AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

The Nuclear Waste Issue – Technical Facts and Philosophical Aspects David Tin Win Faculty of Science and Technology, Assumption University Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract A description of conventional or thermonuclear nuclear fusion, the currently popular He-3 fusion, and cold fusion, also called low energy nuclear reactions - LENR or chemically-assisted nuclear reactions - CANR is followed by a description of spontaneous and induced nuclear fission that may be used for constructive (nuclear reactors) or destructive (nuclear weapons) purposes. A short summary of the nuclear waste problem, management efforts, and international response is presented. The philosophical aspects are examined. Keywords: fission, fusion, He-3, nuclear wastes, nuclear weapons, plutonium, philosophical issues, reactors, storage, transmutation, uranium, waste management In addition to radioactivity, described above, there are two other nuclear processes: fission-splitting nuclei into smaller fragments; and fusion - combining small nuclei into bigger ones (jet.efda 2006). The fission and fusion processes are major sources of nuclear energy for both constructive (nuclear reactors) and destructive (nuclear bombs, nuclear warheads) purposes. The practical aspects are well developed for fission process. A summary of these two nuclear energy processes is followed by a description of nuclear wastes and their management together with associated philosophical issues.

Introduction Matter in the whole universe is made up of over 100 kinds of elements, the simplest forms of which are the atoms - the smallest particles that cannot be split up under normal conditions. The atom itself is made of subatomic particles that are smaller than the atom: protons (positively charged), electrons (negatively charged), and neutrons (zero charge). The protons and neutrons are packed tightly in the center of the atom. This forms a dense center called the nucleus. Electrons are outside in designated paths. Atoms of some elements have nuclei with excess protons (neutron/proton n/p ratio is low – lower than the stability ratio) and some have nuclei with excess neutrons (n/p ratio is high – higher than the stability ratio). These nuclei are unstable. These radioactive nuclei stabilize by decaying or disintegrating into more stable nuclei with emission or transformation of the excess protons or neutrons, resulting in nuclear radiation consisting of alpha α and beta β particles, and gamma γ radiation. This radioactive decay is one of three nuclear processes. The highly penetrating radiations can destroy living tissues and cells; and can cause radiation sickness, cell damage, and mutations or DNA changes. However the longterm effects are not clearly understood yet.

The Technical Facts Background facts that are necessary for understanding the nuclear waste issue are presented in this section. The Fusion Process Nuclear fusion is the process powering the sun and stars. Fig. 1 shows a diagrammatic representation of nuclear fusion (Atomicarchive 2005). There is an intense interest in fusion processes as they promise high energy yields with an abundant fuel source (hydrogen), producing only small amounts of radioactive waste – a relatively 1

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

reaction 7 of 3He is the most promising to fusion engineers: D + 3He → 4He (3.7 MeV) + 1p+(14.7 MeV), where D is deuterium 2H, 3He is Helium-3, 4He is Helium-4 8 and 1p+ is a proton. 3 He and the product 4He both being nonradioactive, make it less dangerous and easy to manage. The lone high-energy proton produced can be contained by electric and magnetic fields and can lead to high temperatures that may be utilized for energy generation. It is a “clean” process. Thus helium-3 fusion is very attractive. This is in contrast to most other conventional fusion processes considered for power generation where energetic neutrons are evolved. Bombardment with these neutrons will make components radioactive – “dirty”. And it is difficult to harness the energy. However, the side reactions D + D and 3 He + 3He will always accompany the main D + 3He fusion reaction. Since the D + D side reaction is not aneutronic, a completely clean fusion D + 3He reaction is unlikely in practice. The required temperatures are also much higher than those for conventional D + T fusion 9 . Hence the problems of conventional fusion will have to be solved before this type of fusion is achieved.

“clean” reaction resulting in manageable waste disposal. Nuclear fusion reactor designs are still in the experimental stage and differs greatly from that of fission reactors - the major problem is containment of very hot plasma 1 fuel (millions of degrees) - magnetic fields have been used in various ways to hold the plasma in a “magnetic bottle” (Columbia University 2005). For sustained fusion to occur, the three plasma parameters (temperature, density, and confinement time) need to be appropriate - the product of these three, called the fusion product (or triple product) has to exceed a critical value - Lawson Criterion (jet.efda 2006). At sun core temperatures of 10-15 million Kelvin, the gas mixture composed of two heavy isotopes 2 of hydrogen, deuterium 3 , (2H or D) and tritium 4 (3H or T) becomes plasma. D-T fusion converts hydrogen to helium (4He) and sustains life on earth by providing enough energy to keep the sun burning. It is a thermonuclear reaction. 2H + 3H → 4He + 1p+ , where 1p+ is a proton.

A controversial topic called cold fusion, first introduced by the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989, claims nuclear fusion can occur below thermonuclear temperatures in small simple apparatus such as electrolytic cells. Cold fusion is also called low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or chemically-assisted nuclear reactions (CANR) (Wikipedia 2006). Recent fusion focus is on Helium-3 3 5 ( He) , a light non-radioactive Helium isotope with two protons and one neutron 6 . It is abundant on the moon. Russia is planning to mine moon 3He and use it as fuel for a fusion plant on earth (Wikipedia 2006). The following aneutronic fusion

1 2

3 4 5 6

The Fission Process As mentioned above, nuclear technology had mainly focused on fission processes. Figure 2 shows a diagrammatic representation of nuclear fission (Atomicarchive 2005). Fission can be spontaneous or induced - by bombarding a heavy nucleus with a neutron. An example of natural nuclear fission is the chain reaction of 1.7 billion years ago in Oklo, Gabon, West Africa (Cowan 1976; Smellie 1995; Doe 2005). The radioactive remains are contained deep under the sedimentary rocks and have not moved far from their place of origin - plutonium had moved less than 10 feet during 1.7 billion years. US scientists had studied the Yucca

A hot, electrically charged gas Different forms of an element due to differing number of neutrons in its nucleus Heavy isotope of hydrogen with mass 2 amu Heavy isotope of hydrogen with mass 3 amu Light isotope of Helium with mass 3 amu Normal helium isotope nucleus has two protons and two neutrons

7 8 9

2

A nuclear reaction that does not involve neutrons Normal Helium isotope with mass 4 amu Heavy isotope of hydrogen with mass 3 amu

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

Mountain geology hoping to uncover a similar role in high-level nuclear waste containment. A common example of induced fission consists of bombarding 235U nuclei with thermal neutrons 10 (slow neutrons). A neutron is captured by the U-235 nucleus forming a very unstable 236U nucleus that instantly breaks up into two smaller fragments, each about half the original mass: Barium-142 (142Ba) nucleus and Krypton-91 (91Kr) nucleus with the release of three neutrons (n) and a large amount of energy. 235U + n → [236U] → 142Ba + 91Kr + 3n. The three neutrons start three processes just like the initial one, resulting in nine neutrons plus energy. This proceeds on and on with threefold magnification each of released neutrons and energy at each step. It is a nuclear chain reaction. Where was the energy derived from? It came from the destruction of mass in accordance with Einstein's equation (e=mc2). In the above case, the sum of the masses of the two fragments was about 0.1 percent less than the original mass. This 'missing' mass had been converted into energy. Alternatively, a nuclear chain reaction can be produced in a reactor by using uranium or plutonium where fissionable isotope concentrations have been artificially enhanced (enriched). Here, the neutrons driving these chain reactions are fast neutrons. Unchecked nuclear chains lead to nuclear explosions; but if controlled, the energy is harnessed resulting in a nuclear reactor for producing electricity or heat for human consumption. One major problem with nuclear reactors is the dangerous radioactive wastes produced. The disposal of these wastes is problematic. Plutonium in the highly purified form (enriched plutonium) is called weapons grade Plutonium. It is used in making nuclear weapons and is generated by bombarding uranium with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Plutonium or Uranium enrichment is a primary step in nuclear weapons development. Five nations: the United States, Russia, 10

Britain, France, and China, are currently considered to be “declared” nuclear weapons states. To prevent the “Nuclear Club” from expanding and making the world a more volatile or dangerous place, a Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty was signed by many countries. However, a few countries have tried to become nuclear powers. Presently, the world is worried about North Korea and Iran trying to acquire isotope enrichment technology, possibly for nuclear weapons development. The IAEA is a UN watchdog for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Recently, in February 2006, it decided to report Iran to the UN Security Council on the grounds that the Iranian nuclear program is most likely intended for developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated by commencing uranium enrichment (The Nation 2006). This may be for creating chains with fast neutrons aimed at energy production or aimed at becoming a nuclear power. Just like heat or electricity, nuclear energy benefits people if used properly, but misuse can be harmful. Types of fission reactors include atomic pile, “swimming pool”, homogenous, heterogeneous, and breeder reactors (Factmonster 2005). A few accidents involving nuclear reactors have occurred. For instance, the 1979 Three Mile Island and the 1986 Russian Chernobyl nuclear reactor accidents were scary (Edwards 1987, 1994; Classzone 2005). Such unfortunate accidents have made the public very conscious of the dangers of nuclear wastes. A simple novel experiment demonstrating nuclear fission is available (Hunkin 2005).

Nuclear Wastes Nuclear power plants, nuclear missiles, and the disposal of radioactive wastes are three politically intense issues that have remained separate in spite of their close physical ties. Nuclear waste can be classified as "low level" or "high level" radioactive waste (Rochester University 2005). Material used to handle the highly radioactive parts of nuclear reactors (i.e. cooling water pipes and radiation suits) and waste from medical procedures involving radioactive treatments or x-rays constitute low level nuclear waste. Disposal is relatively easy.

Neutrons with just the right energy (not too high or too low) for capture by U-235 nuclei

3

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

Radioactive intensity is low and radioactive isotope half lives 11 are short. Thus 10 to 50 years storage will render most isotopes harmless. They can then be disposed of as normal refuse. Material from the core of the nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon is generally considered as high level radioactive waste and includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Radioactive intensity is high and radioactive isotope half lives are extremely long (some longer than 100,000 years). Lengthy time periods are required for waste to settle to safe radioactive levels. Difficulty is magnified because some waste-like plutonium and other actinide elements from uranium fission are highly poisonous in addition to being highly radioactive. Plutonium is one of the most toxic elements known.

Management methods under consideration include short-term storage, long term storage, and transmutation 12 , where long half-life, highly radioactive elements are changed into shorter half-life, less-radioactive elements. Two transmutation methods have been proposed: fast nuclear reactors and hybrid reactors. Currently, space, sea bed, and large stable geologic formations on land are considered for nuclear waste storage. The most appealing long-term storage option for high level, radioactive waste is space. But high cost of delivery into space is a prohibiting factor. Also, space garbage can collide with satellites and other spacecraft and is likely to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere over the several thousand year storage period. Another factor is that an accident during launch could be disastrous. Hence space disposal is not a practical option until space travel is well established (Rochester University 2005). Burial in the sea bed is an option for long-term storage on earth. Sea bed rock

formations are generally more stable than those on dry land. Thus risk of exposure to seismic activity is reduced. Accidental or malicious tampering of the waste is unlikely. But the huge cost prevents burying at sea. Long-term storage in a rock formation on land is the most likely solution for high level radioactive waste. The radioactive material would likely be vitrified 13 and then buried in caverns created in a large rock formation (Rochester University 2005). Long-term storage on land seems to be the favorite of most countries, including the US. But France advocates recycling - at La Hague, highly radioactive commercial spent nuclear fuel is treated and reloaded into reactors. They recapture 97 percent of the spent fuel's plutonium 14 . Only 3% remains to be disposed of as highly radioactive waste (Torvik 1998). A reprocessing process is shown in Fig. 3. Cogema Inc. says reprocessing reduces material volume by 20 times and waste temperature is reduced by 30%. Enclosed waste-generated heat influences repository size. Too much heat can induce uncontrolled underground nuclear reactions. Cogema recycles spent fuel from other countries also. It ships the spent and reprocessed fuels worldwide by sea, to and from the port of Cherbourg (Torvik 1998). In contrast, the US intends to bury its spent fuel in a deep hole in the desert at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, without reusing any of it. The hot fuel 15 needs to be isolated from humans for at least 10,000 years, and some portions will still be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Fig. 4 shows a deep disposal scheme (COGEMA 2005) At the height of the Cold War (mid1960s), the US had about 32,000 nuclear warheads and mountains of radioactive garbage from plutonium production. A thousand tons of uranium ore is required to produce just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of plutonium. Plutonium generated by bombarding uranium with neutron, in a nuclear reactor is later separated

11

13

Nuclear Waste Management

12

Time taken for 50% of an isotope to decay – an indicator of its lifetime (short half-lives = short lifetimes). Transforming one element into another

Radioactive waste is mixed with silica and melted into glass beads-prevents escape into the environment. 14 Unlike U.S. utilities where none are reprocessed 15 Highly radioactive fuel

4

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

radioactive waste, reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, and deep geologic disposal plans. China is unique - its repository plans are developed concurrently with the nuclear power plant construction. Gobi desert is the target site (US Government - ocrwm 2005).

from the uranium in baths of acids and solvents which are still awaiting disposal. Nuclear waste from nuclear reactors such as spent fuel rods (usually cadmium rods) and waste from weapons facilities have to be dumped somewhere. Nuclear waste dumping has problems similar to those associated with solid waste management, such as those in landfills and concrete tanks. Radioactive danger is an additional problem. Total prevention of waste leakage from landfills and specially constructed containers is impossible. Such leakages can drain leachate into surface or ground waters and can be lethal. Pretreatment of wastes may reduce the risk, but total risk elimination is impossible. A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the US nuclear facilities. The following constitute the US nuclear waste: 52,000 tons of radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors; 345 million liters of high-level waste from plutonium processing; tons of plutonium; over half a million tons of depleted uranium; millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and others. Moreover, there are some 265 million tons of litter tailings from milling uranium ore (Long 2002). This is only in the USA, Russia, China, UK, and France can have similar wastes. Russian production plants, organized differently, are similar in number and scale to those of the US. Their nuclear weapons complex now has less waste in storage. Rather than storing in tanks, large quantities of highlevel waste (as much as 1.7 billion curies) were injected deep underground or poured into rivers and lakes. This resulted in widespread contamination. Most occurred at the Tomsk-7 on the Tom River and Krasnoyarsk-26 on the Yeni-sey River–both are Siberian plutoniumproduction sites. These rivers are now contaminated for hundreds of miles downstream. Some radioactive waste ended up in the Arctic Ocean (US Government - doe 2005). As mentioned above, France prefers reprocessing; UK has some regulation laws (British-Energy 2005) and UK waste volume is cited (BBC 2005); China’s Radioactive Waste Management Program involves low-level

International Response Nuclear waste dumping is a social issue as it affects a large portion of the population. The danger may have been unduly magnified by the media. But the danger is really present. The International Community response is evident in the government reports, policies, and decisions described by WNA (World Nuclear Association-2 2002). For example, The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management came into force on 18 June 2001 (World Nuclear Association-1 2002). Projects such as the RISCOM project 16 on "Enhancing transparency and public participation in nuclear waste management" which investigates issues of public participation, dialogue, and risk communication are being implemented (World Nuclear Association-6 2002).

The Philosophical Aspects The Social Issue Let us consider just three USA examples (The Economist 2002). These illustrate that radioactive nuclear wastes have strong social impacts with related philosophical aspects and are, therefore, social issues. First, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (US Government - Hanford 2005), a 1,461 square km facility in Washington State which was built hastily in 1943 during the closing phase of World War II to fulfill the urgent need for nuclear fuel to make the first atomic bombs 17 . When the cold war ended during the mid1980s, it was shut down again hastily. 16

17

5

International research project involving 11 partners from 5 countries - Sweden, UK, Finland, France, and the Czech Republic These bombs were used on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

Subsequent slow cleanup made it the most dangerously polluted place in North America. The history and legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the associated problems are described in these sites (US Government - Hanford 2005; Onlineethics 2005). It is the largest nuclear waste dump in the Western Hemisphere and creates a serious long-term threat to the Columbia River – on which Oregon state power generation, farm irrigation, fishing, transport, and recreation depend – a major environmental issue (Hanfordwatch 2005). Concrete tanks leaking radioactive wastes, radioactive groundwater seeping towards the Columbia River, and giant pools filled with spent nuclear fuel rods and many other bits of nuclear litter are some of the pressing problems. Superficially, it is a purely environmental issue. But society, as a whole, is affected by seepage of radioactive groundwater polluting the Columbia River. It is, therefore, a social problem. This is evident by Washington State’s political leaders uniting and pressuring the Bush administration for full support of the Hanford cleanup effort. A warning was issued saying that the state was ready to "do whatever is necessary" - including taking legal action to ensure that the federal government fulfills its obligation to clean up the contaminated site Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 15, 2005 (Hanfordwatch 2005). Second, the Savannah River nuclearwaste site in South Carolina (US Government Savannah River 2005): plutonium used in America’s nuclear weapons was made in the Savannah site that was built in the early 1950s. The US federal government shipped waste plutonium from the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility in Golden, Colorado to the Savannah site. The first consignment consisting of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium was part of the cache that US and Russia agreed to take from warheads and decommission at the end of the cold war. Even before then, the site has more than 37m gallons of high-level nuclear waste stored in underground storage tanks. The US government says chemical pretreatment is done to minimize the danger posed by leachate

leakage (US Government 2005). On July 10, 2004, a local newspaper report says that those tanks are corroding and leaking (Freep 2004). Some nearby streams have more than 750 times the safe radioactivity limit set for drinking water – a very high potential threat to society – waste plutonium dumping is a social issue. Third, the Rocky Flats Weapons Plant, Golden, Colorado (US Government - Rocky Flats 2005): during the Cold War period, nuclear weapons components were made at the Rocky Flats site. Radioactive and hazardous materials including plutonium, uranium, and beryllium were used. Every nuclear weapon in the field today has a part or component that was produced at the Rocky Flats facility. When operations ceased in the early 1990’s, large amounts of radioactive waste and other hazardous materials such as transuranic (TRU) waste remained behind (US GovernmentEnergy 2005). Cleanup started about ten years ago. Workers faced immense challenges: removing 12 metric tons of plutonium; tearing down hundreds of aging and contaminated buildings, and disposing tons of radioactive and hazardous waste materials. On April 19, 2005, the last of the site’s TRU waste left for final disposal at DOE’s (Department of Energy) Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Since 1999, trucks carrying over 15,000 cubic meters of transuranic or transuranic mixed waste from Rocky Flats have traveled some 1.5 million miles to WIPP (US Governmentenergy, 2005). This last shipment consisted of disposable items such as clothing, tools, and rags contaminated with radioactivity generated during nuclear production and deactivation. Although it may not have been done adequately (Democracynow 2005), the move has cleaned Golden to a certain extent. But surely it has contaminated Carlsbad, New Mexico. Are there any real advantages in the moves? Or is it simply dumping one society’s problem onto another? Or is it politically motivated? However it is viewed, radioactive waste management is a social issue. The following can be additional issues. Psychological Issue 6

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

consequences that matter are the consequences for me”. Two forms of egoism exist: Psychological Egoism [humans can’t help being egoists] and Ethical or Rational Egoism [We can help it, but we should still be egoists]. Utilitarianism, as shown in Mill’s view, says, “the consequences that matter are the consequences for the greatest number of people affected by the action” (Win 2003). “An act is good if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.” This is Act Utilitarianism. “A rule is good if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.” This is Rule.

Demonstrations against radioactive waste movements, violation of human rights, injustice, dictatorships, and general mob mentality are societal group activities. They all indicate a collective identity that is analogous to personal identity. According to Descartes, one’s personal identity is the soul. Hume stated that all knowledge is via the senses (Win 2003). They are either an instant sense impression or a leftover idea after the impression had disappeared. A person is seen as a unique bundle of experiences. No one experience defines who we are. It is the result of the collective bundle. A group of souls in a community may create a collective identity in accordance with Descartes’ concept of personal identity. But the collective identity of society is more likely to be the result of collectively experiencing the same things together through the same time period. Thus Hume’s view is the more probable explanation for community activities against nuclear wastes.

Utilitarianism How shall nuclear waste dumping issue be considered? Based on egoism or utilitarianism? Egoism basis will advocate safety for a select few whereas utilitarianism basis will demand the greatest good for the greatest number. Shall safety be for a select sector of society? Or shall safety be for the majority? How can nuclear waste moves be justified?

Epistiemological Issue

Conclusion

Plato’s view (Win 2003) of knowledge and belief being different is apparent in the nuclear dumping issue. There is no doubt that some dangers of nuclear wastes are present. But it may have been magnified by excess media exposure. Consider exceeding 750 times over the safe limit in streams near the Savannah facility. It is alarming. But those waters are not used and there is no reason to panic. There is a real danger of people falling into those streams and getting harmed by radiation. But proper precautions can prevent people from falling this is knowledge. But most tend to believe that all nuclear waste is lethally dangerous. Such people panic blindly - this is belief. Unlike knowledge, it is not the truth and has no real basis. Thus some attitudes against nuclear waste may be unwarranted.

According to Plato, good has to be done: “It is for the sake of what is good that we should do everything, including what is pleasant, not the good for the sake of the pleasant” (Win 2003). “Good” for whom? Is it for the elite select few or for the majority? Again, “majority” is a loose relative term. In this light, it is interesting to consider Hobbes’ view that supports egoism and Mills’ view that supports utilitarianism. The former thinks that consequences that matter are the consequences for him, which can mean individually or collectively. The him can collectively refer to a select society group to which he belongs. This view holds that some sector of society is more important (socially, politically, or religiously) and deserves VIP treatment with respect to safety from radioactive wastes. Nuclear waste storage or dumping shall be away from where they are. Therefore this view condones the nuclear waste moves. Mills believed that the consequences that

Moral Issue The following teleological view present in Hobbe’s view (Win 2003) is egoism: “The 7

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

matter are the consequences for the greatest number of people affected by the action. Thus in this view, the moves are not justified. It is very reasonable as “everybody is equal and there shall be none that are more equal.” Safety of a select few shall not be at the expense of the majority. But there is a difficulty with the utilitarianism view. How shall “greatest good” be defined and how shall “greatest number” be defined? Shall determination of greatest number be based on the number of households, the number of people, or the number of communities? Shall it include animals or are humans alone to be considered? If animals are included, farming communities will have preference. Shall it include the whole ecosystem - fauna, insects, and microbes? Nevertheless, nuclear wastes definitely affect society. Management of nuclear wastes is an issue that needs to be tended by scientists, technicians, politicians, and other members of society. A concerted effort is imperative. The International Community is conscious of this. The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (World Nuclear Association 2002) and RISCOM are indications that work is under way. The world is indeed a dangerous place!

_question_full_template&c=Page&cid=103 9482707723 Columbia University. 2005. Fusion Reactor. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA. Cowan, G.A. 1976. A Natural Fission Reactor. Scientific American 235:36. Democracynow. 2004. Colorado's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. May 4th, 2004 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid =04/05/04/1420209&mode=thread&tid=25 Doe. 2005. Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors. Dept. of Energy, U.S government. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doey mp0010.shtml Economist, the. 2002. The Economist, June 01, 2002. Pages 37–38. Edwards, M.W. 1987. Chernobyl - One Year After. National Geographic 632-53. Edwards, M.W. 1994. Living With the Monster-Chernobyl, National Geographic 100-15. Factmonster. 2005. Fission Reactors http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0860 070.html Freep. 2004. Savannah Site. Detroit Free Press. http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm 20601_20040710.htm Hanfordwatch. 2005. Hanford Issue http://www.hanfordwatch.org Hunkin, J. 2005. Hunkin’s Experiments http://www.hunkinsexperiments.com/pages /nuclearfission.htm jet.efda. 2006. Nuclear Fusion Basics 1. Joint European Torus, European Fusion Development Agreement. http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion 1.html Long, M.E. 2002. Half Life – The Lethal Legacy of Americas Nuclear Waste. National Geographic online. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com /ngm/0207/feature1/ Nation, The. 2006. The Nation, Bangkok. 07 February 2006. pA4; 14 Feb. 2006. pA7 Onlineethics. 2005. Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The Online Ethics Center for

References Atomicarchive. 2005. Nuclear Fission: Basics. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fiss ion1.shtml BBC. 2005. Warning on nuclear waste disposal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4 407421.stm British-Energy. 2005. Radioactive waste http://www.british-energy.com /pagetemplate.php? pid=180 Classzone. 2005. Observe an animation of nuclear fission http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_scie nce/terc/ content/visualizations/ es0702/es0702page01.cfm?chapter_no=07 COGEMA. 2005. Radioactive Waste COGEMA Company. http://www.cogema.fr/servlet/ContentServe r?pagename=cogema_en%2FPage%2Fpage 8

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University. http://www.onlineethics.org/moral/austin/ Rochester University. 2005. Nuclear Waste Disposal http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/ Smellie, J. 1995. The Fossil Nuclear Reactors of Oklo, Gabon. Radwaste Magazine, Special Series on Natural Analogs, p. 21. Torvik, S. 1998. The French Fix - There are no good choices for dealing with nuclear waste; but some aren't as bad. Commentary, Seattle-Post Intelligencer. Apr. 22, 1998. 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/etern ity/d3.html US Government. 2005. Nuclear Waste Disposal, document: meob103.tmp Office of Scientific & Technical Information, Dept. of Energy. http://www.osti.gov US Government-doe. 2005. Legacy Story. http://legacystory.apps.em.doe.gov/pdfs/clo sing/075_077.pdf US Government-energy. 2005. Final Transuranic Waste Shipment Leaves Rocky Flats. http://www.energy.gov/news/1615.htm US Government-Hanford. 2005. Nuclear Waste/facility Cleanup, Richlands Operations Office. http://www.hanford.gov US Government – ocrwm. 2005. China’s Radioactive Waste Management Program

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doey mp0409.shtml US Government - Rocky Flats. 2005. Rocky Flats Closure Project http://www.rfets.gov. US Government - Savannah River. 2005. Savannah River Site SRS. http://www.srs.gov/general/srs-home.html. Wikipedia, 2006. Helium-3. Wikipedia Encyclopedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium3 Win, D.T. 2003. Science and metaphysics Pt. I – IV, ABAC J. 23(1): 1-12, 13-18; (2): 2129, 30-34. World Nuclear Association-1. 2002. The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management http://www.world-nuclear.org/waste/ report2002/ chapter1.htm World Nuclear Association-2. 2002. Government reports, policies and decisions http://www.world-nuclear.org /waste/ report2002/ chapter2.htm World Nuclear Association-6. 2002. RISCOM Project. "Enhancing transparency and public participation in nuclear waste management" http://www.worldnuclear.org /waste/ report2002/ chapter6.htm

Fig. 1. Nuclear Fusion (Atomicarchive, 2005)

9

AU J.T. 10(1): 1-10 (Jul. 2006)

Fig. 2. Nuclear Fission (Atomicarchive, 2005)

Fig. 3. A Reprocessing Scheme used by COGEMA (Torvik, S. 1998)

Fig. 4. A Deep Disposal Scheme (Torvik, S. 1998)

10