• 51dusty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I’m no engineer, but 33 feet does not seem like a deep enough hole to be pushing a bunch of radioactive debris into. seems shortsighted…

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Military were warned to not test nukes in the west because prevailing west winds would carry fallout to the eastern states. They should have been testing on the east coast.

      Military: nah.

    • Screen_Shatter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      So there was this carefully selected place called Yucca mountain where radioactive waste could be safely stored for a million years without concerns like this. However, due to public opposition we dont use it, and instead theres just kind of… Nowhere good to go. That doesnt solve this problem, pretty sure this issue predates Yucca, but if you want to see the kind of engineering solution that should be used then Yucca mountain is a great example.

      • titanicx@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Yeah. I remember the whole yucca mountain debate. Had nothing to do with the storage location itself. It had to do with the fact that they’re going to be shipping radioactive waste directly through my hometown as well as a lot of other very highly populated places. Things that we didn’t want shipped through our area. And saying that it could be stored for millions of years safely there is kind of a joke. You know this was still built by the same types of contractors that get government bids. In other words the lowest bidder out there.

        • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          If it’s anything like the solution planned in Finland, the waste is placed in copper containers, transported in pretty much bomb-proof vessels, and the facility is kilometres deep underground split into multiple separated chambers that get filled with concrete (or bentonite to be more precise) once they are full. The result is a solid block that will survive basically forever and the only thing you need to do is not go dig it back up.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        If I remember correctly, one of the biggest problems was the transportation issue, which no one had a solution for. How exactly do you safely transfer several tons of nuclear waste from, say, Shearon Harris to Yucca Mountain? that’s a very long train route. And you want to do this on a recurring basis? from several different locations around the country?

        How exactly are you going to convince the states in between that they should permit you to transport nuclear waste across their borders, repeatedly? Who is going to provide security for all of this nuclear waste while it’s in transit? Who is going to accept liability for any accidents that occur, and who is going to handle the PR when a truckload of irradiated water gets dumped in some neighborhood?

        Good luck getting anyone who even wants to explore establishing those arrangements as their full-time job. “Yes, I brokered the agreement for transporting radioactive material that resulted in a half-ton of waste being spread across ten backyards and an elementary school playground just outside of Birmingham.” Sounds like career suicide, and maybe not career suicide.