Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Safety of nuclear submarines -- wastes Message-ID: <5981@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 13:18:13 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.5981 Posted: Wed Sep 18 13:18:13 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 13:18:13 EDT References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 25 > However, there are radioactive wastes that will still be deadly > 100,000 years from now. That is quite a few centuries. Note that the proper standard of comparison here is not "is the stuff dangerous?" but "is it more dangerous than natural uranium ore?". There are vast amounts of uranium ore around; anything with a danger level less than that is not a significant *addition* to the natural danger level. One possible reason for differences on how long the stuff is dangerous is the question of whether plutonium is extracted for use as fuel, or left in the wastes and hence thrown away. Plutonium is a significant factor in radioactivity on the 100kyr scale, although it's relatively unimportant on the 100yr scale. > ... But it is > definate that if the nuclear waste that we've tucked away already > were to leak and become evenly distributed around the earth, that > all the higher life forms would perish, and that includes us! And if all the energy in one atom bomb were carefully distributed in the right places, that would suffice to destroy all higher life forms too. But we were discussing realistic situations, not grossly contrived ones. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry