madokie states:
I don't care to leave to the future generations the responsibility of dealing with that.
It doesn't have to be a problem for future generation; as I've explain many times before on this forum.
Read the following interview with nuclear physicist and former Associate Director of Argonne National Lab, Dr. Charles Till:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
If we do what the scientists originally wanted to do, which is to reprocess / recycle spent fuel; then the lifetimes of the waste are relatively short and don't have to be a problem for "thousands or millions of years" as the anti-nukes claim. The only reason we have this long term problem is because the anti-nukes got Congress to forbid what the scientists had in mind. They did that with false claims that it had to be done that way to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. First, who is worried about the USA proliferating; we already have nuclear weapons. However, even if non-weapon states followed our lead; quoting again from Dr. Till:
Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?
A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.
It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.
Are we going to listen to scientists; or are we going to follow the likes of the "climate deniers" and not listen to the scientists.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
= new reply since forum marked as read