Knowing how Italia handled this type of waste in the past, it is better somewhere safe and garded in the Utah instead of spilled on a Somalian beach.
Unfortunately, the record of america and radioactive waste is not very shiny either. So these type of waste should be left in charge of a government controlled agency and not some private company.
S Cat - 13 years ago
@EnergySolutions Take your Nuclear Waste Money #BloodJobs & leave Utah you Dirty Death Merchant #Utah #nuclear #Retweet #EnergySolutions
Riccardo Cioni - 15 years ago
I think the USA should take Italy's nuclear but not for the money, for the environment. If America doesn't take our nuclear waste it will be probably buried by the Mafia in the suburbs of Naples, destroying the soil and poisoning all the crops of the neapolitan area. I'm sure the US government has it's problems on garbage management, but in Italy the situation is much worse.
steve clemens - 15 years ago
No. It should be buried in Berlusconi's backyard (and front yard) as he's recently choses to take Italy into another generation of nuclear power plants. The only relevant downside for him: the radiation might be bad for his new hair
Jason - 15 years ago
I would say no, but it has to go somewhere.. My biggest thought is what happens when Utah is full?? Or when the containers begin leaking, now the US taxpayers will have to clean it up.
There should be much more research put into finding a better disposal solution. The World has taken on too much of an out of site, out of mind attitude. Just burying stuff doesn't make it go away!
Dan - 15 years ago
If we had a well developed breeder reactor infrastructure, then yes. In which case spent nuclear fuel could be recycled and re-used as fuel for more advanced reactors. Such infrastructure would allow us to extend our nuclear fuel supplies, vastly reduce our nuclear waste problem, and continue to provide us with carbon-neutral electricity. It could also allow us to eliminate the fuel enrichment program, thereby reducing the probability of nuclear accident.
But if we're just going to bury the stuff, then absolutely no. The Europeans possess more advanced reactors than the US does, anyway, and perhaps their waste problem will spur more rapid development of such a waste-to-fuel recycling program and reactor infrastructure.
Dragonfly - 15 years ago
I put maybe, because I think the US needs to look into new technology that allows us to recycle spent nuclear fuel so we don't have to store as much in the end. Who better than a technology leader like the US to keep radioactive waste secure and productive?
Knowing how Italia handled this type of waste in the past, it is better somewhere safe and garded in the Utah instead of spilled on a Somalian beach.
Unfortunately, the record of america and radioactive waste is not very shiny either. So these type of waste should be left in charge of a government controlled agency and not some private company.
@EnergySolutions Take your Nuclear Waste Money #BloodJobs & leave Utah you Dirty Death Merchant #Utah #nuclear #Retweet #EnergySolutions
I think the USA should take Italy's nuclear but not for the money, for the environment. If America doesn't take our nuclear waste it will be probably buried by the Mafia in the suburbs of Naples, destroying the soil and poisoning all the crops of the neapolitan area. I'm sure the US government has it's problems on garbage management, but in Italy the situation is much worse.
No. It should be buried in Berlusconi's backyard (and front yard) as he's recently choses to take Italy into another generation of nuclear power plants. The only relevant downside for him: the radiation might be bad for his new hair
I would say no, but it has to go somewhere.. My biggest thought is what happens when Utah is full?? Or when the containers begin leaking, now the US taxpayers will have to clean it up.
There should be much more research put into finding a better disposal solution. The World has taken on too much of an out of site, out of mind attitude. Just burying stuff doesn't make it go away!
If we had a well developed breeder reactor infrastructure, then yes. In which case spent nuclear fuel could be recycled and re-used as fuel for more advanced reactors. Such infrastructure would allow us to extend our nuclear fuel supplies, vastly reduce our nuclear waste problem, and continue to provide us with carbon-neutral electricity. It could also allow us to eliminate the fuel enrichment program, thereby reducing the probability of nuclear accident.
But if we're just going to bury the stuff, then absolutely no. The Europeans possess more advanced reactors than the US does, anyway, and perhaps their waste problem will spur more rapid development of such a waste-to-fuel recycling program and reactor infrastructure.
I put maybe, because I think the US needs to look into new technology that allows us to recycle spent nuclear fuel so we don't have to store as much in the end. Who better than a technology leader like the US to keep radioactive waste secure and productive?