Radioactive nuclear waste buried beside 21% of the world's fresh water supply defies common sense
Reasons To Be Concerned
5. This Rock is Right?
Allison Mcfarlane, an MIT trained professor of geology and the present Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the US said "it is almost impossible to decipher the detailed history of a rock, let alone predict reactions into the geologic future. Geology has not advanced far enough yet to expect that it can do this…"15
The ability of the limestone and shale rock formations to block or even slow the migration of radionuclides from the repository is unproven. There are no precedents anywhere in the world for burying radioactive nuclear waste in limestone. The repository must function to safely contain the nuclear wastes for over 100,000 years. No scientist or geologist can provide a 100,000 year guarantee.
Independent geologist, Professor J.F. Sykes of the University of Waterloo, in a study done for NWMO 'Characterizing the Geosphere in High Level Radioactive Waste Management' noted that "Beneath the Bruce Nuclear Power Development on Lake Huron, the Ordovician shales of the Michigan Basin are likely to have hydraulic conductivities in the range of 10 to the 11th to 10 to the 14th m/s at depths of 500m (Moltyaner et al 1995). The pore water in the formation is highly saline and stagnant. However, the physical properties of shale can undergo significant irreversible alteration with low or moderate changes in temperature, or stress."16
15 Uncertainty Underground. Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste. Edited by Allison M. Mcfarlane and Rodney C. Ewing. Page 397