more like:

we dug some ore out of the ground, which contained radioactive isotopes in comparatively low concentrations, and which was (usually) localized to a particular area and which may not have even been on the surface of the Earth. It was also ore, which in its natural format tends not to be consumed by many people.

Then we concentrated the ore. Sometimes, we also enriched it. We created something that was much more dangerous w/r/t volume. It’s not an issue of neutrons, it’s an issue of how they’re delivered, and where, and to whom.

I don’t get burned by the sun in 10 minutes. But i have a 12×12″ Fresnel lens that’d char my arm in short order. Concentration matters.

I don’t know enough about fast breeder reactors to comment. I’ll do some research and get back on that.

Leaked tritium is perhaps the only hazard I can think of associated with fusion. It decays too fast to present the same problems as spent nuclear waste, but tritium could potentially react with oxygen in the atmosphere. At the troposphere, this could mean the formation of some poisonous water in the clouds. Higher up, reaction with free oxygen radicals could affect the ozone. It might be better to contain the stuff.

I’ve been lurking there lately because unfortunately, I haven’t been able to comment on some wordpress blogs. I’m not sure why, I just get an error message that just says “page not found”.

as I understood it, Jake’s point is that if there’s political instability that causes (say) a windmill farm to go unmaintained and thus break down 250 years from now, the consequences of that are low compared to what happens when nuclear waste storage goes unmaintained and thus breaks down at the same time. That seems like a reasonable point to me.

Nuclear facilities have pre-ordained lifespans of I think 50-100 years; I doubt it would be possible to build one that would still be live in 250 years. That’s a nitpick, I know, but it does mean that the lifespan and decommissioning of a nuclear plant can be planned relative to medium-term stability rather than very long-term stability. As for waste storage, I’d say that’s one of the benefits of having it in a narrow chute several miles underground. Making it as hard to retrieve as possible is part of the point of such facilities - because governments are doing this, they’re as concerned with security as environmental hazard.

I also think you’re underestimating the problems that can arise from the instability of any energy sources. (See the problems Zimbabwe, Iraq and Palestine currently have with keeping the lights on 24/7 and how much chaos and resentment that’s caused). I call the nuclear hoohah ‘hysteria’ because I think it serves to silence and belittle people who’ve suffered horribly due to the current energy system. For some reason nuclear accidents are taken as one great demon, but hydro plant and coal mine deaths, the victims of energy wars/mass displacements, and people who are denied access to energy while others have more than they need - that’s all rarely brought up in discussions about energy safety.

Bjartmarr - just because someone else is doing nuclear in a very wrong way doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it. That would be like saying we shouldn’t use hydro power because of Three Gorges.

another cool link: Brad Hicks on lynching as an economic crime. (I’d read a little about this topic before, but rarely heard it put so concisely).

Should we?

But I love the footnotes plugin! Dammit. Grumble, mutter, scowl, kick puppy.

Oh, well, I better turn it off until they issue a fix. Thanks for letting me know.

Can you check if you have register_globals turned off? If so then you can safely turn the plugin back on.

I think the “google such and such” response is only valid if googling that will turn up multiple links to what you are claiming. I did google what you suggested, but did not happen to find your link.

Well, Charles, I tried it three times, and got the same result three times. Maybe Google just likes me better.

But I understand that you may not want to put two and two together, which is why I acknowledged that Russia may have a secret, dry, geologically stable nuclear waste storage facility somewhere that they’re ashamed to let anybody know about. You’re welcome to believe that if you want.

I think the “google such and such” response is only valid if googling that will turn up multiple links to what you are claiming. I did google what you suggested, but did not happen to find your link.

Robert,

Depleted uranium is not less radioactive than uranium ore. It is less radioactive than purified uranium metal. That also ignores the problem of other radionucleotides contaminating the waste (not a problem for DU generated in the process of creating enriched uranium, but a huge problem in the depleted uranium in the waste from a nuclear power plant), and also ignores the problem that uranium is chemically poisonous. Also, the re-enrichment process produces 1/3 natural uranium, which can then be re-enriched to produce 1/10 fuel grade uranium and 9/10 depleted uranium. This leaves behind 29/30th depleted uranium to be dumped somewhere. This is not cost effective, or wouldn’t be if it also didn’t allow you to push the issue of dumping the depleted uranium off onto a country that has essentially no environmental enforcement. So while a tiny bit of the DU goes back to France as enriched uranium, most of the DU stays in Russia, where the waste handling is appalling. The main benefit to the French nuclear industry is getting rid of the contaminated DU, not the bit of enriched U it gets back.

The line about how the military uses DU munitions because they are carcinogenic and poisonous was funny though. Which isn’t to say they aren’t carcinogenic and poisonous, particularly when people cheat and use post reactor DU rather than post enrichment DU (which they have, because post reactor DU is something people are much more desperate to get rid of).

The following is from the link provided by Robert in comment # 15:
As of December 2005, the only breeder reactor producing power is BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia. The electricity output of BN-600 is 600 MW — Russia has planned to build another unit, BN-800, at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant. Also, Japan’s Monju reactor is planned for restart (having been shut down since 1995), and both China and India intend to build breeder reactors.

Also, from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor#FBR_generating_plants ):
France

The plant was also a focus point of anti-nuclear political activity by the Green party and other groups. Right wing groups claim the plant was shut down for political reasons and not lack of power generation.

Nor are the enviro sources quoted particularly impressive, particularly the moron who thinks that the army uses DU for shells because it’s carcinogenic.

Got any real backing?

Oh, well, I better turn it off until they issue a fix. Thanks for letting me know.

http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2008/02/07/2-plugin-security-bulletins/

Here’s one you missed because you put in quotes:
France’s nuclear waste heads to Russia: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

googling “french nuclear waste” “arctic ocean” turned up nothing that actually included both phrases.

googling “french nuclear waste” turns up discussions of France shipping waste to the US and the exceptionally poor handling of nuclear waste in France, with innumerable poorly documented, poorly maintained dumps.

If you have found actual links to actual content, please feel free to post them, but the googling suggestion turns up absolutely nothing to support your claim.

Not that the descriptions I did find were particularly reassuring, either about dumping nuclear waste in the Arctic (yup, the Russians are) no about French handling of waste (nope, they don’t have a good solution either).

Japanese nuclear waste, on the other hand, there are claims that it is getting dumped in Russia.

The parts that have been documented are that the French are shipping the waste to Russia, and that the Russians either dump their waste in the ocean or store it in poorly managed concrete bunkers where it drains into the ocean. The storage of the nuclear waste has been labeled a state secret, so we can’t tell for sure the exact destination of the French nuclear waste. I suppose it’s possible that the Russians have constructed a dry, geologically stable sequestration site somewhere that they’re dreadfully ashamed to tell anyone about. I sort of doubt it, though: when government officials start trying to hide their supposedly-legitimate actions, I’m comfortable assuming that they’re up to no good.