|
| |
The most viable solution
to mankind's existential threats.
Inventor: Jim Baird
Canadian Patent 2,005,376-3, 891213
US Patent 5,022,788,
910611
New Zealand Patent 232248, 900125
In a December 1, 2007
presentation
to The Santa Fe Council on International Relations, Richard Garwin, IBM Fellow
Emeritus stated, "It will probably take a terrorist explosion to bring the world
to the shared commitment that such a thing should never happen again, and that
nuclear war with large numbers of nuclear weapons would not be a good idea
either. . . When that commitment does exist, the International Atomic Agency--IAEA—will
have its budget for safeguards and enforcement multiplied by five or ten from
the current $109 M per year. Enrichment facilities will either be openly
operated under the control of IAEA and a supporting coalition of nations, or
they will be shut down and dismantled. The secure fuel cycle will operate with
competitive, commercial, mined geologic repositories in various countries of the
world, to reduce the amount of aged spent fuel potentially available to
terrorists or proliferators, and far better security will be provided to the
fresh fuel and to the spent fuel in cooling ponds near reactors.”
No country
has built an operational repository, commercial or otherwise, because of adverse
public opinion each time one is proposed. There is however broad global support
for the subductive waste disposal method which is the state-of-the-art and most
viable solution to the three existential threats facing mankind -
global warming,
nuclear terrorism and
hydrocarbon dependence.
The August 16, 1984 Nature
article,
The geology of nuclear waste disposal, by this committee composed of Earth
Scientists concluded "disposal in subduction trenches and ocean
sediments deserves more attention. . . .
For energy planners to
reach the best possible compromises between energy production and
environmental deterioration, clear demonstrations that nuclear wastes can be
safely stored are necessary. But nuclear wastes may be dangerous for at least
thousand of years, so all demonstrations must rely on indirect scientific
argument and predictions. This is why geologists must be involved for they,
more than others, can demonstrate that sensitive materials are preserved in
certain rocks and not others.
Perhaps the best
long-term permeability data for moderately deep systems are to be derived from
older rocks carrying significant deposits of oil and gas. Such rocks are
invariably of sedimentary origin and it is from sediments that the most
reliable data on fluid flow are at present to be found.”
(Geologists have had
very little input in situating any nuclear waste repository and sedimentary
rock is not under consideration in any of the major countries. The subductive
waste disposal method would dispose of nuclear waste beneath 2 kilometers of
impermeable sediment)
in an article
Nuclear
Waste: Storage and Disposal Methods state, "Subductive Waste Disposal
would require extensive research and development to implement, but this is a
small price to pay for an effective solution to the as-of-yet unanswered
question -- what to do with nuclear waste?”
Proposed to the International Atomic Energy Agency the following:
Aware of the harmful economical and health
related effects caused by the disposal of nuclear waste,
Realizing the urgent need to find a safe,
assuring way to get rid of these unwanted nuclear wastes,
Recognizing previous UN attempts to regulate and
control the disposal of nuclear waste,
Recommends the subductive waste disposal method
by placing waste materials in repositories radiating from an access tunnel
leading into a subtending tectonic plate in order to:
a. prevent nuclear waste from mixing
with the water of oceans,
b. provide the inaccessibility of
nuclear wastes used to produce nuclear weapons,
c. remove radioactive waste completely
from its threatening position in marine life.
1)
Mixed oxide fuel burning method
2)
Vetrification method
3)
Subductive waste disposal method
-
Finland: Suggests the implementation of the Subductive Waste Disposal method, which is the process of
removing waste from the
biosphere faster than it can return. This method would prevent radioactive waste
from contaminating the water table and thus ensuring the safety of marine life.
-
The
University of Utah Center for Public Policy and
Administration: (U.S.A.)
In a
December 12, 2005, article “Nuclear Waste
Summary” state: “The subductive waste disposal method is the most viable means of
disposing of radioactive waste. Subduction refers to a process in which one
tectonic plate slides beneath another while being reabsorbed into the Earth's
mantle. The subductive waste disposal method involves the formation of a
radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate where the waste will be
absorbed along with the plate and dispersed through the mantle. The most
accessible site is on the ocean floor at a point above where subducting plates
meet and, once filled, the repositories would be virtually inaccessible. This
method would prevent radioactive waste from mixing with the water table,
provide inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material, remove radioactive
waste completely from its threatening position, and be safe for marine life."
In the
December 25, 2001 Current Science article,
Radioactive waste:
The problem and its management declares the subductive waste
disposal method "is the state-of-the-art in nuclear waste disposal technology.
It is the single viable means of disposing radioactive waste that ensures non
return of the relegated material to the biosphere. At the same time, it
affords inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material. The principle involved
is the removal of the material from the biosphere faster than it can return.
It is considered that 'the safest, the most sensible, the most economical, the
most stable long-term, the most environmentally benign, the most utterly
obvious places to get rid of nuclear waste, high-level waste or low-level
waste is in the deep oceans that cover 70% of the planet".
states of the subductive waste disposal method, “it looks like the only
alternative left to us.”
writes of this solution, “I too
have been interested in the possible use of subduction zones for the disposal
of waste. . . I rather regret that this possibility has not been explored
further.”
In a May 2, 2004 Tass article, "World
Has No Feasible Project Yet To Liquidate Nuclear Waste",
noted that “out of 14 versions of liquidating nuclear waste in some countries,
suggested by researchers now, only three can be examined dead serious and even
in this case with a great share of doubt and in the most distant future”.
Radioactive waste can be shipped to the sun by
space freight ferries, to put into pits of the Antarctic ice cap and to place
it into earth’s crust at great depths so that it can melt in the plasma of the
earth later.”
(The latter solution is the subductive waste
disposal method.)
In an April 28, 2005 submission to the Canadian
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), proposed the subducting Juan de Fuca plate
adjacent Vancouver Island as the appropriate location for eliminating the global
stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. He said, “It would be Canadian, and we could
lead the world to a safe way of nuclear waste disposal, providing the solution
to the real bottleneck to the safe use of nuclear energy.”
Clearly it would be unconscionable to wait for a
terrorist explosion before taking the remedial action necessary to prevent a
reoccurrence. Garwin surmises the chances of a catastrophe in the next decade at
over 50% and the consequence are potentially the death of 300,000 and the
possible self-destruction of western society either through the measures that
would be taken in the name of security in the immediate follow-on, or in the
physical and economic collapse because measures were not taken to be able to
maintain operations in the face of loss of the hardware, software ,and the data
that would be destroyed or made inaccessible by such an event.
The only place plutonium can be rendered
irretrievable is by
shipping it into space or placing it deep beneath the seabed, preferably in a
subduction zone.
The 1998
report of
the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment
Panel on the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concept for the disposal of nuclear
waste concluded, "We were not asked to propose a different method for long-term
management of spent nuclear fuel, but to be aware of the alternatives when
formulating recommendations on the safety and acceptability of AECL's concept
and on future steps. However, judging the safety and acceptability of one method
selected in 1978, rather than deciding which of the feasible options available
today was the most safe and acceptable, was problematic for both the Panel and
the public. (emphasis added)
Some participants felt that it was inappropriate or even impossible to gauge the
acceptability of one option without information adequate to compare its
acceptability with that of all possible options. In the words of a U.S. National
Research Council panel reviewing the management of nuclear defence wastes in
that country, "it is unsuitable to foreclose any technology or alternative
before the various benefits, risks, and costs have been thoroughly delineated
and carefully reviewed." [National Research Council, 1992, cited in Committee on
Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes, Board on Radioactive Waste Management,
Barriers to Science: Technical Management of the Department of Energy
Environmental Remediation Program (Washington: National Research Council, 1996),
p. 9.] One participant reasoned that, since there is no good solution to the
waste problem at present, "we are going to have to choose a least bad option
rather than a good one."
Unfortunately the most viable and
state-of-the-art solution to the most significant
threats to mankind has been foreclosed from its inception.
 The
intention of this
website is to assist those interested in determining the most safe and
acceptable means to addressing the problem of nuclear waste and to engage them
in urging the implementation of that solution.
To do so is to toil in your own
best interest.
As the old adage goes "Better
active today than radioactive tomorrow".
|
