I did look back and I've been consistent. I've also been prepared to accept I was wrong all along. Looking over the calculator, I see a lot of variables and most of the assumptions don't apply. So it may just be unable to answer the hypothetical question of what uranium will do to you if you stand next to a stockpile big enough to fuel a reactor. And maybe that's a stupid question anyway.
I don't think it's a stupid question, I just think it's based on unrealistic premises. The first question before answering it has to be, how long has the spent fuel been out of the reactor? The second has to be, how long was it in there? The third, what was the concentration of U-235 in it? As you move along, you go through what kind of neutron flux, both in terms of raw neutron count and in terms of the energy spectrum of those neutrons, what other impurities were there to start with, and so on. The answers are going to be different for different fuels, and different reactors, and different amounts of time.
Anyone who would stand close to a fuel bundle fresh out of a reactor unprotected, or perhaps even with good protection, is insane and will likely die quickly, not to mention the entity that allowed them to losing its license quite quickly as Hindmost pointed out. OTOH, 300 years downstream, is it the same? Absolutely not; a lot of the high-level waste has decayed and is gone. Is it still dangerous? That depends on whether the medium-level waste has been removed or not. If not, then yes, it's still quite dangerous, for a number of reasons not limited to the medium-level materials themselves. If so, then not so much.
What threshold do you wish to impose for exposure? We have seen evidence that humans are currently living out their lives in the presence of amounts of radiation that are five times the permitted level over five years, and twice the level in any single year, that a relatively reputable organization feels is the limit. And this is their whole lives, not a year or five years. There is no verifiable extra risk to these people from a medical actuarial standpoint. So, again, what limits do you think are appropriate?
Now that you've agreed that spent fuel is more dangerous,
Hold on there, hoss, WHICH spent fuel? We've discussed, so far, IIRC, five different kinds. Each one gets a different answer. And we've also discussed techniques for dealing with that spent fuel that give as many different answers for each type as we already had for them all. Furthermore, I've upheld my original evaluation in round terms; all I did was qualify it. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually read what I wrote. So I'd like to know, in detail, precisely what it is you think I've agreed to, before I go along with that, because we've seen evidence here that indicates a less-than-perfect comprehension of the implications of various contingencies, and even basic facts. Not necessarily your fault; this is a complex subject. But I'm not at all confident that what I said has as much to do with what you think I said as you seem to be, by using that term, "agreed."
can we just agree that it would be preferable to make sure the stuff is carefully controlled?
Preferable to what? Overall, I'd say reprocessing and burning the actinides up in a fast reactor is preferable; reprocessing and separation of the various fractions so that they can be handled separately in different and appropriate fashions preferable to the current plan; the current plan preferable to the current situation; and the current situation to a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
That we can't just forget about it after 100 years? Feel free to say "But nobody ever said that".
Yeah, "but nobody ever said that." What I said was, the levels of danger being used by the people in charge of making the current plan (and I don't necessarily endorse the current plan, much less agree with it) are well in excess of the actual levels we are likely to see, and what I didn't say but would have if I hadn't been swatting at a bunch of misinformation and hysteria, is that's a good thing, because it means we'll be more careful than we need to be. And then I'd add, that if a more conservative plan, and one that makes better use of the bulk of the problem as a
resource instead of a
problem were to be used, I wouldn't necessarily advocate using a lesser estimation of the danger, in order to improve the margin for error.
Frankly, I'm pleased that there are people who are anal retentive about the details of this stuff, and also pleased that there are people who continue to be nervous about it; Ed forbid we should ever get complacent. But there's a reasonable level of care and nervousness, and then there's hysteria, and I object to hysteria.
