![]() | High-level radioactive waste management has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved much of this material from too-large article on "Radioactive waste" and will revise that article shortly to minimize duplication. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Even with a quick read-through I find this article to be sorely lacking.
This is very serious factual omissions. I cannot support the nomination for "Good article".
-- J-Star ( talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned two already: Oklo, and Cigar Lake. Here is a report with several more.
http://www.skb.se/upload/publications/pdf/TR-01-20.pdf
-- J-Star ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As a non-partisan in this rather disjointed discussion, it seems to me that J-Star is taking the more reasonable approach, with accusations and unreasonable challenges coming from Mervyn Emrys. Why the 17 million year figure, for example? Why the derogatory comments about references to a Swedish government web site and appeal to an outdated quote even from a Nobel laureate. Tone it down, please. The discussion is also scattered in three places: this page and the discussion pages of the two protagonists. Better to keep it in one place. NPguy ( talk) 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I'd like to keep the discussion of this topic on this page, I'm copying here a recent posting from Mervyn Emryn to my talk page:
Since NPguy would like to keep the discussion of this topic on this page, I'm copying here a previous posting from J-Star to my talk page, and my reply:
http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____16765.aspx http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____17139.aspx
The two links immediately above are (1) a five paragraph description by SKB of its research goals and the requirement that it report to the Swedish parliament, and (2) a brief "search" page where one may search for SKB publications on its home page. Both links are to the SKB home page. Neither is an appropriate reference to a verifiable source of information on a specific issue such as the one raised here.
The first link at top of this section is also to a consultant's publication posted on the SKB homepage. It now appears as inline note #9 in the lead of the article. Note SKB is a private industry organization comparable to a corporation; it is not a government organization. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi to Mervyn Emrys, J-star and others. A few thoughts on this article.
Regards. hamiltonstone ( talk) 09:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please allow me to pose a fundamental question: Why are we here? Are we here to write an encyclopedia for Wikipedia? Or are we here to put down the good faith efforts of other editors?
It seems to me that anyone who criticizes the efforts of other editors has a moral obligation to propose constructive alternatives in the form of specific language or edits to an article. Merely providing criticism without constructive alternatives is the equivalent of throwing rocks or firebombs at some establishment—not constructive, but merely tearing down the efforts of others.
J-Star’s initial comments here appear to amount to a criticism that the article did not lavish sufficient praise on Sweden for its laudable efforts in high-level radioactive waste management research. The activities of 13 governments are briefly summarized in the article, so there are at least that many opportunities for the nationalistic argument to be made. However, J-Star did not propose additional language for inclusion in the article, but subsequently and repeatedly demanded one read the entire contents of the Swedish research effort as listed on the SKB web site.
If J-Star is already familiar with the contents of that research, as appears to be the case, J-Star might have contributed two sentences summarizing it, but did not do so. That would have been a constructive contribution to the article. More than two sentences would be too much, making an already long article much longer and more cumbersome, and unbalancing the article with respect to the summaries of the other 12 country efforts described there. Yet, a longer contribution might be appropriate for the separate, shorter article on KBS-3, or a new article on SKB. Either of those would be constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
This article on High-level radioactive waste management contains only brief, thumbnail summaries of national plans by several countries to manage their accumulations of radioactive wastes. Discussion of those plans requires a brief mention of the difficulties of high-level radioactive waste management, but it does not require comprehensive treatment of all of the research that has yet been done on the subject.
The Swedish research efforts are not similar to those of the United States, France, Russia, Canada, or several other countries. This article is not and cannot be about the research efforts by any country or group of countries. Such treatment, if balanced, would require much more lengthy and comprehensive discussion of numerous methods and technologies for waste storage, reprocessing and disposal that have been actively considered around the world. Consider how many hundreds of pages of such research are contained on the Swedish home page of SKB alone. If J-Star or anyone else wishes to write such an article, they are welcome to put forth the effort.
Why are we here? Is it to write an encyclopedia for Wikipedia? Or are we here to obstruct the good faith efforts of other editors? The nationalistic impulse is a strong one, but in the context of this article, it is not constructive. Rather than tearing down the efforts of other editors, it would be more appropriate for some to put forth more positive and constructive efforts of their own.
Hamiltonstone's suggestions for new language are concrete and constructive. Let's see if something can be made of them that will allow this process to move forward. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 13:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Finland, the United States and Sweden are the most advanced, is maybe Finland and Sweden are the most advanced since yucca mountain is off, an update in time. Mion ( talk) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns about the following material taken from the beginning of the article, after the introduction:
This quotation has gained widespread currency within the anti-nuclear movement for two reasons: 1) it's written by a nobel laureate; and 2) it supports their position regarding the undesirability of nuclear power.
There are two problems with the quotation, however. 1) I don't think the quotation represents the consensus view of scientists and engineers concerned with the disposal of radioactive waste. 2) The quotation takes a viewpoint which is opposed by many scientists concerned with this issue (like Bernard Cohen and others), and their viewpoint is not represented.
There are several specific points in that material which seem to be disputed.
First, the material claims that "no geologic formation" has ever been discovered that is stable for 100,000 years. Whereas I can find many sources (for example, Cohen's book The Nuclear Option, DOE documents, canadian gov't documents) which claim that there are many geological formations which have been extremely stable for millions of years. For example, some text from ref#25 directly contradicts the original claim, as follows: "The deep geological sites provide a natural isolation system that is stable over hundreds of thousands of years to contain long-lived radioactive waste."
Second, the quotation claims that "stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years" are required. However, that point is disputed by almost everyone involved in rad waste disposal. The very point of burying rad waste underground in yucca mountain permanently is that it does not require human maintenance. For example, another quotation from ref#25: "Geological media is an entirely passive disposal system with no requirement for continuing human involvement for its safety. It can be abandoned after closure with no need for continuing surveillance or monitoring."
Third, the quotation claims that "The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous". That quotation contains two claims: 1) that storage must be absolutely reliable; and 2) that the quantities of poison are tremendous. Both those claims are debatable. With regard to reliability of storage, the DOE documents claim that small leakage of rad waste after hundreds of thousands of years would present a tolerable health problem since nobody would be exposed to radiation in excess conservative EPA limits. This obviously presents a tremendous ethical problem, and we should point that out; however we shouldn't take the opinion of this author as an undisputed fact. With regard to the quantities of poison, it seems debatable that the quantities are tremendous. The sum total of all rad waste from US reactors is 77,000 tons, of which ~94% is U-238 which is almost inert and which is identical to what was found in the ground. Much of the remainder consists of short-lived elements which have decayed already by themselves in spent fuel pools. The remainder includes things like transuranics and long-lived fission products, which together represent about 1,500 tons from all US nuclear reactors over 50 years. That is not a "tremendous" quantity, since it could fit easily in a large closet and is absolutely tiny compared to the amounts of other toxins which industrial society produces.
...The material I indicated is an opinion which violates NPOV and is not the consensus view. It should either be labelled as opinion and qualified with countervailing opinions to maintain NPOV, or it should be removed and replaced with material which is undisputed or largely agreed-upon fact. Even if it remains, it should be given an amount of space proportional to the acceptance of those ideas by experts in the field, so as to avoid undue weight. It does not matter that the author of the quotation is a notable physicist since his area of expertise has nothing to do with the disposal of rad waste. Twerges ( talk) 07:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree that there's a problem.
But the quotation from Hannes Alfvén is encyclopedic IMO. The problems are twofold:
For example, the phrase the as yet unsolved dilemma is not attributed to Alfvén here, but is part of our article text, so as it stands it's Wikipedia expressing the opinions that the problem is unsolved and a dilemms, in clear violation of NPOV and several other basic Wikpedia principles.
It's blatant enough to be a good example of exactly how not to write an article. In time we might even incorporate it into the MOS as such.
Hang in there! Andrewa ( talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the omission by Twerges, who unfortunately omitted to include the reliable sources in the article in the discussion on this talk page. One would have great difficulty finding a more reliable source on this subject than Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is peer reviewed by nuclear physicists, including those involved in developing technologies for permanent deep geologic disposal of high level radioactive waste.
Twerges cites sources asserting the longevity of geologic resources exceeding 100,000 years but fails to note that assertions of greater longevity have not been empirically verified. And he ignores the statement that "no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period." There well may be small geologic resources that have been stable so long, but not any of sufficient size in which to locate a permanent repository. Twerges also ignores the published scholarship cited in the article of Shrader-Frechette on precisely this issue.
He also ignores the fact that U.S. federal funding for the Yucca Moutain repository was recently terminated precisely because new data indicates the site has not been geologically stable for the requisite period of time.
Moreover, Twerges exceeds himself when he purports to speak in behalf of "the consensus view of scientists and engineers concerned with the disposal of radioactive waste" because there is no consensus at this time, as I think is evident. There is ferment, over what to do with the substantial quantities of waste already produced, and which is continuing to be produced in the absence of any viable technology to manage it in perpetuity. Expressing his opinion about this ("I think...") is just POV pushing. And attempting to minimize the magnitude of the difficulty by suggesting that the existing waste could be stored in a "large closet" is just silly and insulting to the intelligence of our readers and other editors.
If Twerges wishes to add another viewpoint to the article on matters of controversy I have no objection, but deleting this entire important discussion is improper, verging on censorship. But as one who has actually worked and published in this area, I would hope a more moderate approach to editing the article would be taken. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(out-denting)
Mervyn,
I have objected to a particular quotation, on the grounds of accuracy, verifiability, reliability, and undue weight.
Your responses to my objection have been totally irrelevant. Your responses have been about Yucca mountain; about whether Yucca mountain was promulgated with knowledge of its inadequacy; about unsolved ethical dilemmas of nuclear waste disposal; about the absence of any guarantees that rad waste will be permanently sequestered; about the Bulletin and how often your colleagues read it (but not whether it's peer-reviewed, or whether the claims from it are accurate); about my agenda; about what I'm trying to accomplish; about my field of expertise; about your intelligence and which things are insulting to your intelligence; about whether you will leave wikipedia if you don't prevail; and so on. Your responses simply do not address my concerns, in any way. You have not responded to any of my concerns.
The material in question is not acceptable, for several reasons. That material includes grave factual errors about basic matters, such as the quantity of rad waste produced; it includes highly disputed opinions of one man, and presents them as fact; it presents opinions without any counterbalancing opinions, in violation of NPOV; it is taken from a source which is not sufficiently scholarly; and it dominates the introduction of this article at present, and is given a weight totally out of proportion to its acceptance within the field.
As an example, the quotation in question claims that "tremendous quantities of poison" are present in rad waste. However, that claim is false, as a simple factual matter. That claim is contradicted by simple calculations which almost anyone with basic knowledge of this matter can perform using widely-published figures. The claim is also contradicted outright by every single scholarly source I've read on this issue. In fact, that claim is contradicted outright by the very first source I checked on this issue, which I happen to have on-hand:
The disputed claim is also contradicted outright, by other sources I've provided on this forum, which show that nuclear sources produce wastes which are a billion times smaller, by volume, than other sources of electricity generation.
I am not claiming that nuclear waste is benign or a minor issue. We should point out the difficulty of the problem. We should point out the long-lived nature of that waste, and the threat it poses to future generations. I'm only disputing text which contains an incorrect characterization, from an opinion piece, and treats it as fact, and uses it as the basis for the introduction to this topic.
The disputed text also includes a second questionable claim. That second claim is: that human institutions must be stable for hundreds of thousands of years as a "pre-requisite" for effecitve rad waste disposal. That claim is heavily disputed by other sources. That claim is not at all consistent with scholarly sources which clearly state that stable human institutions are not assumed.
This issue is not affected by Yucca mountain or the wisdom of it. Even if Yucca mountain were a horrible idea, that still doesn't make the disputed claim any more accurate. Even if Yucca mountain were bad, that still doesn't justify placing incorrect and unbalanced material in the article. We cannot include incorrect claims, or treat opinion as fact, just because they have the same general thrust as your other arguments about yucca mountain, or because they supports a more general negative view of rad waste production, right or wrong.
You have also commented about me as an editor, quite often. You've made claims about my intent, about my agenda, about my expertise, and so on. You've produced entire paragraphs about what I'm trying to accomplish in the longer term, and what the eventual consequences would be. You've even claimed that I admit that I wish to contribute nothing to this article. I'm not sure where you get those notions from, or how you generate them. Regardless, they don't belong here. You must stop making petulant and inappropriate remarks. You spend far too much time commenting about the other editors, and far too little time commenting about the issue at hand.
Also, I suggest you drop any threats that you'll leave wikipedia if you don't prevail. I won't be affected by such threats, and I strongly suspect the other editors won't be affected either.
Since this discussion appears to be going absolutely nowhere, I will solicit outside opinion. Twerges ( talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I want to openly state my position on nuclear power generation: I completely oppose it. But I completely support seeing -facts- from both sides brought into the question. Now, that aside, Alfven's position fairly represents several of the problems with high-level nuclear wastes. But there's no need to argue that: have a look at this page
[1] of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It states "High-level wastes are hazardous to humans and other life forms because of their high radiation levels that are capable of producing fatal doses during short periods of direct exposure." Clearly supporting what Alfven meant by "tremendous poison". A very small dose of PU-239 inhaled into the lungs can produce a fatal cancer. Furthermore, a half-life of 24,000 years means that in that time, 20 tons of PU-239 becomes 10 tons of PU-239 that is still just as dangerous. As the NRC states, "Since the only way radioactive wastes finally become harmless is through decay, which for some isotopes contained in high-level wastes can take hundreds of thousands of years." I don't think the NRC can be considered biased on the question.
The question isn't whether BOTAS is political (it is) but whether the Alfven quote is out of line with the problem as it's understood today. I believe that it is still accurate, but that can be verified or disputed by consulting any of a -very- long list of reputable sources on this topic ... on which thousands of books have been published since the 1950s. It's a big job, but it's well worth tackling ... rather than haggling over one quote.
Twang (
talk) 19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Anyone who doesn't think that disposal of high-level wastes is a serious problem needs to read the history of the
Hanford Site. Tens of billions of dollars have been poured into that project ... and the cloud of tritium in the groundwater is still headed for the Columbia River. New Scientist, 2008:
Contaminated US site faces 'catastrophic' nuclear leak. Yes that site is unique and 60 years old ... but it went bad in a few decades ... not "hundreds of thousands of years". *
Hanford.gov paper *
French paper from 1989
Twang (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Mervyn claimed the following:
It seems that we have at least narrowed down the debate to this: the disputed material is repeating an opinion, which was said during a debate, and which is not necessarily supported by scholarly consensus.
In which case, I propose we do the following. We can move the disputed material to a new section called "Controversy" and counterbalance it with some claims from the other side, from (say) Bernard Cohen's book.
In the "challenges" section, we can add some material which explains some additional basic facts about this topic. For example, we can add material which explains how much waste is produced, how much of it is taken up by various radioisotopes, how long the various radioisotopes will remain radioactive, and why that is troublesome. We will add only things to that section which are undisputed facts supported by scholarly consensus.
Does that sound OK? Twerges ( talk) 11:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've printed off the 12 pages of the article and 19 pages of talk and annotated them. Where to start...
Most of the talk page seems to be a debate of the issues. This is always a temptation, but it's not what talk pages are for. We know, and should accept, that there are several viewpoints. We're not going to change each others' here, and even if we could, this is not the place for it.
There are many issues with the article... for a start...
Interested in other sructural proposals. Andrewa ( talk) 09:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There are at least three related articles:
They are three distinct topics, and there's plenty of material for all three, with reasonable and not excessive overlap. But probably all can be improved as they stand, and in particular the interlinking and scoping of each currently leaves a lot to be desired IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Nature article, 'Ordered porous materials for emerging applications', cited in the line:
"..Also, nanostructured materials have lower temperature processing and can be later altered to make more durable waste forms." [34]
Makes only passing reference to the lower temperature requirements, and is not related to HLW disposal at all.
This section could perhaps be improved with more information on nanostructure materials for HLW disposal, or at least a citation for the statement 'can be later altered to make more durable waste forms'.
The rest of it is great though!
Again more incorrect statements are being made in respect to nuclear issues on wikipedia.
(1) Where does it state in the reference in the lede that Iodine-129 is regarded as High level rad waste?
It doesn't.
Many of the isotopes mentioned in the lede are not defined as 'high level radioactive waste'. For example Iodine-129 is not regarded as high level radioactive waste. Neither are any isotopes with half lives greater than ~10,000 years.
It is the isotopes with short half lifes that are the most dangerous/ are regarded as 'High Level'/emit the most radiation. see Cesium-137 and High level waste.
http://www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit138/nit138articles/waste.html - Quote- isotopes with long half-lives such as Iodine 129) are classified as "low-level radioactive waste".
Similarly see here for a definition of 'High level radioactive waste' - www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/publications/idoc.ashx Fundamentals of the management of radioactive waste.
& the definition on http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/14151345/3
High Level Waste ( HLW) is radioactive waste where the temperature may rise significantly as a result of their radioactivity, so that this factor has to be taken into account in designing storage or disposal facilities. Therefore the whole lede is wrong.
Furthermore this should be included - it takes from 600 to 5000 years – which is no time at all in geological terms - for the radioactivity of spent fuel/waste to be no more radioactive than the natural uranium ore from which the spent fuel was initially obtained. [1] The relative toxicity of nuclear waste after reprocessing is comparable to barium ore after 600-1000 years. [2] Similarly, the Nuclear Engineers; Benedict, Pigford and Levi have also indicated that enriched fuel from light water reactors, subjected to a typical burnup regime will be no more radioactive than the ore from which it was mined, after a period of six hundred years. [3]
Boundarylayer ( talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Please abide by WP policies when editing this article, so you do not repeat some of the editing difficulties you have encountered which are evident on your user Talk page yet again. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an example of yet another article written by someone with extreme anti-nuclear views and limited basic scientific knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just begun to edit this, it's quite a long task. I have removed the paragraph "==Challenges with radioactive waste management== Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability." [4]". The journal of Atomic scientists is here [5] and Alfven didn't say anything in October 1979.
We haven't really got this article into a very good shape. I'm the only one who's done a big edit recently. I seem to have gone a bit overboard with the 129I 131I comparison. The interesting thing is just how little radioactivity the long-lived nuclides emit. This is copied from another website. A reality check on nuclear waste.
The worldwide nuclear waste is maybe 350000 tonnes. 95% is uranium, plutonium and other actinides which can and should be recycled for energy.
Thus there is 17500 tonnes of fission waste. Using figures from
http://ie.lbl.gov/fission/235ut.txt
I calculate that those isotopes requiring geological storage 79Se, 93Zr, 99Tc, 126Sn, 129I & 134Cs to be about 8%. 1400 tonnes. Based on 1 million year half-life, I calculate total radioactivity to be 14 billion Bq/mol ~ 130 billion Bq/kg = 180 quadrillion Bq total. This is all the world's nuclear waste generated at this time.
The natural radioactivity in the Earth's crust within SA is 600 trillion Bq/km3.
physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
Based on an average 40km depth, SA's share of the Earth's crust contains 24 hexillion Bq.
If all of the 79Se, 93Zr, 99Tc, 126Sn, 129I & 134Cs were seperated out and buried in SA, it would increase the total radioactivity by 7.5 parts per million.
Assuming the quantity above represents 50 years of waste, it would take 83000 years to get to 1%.
Is there any conceivable reason why this would be unsafe? Graemem56 ( talk) 12:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on High-level radioactive waste management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on High-level radioactive waste management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on High-level radioactive waste management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://inderscience.metapress.com/media/pe669ujopp4tumbobk91/contributions/n/9/t/v/n9tvnnka28k1r73a.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
But why are people concerned about the need to spend billions on the safe long-term storage, when - as widely reported in the media - Fukushima nuclear site management are happy to dump 'low-level' waste straight into the sea? Given this, is the Japan section going to be updated to reflect this relaxed attitude towards the concerns of fishermen and nearby nations?
![]() | High-level radioactive waste management has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved much of this material from too-large article on "Radioactive waste" and will revise that article shortly to minimize duplication. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Even with a quick read-through I find this article to be sorely lacking.
This is very serious factual omissions. I cannot support the nomination for "Good article".
-- J-Star ( talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned two already: Oklo, and Cigar Lake. Here is a report with several more.
http://www.skb.se/upload/publications/pdf/TR-01-20.pdf
-- J-Star ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As a non-partisan in this rather disjointed discussion, it seems to me that J-Star is taking the more reasonable approach, with accusations and unreasonable challenges coming from Mervyn Emrys. Why the 17 million year figure, for example? Why the derogatory comments about references to a Swedish government web site and appeal to an outdated quote even from a Nobel laureate. Tone it down, please. The discussion is also scattered in three places: this page and the discussion pages of the two protagonists. Better to keep it in one place. NPguy ( talk) 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I'd like to keep the discussion of this topic on this page, I'm copying here a recent posting from Mervyn Emryn to my talk page:
Since NPguy would like to keep the discussion of this topic on this page, I'm copying here a previous posting from J-Star to my talk page, and my reply:
http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____16765.aspx http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____17139.aspx
The two links immediately above are (1) a five paragraph description by SKB of its research goals and the requirement that it report to the Swedish parliament, and (2) a brief "search" page where one may search for SKB publications on its home page. Both links are to the SKB home page. Neither is an appropriate reference to a verifiable source of information on a specific issue such as the one raised here.
The first link at top of this section is also to a consultant's publication posted on the SKB homepage. It now appears as inline note #9 in the lead of the article. Note SKB is a private industry organization comparable to a corporation; it is not a government organization. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi to Mervyn Emrys, J-star and others. A few thoughts on this article.
Regards. hamiltonstone ( talk) 09:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please allow me to pose a fundamental question: Why are we here? Are we here to write an encyclopedia for Wikipedia? Or are we here to put down the good faith efforts of other editors?
It seems to me that anyone who criticizes the efforts of other editors has a moral obligation to propose constructive alternatives in the form of specific language or edits to an article. Merely providing criticism without constructive alternatives is the equivalent of throwing rocks or firebombs at some establishment—not constructive, but merely tearing down the efforts of others.
J-Star’s initial comments here appear to amount to a criticism that the article did not lavish sufficient praise on Sweden for its laudable efforts in high-level radioactive waste management research. The activities of 13 governments are briefly summarized in the article, so there are at least that many opportunities for the nationalistic argument to be made. However, J-Star did not propose additional language for inclusion in the article, but subsequently and repeatedly demanded one read the entire contents of the Swedish research effort as listed on the SKB web site.
If J-Star is already familiar with the contents of that research, as appears to be the case, J-Star might have contributed two sentences summarizing it, but did not do so. That would have been a constructive contribution to the article. More than two sentences would be too much, making an already long article much longer and more cumbersome, and unbalancing the article with respect to the summaries of the other 12 country efforts described there. Yet, a longer contribution might be appropriate for the separate, shorter article on KBS-3, or a new article on SKB. Either of those would be constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
This article on High-level radioactive waste management contains only brief, thumbnail summaries of national plans by several countries to manage their accumulations of radioactive wastes. Discussion of those plans requires a brief mention of the difficulties of high-level radioactive waste management, but it does not require comprehensive treatment of all of the research that has yet been done on the subject.
The Swedish research efforts are not similar to those of the United States, France, Russia, Canada, or several other countries. This article is not and cannot be about the research efforts by any country or group of countries. Such treatment, if balanced, would require much more lengthy and comprehensive discussion of numerous methods and technologies for waste storage, reprocessing and disposal that have been actively considered around the world. Consider how many hundreds of pages of such research are contained on the Swedish home page of SKB alone. If J-Star or anyone else wishes to write such an article, they are welcome to put forth the effort.
Why are we here? Is it to write an encyclopedia for Wikipedia? Or are we here to obstruct the good faith efforts of other editors? The nationalistic impulse is a strong one, but in the context of this article, it is not constructive. Rather than tearing down the efforts of other editors, it would be more appropriate for some to put forth more positive and constructive efforts of their own.
Hamiltonstone's suggestions for new language are concrete and constructive. Let's see if something can be made of them that will allow this process to move forward. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 13:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Finland, the United States and Sweden are the most advanced, is maybe Finland and Sweden are the most advanced since yucca mountain is off, an update in time. Mion ( talk) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns about the following material taken from the beginning of the article, after the introduction:
This quotation has gained widespread currency within the anti-nuclear movement for two reasons: 1) it's written by a nobel laureate; and 2) it supports their position regarding the undesirability of nuclear power.
There are two problems with the quotation, however. 1) I don't think the quotation represents the consensus view of scientists and engineers concerned with the disposal of radioactive waste. 2) The quotation takes a viewpoint which is opposed by many scientists concerned with this issue (like Bernard Cohen and others), and their viewpoint is not represented.
There are several specific points in that material which seem to be disputed.
First, the material claims that "no geologic formation" has ever been discovered that is stable for 100,000 years. Whereas I can find many sources (for example, Cohen's book The Nuclear Option, DOE documents, canadian gov't documents) which claim that there are many geological formations which have been extremely stable for millions of years. For example, some text from ref#25 directly contradicts the original claim, as follows: "The deep geological sites provide a natural isolation system that is stable over hundreds of thousands of years to contain long-lived radioactive waste."
Second, the quotation claims that "stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years" are required. However, that point is disputed by almost everyone involved in rad waste disposal. The very point of burying rad waste underground in yucca mountain permanently is that it does not require human maintenance. For example, another quotation from ref#25: "Geological media is an entirely passive disposal system with no requirement for continuing human involvement for its safety. It can be abandoned after closure with no need for continuing surveillance or monitoring."
Third, the quotation claims that "The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous". That quotation contains two claims: 1) that storage must be absolutely reliable; and 2) that the quantities of poison are tremendous. Both those claims are debatable. With regard to reliability of storage, the DOE documents claim that small leakage of rad waste after hundreds of thousands of years would present a tolerable health problem since nobody would be exposed to radiation in excess conservative EPA limits. This obviously presents a tremendous ethical problem, and we should point that out; however we shouldn't take the opinion of this author as an undisputed fact. With regard to the quantities of poison, it seems debatable that the quantities are tremendous. The sum total of all rad waste from US reactors is 77,000 tons, of which ~94% is U-238 which is almost inert and which is identical to what was found in the ground. Much of the remainder consists of short-lived elements which have decayed already by themselves in spent fuel pools. The remainder includes things like transuranics and long-lived fission products, which together represent about 1,500 tons from all US nuclear reactors over 50 years. That is not a "tremendous" quantity, since it could fit easily in a large closet and is absolutely tiny compared to the amounts of other toxins which industrial society produces.
...The material I indicated is an opinion which violates NPOV and is not the consensus view. It should either be labelled as opinion and qualified with countervailing opinions to maintain NPOV, or it should be removed and replaced with material which is undisputed or largely agreed-upon fact. Even if it remains, it should be given an amount of space proportional to the acceptance of those ideas by experts in the field, so as to avoid undue weight. It does not matter that the author of the quotation is a notable physicist since his area of expertise has nothing to do with the disposal of rad waste. Twerges ( talk) 07:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree that there's a problem.
But the quotation from Hannes Alfvén is encyclopedic IMO. The problems are twofold:
For example, the phrase the as yet unsolved dilemma is not attributed to Alfvén here, but is part of our article text, so as it stands it's Wikipedia expressing the opinions that the problem is unsolved and a dilemms, in clear violation of NPOV and several other basic Wikpedia principles.
It's blatant enough to be a good example of exactly how not to write an article. In time we might even incorporate it into the MOS as such.
Hang in there! Andrewa ( talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the omission by Twerges, who unfortunately omitted to include the reliable sources in the article in the discussion on this talk page. One would have great difficulty finding a more reliable source on this subject than Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is peer reviewed by nuclear physicists, including those involved in developing technologies for permanent deep geologic disposal of high level radioactive waste.
Twerges cites sources asserting the longevity of geologic resources exceeding 100,000 years but fails to note that assertions of greater longevity have not been empirically verified. And he ignores the statement that "no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period." There well may be small geologic resources that have been stable so long, but not any of sufficient size in which to locate a permanent repository. Twerges also ignores the published scholarship cited in the article of Shrader-Frechette on precisely this issue.
He also ignores the fact that U.S. federal funding for the Yucca Moutain repository was recently terminated precisely because new data indicates the site has not been geologically stable for the requisite period of time.
Moreover, Twerges exceeds himself when he purports to speak in behalf of "the consensus view of scientists and engineers concerned with the disposal of radioactive waste" because there is no consensus at this time, as I think is evident. There is ferment, over what to do with the substantial quantities of waste already produced, and which is continuing to be produced in the absence of any viable technology to manage it in perpetuity. Expressing his opinion about this ("I think...") is just POV pushing. And attempting to minimize the magnitude of the difficulty by suggesting that the existing waste could be stored in a "large closet" is just silly and insulting to the intelligence of our readers and other editors.
If Twerges wishes to add another viewpoint to the article on matters of controversy I have no objection, but deleting this entire important discussion is improper, verging on censorship. But as one who has actually worked and published in this area, I would hope a more moderate approach to editing the article would be taken. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(out-denting)
Mervyn,
I have objected to a particular quotation, on the grounds of accuracy, verifiability, reliability, and undue weight.
Your responses to my objection have been totally irrelevant. Your responses have been about Yucca mountain; about whether Yucca mountain was promulgated with knowledge of its inadequacy; about unsolved ethical dilemmas of nuclear waste disposal; about the absence of any guarantees that rad waste will be permanently sequestered; about the Bulletin and how often your colleagues read it (but not whether it's peer-reviewed, or whether the claims from it are accurate); about my agenda; about what I'm trying to accomplish; about my field of expertise; about your intelligence and which things are insulting to your intelligence; about whether you will leave wikipedia if you don't prevail; and so on. Your responses simply do not address my concerns, in any way. You have not responded to any of my concerns.
The material in question is not acceptable, for several reasons. That material includes grave factual errors about basic matters, such as the quantity of rad waste produced; it includes highly disputed opinions of one man, and presents them as fact; it presents opinions without any counterbalancing opinions, in violation of NPOV; it is taken from a source which is not sufficiently scholarly; and it dominates the introduction of this article at present, and is given a weight totally out of proportion to its acceptance within the field.
As an example, the quotation in question claims that "tremendous quantities of poison" are present in rad waste. However, that claim is false, as a simple factual matter. That claim is contradicted by simple calculations which almost anyone with basic knowledge of this matter can perform using widely-published figures. The claim is also contradicted outright by every single scholarly source I've read on this issue. In fact, that claim is contradicted outright by the very first source I checked on this issue, which I happen to have on-hand:
The disputed claim is also contradicted outright, by other sources I've provided on this forum, which show that nuclear sources produce wastes which are a billion times smaller, by volume, than other sources of electricity generation.
I am not claiming that nuclear waste is benign or a minor issue. We should point out the difficulty of the problem. We should point out the long-lived nature of that waste, and the threat it poses to future generations. I'm only disputing text which contains an incorrect characterization, from an opinion piece, and treats it as fact, and uses it as the basis for the introduction to this topic.
The disputed text also includes a second questionable claim. That second claim is: that human institutions must be stable for hundreds of thousands of years as a "pre-requisite" for effecitve rad waste disposal. That claim is heavily disputed by other sources. That claim is not at all consistent with scholarly sources which clearly state that stable human institutions are not assumed.
This issue is not affected by Yucca mountain or the wisdom of it. Even if Yucca mountain were a horrible idea, that still doesn't make the disputed claim any more accurate. Even if Yucca mountain were bad, that still doesn't justify placing incorrect and unbalanced material in the article. We cannot include incorrect claims, or treat opinion as fact, just because they have the same general thrust as your other arguments about yucca mountain, or because they supports a more general negative view of rad waste production, right or wrong.
You have also commented about me as an editor, quite often. You've made claims about my intent, about my agenda, about my expertise, and so on. You've produced entire paragraphs about what I'm trying to accomplish in the longer term, and what the eventual consequences would be. You've even claimed that I admit that I wish to contribute nothing to this article. I'm not sure where you get those notions from, or how you generate them. Regardless, they don't belong here. You must stop making petulant and inappropriate remarks. You spend far too much time commenting about the other editors, and far too little time commenting about the issue at hand.
Also, I suggest you drop any threats that you'll leave wikipedia if you don't prevail. I won't be affected by such threats, and I strongly suspect the other editors won't be affected either.
Since this discussion appears to be going absolutely nowhere, I will solicit outside opinion. Twerges ( talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I want to openly state my position on nuclear power generation: I completely oppose it. But I completely support seeing -facts- from both sides brought into the question. Now, that aside, Alfven's position fairly represents several of the problems with high-level nuclear wastes. But there's no need to argue that: have a look at this page
[1] of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It states "High-level wastes are hazardous to humans and other life forms because of their high radiation levels that are capable of producing fatal doses during short periods of direct exposure." Clearly supporting what Alfven meant by "tremendous poison". A very small dose of PU-239 inhaled into the lungs can produce a fatal cancer. Furthermore, a half-life of 24,000 years means that in that time, 20 tons of PU-239 becomes 10 tons of PU-239 that is still just as dangerous. As the NRC states, "Since the only way radioactive wastes finally become harmless is through decay, which for some isotopes contained in high-level wastes can take hundreds of thousands of years." I don't think the NRC can be considered biased on the question.
The question isn't whether BOTAS is political (it is) but whether the Alfven quote is out of line with the problem as it's understood today. I believe that it is still accurate, but that can be verified or disputed by consulting any of a -very- long list of reputable sources on this topic ... on which thousands of books have been published since the 1950s. It's a big job, but it's well worth tackling ... rather than haggling over one quote.
Twang (
talk) 19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Anyone who doesn't think that disposal of high-level wastes is a serious problem needs to read the history of the
Hanford Site. Tens of billions of dollars have been poured into that project ... and the cloud of tritium in the groundwater is still headed for the Columbia River. New Scientist, 2008:
Contaminated US site faces 'catastrophic' nuclear leak. Yes that site is unique and 60 years old ... but it went bad in a few decades ... not "hundreds of thousands of years". *
Hanford.gov paper *
French paper from 1989
Twang (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Mervyn claimed the following:
It seems that we have at least narrowed down the debate to this: the disputed material is repeating an opinion, which was said during a debate, and which is not necessarily supported by scholarly consensus.
In which case, I propose we do the following. We can move the disputed material to a new section called "Controversy" and counterbalance it with some claims from the other side, from (say) Bernard Cohen's book.
In the "challenges" section, we can add some material which explains some additional basic facts about this topic. For example, we can add material which explains how much waste is produced, how much of it is taken up by various radioisotopes, how long the various radioisotopes will remain radioactive, and why that is troublesome. We will add only things to that section which are undisputed facts supported by scholarly consensus.
Does that sound OK? Twerges ( talk) 11:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've printed off the 12 pages of the article and 19 pages of talk and annotated them. Where to start...
Most of the talk page seems to be a debate of the issues. This is always a temptation, but it's not what talk pages are for. We know, and should accept, that there are several viewpoints. We're not going to change each others' here, and even if we could, this is not the place for it.
There are many issues with the article... for a start...
Interested in other sructural proposals. Andrewa ( talk) 09:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There are at least three related articles:
They are three distinct topics, and there's plenty of material for all three, with reasonable and not excessive overlap. But probably all can be improved as they stand, and in particular the interlinking and scoping of each currently leaves a lot to be desired IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Nature article, 'Ordered porous materials for emerging applications', cited in the line:
"..Also, nanostructured materials have lower temperature processing and can be later altered to make more durable waste forms." [34]
Makes only passing reference to the lower temperature requirements, and is not related to HLW disposal at all.
This section could perhaps be improved with more information on nanostructure materials for HLW disposal, or at least a citation for the statement 'can be later altered to make more durable waste forms'.
The rest of it is great though!
Again more incorrect statements are being made in respect to nuclear issues on wikipedia.
(1) Where does it state in the reference in the lede that Iodine-129 is regarded as High level rad waste?
It doesn't.
Many of the isotopes mentioned in the lede are not defined as 'high level radioactive waste'. For example Iodine-129 is not regarded as high level radioactive waste. Neither are any isotopes with half lives greater than ~10,000 years.
It is the isotopes with short half lifes that are the most dangerous/ are regarded as 'High Level'/emit the most radiation. see Cesium-137 and High level waste.
http://www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit138/nit138articles/waste.html - Quote- isotopes with long half-lives such as Iodine 129) are classified as "low-level radioactive waste".
Similarly see here for a definition of 'High level radioactive waste' - www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/publications/idoc.ashx Fundamentals of the management of radioactive waste.
& the definition on http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/14151345/3
High Level Waste ( HLW) is radioactive waste where the temperature may rise significantly as a result of their radioactivity, so that this factor has to be taken into account in designing storage or disposal facilities. Therefore the whole lede is wrong.
Furthermore this should be included - it takes from 600 to 5000 years – which is no time at all in geological terms - for the radioactivity of spent fuel/waste to be no more radioactive than the natural uranium ore from which the spent fuel was initially obtained. [1] The relative toxicity of nuclear waste after reprocessing is comparable to barium ore after 600-1000 years. [2] Similarly, the Nuclear Engineers; Benedict, Pigford and Levi have also indicated that enriched fuel from light water reactors, subjected to a typical burnup regime will be no more radioactive than the ore from which it was mined, after a period of six hundred years. [3]
Boundarylayer ( talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Please abide by WP policies when editing this article, so you do not repeat some of the editing difficulties you have encountered which are evident on your user Talk page yet again. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an example of yet another article written by someone with extreme anti-nuclear views and limited basic scientific knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just begun to edit this, it's quite a long task. I have removed the paragraph "==Challenges with radioactive waste management== Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability." [4]". The journal of Atomic scientists is here [5] and Alfven didn't say anything in October 1979.
We haven't really got this article into a very good shape. I'm the only one who's done a big edit recently. I seem to have gone a bit overboard with the 129I 131I comparison. The interesting thing is just how little radioactivity the long-lived nuclides emit. This is copied from another website. A reality check on nuclear waste.
The worldwide nuclear waste is maybe 350000 tonnes. 95% is uranium, plutonium and other actinides which can and should be recycled for energy.
Thus there is 17500 tonnes of fission waste. Using figures from
http://ie.lbl.gov/fission/235ut.txt
I calculate that those isotopes requiring geological storage 79Se, 93Zr, 99Tc, 126Sn, 129I & 134Cs to be about 8%. 1400 tonnes. Based on 1 million year half-life, I calculate total radioactivity to be 14 billion Bq/mol ~ 130 billion Bq/kg = 180 quadrillion Bq total. This is all the world's nuclear waste generated at this time.
The natural radioactivity in the Earth's crust within SA is 600 trillion Bq/km3.
physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
Based on an average 40km depth, SA's share of the Earth's crust contains 24 hexillion Bq.
If all of the 79Se, 93Zr, 99Tc, 126Sn, 129I & 134Cs were seperated out and buried in SA, it would increase the total radioactivity by 7.5 parts per million.
Assuming the quantity above represents 50 years of waste, it would take 83000 years to get to 1%.
Is there any conceivable reason why this would be unsafe? Graemem56 ( talk) 12:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on High-level radioactive waste management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on High-level radioactive waste management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on High-level radioactive waste management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://inderscience.metapress.com/media/pe669ujopp4tumbobk91/contributions/n/9/t/v/n9tvnnka28k1r73a.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
But why are people concerned about the need to spend billions on the safe long-term storage, when - as widely reported in the media - Fukushima nuclear site management are happy to dump 'low-level' waste straight into the sea? Given this, is the Japan section going to be updated to reflect this relaxed attitude towards the concerns of fishermen and nearby nations?