Help, please, from the scientists here. About the problem of nuclear waste

[Easterncedar]

I have been generally against nuclear power, both because of the danger of nuclear accidents and because of the problem of storage of contaminated material and spent rods.

I remember the results of Reagan‘s commission studying how to make nuclear waste storage safe for the ages that proposed we create basically a generational priesthood that would carry the information of the danger into the thousands of years of the future to warn people off. Crazy, right? Absurd.

It was suggested to me recently that we only needed to worry about the next hundred years because we would find a way to use the radioactive waste to generate new energy and in passing make it safe.

I would like to believe this, particularly in the light of the horrific dangers of climate change and with the current push to build a new generation of small reactors, as New York’s governor is currently proposing.

So, for my scientific friends here, what do you think? Is there any realistic basis for that idea or is such recycling a fantasy?

It seems to me that once the waste is buried to our current specification for eternal entombment, it is unrealistic to expect it could be “mined.“. If recycling is ever to become feasible, then our storage systems should be designed accordingly for prospective retrieval of materials that could potentially be reused. Right?

[Layzeebeaver]

1. Nuclear is one of the safest forms of power by far - always keep that in mind...

The subject of nuclear waste is a quagmire full of disinformation and redirection.

Waste can be safely stored for 1000s of years, and within a generation or so the level of radiological toxicity falls off substantially.

Using nuclear waste as a power source occurs in a couple of ways 1) the waste heat generated can be converted to electricity (like in various spacecraft power cells (e.g. similar tech as the voyager probes and others) and 2) it can be recycled through various reactor designs to scavenge any remaining highly fissionable materials into new fuel pellets that can in turn be used in existing reactors.

There's a nuclear engineer (T. Folse) on YouTube who is excellent at explaining these topics. I highly encourage you to check him out. He primarily reacts and provides commentary on other videos, but it's rather effective as you see the level of mis-information out there. I rate him, and think he's accurate and funny at the same time. watch his stuff is unfortunately addictive!!!

Here's one about nuclear waste as an example:

?si=yhzGjPQjX2wxC-oj

EDIT: just to add that I'm not a professional or trained scientist.

[Easterncedar]

3. Thank you. That's very helpful

I really appreciate your taking the time to reply.

[CommonHumanity]

2. Good question

Unfortunately I don't have a solution, but it is something I've pondered and I think it was smart to throw the question out to everyone. Who knows what answer may be hiding in plain sight or within the scope of someone's specific knowledge and background.


The only completely uninformed thought that occurs to me is could we send it far out into space? Would there be unintended consequences? It is impossible to predict given the complexity of the cosmos? Would we disrupt the entire balance of the universe and astrophysics?

To all responds to this good question: Please don't shame or vilify me for my ignorance on this subject. I'm aware that I raise this question with a child's understanding of the laws that govern what lies beyond our little blue planet. My passion, love and inspiration is life on earth and all it's complexity, wonder, and mystery. I get why what lies beyond is worthy of investigation and marvel at those who explore it. I'm also aware that life on earth and all that lies beyond are inseparable. So please don't trash me for lack of knowledge.

[NNadir]

4. There is no such thing as "nuclear waste" in my view.

There is only extremely valuable used nuclear fuel.

It is remarkable and absurd at the end of the day that people carry on endlessly about this non-issue since over seventy years of accumulation used nuclear fuel has been collected and stored without killing very many people if any.

By contrast fossil fuel waste, called in a somewhat diversionary parlance as "air pollution" as if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels, kills millions of people each year without a peep of concern from the same people, trained by a dishonest media rhetoric, to worry endlessly about "nuclear waste."

I have spent decades, on my own time, contemplating nuclear fuel, in manufacture and use. I have convinced myself that there are no components in used nuclear fuel that cannot be put to use, often in ways in which they are uniquely qualified, to solve humanity's most intractable problems.

[Easterncedar]

6. I was hoping you would chime in, NNadir

But is there nothing to be concerned about with contaminated materials that aren't spent fuel? Isn't that a lot of the bulk material that we are sending to be buried?

I confess my ignorance and acknowledge your frustration. I am trying to open my mind.

[NNadir]

8. Sending it for burial is a popular but bad idea.

As an exercise for fun - I'm way behind on the project and should get back to it - I have been putting together, for my son, an exercise of designing a nuclear reactor that is almost entirely composed of the components of used nuclear fuel, other than the element thorium which is added to eliminate the need for uranium enrichment.

It has a fast neutron spectrum and is designed as a breed and burn device where Americium is the driver fuel, owing to its marvelous neutron multiplicity.

The problem with used nuclear fuel is not that there is too much of it but that there is not enough of it. We only have about 85,000 tons in the US, accumulated since around 1958. We definitely need more. One of the more valuable components is unreacted uranium, which accounts for roughly 95% of the fuel mass. Unlike natural uranium it contains the isotope ²³⁶U which has the interesting property of essentially of making enrichment of uranium very problematic and expensive, if even possible, to the levels used in nuclear weapons. It would be tragic to throw it away.

There is an isotope of selenium ⁷⁹Se that people might be too lazy to put to use. It is an extremely low yield isotope less than 0.04 percent in the fission of ²³⁵U, less in the fission of plutonium and transplutonium nuclides, that might be expensive to use. I'd be willing to store the world supply in my basement, particularly since it always comes out diluted with the five stable isotopes of the element. It is a pure beta emitter generating no gamma radiation, safe if stored in a glass case in a museum in the future that would mock antinuke "concern trolling."

There is no such thing as nuclear waste. At least there shouldn't be. It's existence is psychological, not technical.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. High-level waste is at the same time less and more of a problem than it's made out to be

Less, in that the threat can be contained.

More, in that it is a risk and our government cannot decide exactly how and where to dispose of it, and we’re not alone in this.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal
https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/does-office-nuclear-energy-awards-19-million-advance-recycling-used-nuclear-fuel

Our current method of storing it “Uh… let’s put it over there for now.” is not acceptable.

Eventually, I expect the Yucca Mountain site will be used for long-term disposal of high-level waste after “reprocessing.”

[NNadir]

7. And why may I ask, is storing used nuclear fuel where it is " unacceptable?"

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2026, 03:58 PM - Edit history (2)

Is there any evidence that doing so has ever at any point in the 70 year history of used nuclear fuel killed anywhere near the 19,000 people who will die today from air pollution?

I often challenge antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes to produce, using reputable references in the primary scientific literature, that show that the storage of used nuclear fuel on the site where it is generated has killed, over its entire history, as many people as will die in the next six hours from fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution;" we can ignore climate change over which antinukes cry crodile tears.

They never get back to me, the reason being that no such data exists.

How is it that antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes find it acceptable for fossil fuel plants to dump fossil fuel waste directly into the planetary atmosphere, not at all constrained by geography but unacceptable to store used nuclear fuel where it is until the world overcomes radiation fear and ignorance, ignorance that the antinukes themselves perpetuate?

Just recently, in the last few days, an "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke informed me that is acceptable in New York to run dangerous natural gas in "peaker" plants in New York when its solar cells are covered by snow and ice, as they've been for weeks recently.

That's not acceptable to me. I object to the use of fossil fuels any time anywhere under all circumstances. Why? Because fossil fuel waste is leaving the planet in flames.

I have very little patience for antinuke carrying on about so called "nuclear waste" but I am thrilled beyond measure that Yucca Mountain was never commissioned since it was always a dumb idea, a part of the absurd waste mentality that dominates industrial practice.

It turns out that storing used nuclear fuel has properties and components found nowhere else on Earth, notably isolatable quantities of the elements technetium, neptunium, plutonium, anericium and curium.

It is also true that used nuclear fuel contains more of the precious and industrially important critical metal rhodium than all the ores on the planet.

And still, and still and still...

We have people thinking we should dump this stuff.

How about we find a place to dump all that microplastic leaching used wind turbine blades cluttering the earth, the triflic imide from spent batteries, oh, and yes, the 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide dumped each year while we all wait for the "renewable energy" and fusion nirvana that did not come, is not here and frankly won't come?

It is deplorable that people who clearly know nothing about a subject, nothing at all, feel entitled to declare what is and is not acceptable when that subject is raised.

Have a nice afternoon.

[thought crime]

9. Consensus requires more than science.

The problem of nuclear waste and contamination is not just a “scientific problem”. It is also an engineering problem, an economic problem, and a social/philosophical/ethical/psychological problem.

One problem with the “scientific problem” is that science is dynamic; new knowledge emerges. Levels of radioactive contamination considered “safe” in the 1950’s are not accepted today. If current science estimates nuclear waste to be safe at some point X years in the future, will scientists at that point X agree?

Can engineers design and build a system to safely store nuclear waste across generations while keeping the total cost of nuclear energy within competitive range? Is the cost of that storage figured into the price of the generated electricity? Does the capital cost of a nuclear energy project include projections of the cost of nuclear waste storage and management across hundreds of years? How much of that cost is “socialized” through government subsidy? What will the regulatory environment be like in a hundred years or more? How does the total cost, including nuclear waste storage over hundreds of years, compare to systems based on other clean energy sources (e.g. wind/solar, etc.)?

Will a community (say, NY State) that wants to build new nuclear reactors also accept responsibility for storing the resulting nuclear waste across generations in that same community? Or do they expect to export nuclear waste to some other community (say, Nevada)? How will people living in these communities a hundred years from now feel about it? Do we care? Do we have a moral/ethical right to decide for them?

How does the presence of a nuclear waste facility affect the stress level of people living near it? We often hear of the NIMBY effect and sometimes it seems silly and selfish (e.g. the golf resort owner who doesn’t like Wind Mills). But radioactivity is a psychologically charged topic, especially because of its use in nuclear weapons and its relation to Cancer - the Big C. It is also featured in many films from the Cold War Era, like “On the Beach”, and “Dr. Strangelove”, and has even survived to the present in the best damn Godzilla movie ever - “Godzilla Minus One” (watch with subtitles - not dubbed version), and of course, “Oppenheimer”. These are great movies because they scare the crap out of us, and that fear transfers over to our feelings about nuclear waste, which is radioactive. I would say we understand the risk better because we have been warned in a dramatic, emotional and entertaining way. If only we had a similar stream of great films warning of Climate Change, we might be better off.

[Easterncedar]

10. Thanks for this, too.

You state some of the issues quite clearly. My worldview was definitely shaped by the duck and cover era in school and books and movies like On the Beach.

We have had some great and some not-so-great movies about the dystopian futures awaiting when the climate collapses: Silent Running, Soylent Green, Blade Runner, the oddly heartbreaking WALL-E and, I understand, Waterworld, which I have never seen. It's hard to make people see the incremental effects of pollution. Bombs and meltdowns dramatize more easily.

I read a lot of science fiction when I was a kid and have been grieving over nature's demise - without facing up to it - since I was 14.

Now I am furious about the time we are wasting fighting the evil stupidity of our government. The collapse is here and we are fiddling.