Yes. You bury waste underground in an area with no groundwater. No geological event is going to bring a cask from 500 meters below ground to the surface, short of a meteor strike (which would make nuclear waste one of your smaller worries).
Where do you get the idea there’s no ground water at Onkalo? And no, no one is worried that the tubes one day by accident will float up to the surface one way or another.
Re: "underground isn't dry" (HN is rate limiting this thread)
Yes, it is. These story facilities are built in bedrock. You seem to be under the impression that these digs are in some random back yard. They're not. They're built in places with no groundwater and no geological activity. The only way this waste is getting out into the environment is through human intervention. I have indeed read through the waste storage plans. I suggest you do the same.
Yucca Mountain's cancellation is entirely due to political posturing, not feasibility.
There’s groundwater at Onkala [0]. So you are suggesting that there is a site in the US that will be used for burying
Nuclear waste that is dry and will be guaranteed to be dry for the next 10000 years? Why don’t you name it? I’m sure more people than I want to know.
Nowhere in your source does it predict that this trace amount of water will compromise the storage. This study doesn't even contain results, only describing the process used to measure potential water infiltration.
And for the second time, Yucca mountain is a cave dug out of bedrock. In a desert. It's abandonment was done by politicians, not by scientists raising concern over safety. We're not using it because there's so little nuclear waste to store.
The concern over waste storage is laughable in comparison to environmental damage done by fossil fuels, solar power, and hydroelectricity. We're concerned about uranium buried deep underground, miles away from any population center. Despite the fact that uranium is a naturally occurring resource that we dug from out of the ground in the first place.
Think of it this way: right now there are veins of uranium unknown to us. We're taking this uranium and putting it in a known location. In between we use it as a carbon free power source.
No, because that was a study of the water flow, which contradicted your idea about it being dry. There are countless other studies where they look at how for example how radioactivity affects corrosion etc.
It doesn't matter why Yucca was abandonned. It isn't active. If it is technical or political reason behind it. It doesn't matter because you still don't have anywhere to store the waste. If it is political or technical problem doesn't matter, because it is still not solved.
And about that desert, maybe you have heard about this thing climate change that sometimes they mention in the news? That might actually mean that in even a hundred years there isn't any desert there any more.
Arsenic occurs naturally in many places. Would you mind me burrying a few gallons of it in your backyard? You'll know where it is, so you don't have to worry about it.
> Arsenic occurs naturally in many places. Would you mind me burrying a few gallons of it in your backyard? You'll know where it is, so you don't have to worry about it.
In concrete casks, buried 500 meters deep in bedrock, sure.
That was me answering a question about dry storage casks. Dry storage casks are used above ground. Under ground it is rarely dry, so it’s not dry storage. All these things are easy to look up. I suggest you do.
And I don’t know what US proposed disposal site you have in mind, but you do know that Yucca Mountain was abandoned?
