infamous Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 I've been wanting to start this thread for a while. Considering the high national priority it should be worthy of, I'm offended that not more is being done to control this problem. There appears to be a reluctance upon the part of officaltom to address this ever increasing problem, sort of just stick your head in the sand approach. There have been ideas about shooting this nuclear material off into space, burial of this waste in deep portions of the earths crust, all sorts of other ideas that all seem unrealistic. What ideas do members of Hypography have, mabe there are yet some good answers out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 I've been wanting to start this thread for a while. Considering the high national priority it should be worthy of, I'm offended that not more is being done to control this problem. There appears to be a reluctance upon the part of officaltom to address this ever increasing problem, sort of just stick your head in the sand approach. There have been ideas about shooting this nuclear material off into space, burial of this waste in deep portions of the earths crust, all sorts of other ideas that all seem unrealistic. What ideas do members of Hypography have, mabe there are yet some good answers out there.I'm truly surprised that no posts on this subject have been forth coming. Maybe the only solution is to stop the use of nuclear reactors to produce energy. That would be a drastic move, considering the need for energy production, so how do we solve this problem. It is not going away, we can't ignore it or someday we will have to pay. The conversion to fusion reactions will help considerably, but that looks like it might still be a ways off. Even with fusion reactions, there will still be a sugifficient amount of radioactive waste involved. The problem will be reduced considerably, but we will still need to deal with it. Any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 I missed this topic, sorry. In Norway it's not a problem because we don't use fusion reactors. There is only a small reactor for experimental purposes. That does not mean it is not an issue, however. We have problems with nuclear waste storage in Britain and the possibility of leaks into the North Sea. I have no ideas about how it should be taken care of. But burying it into the ground is probably the worst solution. Maybe it would be possible to find some way to "sanitize" the byproducts in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Is there any way to accelerate a half-life? As large of an issue as it is, does the nuclear waste ammout to the polution produced by petrochemicals? The average human has about 700 times the lead in their system than they did about 100 years ago. The spike in levels co-incides with the intoduction of leaded gasoline (Which will not be fully banned until 2010). Not particularly on this thread, but an odd fact that came to mind: Thomas Midgley pioneered both tetraethyl lead (the lead additive to gasoline) and CFC's. Way to go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Is there any way to accelerate a half-life? As large of an issue as it is, does the nuclear waste ammout to the polution produced by petrochemicals? The average human has about 700 times the lead in their system than they did about 100 years ago. The spike in levels co-incides with the intoduction of leaded gasoline (Which will not be fully banned until 2010). I agree Fishteacher73; Nuclear waste is not the only source of polution that we are facing. It is however the one source that will have the longest lasting effects on the human existence. This may not be an absolute however, we continue to produce toxic compounds at an ever increasing rate. We should certainly be conserned about all of these threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I was just reading (scramjets, a cheap way into space), and on this thread I noticed the reference to a magnetic cannon. Would it be possible, or more correctly I should ask, would it be cost effective to shoot bundles of radioactive waste at the sun. If we could accomplish this technology at a reasonable cost, this might be the answer we are looking for. A magnetic cannon of sufficent size could in theory propel capsules of waste, without the concern for passengers, the acceleration rates could be pushed to the maximum. With our ability to successfully hit the proverbial bull eye, directing the capsule toward the sun whould not be a major problem. Pie in the sky, maybe, but it might just work and the bennefits would be fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 I was just reading (scramjets, a cheap way into space), and on this thread I noticed the reference to a magnetic cannon. Would it be possible, or more correctly I should ask, would it be cost effective to shoot bundles of radioactive waste at the sun. If we could accomplish this technology at a reasonable cost, this might be the answer we are looking for. A magnetic cannon of sufficent size could in theory propel capsules of waste, without the concern for passengers, the acceleration rates could be pushed to the maximum. With our ability to successfully hit the proverbial bull eye, directing the capsule toward the sun whould not be a major problem. Pie in the sky, maybe, but it might just work and the bennefits would be fantastic. I have wondered about that very thing myself. Certainly we would not be doing any harm to the sun. But what would be needed is an absolutely dependable launching system. We wouldn't, after all, want this stuff to go halfway up, and then come down of one of our cities. The electronic cannon sounds quite reliable. Whether or not it would be cost effective would probablybe the make or break to this idea. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 I have wondered about that very thing myself. Certainly we would not be doing any harm to the sun. But what would be needed is an absolutely dependable launching system. We wouldn't, after all, want this stuff to go halfway up, and then come down of one of our cities. The electronic cannon sounds quite reliable. Whether or not it would be cost effective would probablybe the make or break to this idea. :) Agreed syntax; We certinly have the technology, but do we have the will to pay the bill. Reminds me of the commercial "Pay me now, or pay me later". Point is, we better get cracking because the longer we wait, the more resistence we'll face because the bill will have grown so large that no one will able to pay the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matrixscarface Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 What if we take nuclear waste and spin it in a particle accelerator and turn it into a new element and take liquid nitrogen and freeze it so it would last a whole lot longer. i realize this is ALL theory and if it did work cost a whole lot and plus the handling and the half life but... could it work????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 You can really reduce this to 2 possibilities, keep it on the planet or get it off the planet. The second of these proposes serious risks and carries an extremely high cost. The waste generated annually is measured in tons. It is simply impactical to attemt to move tons of waste to escape velocity to get it off the planet. This leaves storage on the planet. This can be divided into 2 possibilities as well. Surface storage or deep earth storage. Surface storage carries many risks too. Societies change. World wars come and go. To keep such dangerous material scattered across the globe would be a serious mistake. This leaves deep storage which makes sense these materials came from the ground in the first place. It offers us the most economical and secure method of disposal. I personally do not see any other options unless there is some alternative I have missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 You can really reduce this to 2 possibilities, keep it on the planet or get it off the planet. The second of these proposes serious risks and carries an extremely high cost. The waste generated annually is measured in tons. It is simply impactical to attemt to move tons of waste to escape velocity to get it off the planet. I know it is still in the drawing stages, but a space elevator might help get it launched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.