Quote:
Originally Posted by flecc
1) Australia for example has been, is, and will be stable for many thousands of years, and quite probably to when this planet ends. In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life. That's why we happily store our waste above ground in this small island at no danger to anyone. The quantities involved even with the whole world on nuclear are tiny relative to this planet's size, and easily dealt with. They could just stay above ground in the many useless remote deserts we have and will always have.
|
Flecc, I can certainly see your argument here, and it is very practical, but where this falls down is when you consider terrorism. All you would need is a group of terrorists to intercept a transport and ....
The waste is still a problem.
I am not happy at all that we store our waste as we do. All we need is a 9/11 attack on one of these stores and we could have a major disaster on our small island. I dont think that we should use technologies that we cannot use cleanly anymore, it simply doesnt do us any good at all and give us a headache 'down the road'. It has to be a part of any long term plan to move away from these.
John