I am most concerned about the problem of the storage of nuclear waste. After 60 years of nuclear energy production, most of the waste from this production is still in short-term facilities because nobody can resolve scientifically and politically what to do with it. Some of this waste, 'high-level' as it's called, will remain dangerous for many hundreds, indeed thousands of years. There is continuing political pressure to develop longer-term storage facilities in areas already committed to nuclear power, e.g. those dependent economically on the production of nuclear power. But unfortunately many of these areas are geologically unsuitable for long-term storage deep below ground.

Here's a link to a pro-nuclear association's web page about waste disposal: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-wastes.aspx

There are many advanced discussions, well-developed proposals and interesting schemes outlined on this page, and therefore many fine-sounding phrases, but very little action. I'm interested to know how you think this problem is going to be resolved. At the moment the nuclear industry's policy seems to be that technical solutions will turn up which will become politically acceptable: I don't understand the basis for either the technical or the political claim.

...indeed thousands of years. — mcdoodle

As far as I'm concerned, that answers the question quite definitively. Only two thousand years ago, Jesus was preaching. So global warming will perhaps cause a catastrophe whereby we lose most of the major cities and a lot of the arable land - that's serious, but in 500 years we will have adapted. Find another solution to the problems of the moment. Don't shit on the next few millennia.

Although my training on what happens to nuclear fuel after it has been isn't that extensive, from what I know it does seem any more dangerous than the waste generated by alternatives. With coal instead of waste being contained as it is with nuclear, it is released into the environment as smoke which has a higher net radioactivity and toxins than the waste produced in a nuclear plant. People often don't realize this because coal waste is diluted by the air and/other things used by a coal plant where as with nuclear it has to remain at the plant where it may become more concentrated for easier handling.

Also from what I have been told one of the rules of thumb of radioactive material, it can either be highly radioactive for a short period of time or radioactive for a long period of time but with less radioactivity. These "super-duper" radioactive substances that constantly give off the same ultra high radioactivity for centuries on end is something created in one's imagination. Even the elephants foot at Chernobyl (which was thought to give off somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 REM when first found has since cooled down a bit after it has gone through a few of it's half-lives.

It is really not that much different then the risks faced by either organizations that use other sources of energy and/or other industries in general. I could try and find some stats on what the risks for people that work in either the trucking or other parts of the transportation sector, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be phased by the tens of thousands of people dying every year in bloody and violent vehicle accidents (which of course includes many of them getting burned to a crisp when a crash causes a fire and the fire reaches either the fuel or other highly flammable material). But since driving cars and other vehicles is just 'part of our way of life', we are more or less indifferent to many of the risks that come from everyone driving in either developed and/or some developing countries.

Since we can't see radiation, it can be a little harder to rationalize the real risks when we compare it the other forms of "acceptable risks" we face when going about our normal lives.

As far as I'm concerned, that answers the question quite definitively. Only two thousand years ago, Jesus was preaching. So global warming will perhaps cause a catastrophe whereby we lose most of the major cities and a lot of the arable land - that's serious, but in 500 years we will have adapted. Find another solution to the problems of the moment. Don't shit on the next few millennia.
--unenlightened

I'm not sure this is a pro or anti nuclear statement since it is plausible for it to be interpreted either way.

If we use nuclear energy we will have to deal with the waste (which may not be as bad as some people think it will be or at least IMHO), and if we DON'T use nuclear power the alternative sources of power we use could cause so much environmental damage over the next several centuries it could increase the problems of the Green House effects and threaten many of the species that live on this planet including ourselves.

We may be able to pick our poison, but none of the real choice we can make will have the "zero net effect" on the environment which you may be hoping for. To the best of my knowledge there are too many people on earth and too few viable "clean energy" options at the moment which can be implemented quickly enough to have no real risk. There might be something in the near future to change this, but without knowing anything about them I can not say any of the one's I am aware of won't have any risks that makes them that much less dangers than nuclear in one way or another.

I also don't like nuclear back then but a recent encounter with pro-nuclear articles changed my stance. Below are some recent realizations:

On nuclear waste (vs. wastes in other industries that are not necessarily energy related:

1. The wastes produced aren't as much as I thought it would be. Some wastes are disposable using ordinary landfills and only a small proportion needs long term storage. There are stats out there that a nuclear power plant can only generate so much highly radioactive waste over the course of its life.

2. Other industries also produce wastes, maybe similar or greater in magnitude, that render swaths of land/rives/sea unusable for the next couple of decades. A toxic waste dump in China comes to mind. The narratives though are against nuclear because the effect of nuclear wastes is more "in your face" in case of accidents and mishandling compared to gradual, unnoticeable, and (yet) unsensationalized effects of other wastes in other industries.

3. Nuclear waste handling seems to be even more rigorous than compared to other wastes. One factor contributing to this is that waste handling is usually included in the 'cost of nuclear' whereas the cost of handling other wastes isn't and there seems to be accountability on who takes care of what. One can only dream of a similar framework for other wastes.

4. Advanced nuclear waste treatment converts highly radioactive waste to solid form which has lesser chances of leeching into the surroundings. I originally imagine nuclear waste as fluids stored in metallic rusting tanks that can seep into groundwater.

5. Radioactive waste seems to be relatively harmless in just about 30-40 years.

6. Ongoing research aims to get the nuclear-electricity conversion process much more efficient (from ~4% to ~96%) which can result in significantly lesser wastes.

On occurrence of catastrophic events:

7. Ongoing research aims at lowering the operating pressure of the boilers/reactors so that a catastrophic spread of radioactive material to a large area in case of accidents can be prevented and more localized.

8. Ongoing research on "safer" forms of nuclear fuel envisions fuels in ceramic pellets that allow mechanisms that prevent the uncontrollable increase in temperature that results in meltdown.

With these developments and given more experience, expertise, and research in the technology, I would be inclined to support nuclear program in our country in 20-30 years time. But for now, I'm not sure if we can afford the risk of a catastrophic event happening anywhere within or even near our vicinity.

Sources: world-nuclear.org (highly biased?) and University of California video on nuclear research (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k)

From a bit of reading I've the impression that a lot of the harmful isotopes released by accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl shorter lived than we've been told, though I can't find easy facts about the spread of the longer lived actinides. Cesium 137 is the principle radioactive source in Chernobyl's exclusion zone, which has a half life of 30 years (?). Still harmful but less so for future generations. Different story for epicenter of meltdown containing melted rods.

Compare the risks of nuclear power to coal and the latter probably causes far more cancer and death. The standard American diet is far more destructive to human health and the environment than nuclear power.

Nuclear is still scary though. I wouldn't want to have been exposed to either Chernobyl or Fukushima accidents (NIMBY!). Maybe engineers will finally design a reactor that is failsafe and can't meltdown.

We need to work making fusion feasible.

While reading your post I get the impression you are a little more informed about some of the technology and issues surrounding the industry. :D

I thought you might also like a few other factoids that I have learned over the years:

** A lot of the waste that is produced by modern nuclear power plants could be reduced if we decided to keep using a fuel rod instead of throwing them away after being used for just a little while. I forget the actual number but I believe it is somewhere between **98.5%** to 99.9%** of the potential energy that is available in a rod is NEVER USED. Imagine what it would be like if you could only utilize 1% or even less of the oil you put in your car. Part of the reason doing this is economically feasible is that even if the material used in reactor is very expensive, the amount of fuel that is actually needed is so small when compared to other industries the cost of the fuel really isn't a factor for what it cost to run the plant and generate energy. The other reason is again the cost is so small that even if they throw away 99% of the available fuel, the cost of the fuel still isn't a significant factor for what it cost to generate energy.

** While it is feasible to expect the nuclear industry to try and be more efficient with the fuel rods they use (in order not go through too much nuclear material and not leave any for future generations), the crazy thing is money doesn't have to be wasted to produce means to make the reactors still be able to use the fuel after it gets depleted a little (which I'm pretty sure is very expensive and/or difficult to do), the fuel can instead be "recycled" in a what are known as "breeder" reactors. Breeder reactors have been created in United States (in fact one of the very first reactors created was a experimental breeder reactor which was built before reactors were available for commercial use) but since they don't exist or I should say not allowed for commercial use, the red tape, technical and political issues that need to be overcome to build one is more that any person or organization's will and resources are able to overcome at the moment.

** While the US doesn't allow breeder reactors to be use, the French have a much more aggressive nuclear program in their country and they even see the building and use of breeder reactors as a way for them to save money on the cost of fuel for their reactors. Why the company's that run nuclear reactors are not as concern with the cost of fuel as the French is unknown, but maybe it is because either the French actually have to pay more than we do or perhaps the companies in the US are too use to the cost they pay and/or how they current use fuel and run their reactors. Hopefully the nuclear program and breeder reactors being used in France will encourage people and ideas in the US and help our nuclear industry as well in the future.

**In Germany, they have more or less gone "all Green" (or about as being as dedicated to green energy and developed country can be in the western world) where as France has gone "all Nuclear" (having the most aggressive nuclear power program possible at this time). For the US, Great Britain, and as well as many other countries, these two different energy policies are being watched and evaluated as if each country was a test subject in order to get an idea what it would be like to go "all out" as either of these countries have. Needless to say, it is a given that both polices/ideologies have pros and cons to them with people that are for green tech hoping that Germany helps advance some of the current technology and smooth out some of the "wrinkles" that comes when a country tries to ween itself off fossil fuel. In France it is believed the weening process will be a little smooth (perhaps partly because they already have to deal with their own problems of scarcity/costs of other fuels which is a big part of the reason they choose nuclear energy in the first place), but instead of economical/political issues of green energy there is always in the back of their mind(and those watching their program) when and how they will deal with any incident in their nuclear industry and what will be the after effects from it. Needless to say there are people in France and here in the US that are keeping their fingers cross and hope everything more or less goes good for them. :)

"From a bit of reading I've the impression that a lot of the harmful isotopes released by accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl shorter lived than we've been told, though I can't find easy facts about the spread of the longer lived actinides. Cesium 137 is the principle radioactive source in Chernobyl's exclusion zone, which has a half life of 30 years (?). Still harmful but less so for future generations. Different story for epicenter of meltdown containing melted rods.

Compare the risks of nuclear power to coal and the latter probably causes far more cancer and death. The standard American diet is far more destructive to human health and the environment than nuclear power."

As far as I know from the studies I heard of , nobody has died from Fukushima although it is a given the same can not be said of Chernobyl where it is know that at least 100 to about 110 of the operators at the plant as well firefighters that came to the reactor died from various causes. From what I know most of the deaths where not from radiation poisoning itself but from things like being in area that release the steam/water hammer after the reactor went super critical, falls, dying while fight the fire, being vaporized, etc.

There are not any real good numbers for this but one of the rules of thumb I have heard of from some of the people in the nuclear industry is that "IF" for some reason you happen to be in the right place at the wrong time (or perhaps the wrong place at the right time, or wrong place at the wrong time), and you get expose to a lethal dose of radiation then there is still a **BETTER than **50%** you will die from other stuff before the radiation can do anything to you. Of course this may merely a means to suggest that there are many,many, many other things that can kill you in day to day life and/or can kill you if you happen to work in any hard core industry where you are working with any potential dangerous machinery/ technology. And of course it may be that some people are a little cavilier of the dangers of radiation when dealing with all their other issues they deal with at the plant as well.

For the dangers to the public, I'm unaware of any study about Fukushima other than it is believed in some places in Japan the average background radiation has nearly increase to twice to what it was before. This sounds kind of scary (and I'm sure it isn't something that some people in Japan are really happy about either) but to get an idea of what this means, it is useful to note that the average America received around TWICE the amount of background radiation (partly from geography, radiation left over military nuclear bomb testing, and people getting x-rays) and this amount is still considered safe or safe-ish at least.

The numbers are kind of fuzzy to me now, but I think the number is around 2 to 3 rads per year the average american is exposed to from background and other sources. Getting 2 to 3 rads at once or over a couple days (which is a just little more than what you might get while they are checking for or treating cancer), isn't great but it isn't really life treating either. I think when some members of the population gets hit with 10 rad in a few hours or days they can have issues, and there might be some statistical studies suggest there is an increase health risk at this point. I don't even know if it is correct or proper to say there is an increase at this point other than to say it is obviously more dangerous than getting just 2 rad from something like chemo and/or it is something that no organization in western would expect to or even allow it's employees/soldiers be exposed to other than perhaps during a war/combat operations or some kind of an emergency. At 20 rad I believe there is evidence or studies to show that around this point a large percentage of population will develop some.of the first symptoms of radiation sickness which includes nausea, dizziness, confusion, etc. Such symptoms might sound scary if one know it is coming being exposed to radiation but it might help to realize that such symptoms are common with many, many other health issues (such as getting the flu or other illnesses) and can partly be thought of the bodies way of reacting to discovering everything is not right with it. As a person living with acute chronic pain (from a herniated disk in my neck that I got 'fixed' a couple years ago), I've gotten use to the idea of having to wake up and deal with pain, nausea, etc. and still sort of go about what is left of my day to day life; although saying this I'm not trying to make light of those who have such symptoms for other reasons. I'm merely trying to make a remark on how little it can mean to doctors and/or others when someone has such symptoms and there is no association with them to radiation.


Anyways around 50 rads things become a bit more life threatening. It might helpful to note that at Chernobyl the military conscripts and civilian "liquidators" (ie civilians forced to help in the clean up efforts although this term was often used in reference to the conscripts as well) were sent home if it was know they where in an area where they got a dose above around 35 rad, although it is a given that some of them got higher dosages than that from being in areas that had higher radiation than it was thought to have. At 35 rad (and even to a degree with 50 rads as well) it is plausible that someone could have a good possibility of more or less still leading a happy and health life with only some health issues, but also think it is also a given there is a possibility of them not having such a long and happy life due to exposure.

I'm unaware of any statistical studies that says what that dangers are or what happens at 35 rads or 50 rads, other than a very high probability of them showing signs of radiation sickness, but I think it is a given there would be an increase risk of cancer, organ failure, and other potential problems. It might be also worth while to note of the liquidators/conscripts who did clean up the reactor and where often exposed to high levels of radiation, there is no statistical information to suggest that they have or had any more health issues than the rest of the population. I don't know know if the number of liquidators exposed to 20-50 rads was so few, too many of them died from the immediate effects of radiation sickness (ie. which would exclude them from any study done to determining long term effects), or if the powers that be in the Soviet Union deliberately whitewashed the numbers to protect their backside, but the fact remains there is little to no statistical information done while studying the effects of Chernobyl to suggest for people exposed to less than 100 rad (ie. which would likely kill them) that they had any statistically increased probably of developing one health issue or another. This doesn't mean there wasn't any increased risk, it only means the studies done can not say one way or another what the risks and other issues really are. At around 80 to 100 rad, people develop a severe case of acute radiation sickness including immediate or eventual various kinds of necrosis and at this level most people will not survive the experience. I believe this was about the level that several of the Chernobyl operators and firefighters where exposed to (since the firefights where known to either 'blackout' or become disoriented as they were trying to fight the fire) before anyone could come and get them out of the area before they became overexposed. I believe from what I have read at really, really high levels, (500 rads or more) people don't just eventually develop ARS, headaches, etc. but it can simply knock a person outright.
I believe the theory as to why this happens is radiation exposure can temporarily slightly screws up brain and nervous system functions and at really high levels instead of just disorientation, the entire system gets overwhelmed and has to shut off much like it does when it receives other shocks.

I was trying to give you some idea of the risks of what happens to people when they get exposed to various levels of radiation (so you might be less scared of it) but I guess I got a little carried away. :D

Also I should note this information *ONLY* pertains to happens when a person is exposed to a quick one time dose and there is little to no information as to what happens if exposure is staggered over a time period much longer than a few days. Dosages are calculated as accumulated and in the nuclear industry they are summed together over the year one works. Like any toxin or drug, radiation is less dangerous if it comes in several smaller dosages than all at once. Think of it like what would happen to your average teenager was exposed to the caffeine (which is actually a neurotoxin in higher dosages) in the sodas they drink in a year, which I'm pretty sure wouldn't be good. The highest known recorded radiation dose ever adsorb and some still survived (ie they didn't die from radiation sickness) was a lifetime dose of 5,000 rad which is obviously 50 times the dose which usually kills someone. Part of the reason they survived was the dosage was a little bit every hour of their life (after they got injected with radioactive plutonium) instead of any particularly high dose at any one time. While the idea of having plutonium injected into you may not be a good thing, it is sort of less helpful to think that if something like that did happen one might be able to survive it if the amount isn't too much. Then again I don't think such a substance is as easily available. as the time that this happened.

I'll have to stop for now but I hope to respond to your other questions when I get a chance.....

Use less energy.

I just have some experience in power system and energy system planning so I usually get my sort of superficial knowledge on nuclear technology just from background reading. Haha. I was really shocked to know that only about 4% of energy stored in fuel rods are used.

It's nice that you shared the energy policies by France and Germany, really appreciate it. The German way of 100% RE also have its issues regarding supply intermittency and wastes. Research on both is still under development but at least, incremental implementation of current technology is less risky and provides immediate rewards.

What I appreciate about the German/France mode of thinking where one tries to maintain the current structure of power/energy consumption while the other tries to create a new paradigm is that it is a nice textbook example on how different modes of thinking can affect national (read: a lot of people) policy.

May be applicable if you want to live within a small community. May not be applicable though if you want to scale things up like food production and transport unless you agree to go back to manual labor and to forgo quick and convenient long-distance travel.

May be applicable if you want to live within a small community. May not be applicable though if you want to scale things up like food production and transport unless you agree to go back to manual labor and to forgo quick and convenient long-distance travel. — OglopTo

Indeed, that is the almost universally unquestioned response in the West. If we practice self-control, conservation, modesty, simplicity, etc. the sky will collapse and the whole globe will be in abject poverty. It's either save our way of life--perpetual economic growth; continuous commodification of everything under the sun (and probably the sun itself; savvy investors might want to get a head start and figure out who will end up with ownership of the sun); ever-increasing exploitation of the Earth; etc.--or life will be "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short" for everybody on the globe.

The fact that only a small percentage of people have benefited from that way of life is almost always omitted. The fact that most people have suffered from that way of life is almost never on anybody's radar. On the contrary, it is always stated or implied that everybody--even people whose relatives have been murdered, indigenous cultures have been destroyed, land has been degraded, and lives have been subjected to colonial domination--is better off.

Don't reduce energy consumption by buying local produce! That is irrational! The sky will collapse! More energy and more consumption is the answer!

Has there been any worse ethnocentrism, narcissism and hubris in pre-history and history?

Use less energy. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes. Our largest and least expensive new energy source is CONSERVATION.

There are several reasons why "use less energy" makes good sense.

1. We waste a lot of energy through inefficiency. Some prime examples:

a. basing mass transit on one person riding in one car instead of using busses and trains
b. transporting goods in trucks rather than railroads
c. inefficient heating/cooling systems in homes and non-housing buildings
d. inefficient agricultural practices
e. widespread low-density population distribution (i.e., the suburbs and exurbs)

2. we are not capturing a reasonable proportion of our energy from wind and solar -- though this is improving. Many areas are now producing small but growing shares of electricity from wind and solar, where 20 years ago the figure was close to or at zero.

We waste a lot of matériel which takes energy to produce. Some prime examples:

a. compostable organic material that is either buried in landfills or incinerated which can be industrially composted for use in agriculture.
b. packaging ordinary water in plastic bottles and shipping the water from here to there.
c. growing corn (which depletes soil, requires extensive energy) for fermentation to make ethanol to mix with gasoline
d. burying or incinerating paper, plastics, metal, glass, etc. rather than recovering the resources in garbage

According to the linear no-threshold model, any exposure to ionizing radiation, even at doses too low to produce any symptoms of radiation sickness, can induce cancer due to cellular and genetic damage. Under the assumption, survivors of acute radiation syndrome face an increased risk of developing cancer later in life. The probability of developing cancer is a linear function with respect to the effective radiation dose. In radiation-induced cancer, the speed at which the condition advances, the prognosis, the degree of pain, and every other feature of the disease are not believed to be functions of the radiation dosage.

However, some studies contradict the linear no-threshold model. These studies indicate that some low levels of radiation do not increase cancer risk at all, and that there may exist a threshold dosage of ionizing radiation below which exposure should be considered safe. Nonetheless the 'no safe amount' assumption is the basis of US and most national regulatory policies regarding "man-made" sources of radiation. — Wikipedia

I was really shocked to know that only about 4% of energy stored in fuel rods are used. — OglopTo

It would be shocking that only 4% of the energy in a fuel rod were used, IF it were simple to use say 80%. It isn't. For another, one might not want too much fission going on. Even 4% produces a tremendous amount of heat.

My understanding of nuclear physics is pretty poor, but if I remember correctly, the older atomic bombs only used a very small percentage of the potential energy in the bomb.

A competently designed, properly sited, and carefully operated nuclear power plant is an appropriate source of energy, at least for the time being. However, competent design, proper siting, and careful operation--being human attributes--can and do fail.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are both excellent examples of human failure in one or more critical areas. Why do these failures occur? Haste, over-confidence, insufficient thoroughness, cheapness, momentary inattention to detail, unimaginative planning, bad practices, etc.

The waste-disposal problem seems to be primarily political. I don't view nuclear waste as benign in any way, shape, manner, or form, but there are methods of disposal that can be final:

Site waste disposal in the most geologically stable rock. In North America there is the Laurentian Shield, for instance, which is the igneous / granitic core of the continent. It's as stable as rock is going to get. Most of it is in Canada, but some of it is in the US--in the Great Lakes region, like northern Minnesota.

Bore a shaft well below the water table. Put the properly packaged highly radioactive long lasting waste in halls branching off the shaft. Back fill. Plug the shaft with a lot of concrete.

The very hint of a whisper of suggestion that northern Minnesota would make a better waste disposal site than the desert southwest will cause 5 million Minnesotans to rise in wrath. But it makes sense. The desert southwest is more geologically active than the Laurentian Shield. It's therefore a bad place to put waste.

Other features that make northern Minnesota a good location: It's flat--thanks to the glaciers 10,000 - 100,000 years ago. Most of the dirt was removed. Better to bore way down below the mean surface of the land than bore into a mountain to bury stuff. Another thing: Northern Minnesota already has lots of big holes--like the underground Tower-Soudan mine which is about 2300 feet deep or the big open pit iron mines.

The biggest risk we take is leaving highly radioactive (and chemically toxic) waste on site -- like fuel rods, whether in the reactor or in storage pools. In the event of a not-unimaginable deterioration and unraveling of society, we would be leaving unattended roughly 500 time bombs of toxicity in the world.

In 2014 11% of all electricity in the world came from nuclear plants.

Chernobyl may well have caused 40,000 cancer deaths. Is that not a big deal? Well, of course it is -- but 40,000 cancer deaths in a large population is not a lot. 2,626,418 people die in the US every year--about 1/3 from cancer, about 1/3 from heart disease, and about 1/3 from stroke. The "about" leaves room for accidents, infections, and other causes of death. If 875,472,667 people die of cancer, an additional 40,000 or 50,000 isn't going to be terribly noticeable. And certainly the CAUSE of 875,472,667 cancers isn't going to be known in most cases.

Still, I am disinclined to trust the risk-minimizing statements of the nuclear industry. No industry that I can think of has been forthright about the harm it causes.

"Yes. Our largest and least expensive new energy source is CONSERVATION."
--Bitter Crank
I agree that conservation is a good thing and I tip my hat to those that do their best to do it, but I don't know how feasible it really is in a capitalist/materialistic society such as we have in the West. Also I don't know the numbers behind conservation but I remember someone telling me that during WWII when people were told there were shortages of nearly every type of material and goods (including food), there was a various recycling programs that were the best we ever had, and have had ever since. The unfortunate thing was that there was so much stuff saved that majority had to eventually had to be thrown away since the means to recycle it never was created.

I guess my position on energy in general is to use as many (and if possible ALL means) to produce energy in order to not be reliant on any one source at any particular time like we were oil shortages in the 70's. Other than that, I think it is a given that we need to be pragmatic as to which sources we use and don't use. Also I should say that some of my opinion has been shaped by doing a little bit of speed reading of a book called "Power Hungry" which suggest some of the reasons we are so reliant on fossil fuels and gas is that they are much cheaper and easier to get at the present time and the author predicts we will continue to be reliant on them for many decades to come in which we will eventually start developing relying more on nuclear power as it gets harder to find more fossil fuels and gas.

Since his book was published awhile ago (I think at least ten years), I'm unsure the data he compiled at the time of his writing it still jives with what we now know. Which is part of of the reason I started this thread..

"A competently designed, properly sited, and carefully operated nuclear power plant is an appropriate source of energy, at least for the time being. However, competent design, proper siting, and careful operation--being human attributes--can and do fail.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are both excellent examples of human failure in one or more critical areas. Why do these failures occur? Haste, over-confidence, insufficient thoroughness, cheapness, momentary inattention to detail, unimaginative planning, bad practices, etc."
--Bitter Crank

I agree that all these problems are a problem with any industry but I think you are inaccurate if you think that this is a particular problem in the nuclear industry in comparison to any other business, government, or industry in general. For one thing, the nuclear industry in the US is both THE MOST regulated industry in the US, and I believe the most regulated nuclear industry in the world. When an industry has so many regulations that it threatens to put them out of business (and WOULD PUT ANY OTHER INDUSTRY out of business), I believe it is more accurate to think of most of the problem and/or accidents occurring in due to either human error and/or having to deal with situations and conditions that sometimes even the designers are unaware of.

Try to imagine what it would be like instead of accepting that 30,000 people died per year and about 1.3 million people die in car crashes, what would happen if the US and other governments cracked done on various things that can contribute to fatalities on the road and expected people to live by them to the point were only 10% of the fatalities that occur today kept happening? While this may seem very far fetched, it is sort of what it is like working in the nuclear industry where it is a given that incidents will happen, even if everything is heavily regulated and people do their best to never screw up. And even though everyone that knows anything about the industry knows this, there is still a knee-jerk reaction to anything that ever happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The waste-disposal problem seems to be primarily political. I don't view nuclear waste as benign in any way, shape, manner, or form, but there are methods of disposal that can be final:

Site waste disposal in the most geologically stable rock. In North America there is the Laurentian Shield, for instance, which is the igneous / granitic core of the continent. It's as stable as rock is going to get. Most of it is in Canada, but some of it is in the US--in the Great Lakes region, like northern Minnesota.

Bore a shaft well below the water table. Put the properly packaged highly radioactive long lasting waste in halls branching off the shaft. Back fill. Plug the shaft with a lot of concrete.

The very hint of a whisper of suggestion that northern Minnesota would make a better waste disposal site than the desert southwest will cause 5 million Minnesotans to rise in wrath. But it makes sense. The desert southwest is more geologically active than the Laurentian Shield. It's therefore a bad place to put waste.

Other features that make northern Minnesota a good location: It's flat--thanks to the glaciers 10,000 - 100,000 years ago. Most of the dirt was removed. Better to bore way down below the mean surface of the land than bore into a mountain to bury stuff. Another thing: Northern Minnesota already has lots of big holes--like the underground Tower-Soudan mine which is about 2300 feet deep or the big open pit iron mines.

The biggest risk we take is leaving highly radioactive (and chemically toxic) waste on site -- like fuel rods, whether in the reactor or in storage pools. In the event of a not-unimaginable deterioration and unraveling of society, we would be leaving unattended roughly 500 time bombs of toxicity in the world."
--Bitter Crank

Organizations in the nuclear industry have already built such sites like you suggested and even built special containers that could withstand a direct hit from an US built RPG (which would not be easy for terrorist or anyone else that might do such a thing) but after these were built they requirements changed in order for them to withstand direst hits from tanks and or withstand getting hit by something like a train or plane. Even though such events were highly unlikely.

But what might of killed such projects even more was public opposition when it came to using such facilities after they got built. I'm sure people where happy to have money being spent in their state if and when the nuclear industry asked if they could built them (since they are by no means cheap to make and having them in one's state could definitely help one's economy during the time they need to build it), but opposite materialize right before they could be brought online making it near impossible to now use.

I don't know if you can relate to what it must be like for those who oversee the nuclear industry at the time to have this happen to them, but I think it would make both them (as well as other that come after them) in doing what the public wants them to do to make the storage of nuclear waste safer without serious consideration of every potential opposition the public might have in anything they do. Right now they do what they do mostly because it is the most" out of sight, out of mind" process they can do (since it spends a lot of time at the plant and then moved to someplace that already is approved to hold waste), while at the same time still being the most safe-ish means to store the waste. If there was any other means they could change the process without too much costs, headaches, red tape, etc. they would likely do it but as far as I can tell they isn't anything they can do to get anything approved even if the process is safer than what they have now.

"Chernobyl may well have caused 40,000 cancer deaths. Is that not a big deal? Well, of course it is -- but 40,000 cancer deaths in a large population is not a lot. 2,626,418 people die in the US every year--about 1/3 from cancer, about 1/3 from heart disease, and about 1/3 from stroke. The "about" leaves room for accidents, infections, and other causes of death. If 875,472,667 people die of cancer, an additional 40,000 or 50,000 isn't going to be terribly noticeable. And certainly the CAUSE of 875,472,667 cancers isn't going to be known in most cases."
--Bitter Crank

But can you prove that the number of people that died from radiation from Chernobyl is anywhere close to that number? The numbers I have is approximately 100-110 died from ARS, fires explosions,etc. when the accident first occurred (although this number might include some that died in the weeks that followed), zero or no known fatalities in the weeks and months of clean up of the nearly 500,000 liquidators/conscripts working there, no statistical data showing any real increase of cancer in general population other than an additional 4,000 kids and young adults getting thyroid cancer (which is usually treatable) and of those 4,000 patients it is estimated that 4 of them died from it. I think the high numbers you are giving are a high ball number that are given when an accident happens when it is unknown if any safety measures where taken and/or there are other dangers that may occurred that are unknown which could have also killed some addition people. Because of issues like these, initial estimates can be a bit misleading and when the data and/or statics can't show someone what they are looking for some people resort to "magical" numbers and/or embellishing the facts in order to come up with something that might help their position.

I don't know if you can remember, but when 9/11 first happened the estimated number of people they thought were killed was 25,000 because that was the number of people usually working in the building and they thought that although some of them might have gotten out, they figured there was an equal number of people who might be visiting the building that wouldn't be counted as part of this 25,000 group and the number of those people killed would sort of equal the number. That plus some of the people who could have been killed who were outside the building at the time and/or first responders who where there when the buildings collapsed. Obviously just counting the number of in a building as the number of expected casualties from a disaster isn't really accurate in any way, but it is the typical thing someone does because it is easy and it is something the public will sometimes easily accept when there is no other information. In the end, I believe less than 2,500 people who where thought to be in the twin towers died when they collapsed. When using 'magic' numbers one needs to be careful that the facts can be a lot different then we expect.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Still, I am disinclined to trust the risk-minimizing statements of the nuclear industry. No industry that I can think of has been forthright about the harm it causes."
--Bitter Crank

Well part of the reason people in the industry may not be as forth right as you would like them to be is that some of them believe that there are people in the general public who don't really understand nuclear power and that they have to watch what they say around them. It is kind of like when an adult is talking to a teen or a child, they often have censor what they say because it is beyond what they might understand. In my experience I feel many of the people who work at the plants are a little too open about what goes on, but that might just be when they talk about their work (like one person talking about having a flood at his plant during a hurricane, and worrying about it doing "Fukushima" on them,which of course it didn't ) they are usually around others who are in the industry as well.

Believe it or not some of the toughest critics of the industry are those who have been trained and have worked in nuclear power, however since they usually only know what the rest of us know their arguments are not that hard to defend against. It might help to realize that a lot of the people who work in nuclear power have done a bit of their own due diligence in order for them to verify that they are not working in an industry that is unsafe and/or that they may regret having work for later in life. For those not in the industry and who have not done their due diligence I imagine there can be a bit of distrust, but it isn't a given that this mistrust is based malignant behavior of those who work in the industry but I believe more likely on the unsettling feeling one gets when talking with someone who you can barely understand how they think or where they are coming from.

If it helps, I have a pretty extensive knowledge of some of the pros and cons (most of which I have yet been able to mention on this thread) and I can either give you information on stuff you are unaware of and or my opinion on matters you are trying to look into; and I promise to tell you what I know as long as it is something that isn't confidential in any way.

"According to the linear no-threshold model, any exposure to ionizing radiation, even at doses too low to produce any symptoms of radiation sickness, can induce cancer due to cellular and genetic damage. Under the assumption, survivors of acute radiation syndrome face an increased risk of developing cancer later in life. The probability of developing cancer is a linear function with respect to the effective radiation dose. In radiation-induced cancer, the speed at which the condition advances, the prognosis, the degree of pain, and every other feature of the disease are not believed to be functions of the radiation dosage.

However, some studies contradict the linear no-threshold model. These studies indicate that some low levels of radiation do not increase cancer risk at all, and that there may exist a threshold dosage of ionizing radiation below which exposure should be considered safe. Nonetheless the 'no safe amount' assumption is the basis of US and most national regulatory policies regarding "man-made" sources of radiation.
— Wikipedia"
--Bitter Crank

It is a bit more complicated than that since there is ALSO the theory of RADIATION HORMESIS which CHALLENGES linear threshold as well as your LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD MODEL as well:

"Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure (see hormesis).[1][2][3][4] This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years."
— Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

I know such a theory sounds like something like a myth being created by the nuclear industry, but since such information can be counter productive if mentioned to the public; it is often easier to more or less stick with the linear model and avoid talk of the possibility of radiation being GOOD for one's health; except sometimes when people doing things such as use the linear no-threshold model. The truth is we don't know enough about radiation other than the fact that it is something we are exposed to every day of our lives and it is plausible that even this background radiation can be harmful but it is also plausible that being expose to ZERO radiation for a period of time could be as dangerous as it is from people that try to live in ultra sterile/clean environments such as so called "bubble boys".