> There is no technological reason to fear the rail shipment of nuclear waste. It is not difficult to engineer enclosures that will withstand the most energetic possible train wreck.
Actually, it is difficult and there is considerable dissent over whether the currently used technology is safe enough or as safe as advertised. [1][2]
> And obviously they are well shielded for radiation.
They are shielded, but how well is another that is up for debate. I'm kind of hardlining it saying that any radiation is a problem - the containers are certainly not 100% shielded. Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
> Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
Because background radiation means we are always exposed to it. So setting a no tolerance policy doesn't make sense.
Actually, it is difficult and there is considerable dissent over whether the currently used technology is safe enough or as safe as advertised. [1][2]
> And obviously they are well shielded for radiation.
They are shielded, but how well is another that is up for debate. I'm kind of hardlining it saying that any radiation is a problem - the containers are certainly not 100% shielded. Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_(Kerntechnik)#Kritik_an_...