"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
. ..

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

snip

Fusion power, if it ever comes, is actually going to have side
considerations similar to that of fusion power, namely, what
to do
with the ash.


Not according to SEAFP in 1995.
See http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm
and navigate to the 'safe and clean' section. If those
conclusions
are safe,
fusion power plants, if ever built, should not present the same
long
term
waste management problems as fission plants.

That article does not go into a solitary detail about the
reactions
and reaction products of fusion reactions. The reaction being
studied is one involving the fusion of a deuteron with a triton.
The
end products are an alpha particle and a high energy neutron. The
secondary radioactive products produced by these particles before
they
are thermalised are not usually discussed when talking about
fission.
{:-((


I thought you were implying that a (theoretical) fusion reactor
would
produce similarly long lived 'nuclear waste' to existing fission
reactors.

No. I did not say so.

The article quoted implies it would not. Not being a nuclear
physicist
myself, I saw no reason to doubt the worth of SEAFP's conclusions.

It is true that there will be very little by way of long lived
nucleids, but folk usually forget about the shorter lived components.
The designers of the existing nuclear reactors also did simulated
studies of the safety of power stations.

The long lived waste is no problem at all. It is only the activities
of the anti-nuclear lobby which prevents it from being dealt with.
The obvious solution is to vitrify the ash and to dump it in the deep
ocean at the edge of a tectonic plate subduction zone, where it will
be sucked into the bowels of the earth and join the vast quantities of
natural radioactive material already there.

Franz