Radioactive Waste

Keerthi Koganti





Nuclear Power is a resource of creating power and electricity without the discharge of greenhouse gases. However it has been the cause many disasters such as the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in the Soviet Union, and the Kyshtym. These disasters have caused genetic deformities, loss of habitats and diversity. Such dangerous substances possess a threat. Therefore the storage of them is a problem, as the increase of these substances there are higher risks of exposure to radioactive substances. Many who handle the radioactive substances face the effects of radiation. Flora and fauna are destroyed.

Most low level radioactive wastes can be handled by humans without measurable biological effects but it is still recommended to be careful while handling.

Read more: http://www.pollutionissues.com/Pl-Re/Radioactive-Waste.html#ixzz5g1z9oUCE

One of the more recent problems that we have is Fukushima nuclear waste storage in Japan. After 7 years that plant was destroyed by an earthquake and a Tsunami all the lethal levels of radioacative waste still have not been properly stored or discarded. It is said that just an hour of exposure to this radiation can kill the person. This has been said to be a global disaster. This incident directly caused the deaths of 15,000 people. This waste has been impossible to clean up and very less progress has been made. It is expected that it will take years more to clean this mess.

Radioactive substances are unstable and therefore if not handled can cause great damage and have specific temperatures and conditions to be stored in. America has poorly maintained nuclear piles as of now we have 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste needing to be disposed but has a temporary storage. To store nuclear waste the storage locations must contain the radioactive elements and prevent it from seeping in to the soil. It must also be special equipped for Natural Disasters. It is theorized that long term storage might be possible underground but this has raised questions if we can seal it from from future generation safely.

Do you think Nuclear Power should be limited?
What can we do to make Nuclear Waste less harmful and store it better?














Work Cited
https://www.history.com/news/historys-worst-nuclear-disasters
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-radiation-lethal-levels-leak-japan-tsunami-tokyo-electric-power-company-a8190981.html
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuclear-waste-management-united-states/




Comments

Anonymous said…
Radioactive waste can be super harmful to the environment and to the people around it. Nuclear energy plants should be placed in areas where natural disasters are extremely rare to prevent issues with it like in Japan when the tsunami hit. Additionally, Nuclear power should be held where it would be very difficult to have issues with it escaping. Nuclear weapons should not be used because we all share the same earth and we are destroying it if we use these nuclear weapons because of all the radioactivity that they cause. I do not know very much about nuclear power, but if there is a way to make it less harmful, that should be invested in so that in the future we have more eco friendly and safe power in the future.
February 20, 2019 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous said…
Radioactive waste should be placed in areas where flora and fauna are not easily affected and in addition to that, nuclear energy reactors should be placed in areas where they will not be easily disturbed. In order to make nuclear waste less harmful to the environment, it should be processed to be in a form that is as close as it can be to biodegradable so nature can use its metabolic processes in order to help itself rather than harm itself. The use of nuclear energy in general should be limited when possible because while it is an up and coming innovative field, it poses great risk to human beings, wild life, and the environment itself. Even in a diluted and changed form, nuclear material is not and will not be easy to handle.
February 20, 2019 at 7:55 PM
Anonymous said…
Personally, I feel as if nuclear power is actually one of the better ways of generating energy, but I do realize the risks that come from it. Nuclear power plants need to come with better safety and construction requirements. They should be top notch and up to date with current technology, also located as far away from humans as possible. I think that humans need to spend more time improvising by understanding what goes wrong in these events with nuclear accidents. This is a form of energy that could push us forward greatly if we learn how to contain it correctly. We need to figure out a solution to this waste problem and ways to battle the risks to the environment and people as quickly as possible because it does affect us and will continue to affect future generations.
February 20, 2019 at 10:19 PM
Anonymous said…
In my opinion, we should continue to use nuclear energy because as Keerthi said, it is a resource of creating power and electricity without discharging greenhouse gases. Seeing how our current climate change is going, a method to reduce that, while also taking care of our needs to survive is met, should be utilized. Now of course we should place them away from organisms so if another explosion happens, there won’t be another Chernobyl. That being said, we shouldn’t have nuclear weapons because its pointless and doesn’t benefit anyone one either side. Now, I wouldn’t want to say we should just go straight for nuclear energy, we should probably research there effects and see if we can make a better storage facility so it wont harm the workers in high level radioactive wastes in the long term.
February 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM
Anonymous said…
While nuclear energy may pose some dangers, I beleive we should continue to use it as an energy source. We obviously need to find energy sources other than fossil fuels, and in my opinion nuclear energy is a good alternative. Nuclear energy, if handled properly, is much cleaner than fossil fuels, which would help improve our environment in the long run. That being said, nuclear waste is very dangerous for humans, which is why nuclear energy plants would have to be built in remote locations, where they would have limited effect on humans and other organisms. If technology increases to the point where where we have extremely safe methods of storage, nuclear energy could be a very beneficial energy source for the environment and humans.
February 22, 2019 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power is the way to go. Although there have been many stereotypes and a few freak accidents such as Chernobyl, the upside of using nuclear energy far outweighs the cons. The sheer amount of power to pollution ratio that nuclear energy produces is much more beneficial for the environment than other plants which burn fossil fuels. By reducing pollution we also reduce our carbon footprints and even save human lives. If we did not have nuclear reactors and power plants, coal would take over electricity production and would most definitely lead to more pollution.
February 22, 2019 at 1:01 PM
sophie said…
I think that nuclear power is too dangerous to the environment and everyone living in it. Chernobyl is an example of radioactive materials killing and harming many living things. When scientists and engineers find a way to safely store it, it should be one of the primary sources of power. But until then, everyone should think of the possible immediate consequences rather than the benefits it will bring in the future. Because although using nuclear power would somewhat help the world in long term, it would hurt it much more if something went wrong.
February 22, 2019 at 8:31 PM
Anonymous said…
^Sophie
February 22, 2019 at 8:34 PM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear waste is an issue that is often overlooked. Our atmosphere is under an extreme amount of strain due to human manipulation of gases and nuclear waste is just another way in which we are endangering the environment and ourselves. While the need for cheap energy is understandable, the negative effects and high risk of nuclear power doesn’t seem worth it. Part of what scares me about nuclear power is that it is something that we know to little about to be using as much as we do. Considering its potential, which can be measured by the damage of nuclear bombs or incidents such as Chernobyl, it should no longer be used an energy source. Eventually, something could go very wrong, and if the radioactivity can’t be contained, then it could end humanity as we know it.
February 23, 2019 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear waste is very dangerous in more ways than one. Personally, I believe these risks outweigh the benefit to nuclear power. Eliminating nuclear power might put pressure on other ways to generate energy to create more energy, but it will also reduce the strain put on humans and the environment that is caused by nuclear waste. Events like Chernobyl still leak dangerous radioactive substances, putting more and more strain on people, plants, animals, and the environment surrounding it. That’s why I believe eliminated nuclear power as an energy source is the best way to help the environment.
February 24, 2019 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power represents a sort of moral dilemma. On the one hand, there are many pros and positives. It’s a virtually renewable energy source, and it’s much less of a pollutant than fossil fuels. However, it could also cause very devastating consequences. As we have seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima, the downsides of nuclear power are detrimental. Therefore, I think it should be limited. The waste cannot truly be disposed of, so that needs to be limited as much as possible.
February 25, 2019 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said…
Not many of us really think about the effect that nuclear waste has on our Earth. I personally believe that the benefits outweigh the cons. It creates a lot of energy’ and is a better alternative to fossil fuels. It is cleaner than fossil fuels and will eventually be more beneficial towards our Earth. This reduces pollution and it can reduce carbon footprints and therefore is a huge advantage. Without nuclear power reactors, we would have to resort to other resources such as coal which would lead to more pollution and have a horrible effect on Earth. However I do think that we should be more careful with nuclear energy reactors and we should place them in more secluded areas where disasters are very rare to occur.
February 25, 2019 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said…
I don’t believe there is anything we can do to make nuclear waste less harmful, but we can find new ways to store it. The dangers that come with radioactive waste are extensive and severe: that is why I believe that we should limit the nuclear power plants until we engineer a way to safely use them. However, I also believe that this isn’t the best option for energy. Although nuclear energy gives us the benefit of not creating greenhouse gasses, it holds the potential to completely devastate an enviornment. It may be a beneficiary way of power in the mean time, but the slightest problem could destroy a habitat for centuries. This is why it is important for us to switch to a new form of energy (like solar or wind) that has less dangers for the enviorment and future generations.
February 25, 2019 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear Waste is definently an issue and one we need to address with extreme caution. We need to store the waste/ try to reuse nuclear Waste in a positive way. Reducing Nuclear Power will do nothing to the outcome of what it creates. 95% of nuclear waste can be reused while the other 5% becomes liquid waste. We need to research a way to recycle the liquid waste efficiently to make nuclear power a greater energy to use. Of course, to prevent accidents the strict regulations will need to amped up and monitization will greatly decrease the chances of an accident.
February 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said…
I definitely think that nuclear power should be limited. These various nuclear disasters and loss of thousands of innocent lives have shown us that nuclear power us harmful not only to us, but also to the environment. Yet, we are still ignorant, and we continue to use this unpredictable and dangerous form of power. I think that we need to revert to more eco friendly ways such as wind energy and solar energy, as in the 21st century these are become increasingly more affordable and are relatively easy to obtain. We have no true need for nuclear power anymore, so it should be limited. We also need to figure out a way to effectively clean up the waste left behind by these disasters. We cannot just repeat what was done to Chernobyl, where a 20 kilometer perimeter was set up, and people were restricted entry into that part of Ukraine. If nuclear power is definitely required for progress in society, then we must at least make it safer, by building plants in extremely isolated areas such as deserts, where if an explosion or accident were to occur, then the damage and cleanup could be done on a more effective basis. However, I largely believe that we can switch to more renewable and cleaner sources of energy and gradual move away from nuclear power.
February 25, 2019 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said…
I do believe that nuclear energy poses a great benefit, as you mention. No greenhouse gases are emmitted, and the energy produced is huge. But it is also very dangerous. Ecosystems, including humans, can potentially be wiped out with radioactive material due to genetic deformations. Without proper care, disaster can occur. To make nuclear waste less harmful, we can store them in facilities that are geographically located away from people, animals, and plants. This way, if an event ever occurs that could potentially disrupt the radioactive material, then virtually no harm would be done to mass populations. However, this plan does not address the specific temperatures that radioactive materials need and the transportation of said materials. I do think that nuclear energy is strong, but strong also has consequences.
February 25, 2019 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said…
Because of all the accidents and the threat nuclear power poses, I do think nuclear power should be limited because it is a great source of energy and a good alternative to fossil fuels. However, it is true that we have to be very cautious of the source. I don’t think there’s a way to make the nuclear waste less harmful but we can store it better so that there is a less chance of causing danger to humans, plants, and animals. Building the energy plant in an area where it is not very populated and where there aren’t as many living organisms is a way to prevent another disaster like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
February 25, 2019 at 7:28 PM
Anonymous said…
In order for nuclear power to be a sufficient alternative, it needs to minimize its impact on Earth, unlike fossil fuels. If it were to work, we need to have stricter regulations controlling the use, production, and storage of all nuclear energy so that it is safer. Accidents such as those mentioned might have been preventable if we were much more careful with them. Not only do accidents affect us, they will affect generations to come for thousands of years before an area with an accident may become safe enough to inhabit. Even worse is the loss of biodiversity to these areas. Plants and animals cannot survive in places of high nuclear radioactivity, so when such accidents happen, we are taking away the lives of people, animals, and vegetation. Nuclear energy is definitely not a bad alternative to fossil fuels, we just have to be careful and avoid mistakes that will take away its benefits.
February 26, 2019 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said…
I think the most important thing that we all have to acknowledge through Japan Hukushima's nuclear incident is that we must know when to use and what to use it for with the nuclear energy. Like what the post said, if nuclear energy when used properly can be a significant energy source in our society that could help us improve and advance in technology without necessarily harming the environment. Fossil fuels and other non renewable sources that we use are the key factor that destroys the environment therefore if we can find a way to utilize the nuclear source carefully while preserving the nature and environment, I believe that not only can we save the environment, but we can also help advance human technology. Most importantly, I believe that in order for this to work, we must educate and learn when to use and when to not use the nuclear technology.
February 26, 2019 at 6:17 AM
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 26, 2019 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said…
I don't think that nuclear power should me limited because it is a better alternative than carbon based fuels and it is a better source of energy. Although other energy sources such as wind or solar don't produce nuclear waste or carbon, Nuclear energy saves huge amounts of carbon going into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, or sustainable future so the only thing we can do about it to make it less harmful is reinforce the regulations or convert to renewable energy because not only is it better for the environment and our economy, but it does not come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown.
February 26, 2019 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said…
I believe that we are not currently advanced enough to safely heavily rely on nuclear energy in the near future let alone today. But I also believe that if it is used it should be created in an environment that has low amounts of natural disasters. While I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that the use of non-renewable resources, due to its finite supply I belwith each meltdown we harm both the environment and the human race so severely that we have weaponized the use of nuclear power. We need to lean away from the use of the non-renewables and focus more on the development of both renewable energy sources and even increase research in the development of Radiation plants to make them more safe for both the workers and the environment. in conclusion, I believe that it should be restricted for now until we have more assurance that we can avoid meltdowns in the future.
February 26, 2019 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said…
I think that nuclear power is a step towards greener energy, as it does not have as pollutive a waste product as tradition coal factories. However, nuclear waste has shown to be harmful if exposed, and the accidental leak or burst of a nuclear reactor poses the same threat as that of an atomic bomb, literally. I think while it is an alternative, it will not be fully accepted until a safe and easy way to dispose of toxic waste is found.
February 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said…
Many people are seriously uneducated about nuclear physics. Most of those who oppose nuclear radiation don't understand what it is at all. Radiation can be stopped with sheets of lead. The reason why Chernobyl was so disastrous was because it didn't have a containment building to stop the radiation from coming out of the reactor. The fault is not solely in the nuclear materials. The problem of nuclear waste disposal is easily solved: bare wastelands of atomic weapon testing sites are already empty and radioactive, so the waste can just be dumped there.
February 26, 2019 at 9:54 PM
Anonymous said…
I think nuclear radiation can still be used, but it’s impact needs to limited or else it can get out of hand. Most of the problem comes from us not being careful with it, leading to severe accidents like Chernobyl. If we can find a way to effectively use and dispose of nuclear waste, it is not a bad alternative to fossil fuels. It can be a huge benefit for countries around the world, but we need to fully understand the dangers of working with such explosive materials. I think if we can set aside land that is only composed of testing nuclear energy and disposing of nuclear energy, it will help immensely with reducing the dangers of these atomic weapons. The lands that test nuclear waste should be completely out of reach of civilians to avoid accidents and harm to civilains’ health.
February 27, 2019 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said…
I believe that the world is already doing great job finding ways to improve energy production. However, like you stated in this I blog post, it is easy to see how many of the systems of nuclear energy production can end drastically in an outbreak of nuclear pollution. I believe that the most effective way to provide security while maintain high production rates is to create/choose an environment that will be able to survive a nuclear accident. I remember from the video we watched about the Japanese tsunami in 2011 and how the power plant was really close to the ocean. As the water poured onto the land, the plant was overrun and lots of nuclear waste was released. Having a well placed nuclear power plant is very important as placing it near oceans or other hazards can raise its potential for disaster. I also believe more research can be done on how to improve the machinery used in generating nuclear energy and more can be done on how to stop it in case of a disaster. All these factors can greatly reduce accidents while mainting a high rate of production.
February 27, 2019 at 11:31 AM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear Energy Production is a really risky thing and without the proper technology and resources needed to contain it, it could end drastically. I think that the resources needed to contain Nuclear energy are still years ahead of our times, and that we need to do more research on how to contain it. I think we need to slow down on our Nuclear Production Rate, which is the safer bet until we have the proper technology needed to contain it.
February 27, 2019 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous said…
I think nuclear power is something we can harness and use for good. Nuclear power is the energy of the future. Fossil fuels are going to be gone before we know it and if we find a way to safely use and acquire nuclear energy, we will be set for the future. If we research it more and find more efficient way to handle out safely, nuclear energy can become less risky and safer. Accidents like Chernobyl would be obsolete but we will still need to find a way to protect from natural disasters. Earthquakes and tsunamis can still pose a problem but if nuclear reactors are built in places where these disasters and less common, then reactors can last longer and no longer pose a risk to harm individuals around it.
February 28, 2019 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said…
While nuclear energy provides an alternative to fossil fuels and could potentially help us greatly, I believe that it might be too risky right now. Until we’re 100% sure that we have the proper technology to use and contain nuclear waste, we should not start toying with the idea of of using it. I’m not certain on the timeline, but hopefully in the next couple years we will have a method that makes nuclear energy safe and effective for regular use throughout the world.
March 3, 2019 at 7:32 PM
Anonymous said…
I believe that we should slow down nuclear production for now. Our technology right now is not compatible with nuclear technology and implementing nuclear energy as a common energy source could end with drastic measures. Serious incidents such as Chernobyl has led to areas being radioactive for the next thousands and millions of years. If we do implement nuclear energy/testing systems, it should not be in cities.
March 3, 2019 at 7:34 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's the deal with airline food?

Image
Paula Cao You ever notice how airline food tastes like your dentist's waiting room floor? You have your little bowl of pasta, and it looks like they fished it out your sink drain. And you can't bring food onto the plane, so you're stuck with either hours of not eating the food or hours of wishing you hadn't eaten the food. And they spend half an hour pushing the little cart and blocking the aisle so you can't get to the bathroom, which strangely enough, smells exactly like what you just ate. But even worse than eating airline food (hard to believe) is the waste airline food generates. The last time I was on a plane, I had two meals. Everything was individually wrapped: the bread, the main course, two sides, even the Kit-Kat bar that was already in a wrapper. Everything came in these plastic containers. Seems like a ton of waste. Every tray of food brought onto the plane is thrown away, even if no one eats it (due to health concerns), which is quite wasteful....
Read more

What We Can Recycle

Image
Ryan Oh Recycling. An option that all of us can directly take that, supposedly, shouldn’t be very hard to do. I mean, so often we are told to recycle what we can, but of those times how many resulted in the recycling of un-recyclable items? Yes, recycling technology has been improved upon, and now we have a wider array of recyclable options, however there are still many items that are thought to be recyclable but are not. For example, plastic bags. Yes, these can be recycled it’s just how we recycle them. By gathering recyclables in plastic bags or recycling the baggies in general, we cause problems for recycling equipment resulting in jams, contamination of paper bales, and interference in compost facilities. What we can do to prevent plastic bags from becoming our demise is to give them to recycling programs that focus exclusively on them. Oftentimes, grocery stores offer plastic bag pick-up and drop-off programs. If you don’t have such a grocery store near you, keep a bag collec...
Read more

Land Pollution Is Not The Solution

Image
Rishit Podder Land Pollution We talk about water and air pollution all the time but land pollution as well as a big impact on the environment as it is continuously polluted and vulnerable. Land pollution simply means degradation of the earth’s surface as a result of human activities like mining, littering, deforestation, industrial, construction and agricultural activities. Land pollution can have a huge environmental impact in the form of air pollution and soil pollution which in turn can have an adverse effect on human health. There are many causes of land pollution, but the main concern is deforestation and soil erosion. Deforestation results in dry land which mean that it can never be fertile again. The problem with that is that the land will eventually become unstable for farming and other crops. In addition, the land will also become polluted by heavy metals such as lead and mercury. It is estimated that over 50 percent of all earth's surface water has been polluted b...
Read more