10,000 years is a very long time.
During that time, many earth changes, including earthquakes,
have occured and will continue to occur in the future.
Yet proponents of nuclear energy seem to overlook the fact
that spent nuclear fuel rods have a half-life of 10,000 years. That
means they are still 50% radioactive after 10,000 years. They are
still 25% radioactive after another 10,000 years. 10,000 years ago
we were still spear-tip and arrowhead makers, living nomadic,
pre-historic lifestyles.
What will we be leaving our children's children's distant
descendents if the containers that hold spent nuclear fuel get
damaged or crushed by earthquake activity, or they deteriorate and
leak radioactive waste into the ground water supply?
Has anyone thought about the hazards we may be leaving our
descendents in order to satisfy immediate desires for alternative
energy supplies? There are plenty of alternative sources of energy
that we should develop before we include nuclear.
Nuclear energy, because of its hazards, should be a last
resort. If we continue to use nuclear energy we should be prepared
to pay the cost to lift nuclear waste by rockets into the sun
before we make the mistake of storing in underground caverns.
In response to assignment:
Campaign 2008