(30 January 2013, 20:26)I-K-E Wrote: (30 January 2013, 15:02)BeardyMan Wrote: (30 January 2013, 14:38)BDG Wrote: I do not think Chalk and London clay create the geological stability for deep storage of nuclear wastes.
The site they are proposing has already been found to be geologically unsuitable. Even more investigation causes destruction of the area.
just a note London Clay is actually a very good medium for storing nuclear waste as it creates a barrier to radionucleotide escape
the thing is the reason that we want to stick the waste underground is that it the safest option. If TSHF and the waste is stored on the surface like it is how then then builds will fail and over time (could be 100s of years) the waste will eventually leak out. In a geologically sound deep repository using the multi-barrier approach the waste can be stored safely for 100,000s of years.
Oh it the waste was in the Lake District but in a DGP then I'd hav no issue going there compare to the current storage on the surface at Sellafield
(30 January 2013, 20:33)bigpaul Wrote: (30 January 2013, 20:26)I-K-E Wrote: In a geologically sound deep repository using the multi-barrier approach the waste can be stored safely for 100,000s of years.
the trouble is, we havent had nuclear for 100,000 years-we've only had it for about 70 years so how do they know? its only theory, i prefer to be "safe, not sorry".
some parts of waste the will be active for about 100,000 of years the aim of a deep geological repository is safe storage for longer than that time with out humans to service it. No surface building will last anywhere near that amount of time. Better underground if the geology is right
Search
Calendar
Help
