Are the Yucca mountains a good place to dump toxic waste? Suppose there were mud slides. Flood waters would then carry the toxic waste for thousands of miles. Anyone who drinks the water would be dead.
How about dumping the toxic waste in death valley instead? Death valley is the hottest place in the U.S. Being below sea level, and dry, mud slides and flooding aren't a problem. No one is ever going to live anywhere near there.
Other urls found in this thread:
fissilematerials.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
state.nv.us
reviewjournal.com
youtube.com
nap.edu
youtube.com
charlottestories.com
nydailynews.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Actually not a bad idea. However, California would never go for it and would do anything to obstruct it. As for Yucca mountain, the waste was supposed to be kept in a salt cavern and sealed. Last I heard, it was almost ready to take shipments. Then Harry Ried cut a deal with Obama to shut the place down after who know how much money was spent.
Another solution is to take all that nuclear waste that's stockpiled and spread it out on the US-Mexico border. The radiation would sterilize at the very least any illegals crossing. Anchor baby problem solved!
Please don’t dump toxic waste anywhere. Is the Yucca mountains in Joshua Tree National Park?
We need a space elevator, then we can simply send it to the sun, or Venus. Venus sucks.
How about just not dumping toxic waste. Do you want Fallout New Vegas to be real?
>dumping the toxic waste
How about just not creating toxic waste in the first place?
The toxic waste already exists. It's currently sitting among residential communities.
too many jews own nuclear power plants now
can't we just send it to India so they can fire it into space for us?
This. Nuclear waste is currently stored in pools, submerged in water, at nuclear power plant sites. The ideas for what to do with all of this have been around since the 70's. Power plant owners have sued the government and won because they were paying the government money to come up with a long-term solution. That solution was supposed to be Yucca mountain. I guess we have to wait another 40 years to give it another go.
Well if they get polluted then they will be the Yucky mountains amIright?? G-Guys?
Too late. Toxic waste already exists. It has to go somewhere. Better if it goes somewhere that people don't live and where it can't make groundwater that people drink radioactive.
Mudslides are also a problem in higher elevation areas like the Yucca mountains. Death valley on the other hand is the most uninhabitable place in the U.S and is well below sea level. Therefore, whatever happens in death valley stays in death valley.
Well if the sun isn't an option, my vote would be for storing it in the most densely human populated areas of Africa, where no humans of any worth or significance exist.
It would be a lot cheaper to dump the nuclear waste in death valley. Just let gravity keep the nuclear waste secure, rather than building underground facilities in the Yucca Mountains. Also, the Yucca mountains is only 90 miles away from Las Vegas. That's too close for comfort.
Local residents have more to worry about than the nuclear power industry itself.
The only issue with transporting nuclear waste across the country is the possibility of a freight accident.
A month ago, flood waters in Iowa caused a freight train to derail, spilling vast quantities of oil. If it had been nuclear waste being transported, it would have been the worst ecological disaster in world history.
Are we still producing this nuclear waste? Holy shit. Why haven't we switched to thorium reactors yet?
There's more to selecting a waste disposal site than remoteness and dryness. You also have to consider seismic stability, how porous is the rock, how stable is the rock, etc.
Probably the most effective way of dealing with nuclear waste is re-enrichment but for some reason that sets environmental fags off the deep end. There was one nuclear power plant built in France that was purposed for this and there were RPG attacks on the facility by Greenpeace fags. Probably U.S shills paid to disrupt a process which creates plutonium.
Nuclear waste isn't stored in tin cans during transport. The qualification process for a transport package is ridiculous. There are only a couple certified in North America.
I don't know much about the area. Is there any threat of deep underground water supplies being contaminated?
we'll take your nuclear waste for a price
"a rail freight wagon carrying nuclear waste was derailed at a depot in Drancy, 3 km northeast of Paris on 23 December 2013. The wagon carried spent fuel from the Nogent nuclear power plant destined for AREVA's reprocessing plant at La Hague in Normandy. Although no leakage of radiation was measured at the accident location, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) reported that subsequent testing by AREVA revealed a hotspot on the rail car that delivered a dose of 56 microsievert."
fissilematerials.org
Personally i'm a fan of Ocean floor disposal
en.wikipedia.org
They've ran tests where the crashed containers to see if they would break open in case of an accident. You can probably find videos of it. AFAIK, the tests showed that the containers remained intact.
cough theoretical cough
They do a pretty good job transporting it
youtube.com
Earthquakes are a risk.
state.nv.us
France reprocesses and recycles their nuclear waste since they get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. I've read that they can keep all the shit they can reuse inside a small building.
Its about building breeder reactors not the type of fuel. Also Molten Salt Reactors such as Liquid fluoride thorium reactor "LFTR" are breeder reactors.
maybe it would actually help them... genetically
*they can't reuse
this, we should put in the subduction zone under south america
Worked for the Japs, kek
Just throw all waste at the sun.
Here's another article on earthquakes near the Yucca mountains. reviewjournal.com
Not a bad video from Phil
youtube.com
Yucca mountains and death valley share the same ground water.
nap.edu
"it is impossible at this time to state with any degree of certainty that the water-table will not rise sufficiently to flood the repository within the next 10,000 years."
Just putting this in here for those who want to know more about yucca mountain
youtube.com
it's already been mined, look at it
waste is everywhere
lol more then you think these natural hills without trees make you think
>Do you want Fallout New Vegas to be real?
How is that even a question?
Just dump it in international waters.
>North America
>Paris
dumb fuckin mutt
>Are the Yucca mountains a good place to dump toxic waste?
Do you mean nuclear waste?
>Suppose there were mud slides. Flood waters would then carry the toxic waste for thousands of miles. Anyone who drinks the water would be dead.
Surface flood waters would enter into a sealed containment room then enter into sealed containment vessels then dissolved insoluble vitrified spent fuel. Which will then carry the heavy metals in defiance of physics thousands of miles.
>How about dumping the toxic waste in death valley instead? Death valley is the hottest place in the U.S. Being below sea level, and dry, mud slides and flooding aren't a problem. No one is ever going to live anywhere near there.
How about consuming the 'waste' fuel in breeder reactors, changing the final waste material into short lived radioactives with a reduction of 99% total produced waste?
Pic related that's vitrified uranium secured for billions of years in stable glass.
israel
Dump the waste into the Pacific and watch Nippons get fucked by Gojira, again
Some waste is worse than others.
Coal can also be a problem. "“Levels of radioactivity from radium at the Marshall coal-fired power plant on Lake Norman were 2.5 times the federal drinking water standard. Thallium levels at Marshall also exceeded federal standards and were 18 times higher than the North Carolina groundwater standard."
charlottestories.com
>56 microsievert
So spending 5 days outside.
They won’t dump it on the surface, but in deep concrete lead lined vaults. This minimizes exposure risk for centuries.
If a train were to derail because of a bridge collapse, there would be a lot more radiation. The same goes for a freight train derailing on steep mountains.
Five years ago, a bridge collapsed, causing a freight train to fall off and poison local residents with vinyl chloride.
nydailynews.com
Tests of train crashes do not prepare for these contingencies. Nuclear waste can cause a lot more contamination than the one in France, if the crash is worse.
this those fault blocks moving about could bust shit open .
Anywhere in the green area would be ideal to dump all of our waste. Nuclear, chemical, industrial,cigarette butts, raw sewage, you name it.
Yes, there's an aquifer under Death Valley.
This, holy fuck you niggers are retarded, yeah we're just going to dump our radioactive waste in open air.. hello?
How about shooting it into space above this land mass? If failure occurs, it goes into a shitty area anyways.
>Tests of train crashes do not prepare for these contingencies. Nuclear waste can cause a lot more contamination than the one in France, if the crash is worse.
They placed the nuclear waste container across a train track then smashed it with another train.
youtube.com
How about when they crashed a train with 6 Nike rocket motors pushing it to 80mph into a shipping container?
youtube.com
They have prepared for every retarded contingency.
Falling from a tall height could rupture the container.
>Falling from a tall height could rupture the container.
Tested for that as well. See the first video. They did an edge on corner drop.
The height wasn't very great, and they failed to consider the weight of the train adding to the impact.
>The height wasn't very great and they failed to consider the weight of the train adding to the impact.
The train's mass is a non factor given the material strengths.
The engineering challenge of moving waste fuel have been solved completely.
Their is no risk of accident during transport.