Civilizations at, or near our level of sophistication will most likely be using nuclear reactors to produce energy. It's possible that, instead of disposing of their radioactive waste in salt mines like Yucca Flats, perhaps they may decide to use a giant nearby nuclear reactor (think sun) to dispose of it.

It might be worthwhile checking the spectrums of likely stars for traces of Plutonium, Strontium 90, etc.

Discussion???

I think the window would be short, since I believe that a world even slightly ahead of us will develop technology to make radioactive waste harmless.

In other words, known chemistry will be eclipsed by unknown physics. Turning lead into gold will be just as simple.

The chance that you will see the aliens dumping something into the sun, must
be incredible small. Not sure it even can be detected.

I would rather look for giant alien engineering, possibly structures from a
long gone civilization.

---

We could look for signs of atomic weapons testing in the atmospheres of extraterrestrial planets. That would give us a handle on civilizations at about our own level of development. If we looked at many planets in this way, for a long enough time, there might be a chance of catching one or a few bomb tests. I assume that most of the gamma rays would be absorbed by their trip through their atmosphere, but might secondary particles be detectable at interstellar distances? This project would presumably be done by satellite, to avoid the absorption of many of the secondary particles by our atmosphere and to avoid the 'noise' of secondaries produced inside our own atmosphere. Michael

Nuclear tests in the atmosphere were banned in 1963 by USA and URSS. Probably other nuclear countries (UK, France, China) made other tests but eventually only subterranean tests were performed. In 1960, while a student at Trieste University, I was charged to measure radioactivity in the air after big Soviet explosions in Siberia and it was high.
Tullio

---

Civilizations at, or near our level of sophistication will most likely be using nuclear reactors to produce energy. It's possible that, instead of disposing of their radioactive waste in salt mines like Yucca Flats, perhaps they may decide to use a giant nearby nuclear reactor (think sun) to dispose of it.

It might be worthwhile checking the spectrums of likely stars for traces of Plutonium, Strontium 90, etc.

Discussion???

Randy,
I think this is one of the cleverest idea's i have seen posted on these message boards in a while.

This idea actually has a lot of merit, this type of search might be possible. And i think its a very realistic scenario for any advanced civilisation.

We have only scratched the surface with our understanding and uses of Nuclear technology. Nuclear energy is the way of the future and we will be using it everywhere once we find a way to deal with the decaying waste. Ditching the waste in the direction of your nearest star is an excellent way to get rid of it.

This topic does require some more research. Super idea Randy.

This search could be called Nuclear SETI

Tullio,

In 1960, while a student at Trieste University, I was charged to measure radioactivity in the air after big Soviet explosions in Siberia and it was high.
Tullio

Thats really cool, you have experience working in the Nuclear industry. Do you think its possible to do what Randy suggested? Detect Nuclear waste being dumped into a star? Could it be done with a mass spectrometer designed specifically for the task?

John.

---

The best way of disposing high activity nuclear waste is to embed it in a glassy substance, enclose it in a steel container end store it in a salt mine. But also the ocean trenches could be a suitable location, to the horror of environmentalists. Water is a good radiation absorber. I don't think any sensible person would put nuclear waste in a rocket, with the danger of it exploding in the atmosphere.
Tullio

---

The best way of disposing high activity nuclear waste is to embed it in a glassy substance, enclose it in a steel container end store it in a salt mine.

Or just give it a stable ratio of subatomic particles, and then make bicycles out of it.

Lead into gold. That is the future.

---

Maybe your missing the point.

For any intelligent civilisation to make progress in the long run, they need vast quantities of energy without destroying their home planet environment, just like the human race today.

100, 200, 300 years into our future, the fossil fuel debate will be finished, we will have moved on because the supply will just run out. Nuclear is an unlimited source of energy that nature has given us, and i think we will inevitably end up using it for almost everything. But we will always need to protect this planet and transporting the nuclear waste into space and dumping into the sun solves the problem.



To advance our species into space, we need to manufacture very large space ships, or whole portable cities here on earth and then get them up into earth orbit. Getting them into earth orbit will take vast quantities of energy. I'm not talking about 30 or 40 tonne objects, I'm talking about 5,000 metric tonne objects or 50,000 tonne objects. This will make the current space shuttle look like a toy plane.



Just like we build Oil rigs and container ships here today, in the future we will have to build these massive objects here on earth, in our safe atmosphere, and transport them into orbit. The only way to achieve these truly massive quantities of energy will be through nuclear energy.



Once we master nuclear energy and learn to dispose of the waste safely into our Sun, then we have a clean and viable future in space. Then the real star trek voyages will become a reality.



But the morel of the story, we should be able to detect other intelligent civilisations doing the same thing safely dumping their decaying nuclear waste into their own star.

John.

---

if a planet has gone through what we have then they'd have realized early on that nuclear power is a bad idea. They most likely be using solar, wind and geothermal energy sources. If they are as foolish as we are then they'd be using coal, gas, oil, and nuclear fuels. all of which are not sustainable in the long run

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

if a planet has gone through what we have then they'd have realised early on that nuclear power is a bad idea.

skildude,
Who told you nuclear power was a bad idea? And why are you inclined to believe them?

There is enough Deuterium in the world's sea's to power our nuclear generators for the next million years, the supply is almost limitless. The only problem with nuclear power is the objections from the uneducated general public who are simply unaware of the alternatives for dumping the decaying waste.

On a larger time scale, when all the fossil fuels are gone and everyone is cycling on bicycles to work, they will get to like the idea of dumping spent nuclear waste in space so they can drive a big Chevy 4x4 truck to drop the kids into school.

John.

No fusion reactor is working and giving energy. The ITER experimental device is both sliding in time and increasing in cost. There is a big fusion reactor in the sky, the Sun. Each square meter receives 1.4 kW from the Sun at zenith. It is sufficient to convert this in electric current to satisfy all Earth needs. Unfortunately, only a fraction of the money spent for nuclear fusion devices has been invested in solar energy. But this is slowly changing in many European countries. You can get both hot water and electricity from solar panels installed on your roof, not to mention wind energy, geothermal energy, like in Iceland, and, of course, hydroelectricity.
Tullio

---

Who told you nuclear power was a bad idea? And why are you inclined to believe them?

Perhaps he was told this by the mayor of Chernobyl.
Why would the mayor be believed? Because he glowed so brightly.

Who told you nuclear power was a bad idea? And why are you inclined to believe them?

Perhaps he was told this by the mayor of Chernobyl.
Why would the mayor be believed? Because he glowed so brightly.

Maybe i'm wrong. Maybe i'm way off the mark here. Maybe other intelligent civilisations don't use nuclear energy. Maybe they use wind and solar power. Maybe nobody is able to completely master the process of fission or fusion energy without destroying themselves.

John.

an intelligent society would see that they'd have to store(hide) the spent fuel for hundreds of millenia. Being intelligent they'd realize that with plate tectonics and water dispersal in soil that their is no safe place to store other than to not use it at all.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

You are all forgetting one important factor, any advanced civilization still using nuclear energy as we know it probably is not disposing of the fuel while it is still radioactive, they probably have found a way to use it to its full potential. The reason that our "spent" nuclear fuel is radioactive is because it is not truly spent, there is still a lot of energy potential in it, we just haven't found a way to use it completely.

The main reason is the "swelling" of the fuel elements due to the bombardment of neutrons which makes it impossible to retire them in case of an emergency shutdown. Engineering problems are often not understood by physicists who have no experience in metallurgy.
Tullio

---

The best way of disposing high activity nuclear waste is to embed it in a glassy substance, enclose it in a steel container end store it in a salt mine. But also the ocean trenches could be a suitable location, to the horror of environmentalists. Water is a good radiation absorber. I don't think any sensible person would put nuclear waste in a rocket, with the danger of it exploding in the atmosphere.
Tullio

The best way to dispose of high activity nuclear waste is to recycle and reuse it rather than throw it away. Only AFTER it no longer has potential to provide energy should it be thrown away. Putting it in the ground and ignoring dangers posed by plate tectonics or dumping it in ocean trenches is irresponsible.

As for the danger of a rocket exploding in the atmosphere and scattering nuclear waste all over the place... Everyone knows that about one in three rocket launches explode, don't they? And the fuel lines run right through the payload compartment for most efficient dispersal of fragments after exploding! I think not!

It is quite possible to develop an economical launch vehicle that could survive such an explosion and still leave the cargo intact.

The major problem I've found with Solar disposal of nuclear waste (after discussion on another board and some extensive research) is the difficulty of actually getting TO the sun! Using chemical rockets to do this is an extreme waste of fuel and energy, and even an ION drive engine would have a hard time. The most practical way to do it would be using a Solar (Light) Sail since the energy used would be practically free. The only problem currently is that it is untested technology.

Nuclear energy will undoubtly be the energy of choice in the generations to come.

Some light reading;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/exploration/futurespaceflight/nuclearpower.shtml

http://www.nuclearspace.com/



John.

---

After frequenting nuclear engineers and plasma physicists when working as a physics and astronomy editor at Mondadori I disagree. Solar is much safer and also cheaper if we invest on it. The cost of the ITER fusion experiment is soaring and no energy is being produced but much used. Nobel prize winner Carlo Rubbia believes in solar thermic plants which produce power even at night, but he had to Spain to obtain investments in this energy source. Now Spanish firms are building solar thermic plants also in California. There is a huge photovoltaic plant designed by an European consortium to be installed in the Sahara desert.
Incidentally, I have a degree in theoretical physics.
Tullio

---