Wikipedia

Talk:Deep geological repository

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

The German repositories

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well, it's time we started a talk page on this one. It's good that there is an attempt at balance in this article, but the point made in

Existing repositories in deep geological formations (e.g. Asse II and Morsleben in Germany) show that solutions to the problem of radioactive waste remain elusive and that safe and environmentally sound storage cannot be guaranteed, especially over long periods of time.

is not encyclopedic. This is just "proof by example", which isn't proof of anything. We can't generalize from these experiences to say that all deep geologic repositories are inherently unsafe. I'll add the "citiation needed" tags for now, then we'll see how we can rewrite this section with some factual basis.--Freeinfo (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

- Agree Gierszep (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate text

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current draft has random discussions of a few facilities or proposed facilities. But these all have their own Wiki articles with more complete and up-to-date description. e.g. Yucca Mountain. Other than keeping the summary info table complete in this article, I propose to delete such text from here and leave only the links. This article would be about general features of deep geologic repositories. Gierszep (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Change of last paragraph to a conclusion

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On 9 July 2008 an anonymous editor changed the final paragraph from:

"But despite a long-standing agreement among experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical. One of the challenges facing the supporters of these efforts is to demonstrate confidently that a repository will contain wastes for so long that any releases that might take place in the future will pose no significant health or environmental risk."

to:

"But despite a long-standing agreement among experts (names and publications?) that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical. Major environmental and security problems at existing repositories such as Morsleben in East Germany have also cast doubt on the quality and objectivity of such safety assessments. One of the challenges facing the supporters of these efforts is to demonstrate that a repository will contain wastes for so long that any releases that might take place in the future will pose no significant health or environmental risk. Existing repositories in deep geological formations (e.g. Asse II and Morsleben in Germany) show that solutions to the problem of radioactive waste remain elusive and that safe and environmentally sound storage cannot be guaranteed, especially over long periods of time."

That's a problem because it changes the meaning from a clear and probably generally agreed statement of a problem to a conclusion that the problem can't be solved. A conclusion that strong requires good sources and none were given at the time.

For the claim "Major environmental and security problems at existing repositories such as Morsleben in East Germany have also cast doubt on the quality and objectivity of such safety assessments." a source was subsequently added that doesn't make the claim made in the article, so it remains unsourced.

For the claim "Existing repositories in deep geological formations (e.g. Asse II and Morsleben in Germany) show that solutions to the problem of radioactive waste remain elusive and that safe and environmentally sound storage cannot be guaranteed, especially over long periods of time" a source was subsequently added that is hard to check but appears unlikely to make this claim from the summaries I've read of that source, and from the simple fact that the source was added after the fact, making it unlikely that it was really the source of the statement.

This leaves us with two main problems to solve:

  1. satisfying ourselves that there is a broad consensus that it is true that "Major environmental and security problems at existing repositories such as Morsleben in East Germany have also cast doubt on the quality and objectivity of such safety assessments" and providing reliable and authoritative cites for that conclusion, particularly that the quality and objectivity of the safety assessments is unreliable, and at all possible jurisdictions and sites, a strong conclusion.
  2. satisfying ourselves that there is broad consensus that it is true that "safe and environmentally sound storage cannot be guaranteed" and providing reliable and authoritative cites that state that conclusion.

The first of those might be possible, though I doubt it. I don't see any reasonable prospect of the second conclusion being supportable because there's a considerable amount of time available to find a solution that is satisfactory.

So, comments and solutions, particularly with authoritative sources making the actual claims made, are needed. Or those doing the opposite. Then we might end up with something that is properly neutral rather than coming to a poorly supported conclusion. Jamesday (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no sources to use for the latter wording, but I am worried that the former (and now restored) wording may be partisan or slightly misquoted. I think there is consensus among experts that "geological disposal can be safe, ...", but the question is whether any proposed or planned solution is safe. This is probably a concern of many more people than those questioning the possibility of safe deposits. --LPfi (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Citation requirement

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone address the need for a citation in the text "The most long-lived radioactive wastes, including spent nuclear fuel, must[citation needed] be contained and isolated from humans and the environment for a very long time"? It's unclear to me what the requestor is seeking.Kentpollard (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep geological repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deep geological repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deep geological repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_geological_repository&oldid=1229052621"