Talk:Radioactive waste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives

1

Contents 1 First deep final repositories in 2010? 2 Space disposal 3 Aiming waste into the Sun 4 "A number of incidents" 5 Copyvio 11-December-2006 6 Sacrifice zone? 7 to "Pstudier"...& Transport & Ocean Dumping... a discussion 8 to the doctor 9 Error? 10 Remix & return 11 Ocean? 12 The italian link is completely wrong! 13 However, take care of this link about how to use radioactive waste to produce precious metals. 14 And I think you must give an eye on these too. 15 The nature and significance of radioactive waste, Physics 16 The United States 17 Deep geologic repository 18 Duration concerns

[edit] First deep final repositories in 2010?

The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) was commissioned a few years ago, but the first sentence in the geological disposal section says that there won't be one till 2010.

I put in a reference to WIPP, but I did not want to take on the task of rewriting the first part of this section. Perhaps WIPP is not considered a deep final repository? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.15 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WIPP is not for high level waste, only transuranic waste. Paul Studier (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space disposal

I've been on a rampage today, looking for stuff that needs to be completely redone. So I rewrote the section on space disposal. It no longer contains any speculation on the feasibility of space disposal using technology that hasn't been created yet. More importantly, it now refers to a reliable source. I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings but it really needed to go. -- Captaindan 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. These are people who nearly had seizures when we launched Cassini at Saturn with a few kg of Pu-238 in it. Even if we had a magical propulsion system for launching actinides into space for free, I doubt that politically people would tolerate the booster failure risk rate. If 1% of these things are going to fail and go into the ocean, why not just include the other 99% as well, while we're at it? ;). At least if you pick your spot, you can drop casks into ocean crustal subduction zones (which has been suggested). SBHarris 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiming waste into the Sun

An anonymous editor added text saying that it would be cheaper to send waste to the nearest star rather than the Sun due to the Earth's escape velocity being more than half that of solar system's escape velocity. However, getting the waste outside of the solar system is different than getting it all the way to the nearest star, which is over four light years away. If you want to get the waste there in a reasonable amount of time, you're going to need a lot more fuel than it would take to get to the Sun. Also, the spacecraft would have to be designed to last thousands or millions of years, depending on how fast you could get it moving (it's too late for me to do any calculations right now), which would be much more expensive than something you are going to just aim into the Sun. Even if it was cheaper than sending the waste to the Sun, it would not be much cheaper and there is still the problem of launch failures and the huge number of launches it would take to get rid of all of the waste. -- Kjkolb 07:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who cares how fast it goes, once out of our solar system? Are you in a hurry? But yes, once you get away from Earth, it takes more delta-V to drop into sun than directly out of solar system. But you can use Jupiter as a catch to send back to the sun our out of the system either way, so it doesn't make much difference. So long as you have enough umph to get to Jupiter. And while we're on that subject, why not just drop it into Jupiter? Or Venus? Afraid of angry Venusians or Jupiterians? Want to live on Jupiter or Venus some day and are afraid of dropping your retirement house values? SBHarris 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if we could just send all of our nuclear waste into space, but it would more than likely be completely uneconomical to do so. Also, you wouldn't need to make the spacecraft last for thousands of years, a few hundred would be more than enough, as it only needs to escape the solar system. The other problems with trying to send it outside of the solar system, apart from the cost, are the large Oort Cloud encompassing it and the Kuiper Belt. The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt's are collections of rocks/asteroids/comets held in place by the collective gravity of the solar system, this would shred the spacecraft to pieces before it could leave the system, which would leave radioactive material floating in the belt, which in turn, could be veered off course back towards us. Further to this, it could be seen as a contridiction of the Outer Space Treaty, in the sense that you would be sending nuclear material into space. This isn't a direct contravention of the treaty as it wouldn't be a nuclear weapon, more the fact that it could be interperated to be one as it is nuclear material. Leon Xavier (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "A number of incidents"

"A number of incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly, simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store." This comes from near the end of the article, and I think it needs a "citation needed flag." Not only could people get uptight about this because it doesn't sound entirely neutral, I'd like to read about these incidents.

[edit] Copyvio 11-December-2006

Not being sure of the Australian laws on copyrights, I tagged the section as Copyvio since it was a direct cut-and-paste. The information is good, but the copyright is suspect. Simesa 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What part of Aus copyright laws are you unsure about? Im pretty sure I can help, our laws are pretty broad^Talk User:Fissionfox 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacrifice zone?

I couldn't find the reference to sacrifice zones in the Jan. 2007 Scientific American. Can User:Benjiwolf be more specific? In any case I don't believe that any place in the US so designated, with the exception of the nuclear bomb test sites. Paul Studier 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed i was just in the periodical library here in Zurich at the Uni and was leafing thru, i had scientific american and a couple others, pretty sure it was SA, yet ill double check tomorrow, yet it was near the back, a two page review concerning the los alamos area and the various parties there, and it clearly stated 109 or 106 i think "sacrifice zones" across the states...and that makes sense...im suprised its so few...and all i was interested in was that there were 100+ and that this was an interesting fact to put out there...and it was up to someone else to put the link to what was from a scientific journal and is indeed factual...(yes i am terrible!...all the glory and none of the tedious work! yet my typing is slow so its someone elses job to insert all the detailed linkages, ill put the major works i used at the bottom of the page in the reference section yet i dont usually detail all the linkages in the actual article number by number unless i got the stuff of the net... anyways i always try and work with facts from reputed sources, and highly regarded scientific texts)...yet ill get the exactitudes in the morning...as i say...im pro nuke energy...yet i want the facts out there as to its issues and problems so we can do it right...cover ups in this industry are foolish...its things of this nature that have hurt the international nuke industry in the past...if they took better care and were more critical and honest about its problems we wouldnt have had so many of them already...and there has to be a coordinated long term intelligent plan to deal with the waste disposal issues or were going to have a serious nasty mess on our hands, the facts and problems need to be thrown at them so they are forced to deal and solve them...they need some pressure to design the best nuke power industry "product lifecycle management" from design concept to disposal...im thoroughly against some monolithic no checks and balances uber-party...competition!!!...and for healthy competition we need the dirty little details on the industries so people are forced to compete at the highest level and we end up with the best products and systems...hiding the nasty details from the public is the wrong way to go on this one...Benjiwolf 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• There is a big difference between any detectable contamination and a place which is uninhabitable forever.
• The reference [1] is invalid.
• This is much to much negativity and scaremongering for the first paragraph. It sounds like mankind is in danger of running out of nonradioactive places to live.
• and one of the main concerns is with the long distance transportation of the waste from across the United States to this area, and the possible several accidents over time that would occur is an exaggeration. Considering that no one has been injured in the US from a radioactive leak in a transportation accident, and that Japan routinely ships spent nuclear fuel to France, it would seem that the transportation is not that big of a deal.
• Deletion of though the evidence that this would happen is lacking after sea-based burial has become taboo from fear that such a repository could leak and cause widespread damage is unjustified. In spite of the sinking of several nuclear powered submarines, quite a few nuclear bombs, and quite a few nuclear tests, I know of no evidence of significant contamination of the ocean.

I will revert the last two and I wait for evidence that any part of the US, other than bomb test sites, are considered uninhabitable forever. Paul Studier 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to "Pstudier"...& Transport & Ocean Dumping... a discussion

Hey! It was "american scientist" Jan/Feb...sorry...not "scientific american"...one of them should really change the name some...(clearly one did it to get some of the readership of the other with a similar name)...it was a review as i said, by an MIT physics lecturer of the book "The Nuclear Borderlands"...towards the back section in the reviews...in his review he states "permanently uninhabitable"...so thats what i first went with...yet then i looked up and retrieved that DOE document i gave a link to(1), which is possibly one of the sources the book writer got his material from as the DOE mentions 108 sites...and the book mentions 109 sites so i figured they were talking about the same sites...and it is possible he overstated his case to "permanently uninhabitable"...so i went back and adjusted how i phrased it after looking briefly at a couple of the sites the DOE is trying to remediate...and of course no place will ever be "permanently uninhabitable" as of nuclear waste...it may take tens of thousands of years yes...or much more...yet at some point it is livable again...yet the DOE does state in that document that some sites will not be able to be remediated fully, ever, and people obviously wont be able to live on them or drink the water for a long time despite strong efforts to clean the sites up...I completely disagree though with "too much scaremongering"...the article previously just gave no sense at all about the harm of radioactive materials...it was some abstract document about nuclear chemistry and didnt at all give the notion..which is true...that this is the most difficult and deangerous waste we have to deal with and that it can sometimes last very very long time periods relative to out lifespans...also the article gave no sense about the scope and scale of the types of amounts of waste we are dealing with...it really seemed to me the article was covering up the realities that it is a serious problem...yet i am going to add that some of the "sacrifice zones" are smaller sites and research labs where the remediation issues are somewhat simpler and restoral of some areas is simpler and of more reasonable cost...i need to skim thru more of the DOE document to get a better sense of the 100+ sites...

as to transport issues...i agree in the US so far it has been handled highly professionally with few to no mishaps at least that we hear about...(yet remember much of this stuff is classified and for instance in the soviet union accidents may have happened that we just never heard about)(just read that a ukrainian scientist was even imprisoned after questioning the "official" estimates of damage...we dont hear the true story on this one im afraid)..also the US hasnt been transporting much nuclear waste yet...it has been stored on site mostly...now that they have Carlsbad to take some to, there will be much higher rates of transport...they definitely take serious care so accidents dont happen...yet in all their shipments they fully acknowledge that accidents may indeed happen and take it very seriously and plan accordingly...and over time, say many thousands of years of nuclear waste shipments...accidents just by random chance will happen...and surely in countries with lower standards and care...i felt it good to give a sense of this so it can be addressed as people reading the article might want to go into this field or already be in it...and to better plan or concentrate site locations and waste sites accordingly...anyways i worded that carefully...i just said there was serious concern...which there is, just read a shipment log and plan...and that "possible" accidents would occur over time...which is a very mild statement...just read there have been accidents during transport in bolivia with defective shielding and bus passengers got irradiated...it came out in a court in the UK that a shipment had defective shielding...now reading about a guy that salvaged some nuclear scrap laying around in mexico and later they turned his truck into scrap and made it into chairs and furniture legs for shipment to the states and canada...and just the furniture set the alarms ringing as the new truck drove thru a los alamos monitoring site by chance...then they found the roads the guy drove on were heavily contaminated...and these things are very hard to find and hidden from the public even when the find out...you really have to search for this stuff...they avoid publication at all costs or put classification holds...will we hear about a serious leak in china??? i think not my friend...i think when u start digging ur going to find many accidents over time...just in transport...after now reading some of this stuff i may even strengthen my wording on the transport section...

as to ocean contamination...i very much disagree...i will retrieve some articles and give links to some of the islands in the pacific and concerning nuclear waste in the seas...i think its a serious issue...it is totally banned...yet surely occurs anyways...at least buried in land we can keep track of it...that line "evidence is lacking" i think is false and also encourages dangerous behaviors...im taking it out till u come up with some studies showing there is no harm in dumping nuclear waste in the oceans...

anyways i do think that in the states it might be able to be handled with few mishaps and in a responsible manner...and its too critical and valuable an industry for the states to realistically abandon it at this time point...it is tough to get away with a nuclear materials accident or leak...and the standards are relatively high in the US when it comes to radioactivity...its one of the few forms of pollution everybody pretty much takes seriously...yet in many of these other countries i have serious doubt as to their handling of nuclear waste...there is much bribery and corruption still...lack of transparency...we didnt even hear about a massive accident (chernobyl) until they no longer could hide it...nuclear waste and contamination worldwide is a serious problem and i dont think anyone is taking it seriously...the states might be able to mostly remediate a site like oak ridge...yet what of these other countries when they start to have sites like that? even if they wanted as high a standards, they just dont have the money in many cases to be able to pursue them, and we know full well u can get away with whatever u want in some of these countries...Benjiwolf 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you taking seriously the idea of choking the world in its own CO2 in a century? Now many people have died from nuclear radiation, vs coal and gas mining accidents? How many people from nuclear powerplant accidents (even counting Chernobyl which was ridiculously underdesigned with no containment, then had its backup systems deliberately disabled)? Answer, Chernobyl might be responsible, in its entirety, for one SINGLE month of traffic deaths in any given large developed county. Just one. So get some sense of perspective. You're not dying of radiation. You ARE choking. You do far more dangerous things everyday (like drive) than live anywhere near a modern nuke plant. SBHarris 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont drive...i use the Swiss Trains...and we use nuclear power for them even i suppose (20-40% of our energy)...and if everyone had safety & ethical standards like CH, the nuclear waste issue wouldnt be so much a problem...yet even here in CH there was a partial meltdown once...anyways my own CO2 footprint is very minimal...as to choking...it'd take a vast increase in CO2 levels for me to start "choking" from it...more appropriately i am "sweating" in it...anyways u are incomprehensible...Benjiwolf 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Choking is a metaphor. It's poisoning you/us, not radiation. And yes, you seem to have a bad case of double-standarditis. We'd do better to go back to a system of electric trains powered by nukes in the US, but our resources and our geography aren't quite as conducive to it. Nor do we have enough mountains and rivers to power the rest-- our country just isn't geographically built that way. All our good hydroelectric sites are already in use. We've traditionally made our living by aggriculture (which if we subsidized to the extent you do, would bankrupt us) and manufacturing (somebody has to make things). We're also quite active in cleaning up the world (Saddam Hussein and his genocide-- even though it wasn't strictly our business to do it-- the rest of the world should have been in on this), while the Swiss have typically sat on their hands, done nothing against world aggression, and basically just counted their money (during WW II, the Nazi's money). All this can save you a lot of energy! The rest of the world cannot live that way, however. I'm glad your personal environmental footprint so low. I suppose your wife and children commute on the Swiss trains also? Families are still needed, you know. Just not large ones. SBHarris 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to the doctor

"double standarditis"??? i said in my edits to this that i am pro-nuclear energy...i am just for some accurate info as to the serious problem of nuke waste so the industry will have to competently address this problem...this article was covering up the realities that there are problems with the nuke energy issue, and that the amounts of nuke waste involved are large...you can be pro-nuke power & anti-nuke pollution...and it is not some rosy world where nuclear energy is our end all and be all, sent from the heavens and devoid of problems...this industry like others needs criticism...and actually i have american citizenship as well, by some accounts still, and my grandfather fought with honors and medals for bravery in WWII in europe...and my brother serves in the US military now in a "special unit"...so lay off...and for the record i felt if saddam was such a problem, which in some ways he was, then he should have been taken out thru espionage, air power, and commando raid...not massive land invasion and occupation... even tho such a scenario puts people like in my brothers area of the military in greater danger perhaps...and i think ull find that the general (Norman S) that used mainly air power in the Gulf War I, who was very successful with a decisive victory...eliminating iraqs capability to aggress, was of a similar opinion before this "foray" into the desert of cheneys and bushies...and did GW find any weapons of serious note after Normans victory...no... Benjiwolf 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

as to Switzerland and world aggression...switzerland has been invaded many times...and thoroughly repulsed the invaders...it attempts international influence thru peaceful and diplomatic means...it has a policy of not engaging in wars in foreign lands...and it was everyones wish...including the allies...that CH remain neutral in WWII...as it has done thruout the last many hundred years...to remain the only safe country where international monetary exchange and diplomacy could be carried out between the various warring parties...they counted everyones money in WWII...and thats what everyone wanted...yet anyways...no one is perfect...and neither is switzerland...

as to trains... there is no excuse for not having a better train system in the states...

as to agriculture...it is a very minor part of the economies to both the US and CH...and the US subsidizes a vast sum of money compared to CH...CH has a small number of farmers...and takes care of them well...like it does its entire population...even though its wealth level per person is lower than americas in many reasonings...the farmers in switzerland are typically actual small farmers that physically work on the land, and not merely business people and investors like so many in the states as well...anyways if people dont want to subsidize farmers so much like in the US or Europe...then theyll have to get used to higher food prices...or the outsourcing of their ag systems to countries with even lower standards for workers, chemicals, and sustainable farming methods...yet i am for cautious re-arrangement of the subsidy systems to encourage better farming methods...

[edit] Error?

"...sometimes many thousands of acres[5](&DOE)[6] The DOE wishes to try..." Is the "(&DOE)" an attempt at wiki syntax? Or is it just an error or something? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remix & return

The remix & return idea sounds rather unlikely to me. The problem with spent fuel is not just that the Uranium has been refined to a thousandfold concentration. If that were all, it would indeed be a simple matter of remixing it to get the original level of radiation. But the Uranium has been made many times more radioactive. It might be an option for less radioactive waste that has the level of radioactivity of pure natural Uranium, but not for the Uranium itself. For that, it would have to be diluted to a much larger volume than what originally came out of the mine. In other words, it wouldn't fit back in. Or is the idea to dispose of just a fraction of the waste this way? If so, that should be made clear in the article. What percentage could be disposed of this way? Only a tiny fraction, I assume. DirkvdM 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

They are saying that after some period of cooling, the waste is about as radioactive as the original uranium ore or less. However the fission products and actinides in spent fuel are chemically different from the original uranium and its decay products, and therefore some like neptunium-237 may not be as well isolated from spreading in groundwater etc. I think it is brought up more to make a rhetorical point, that uranium is already radioactive and in the earth and that fissioning it does not increase radioactivity except in the short run. --JWB (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean?

I've heard that due to the mass of most nuclear waste, it is reasonably safe to simply dump it deep into the ocean. Is there any truth to this claim? 71.242.154.167 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit in the article about this, under the heading Geological disposal, second-to-last paragraph, starting "Sea-based options for disposal of radioactive waste (...)". Phaunt 09:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't see that before. 71.242.154.167 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The subduction zone option would probably be the safest method of sea dumping, as the waste would be pulled into the mantle and destroyed. However, wouldn't there be a slight possibility that radiation could escape during this process? Due to the nature of high-level waste, it would need to be stored in (probably) lead barrels, which would then melt into the mantle and affect the composition of the mantle itself. Just stipulating, but wouldn't this have an effect on the rest of the world? Leon Xavier (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Just to be precise, the idea is that radioactivity would be dispersed into mantle material and kept out of the biosphere for very long time, allowing time for its natural decay. (2) There is no particular need for lead containers; carbon steel may well suffice. (3) The amount of container material, waste/or and radioactivity mixed into the mantle would surely be too small to have any effect on the mantle behavior. PJG 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giersp (talk • contribs)

[edit] The italian link is completely wrong!

The italian link takes to a little page about the nuclear fallout.

If there is no correlation the link could be erased.

[edit] However, take care of this link about how to use radioactive waste to produce precious metals.

It is from a forum of an italian national television:

http://www.la7.it/community/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=14133&start=1

In the same topic there is also the description of how to produce artificial diamants of 10 carats an "above" of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.

In short, precious metals can be produced from radioactive waste, and the new tabletop particle accelerators of two Universities can do the rest.

The project to burn nuclear waste was also promoted by the Nobel Price Carlo Rubbia, and to produce precious metals is a subproduct of this method of nuclear burning with a linear particle accelerator.

Many posts are in English.

[edit] And I think you must give an eye on these too.

Carlo Ceballos obtains PhD on shorter life-span of radioactive waste 05 February 2007 by TNWToday | M&C

http://www.tnw.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=57ba3c4a-4b79-4474-820d-2c1237876169&lang=en

A more general view on this process with a bit of history about particle accelerators for this project (2002?):

http://www.neutron.kth.se/publications/conference_papers/W_Gudowski_FR202_1.PDF

Bye.

(someguy)

this shit is really interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.54.43 (talk) 07:23:33, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The nature and significance of radioactive waste, Physics

The following passage "Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia" and the few preceeding it need to be deleted or edited because they present information in biased way. The particles with half-life of "hundreds millenia" are -while not entirely stable - not active enough to be hazardous in any meaningful way. It's a misconception that anything radioactive (i.e. unstable) is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.8.2 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The United States

It seems to me that this article is extremely US-centric, especially the in the overly long "introduction". Given that the US has less than a quarter of the world's nuclear reactors, is this really an accurate representation of the topic? Cyril Washbrook 07:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep geologic repository

There is a specific Wikipedia article on Deep Geologic Repositories. It needs some cleanup and additions to reflect the current international situation. However, I propose to transfer & delete most of the material from here, and link to the Deep Geologic Repository article. Comments? PJG 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just don't see the need to merge the articles. Each stands alone quite well. Have added wikilinks between the two articles. Johnfos (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. Waste needs its own article. If anything the repository article could be merged into this one, but I see no reason to do that. NPguy (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My original post above was poorly phrased... I fully agree this Rad Waste article should stay. I was thinking of simplifying the Repository section within this Rad Waste article by referring to the Repository article. General principle of having text on a given topic in only one place with links, rather than two places where it can diverge. At the moment, neither the section here nor the Wiki article are a particularly current summary. I'll look into updating the latter article first. PJG 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giersp (talk • contribs)

[edit] Duration concerns

The appearance of the word "year" is incredibly low in the article. Since we talk about long term disposal, specifying just how long is a primary concern. Curiously, while the Swedish repository brochure talks about 100'000 years, the Canadian FAQ mentions just 10'000. In addition, the latter suggests that after 500 years of interim storage "the major hazard from the used fuel is no longer one of external exposure". They seem to me rather conflicting assertions...

Later, I'll insert a paragraph about that right after Long term management of waste, before the first subsection, if I can find adequate references. Please write here any advice that you may feel appropriate.

Secondary concerns, related to the duration of the storage, are about how to compute the cost of the storage and how to write warnings about the risk for future visitors of the area. In facts, we don't know how costs were being reckoned 10'000 years ago, so we cannot guess what will happen in the next 10'000 years period. Ditto for the language that warnings should be written in.

ale (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two relevant facts: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico is licensed for 10,000 years. By contrast, a court decided that the Yucca Mountain license needed to address risks up to 1,000,000 years.

It is important to distinguish external and internal doses. The main risk from external exposure comes from the fission products, most of which decay within a few hundred years. The residual risk is of internal exposures, e.g. from drinking water, and comes mostly from transuranic elements (plutonium and heavier). Since WIPP intended for transuranic waste, there is an obvious contradiction between the two license durations, since the factors driving long term health risks are identical.

One benchmark that has been used is to compare the radiotoxicity (hazards from internal exposure) of long-lived waste with that of uranium as it occurs in nature (including its daughter decay products in equilibrium). For spent fuel, the figure is about 250,000 years. For high level reprocessing waste, it is about 10,000 years. This is not a regulatory standard. NPguy (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)