this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
19 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
43572 readers
353 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its not “just bury it underground”. Thats extremely reductionist and makes it seem far less safe than it is.
The spent uranium is not a liquid or a loose green sludge. It consists of solid, durable ceramic pellets that do not melt or dissolve easily in water. Those pellets are then sealed inside airtight tubes made of zirconium, which are then placed into massive canisters made of thick carbon steel thats coated in copper. The canisters are engineered to withstand extreme pressures and resist rusting for hundreds of thousands of years.
Those canisters are then placed in underground tunnels and packed tightly with bentonite clay. If any moisture ever seeps into the tunnel, this clay absorbs it, swells up, and creates a waterproof seal that locks the canisters in place. But even then, the repository is built at least 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) underground inside exceptionally stable rock formations, such as solid granite or deep salt beds. These areas have virtually no water movement and have remained seismically quiet for millions of years
Its perfectly safe, and significantly more thought out than “just put it in the ground”