Nuclear waste site on Lake Huron concerns Michigan, Sarnia

Question for the scientifically minded: Wouldn't it be safer to dump nuclear waste in a very solid mountain, instead of right next to Lake Huron? The Americans proposed a site near Yucca Mountain, which seems much less likely to have some accident that might contaminate something serious.

Yes, it would be. But most opponents to waste dumps always ask "is there zero risk that the site will ever be disturbed?" and the answer always has to be 'no'. There are few guarantees in life. There are fewer when looking 100,000 years into the future.

The safest ways to handle the waste would either be to reprocess it in breeder reactors (similar to the one that makes medical isotopes in Canada) or to not produce the waste to begin with and require new reactors use Thorium instead of Uranium.

I'm not a geo type, but I believe the factor at play is geological stability--you don't want an earthquake releasing your stored nuclear waste. And the Canadian Shield is extremely geologically stable.

*yawn* Wake me when it's something serious.

I'm a huge supporter of breeder reactors. That being said, you'd think if they're going to create an installation like this, it'd be far away from any possible water sources, or areas where it might seep into the ground.

This isn't spent nuclear fuel, it's protective clothing, mops, towels and the like.

I'm a huge supporter of breeder reactors. That being said, you'd think if they're going to create an installation like this, it'd be far away from any possible water sources, or areas where it might seep into the ground.
When the un(der)educated come into the picture, they oppose them being built basically anywhere, governments will build them where ever they can get away with it because the many of the good and smart choices meet too much hostility.

True enough. It's a disgrace how nuclear power, quite possibly the best short term solution to our energy needs until we invent fusion or space based solar collectors, is tarnished because of environmental groups trying to make it as scary as possible.

I agree with you that nuclear is our best short-term energy option (and maybe long-term as well). But let's not kid ourselves. Nuclear energy is scary and dangerous. I want those who are tasked with designing everything about nuclear energy to treat it as scary and dangerous. I want Canadians to demand that every aspect of our nuclear power system be as closely scrutinized for safety as possible. Fear is a good thing sometimes. Fear breeds caution.

Did anyone bother to read the article?

Yeah, I did. They want to bury nuclear waste in a site 1.6 km away from Lake Huron, so deep underground that it'll be 1.3 km away from the actual body of water once underground.

Although I'm not opposed, aren't there better sites that can be used? Something more inland, away from such a major body of water? That's why I brought up Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, which makes sense, considering it's bumfuck nowhere, USA.



Of course it's good to be wary and cautious with how dangerous nuclear power generation can be, and I would be wholly opposed to cutting corners in the development of nuclear power facilities. Nuclear energy, like any potentially dangerous object (a gun, a car, powerful medications, etc) should be treated with respect and with care.

That being said, the NIMBYism and fear of nuclear energy is far beyond what I deem reasonable.

Yeah, I did. They want to bury nuclear waste in a site 1.6 km away from Lake Huron, so deep underground that it'll be 1.3 km away from the actual body of water once underground.
Did you miss the part where they were talking about it being for used protective clothing, mops, towels and stuff like that, that was used to clean up small spills?
NOT spent fuel rods.

Nahhh, you just saw an opportunity for an irrelevant drive-by swipe at environmentalists. It was typically conservative of you.

I'm a huge supporter of breeder reactors. That being said, you'd think if they're going to create an installation like this, it'd be far away from any possible water sources, or areas where it might seep into the ground.
When the un(der)educated come into the picture, they oppose them being built basically anywhere, governments will build them where ever they can get away with it because the many of the good and smart choices meet too much hostility.

Most new designs require there be sufficient on-site storage for the waste. I guess they are pessimistic that the waste will ever be allowed to leave the site (due to the NIMBY folks). Which is absurd to me. How can it possible be safer than locked away in a mountain, or turned back into usable fuel?