@silkester
I may be loonatic, but to the best of my knowledge, the idea that managing nuclear waste safely over hundreds of thousands of years is impossible and that all containment inevitably fails within a century is not supported by current scientific understanding and technological progress.

1. Multi-Barrier Approach and Container Longevity

Modern nuclear waste disposal relies on a multi-barrier system combining engineered containers, buffer materials, and stable geological formations. While individual containers may degrade over centuries, the overall system is designed so that multiple layers provide overlapping protection for much longer periods. For example, copper or steel canisters used in deep geological repositories are engineered to resist corrosion for thousands to tens of thousands of years under repository conditions. [1][2]

2. Geological Stability and Site Selection

Deep geological repositories are sited in geologically stable formations, such as crystalline bedrock or clay formations, chosen for their minimal seismic activity and tectonic stability over geological timescales. While tectonic plates do move, repository sites undergo extensive geological assessment to ensure stability for at least hundreds of thousands of years, mitigating risks of disturbance. [2][3]

3. Proven and Developing Technologies

Countries like Finland and Sweden have advanced repository projects (e.g., Onkalo in Finland) that demonstrate the feasibility of safe long-term disposal. These repositories are designed to isolate high-level waste for up to a million years, with scientific consensus supporting their safety and environmental soundness. [4][5][6]

4. Misconceptions about Chernobyl’s Sarcophagus

The Chernobyl “second dome” was an emergency containment structure designed to limit radioactive release after an accident, not a long-term waste repository. Its challenges do not reflect the engineered, purpose-built deep geological disposal facilities designed for nuclear waste management.

5. Radioactivity Decay and Waste Hazard Reduction

The radioactivity and heat output of high-level waste decline significantly over time. After about 40–50 years in interim storage, waste radioactivity drops to a fraction of its initial level, making handling and disposal safer. This decay process is a key reason for the interim storage period before final disposal [4][6]

I’m not asking you to simply believe me; I’m just asking you to consider that I am trying to follow the facts wherever they lead. I have no emotional or personal preference for or against nuclear energy. Please, if you have sources that contradict my information, share them with me so that I can reconsider my informed opinion.

To the best of my knowledge, managing nuclear waste safely over very long timescales is a complex but well-studied challenge with scientifically validated solutions.

[1] https://content.ampp.org/corrosion/article-abstract/75/3/309/1880/Lifetime-Predictions-for-Nuclear-Waste-Disposal?redirectedFrom=fulltext
[2] https://nda.blog.gov.uk/the-science-behind-long-term-safety-of-a-gdf/
[3] https://www.planete-energies.com/en/media/article/radioactive-waste-management
[4] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities
[5] https://www.planete-energies.com/en/media/article/radioactive-waste-management
[6] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste

Hi @silkester

Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "stuff"? If you intend to provide information about radioactive isotopes in the 'my body', it would be much more helpful if you could also share the sources of your information. That way, I can verify and better understand your claims.

If you are referring to naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in the human body, I must point out that there are some common misconceptions about their sources and nature.
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Isotopes in the Human Body

The main naturally occurring radioactive isotopes present in the human body are:

Carbon-14 (C-14): This isotope is produced naturally in the atmosphere by cosmic rays interacting with nitrogen. It becomes part of the carbon cycle and is incorporated into all living organisms, including humans. Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years. [1][2][3]

Potassium-40 (K-40): Potassium-40 is the most significant naturally occurring radioactive isotope in the body. Potassium is essential for many biological functions, and about 0.0117% of natural potassium is potassium-40. It has a very long half-life of approximately 1.25 billion years. [4]

Both C-14 and K-40 are naturally occurring isotopes and are generally not human-made, except for minor artificial increases in C-14 levels due to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing during the mid-20th century. However, since the end of atmospheric nuclear testing, the biggest source of human-generated radioactivity is now largely from the burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal, which releases naturally occurring radioactive materials trapped in the earth. [5][6]

Additional Points on Radioactivity and Sources

Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon and is not produced by humans. Elements like uranium and thorium are radioactive whether found naturally in rock formations or used in human-made reactors

Trace amounts of uranium, thorium, and their decay products (such as radon gas) are also present in the human body, primarily absorbed from food, water, and air.

Nuclear energy has not contributed significantly to environmental radioactivity compared to natural sources and fossil fuel combustion [6]

I would appreciate it if you could cite your sources, as it is difficult to follow and verify your argument without references. Reliable citations help ensure the accuracy and validity of information, especially on complex topics like radioactivity.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses
[2] https://stuk.fi/en/radioactivity-in-human-body
[3] https://www.livescience.com/radiation-human-body
[4] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/naturally-occurring-radioactive-materials-norm
[5] https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/radiation/types-and-sources-of-radiation/
[6] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
#Nuclear #energy #NuclearEnergy #radioactivity #isotopes #radioactive