Homeemerging issues : radioactive waste

 

:: Search

Assessments

Indicators

Observation

Data

Emerging Issues

Agriculture
Food security
Atmosphere
Interacting problems
Climate change
Energy
Risks from new technologies
Ozone depletion
Damage to the ozone layer
New air pollution problems
Nitrogen saturation
Biodiversity
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Invasive Species
Tiger crisis
Biodiversity assessment
Biotechnology
Threats of unintended gene transfers
Consumption
Reducing consumption
Demography
Exceeding carrying capacity
Desertification
Land degradation
Development
Policy, planning and management
Forests
Forest loss
Forest fires
Freshwater
Freshwater assessments
Hazardous Waste
Weapons as wastes
Implementing the Basel Convention
Health
Growing disease problems
Antibiotic resistance from environmental pollution?
Hormone disrupters
Declining sex ratios
Chemical interactions
Air pollution and health
Noise pollution
Electromagnetic radiation
Human Settlements
Disaster threats
Kosovo Conflict Environmental Impacts
Land Resources
Mountains
Oceans
Widespread Coral Bleaching
Coral reefs under pressure
Coastal threats
Crisis in ocean fisheries
Small islands
Poverty
Radioactive Waste
Military waste problems
Civilian radioactive waste Solid wastes/sewage
Waste disposal and reduction
Space junk
Sustainable development
Trade and environment
Toxic Chemicals
Heavy metals
POPs

News

 

:: Civilian radioactive waste

Civilian nuclear activities such as electricity generation also produce wastes that are difficult to handle. Used fuel rods can be reprocessed, but there are still large quantities of radioactive waste materials waiting in temporary storage sites.

Since the 1960s, more than 200,000 tons of spent fuel have been produced by 400 reactors in 30 countries, and every year 10,000 tons are added. One much-debated method of nuclear waste disposal is burial. According to a submission by the Royal Society to Britain's House of Lords inquiry on nuclear waste, all countries with a nuclear waste problem are considering underground disposal as "the only viable long-term option". However, it appears that every country that has tried to find a safe burial site has failed. Cases in point include the United States at Yucca mountain in Nevada, Germany at Gorleben and Britain in Cumbria. In these cases, the countries were faced with more geological complexities and political opposition than expected (Edwards, 1999).

The environmental disadvantages of burial of nuclear wastes include the spread of radioactivity into the surrounding environment. If absorbed into the food chain, it can cause unpredictable genetic damage. Furthermore, some elements have a half-life of up to 100,000 years, and so the effects of nuclear contamination would be permanent and almost irreversible (Tengelsen, 1995).

Africa Latin America North America Europe and Central Asia West Asia Asia and Pacific

.. References and Sources..

Edwards, Rob.1999. "It's Got to Go". New Scientist, 27 March 1999 p 22.

Tengelsen, Walter E. 1995. "Environmentally sound disposal of wastes". Sea Technology, May 1995.

 

© UNEP/DEWA/Earthwatch 1996-2007


 Website maintained by GRID-Europe