Geological Disposal Of Nuclear Waste Disposal

Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.

Native people have been around the Americas since before the Europeans came. Then the natives land began to shrink. Now in today’s society they have the lowest population amongst groups. Most native people use the land for growing goods like fruits and vegetables to tobacco. With the possibility of nuclear waste site in Yucca Mountains, it could threaten the fertility of their land. Environmental racism is the inequality in the form of racism linked with environmental factors and practices that cause disproportionate distress on minority communities (Knowledge Encyclopedia). The Yucca mountain project is environmental racism to the surrounding natives. To get across my point, the following paragraphs will talk about the history of the project, what the article was about, which tribes it would affect, why it is environmental racism and why the previous paragraphs prove my opinion.

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

The Institute for Energy and Environment offered and alternative in 1999 for the management of nuclear waste. For short term storage the Institute for Energy and Research (IEER) recommended nuclear waste should be stored as near and safely as possible from where it was produced. IEER suggests that the sites need to be dry and as close as possible to the place where the waste was generated to avoid a potential terrorist disaster. The funding for the extra storage on the site should come from the Federal Governments Nuclear Waste Fund. For short term storage the Institute for Energy and Environment Research (IEER) recommended nuclear waste should be stored as near and safely as possible from where it was produced. IEER suggests that the sites need to be dry and as close as possible to the place where the waste was generated to avoid a potential terrorist disaster. The funding for the extra storage on the site should come from the Federal Governments Nuclear Waste Fund. Many repositories should be looked and studied for more than a decade and none prioritized. Finding a permanent and safe solution is very difficult and would require a lot of time because of the want for good science (Ledwidge,

Since its discovery in the late 19th century, nuclear energy has been used in a diversity of areas such as atomic bombs, medicine, reducing pollution and food irradiation (Gupta, 2012). However, one of the biggest outcomes since this discovery is nuclear energy generation. This subject is largely controversial as it has many pros and cons. It is considered to be a more eco-friendly alternative source of electricity, as it emits less carbon emissions than coal-fired power stations, for example. Yet there still an environmental risk provided by the radio-active waste and its inability to be disposed of for 100,000 years (Phillips, 2012). Today in Australia there are no active nuclear power plants but that is predicted to change in the

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

Along with the health risks that a nuclear waste site causes, there are also frequent earth quakes in the area that has been proposed and it is flood land. This poses a threat to not only the people in the area but the surrounding environment too. The radioactive waste would contaminate the water and the ground if there was a flood or earth quake and because Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years none of us will be alive when the area is no longer

Highly radioactive waste disposal has become one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear technology. As the amount of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from defense-related processing plants has continued to mount, the issue has become increasingly contentious and politicized.2 The politicization of this issue is especially evident in the site selection process of a permanent national repository for the disposal of highly radioactive waste.

Nuclear power is an alternative source of energy that has been gaining ground as an alternate for fossil fuel. This creation of power, like other forms, has negative impacts in the form of waste it produces. This waste is nuclear adding an increased danger in its disposal. The threat and benefits of nuclear power has allowed it to become a topic of political discussion, the reason being a proposed waste sight in the Yucca Mountains. This controversy is difficult because it has two sides that contradict each other. In the case of Hillary Clinton, a democrat, her opposition to the creation of the waste site is due to lack of scientific information of the dangers of it. On the other hand, republican candidate, Rand Paul is for the use of nuclear

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

The overarching question of, ‘Should Nuclear Waste be Disposed of in South Australia?’ will be answered in this outcome. Nuclear waste is material that has been used in a nuclear reactor. It looks exactly the same on the outside, as it did when it went into the reactor (see Figure 1). Once nuclear fission has taken place inside the reactor to make electricity, the Uranium breaks into many unstable isotopes. These isotopes will remain radioactive for thousands of years. Hence, the need for more nuclear waste storage facilities. A storage facility in South Australia would be geographically perfect and hold low level (plastic), intermediate (see Figure 2) and high level waste, like spent uranium fuel cells. The answer will be supported and derived from multiple sources, including; my survey data, expert reports, statistics, graphs and tables.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

PROBLEM: With limited options, proper disposal of highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors poses a unique threat to the national security of the United States; especially when public utilities are incentivized to utilize less expensive and arguably more dangerous cooling ponds. Dry casks, although more expensive, provide increased safeguards, security, and inventory controls not found with cooling ponds, and helps mitigate and alleviate many of the concerns found in storing spent fuel.

The problem with nuclear waste is getting worse everyday while we try and find a solution to dispose of the waste properly, however there are some people who think that the nuclear waste project for waste disposal is not that serious and it does not have an affect on the environment, but they are wrong because our lack of care for proper disposal of nuclear waste is having a tole on the environment where the waste is buried and the life forms around these waste sites.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?