if its radio active its radio active for the next "X" thousands of years and thats about that its a case of just not gouing there with the cost of building and maintaining a nuk powerstation with the view of just how unreliable man is in saftey because that way he earns more is best to use the same money to build solar stations

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

In reality, you could spread the waste over the Sahara desert or the Australian outback as long as it is dilute enough. After all that is where it came from. The problem is that we have concentrated it and it then becomes dangerous and the idea of spreading it around is just not acceptable. I do believe that after a couple of years storage to get rid of the most active elements then spraying it over the outback is probably the best way to deal with it.

Mike.

 

couple of years or couple of centries ?

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

Depends on the particular substance, they have different half lives.

I actually walked on top of a nuclear reactor core a few years back, it was a Magnox reactor, in the process of being decommissioned. Interestingly enough, the same day I visited C.A.T. as well (Centre for Alternative Technology) which was only a few miles away.

The nuclear power station was unique in the UK, as it was the only one NOT on the sea - it used an inland lake for it's cooling - anyone want a 15 foot trout with legs and tentacles?

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

yikes no I'll stick to the frozen samon in my freezer that I butchered myself after buying it for 1.5 £/Kg

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

from what i understand the uranium out of the ground isn't that radioactive. its not until they refine it and get the correct isotope that it becomes realy dangerous. thats why i was wondering if they could come up with a way of refining it back another isotope that wouldn't be so bad

 

erm yes like by using as much energy as they got out of using it to generate power most likely

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

When I was at school (about 14 or so) we did about radioactivity in physics, and the teacher produced a radium sample - this was in a locked, lead lined, mahogany box, and it was kept in a locked safe. We tested it with a geiger counter, then tested the pupils watches (that had luminous dials) - the weakest of the watches was twice as radioactive as the sample, and many were five or six times as radioactive!

During WWII luminous dials were used in aircraft (for obvious reasons), the women who painted them died of cancer a few years later!

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

I'm sure you probably know this but not everything glow in the dark is radioactive most things aren't. It's just the things like watch dials and some fishing floats that never need to be exposed to light to glow that are radioactive. A radioactive isotope mixed with the phosphor paint is continiously energising the phosphor so it doesn't need to be exposed to light to make it glow.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

We'd have 8 minutes of trouble-free time before we realize anything though.