In message <9FE7FB5A-7DE2-42D0-A6E2-7AEA36A20236_at_noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>I'd vote, myself, for using a subduction zone for this purpose,
Yes, that is the only scientifically appropriate response and I
will, for once, vote with you.
The interesting thing is, despite the fact that dumping it in a
subduction zone has pretty much exactly the properties desired,
including the amount of time before we risk seeing it back at the
surface, nobody is talking about that disposal option.
For reasons to convoluted to explain here, I have researched this
exact question a fair bit, and the conclusion is rather sad:
The material in question represents an enormous investment and
contains a literal zoo of oddball elements, and therefore nobody
can even contemplate throwing it away for good.
All repository projects, throughout the world, have as a fundamental
design requirement that the goods must be retrievable.
As the Swedish project says: "for when the next Einstein appears".
Hopefully we will reach a time where the politicians responsible
for the incomprehensible expenditures for nuke development in the
cold war are out of power and saner heads will decide to take
the garbage out where it is harmless.
In the meantime, don't buy property near nuclear facilites.
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Mon Dec 04 2006 - 12:11:11 PST