Considerations in the Long-Term Management of High-Level Radioactive Wastes.

Gera, F.; Jacobs, D.G.

doi:10.2172/4677564

Cited by 15 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A natural event with the potential for releasing the waste would be the impact of a giant meteorite; one leaving a crater 2 km in diameter would be required to reach a depth of 600 m, and the probability of this has been estimated to be about 2x10 '~/km2 yr (Claiborne and Gera, 1974;Gera and Jacobs, 1972). Since the effective area of such a meteorite crater is on the order of 1 km' and the waste occupies a smaller area, the release probability itself is on the order of 2 x10 '~/yr.…”

Section: R E L Ease As Ai R Borne Particulatementioning

confidence: 99%

High-level radioactive waste from light-water reactors

Cohen

1977

Rev. Mod. Phys.

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production of radioactive nuclei during the operation of a light-water reactor is traced, and their decay history is followed. The potential environmental impacts of this waste are calculated and shown to be comparable to those of other materials we produce. Assuming deep burial, it is shown that there are important time delays which prevent the waste from reaching the biosphere in the first few hundred years while its toxicity is decreasing by several orders of magnitude. In the long term, the most important pathway to man was found to be through groundwater into food and water supplies, with consequences calculated to be 0.4 fatalities in 10 years from each year of all-nuclear power in U.S. Other pathways considered and found to be less important include meteorites, volcanism, release through ground water to airborne particulate, and human intrusion by drilling and mining for unspecified materials and for salt. For time scales longer than 10 years, nuclear power is shown to reduce man's exposure to radiation by consuming uranium. A cost-benefit analysis is developed for surveillance of buried waste. It is shown that buried high-level waste is environmentally much less dangerous than uranium mill tailings. CONTENTS

show abstract

Section: R E L Ease As Ai R Borne Particulatementioning

confidence: 99%

High-level radioactive waste from light-water reactors

Cohen

1977

Rev. Mod. Phys.

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ames and Rai, 1978), and have evaluated the consequent potential toxicity risk or hazard to the biosphere of the more important radionuclides (c.f. Gera and Jacobs, 1972;Ames and Rai, 1978;and Barney and Wood, 1980). ~~ Based in part on their conclusions, and on reports by Bredehoeft and others (1978), Ames and Rai (1978), and Wood and Rai (1981), in Table 2 are listed fourteen elements whose radioisotopes are likely to be important in geological media following a repository breach, both because of toxicity and because of relative geochemical mobility.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 98%

Information needs for characterization of high-level waste repository sites in six geologic media. Volume 2. Appendices

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, it is estimated that the cumulated production of radioactive n geologic formaglass in France, in the year 2000, will be lost realistic solubetween 2000 and 4Q00 m3, which is still st for a large pera relatively small volume. For the United wastes produced States, a figure of 70,000 m3 for the In this article, we cumulated production of high-level solid wer of deep geo-waste in the year 2020 has been estiery long time pe-mated (2). adionuclides with The heat flux of the waste is too high to permit large-scale underground disposal in usual formations until at least' 50 years after extraction from the reactor, if the liquefaction of the glass is to be avoided or if the repository is not to be rimarily the so-artificially cooled.…”

Section: Waste Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of these methods has been accepted internationally as being really feasible or satisfactory. Three other possibilities (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) remain: (i) extraterrestrial disposal by means of space technology; (ii) transmutation of the elements into shorterlived or less toxic materials; or (iii) storage in deep geologic fdrmations or arid zones.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%