.

Seeing as that presupposition is a pipe dream, even if people do find geomelt storage acceptable, these "managers" would find a way to screw it up.

Another good idea buys the farm...

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

Hmmm ... Interesting Deacon. I'm wary of the 200,000 year figure. <br />
<br />
Here's something much more simple and clean. This is a patented process. In my opinion this is the kind of science we need to pump billions into, not the old models. Actually it may not require billions.<br />
<br />
I've extracted a little of the article. The link follows. <br />
<br />
"Perhaps the most astonishing finding from cold fusion research is the apparent observation of radioactivity reduction in the process! CETI, one of the first cold fusion companies, recently announced it had been awarded a US patent on an electrolytic process for reducing the radioactivity of thorium and uranium. The company claims its process can reduce the radioactivity of radioactive materials by over 90 per cent in periods less than 24 hours — compressing into hours what nature takes billions of years to do. A demonstration of this seemingly successful process was included in the same Good Morning America story which described Patterson’s prototype water heater."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aethmogen.com/wri/radams/miracle2003/03txt.shtml">http://www.aethmogen.com/wri/radams/miracle2003/03txt.shtml</a>

I read about that as well, but currently (no pun intended) need to do more research on the process before I can honestly comment on it.

But if true, it would make getting rid of at least some radioactive wastes much safer and simpler as well.

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

“I read about that as well, but currently (no pun intended) need to do more research on the process before I can honestly comment on it.”

I’d say that this statement holds true for the both processes. Although the cold fusion process was successfully argued before the patent board, so we know there has to be something to it. (That was ten years ago) Furthermore this is merely an off shoot of a cold fusion power source. Cold fusion itself has been verified and patented all over the world now. If we’re going to throw 46 billion dollars at nuclear reactors and not research this and many other areas of power generation that are also patented then the question that has to be asked is WHY? But that is another huge area for discussion. If we actually sincerely researched these areas in earnest we would have a clean energy solution in under ten years. In other words by the time or before these nuclear facilities a built.

Speaking of fusion according to some sources I’ve read Farnsworth, the inventor of the television, solved the problems with fusion around 1965 while working for the US defense department. Meanwhile the hot fusion industry in the US wanted an enormous amount of funding to last through the year 2050 while achieving zero results. Incidentally they comprised most of the technical people reviewing Ponds and Fleishman cold fusion research for congress back in the late 80s. In that sordid incident Ponds and Fleishman were successful in achieving the required results until congress and their “technical advisors” changed the playing field by requiring different results.

I still maintain not one more nuclear reactor should be built until the waste problem is solved.

Personally, my preferred method of disposing of it has always been launching it into the sun.

Not the most technically feasible approach I know, but it would be a permanent solution if implemented.

Failing that, digging tunnels deep into the earth (16+ kms) has it's appeals as well. Encased in high strength ceramics, they'd be perfectly safe there, especially the tunnels were flooded and sealed with remelted volcanic rock acting as a cap the entire length of the access tunnels.

Far as I am aware, no groundwater of any description exists at that depth.

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

Launching it into the sun would certainly get rid of the stuff, that’s for sure. Two problems I see with that is making an inefficient source of energy even more inefficient. (With all costs factor into nuclear power generation it isn’t very efficient. About as efficient as wood) Try to launch several thousands tons of waste into space is just not economically feasible. Second, one accident could contaminate an entire continent.

The process you refer to would also have to be factored into the overall effeciency of nuclear power generation further reducing it.

Nuclear energy has to and will be replaced by something better. The lack of knowledge of existing processes and patents at this time in our history seems to be willful.