CDR: Re: Nuclear waste

[Ken Brown]

Petro wrote:

> I've never really understood why we don't just put this stuff
>in some *really* tough polycarbonate containers aboard "mature"
>technology rockets and launch it into the biggest heat source in
>the solar system.

Because 

(1) most of it (by bulk) isn't really that dangerous.  The environmental
damage done by the rockets would far, far, exceed any possible advantage
in getting it off the planet.

It is mostly consumables used in power-plants, labs, factories & so on.
I contributed a little myself a few weeks ago - some rubber gloves &
paper towels that had some really rather harmless scintillant spilled on
it. All sealed in special bags & sent off to be shut away somewhere for
a few years. Along with large amounts of lab coats, plastic bags, lunch
boxes, used injection needles... for stuff which was less radioactive
than the groundwater in Cornwall.

(2) most of it (by mass) is bloody heavy. Reinforced concrete, big metal
containers, submarines, the actual foundations of power stations. If
anyone was into putting that much mass into space we'd be on our way to
Mars by now.

(3) The small amount of stuff that really *is* dangerous  is dangerous
enough that it would be too risky putting it in a rocket.  What is the
success rate of unmanned launches? About 19/20?  

Me, I'd favour subduction zones for the dangerous stuff.  Even deep
sedimentary rocks get eaten by bacteria sooner or later, so make sure
anything really hot is on the going-down side of the escalator.

But most of it just isn't nasty enough to be worth the bother.  I guess
most people don't have a sense of scale. If it says "nuclear waste" they
dredge up half-remembered sf stories &  think of two-headed lizards &
glowing blue wastelands...