Nuclear Waste Disposal

It's easier to make new age weaponry out of nuclear waste, waste not want not.

Building nuclear power generating stations is just a simple artifact of the new age weaponry biz.

File: 86.png (237KB, 1030x412px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1030x412px

why arent we using a conveur belt to pile everything up in tchernobyl
i mean its radioactive already and has a big closed up space

>>8667055
They already do that. In Ontario there's a controversy over what to do with nuclear waste. Ontario Power Generation wants to bury nuclear waste deep in the bedrock close the Lake Huron but a lot of people are against it. I'm for it because it's safer than transporting the waste and the chance of leakage is next to nothing.

http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Pages/Deep-Geologic-Repository.aspx

http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com

File: where do you think we are.png (1MB, 1174x794px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1174x794px

>>8667055
Deep burial has its appeals, but you need a tectonically inactive area in the vadose zone.
Drinking water is the only public health obstacle at depth, but it's a big deal. Best to drill into intrusive igneous material in a remote area.

You worded that out as if there isn't any safe way to handle nuclear waste. I swear, people who grew up with the simpsons actually belives that nuclear power plants throw waste into lakes.

>>8667301

Well even Britain just pumps a lot of it out into the sea.

We should send it up the space elevator into space

>>8667055
reuse it

just leave it in a big pile in antarctica
worst case scenario we get some angry mutant penguins

>>8667055
The best course of action is to not make waste in the first place.

>>8667334
No

>>8667055
If so many of us were not extravagant, wasteful, greedy and lazy, we would not have needed so much power. But most people are mindless button-pushers: they can't open doors or use revolving doors to conserve energy as civilized members of society (they're little better than mindless animals, incapable of learning and maturing).

>>8667371

Read about Sellafield.

>>8667055
>What are some good safe ideas for nuclear waste disposal?

Don't

What we call nuclear "waste" are rods that are pretty much uranium, you just need to recycle them and use the material into new uranium rods.

>>8667541
That site generally doesn't represent nuclear plants over Britain. It could be a literal Mr Burns running it for all I know.

>>8667570
You don't Know what fission is do ya?

>>8667595

The fuel rods aren't depleted when they get into waste. there is still at least 85% usefull material there.

File: wat.jpg (3KB, 125x119px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x119px

>not throwing it all into a vulcano with a giant catapult

>>8667252
Hahaha

>>8667588

It's the main plant.

>>8667055
Recycle them.

>>8667055
IIRC we are taking people's waste into Australia in the hopes that fusion will allow us to re-use for further fuel.

File: 1480674275944.gif (3MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x150px

>>8667491

>>8667055
Blow the waste up with nuclear bombs.

File: 1459695828213.gif (1MB, 198x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 198x200px

>>8667742
FUND IT

>>8667853
And no doubt Australian Green fags are going to bitch despite the majority of the Aussie outback being useless wasteland.

File: dreamtime-aint-free-our-sacred-lands-gotta-be-litterd-with-1579721.png (75KB, 500x453px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x453px

>>8667903
Wasteland that not even the abbos use.

>>8667055
Drop into oceanic trenches in heavy penetrators. Gets buried in thick, inert clay and then, eventually, taken down into the mantle.

>>8667055
Add the waste to concrete, make it into blocks, use those blocks to build the wall on the US/Mexico border, protesters will stay away, Mexroaches will stay away (radiation burns when trying to climb, death within days of climbing). A Win/Win all around, no need to monitor of guard, takes care of itself.

>>8667911
No, new land is formed at trenches. You have to put the waste in subduction zones somehow if you want it to be taken to the mantle.

>>8668153
I think you suffered a braino there.

Trenches are in the subduction zones. New crust forms at midocean ridges, not in the trenches.

>>8668328
Ridges. I did suffer a braino.

>>8668332
And to top it off, you missed trips by one.

>>8668337
Hey, you did too.

Sealing them containers that we put in orbit around earth, until the time comes when we find some practical use for the stuff. If it sounds risky to you, we could put it in orbit around venus

evenly distribute it into global food supply to catalyze human mutation and develop biological resistance

Why not launch it into the sun?

the "nuclear waste" disposal issue is just stupid political bullshit
The left will intentionally fight against any solutions because they believe it will enable nuclear power

>>8667570
No, most nuclear waste is material such as Cobalt-60 and other isotopes of iron that have been activated by a neutron flux and is now radioactive.

>>8667759
It's a reprocessing plant, not a power plant. And Britain doesn't just "dump it to the sea", the existence of Sellafield shows that. If some has washed into the sea, it's been by accident.

>>8669753

Sellafield has pipes that run out into the sea to do just that. The incidents of cancer especially leukemia in children has sky rocketed in the area.

>>8669796
>The incidents of cancer especially leukemia in children has sky rocketed in the area.

Who have you been listening to anon?

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v111/n9/abs/bjc2014357a.html

>Conclusions:

Analysis of recent data suggests that children, teenagers and young adults currently living close to Sellafield and Dounreay are not at an increased risk of developing cancer. Equally, there is no evidence of any increased cancer risk later in life among those resident in these areas at birth.

File: wall.png (41KB, 900x550px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 900x550px

this is the best way

>>8667371
So what is your explanation for the Irish sea being as radioactive as the Kara Sea where the Russians now admit they dumped old reactor cores?

>>8669753
>It's a reprocessing plant, not a power plant.
Nobody said it was a power plant. Just that there is a huge problem with waste.

>And Britain doesn't just "dump it to the sea", the existence of Sellafield shows that. If some has washed into the sea, it's been by accident.
Uh-huh- There have just been a looong string of "accidents". In fact so many that they were forced to undertake the ultimate operation: rename it from Windscale to Sellafield.

Turn them into diamond batteries that last forever.

>>8671878
>There is no such ting as variation in natural levels of radiation.

>>8671881
>Nobody said it was a power plant
It was clearly implied, look at the post further up >"doesn't represent nuclear plants"
>"It's the main plant"

>Accidents

Accidents aren't "dumping it into the sea". One is accident the other implies intent.

>rename

They are quite literally two different things, just in the same area. It's like saying they renamed Tower Bridge, "London Bridge".

>>8672168
It's okay to be wrong once in a while.

>>8669740
Most "nuclear waste" is non-or-only-slightly-radioactive shit from hospitals and such.

File: 1451521664062.jpg (41KB, 432x576px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 432x576px

>>8667252
My sides

>>8667055
Put it in cement or something and drop it into the Mariana trench

>>8667853
Aight just so you know we're going to be using hydrogen for fusion, not radioactive shit lol.