On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:28:03 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Jan 29, 9:22*am, "John" wrote:


THAT IS the problem - nobody wants the old rods, they remain radioactive for
200,000 years and would make a dandy terrorist dirty bomb.

Just a thought, what would be the overall ecological impact if they
were dropped down in the bottom of the mariana trench? would that
make ugly fish uglier? and would the brine desolve the rods into
nothing over a shrt period of time?

just wondering.

Would be better to recycle them and use the energy therein. This reduces
the potency of the waste and provides energy. Here's a little info on the
subject:

"But there may be an even better solution: Recycle spent fuel rods to
produce even more greenhouse-gas-reducing nuclear energy.

Over the past four decades, America's reactors have produced about 56,000
tons of used fuel. Jack Spencer, research fellow for nuclear energy policy
at the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, says this
"waste" has enough energy to power every U.S. household for a dozen years.

As we've noted, France long ago achieved energy independence by relying on
nuclear energy for most of its power needs. But it also leads the world in
processing this waste to create even more energy.

The French have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for 30 years without
incident. There have been no accidental explosions, no terrorist attacks,
no contribution to nuclear proliferation. Their facility in La Hague has
safely processed more than 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or enough to power
the entire country for 14 years.

The U.S. pioneered the technology to recapture that energy decades ago,
then banned its commercial use in 1977. An energy plan that does not
involve continued and even increased use of nuclear power is no plan at
all. And even if we closed all nuclear plants tomorrow, the waste problem
would remain. "

Actually, the whole article is worth reading, even if it does come down a
little hard on some Democrats.

http://tinyurl.com/35aa2d
--
John H