1. Safe storage (heap it and keep it)
There is lots of unused land on the planet, so the radioactive waste could simply be kept in large dumps. To keep them permanently isolated, a really big fence can be built around these sites
An advantage of the above ground safe storage plan is that the authorities already have experience in implementing this approach to containing radioactive sources, such as at the Pelindaba calibration site.
As a variation, waste can be taken to unused mines, and left deep in the earth. This is sometimes referred to as the 'deep geological suppository' method. This saves the cost of the fence. While it is difficult to predict with 100% certainty whether or not there will be earthquakes in a particular area over the next 5000 years, the risk of an earthquake rupturing the storage containers and releasing radioactivity into groundwater is considered to be small. Also, we should bear in mind that this would be a problem for future generations to solve, and they are likely to be much more technologically advanced than us.
To minimize risk during transportation of the waste to the storage sites, only the latest and most reliable transport methods would be used, such as air, train, and by road.
A very unlikely accident which occurred in Germany. (As far as we know, this train was not even carrying any radioactive waste.)
Even when disaster strikes, planes can often land with their cargo still intact.
Few people could even identify this deep sea creature. Who cares if its offspring
are mutants? It might even be an improvement!
There are many deep trenches in the oceans of the world, so radioactive waste could be sealed in bins, and dropped into the sea over one of these trenches.
A big advantage of this approach is that very little is known about the conditions and ecosystems in these deep trenches, so it will be difficult for anyone to demonstrate that dumping these canisters there would disrupt the environment.
3. Shoot it into space
Rockets are fired into space all the time, and one simple solution is to load radioactive waste into a rocket, and fire it into the sun.
A possible downside of this is that should the rocket fail and explode, depending on the wind direction, airborne radioactivity may poison a continent. But the chances of this are quite small.
Challenger was one of a fleet of space shuttles which could be used to ferry radioactive waste into space
.
4. Burn it!
This is a centuries old method of dealing with our waste. This method is particularly suitable for disposal of the graphite rods used in reactor cores, since they consist mainly of carbon.
This has the big advantage that the resultant radioactive byproducts (like smoke), are spread over a very large area, making is statistically extremely unlikely that any single individual will be affected by radiation poisoning.
Burning radioactive waste can also be used as a contingency plan, in case there are any mishaps while transporting waste to storage facilities.
5. Reprocessing - use it constructively
As the worlds population grows, more and more cattle are required for slaughter, and finding feed for these herds is a growing problem. This field has already seen many innovative ideas being put in place, such as using sheep brains as a feed supplement in Great Britain, and reusable plastic pellets as roughage in the USA.
Radioactive waste contains many trace elements required in cattle feed such as Cesium and Manganese, and so this so called 'waste' could be turned into a useful product by grinding up the radioactive items very finely, and using it as a cattle food additive. Another advantage is that some of these radioactive elements will continue to decay spontaneously into other elements, and so a broad spectrum of essential micro-elements would be provided to the growing cattle, leaving them glowing with health. There is even the possibility that beneficial mutations may occur, resulting in higher yield strains.
Various other uses are being researched, such reprocessing the radioactive graphite core rods into self igniting charcoal briquettes.
To ensure the highest possible safety standards, cattle exposed to the feed will be required to be specially branded, and large walls of straw bales would minimise radiation leaking into the surrounding area.
Is it good, is it bad?
If we look closely enough, there is usually a little bit of both in all situations!
For example, many people see the Chernobyl meltdown in a purely negative light. This ignores the fact that it also had the effect of clearing a large area previously covered by urban sprawl, creating a hot new budget property market, as well as significantly boosting the construction sector. The net effect on the GDP was actually positive!
Other useful statistics
- Only five people died in the Chernobyl power station (although there were a few thousand more deaths in the surrounding area).
- There is more natural radioactivity in the oceans than was released into the atmosphere at Chernobyl (although you are unlikely to have to inhale the ocean for any length of time)
- Some granite contains natural radioactivity, and so if you were to grind up 1kg of granite, and eat it or inhale it, this would expose you to the same amount of radiation as a minor airborne radioactivity leak.
- The surface area of the top of the human head is about 180 square centimeters, so if an airborne radioactive leak is spread over 5 square kilometers, only 0.000000072% will land on any one individual - less than one tenth of a millionth of a percent!
- Dr. Gary Bennett (ex NASA scientist)
To these wise words of Dr Bennet, we would like to add that having a large concrete block dropped on your head is far more life threatening than plutonium-238, so really, why fuss about a bit of plutonium??