In the second link in my top post (the one I added as an update), the author of that paper argues that the actual risk of harm due to environmental release and radiation exposure might be overstated a bit, and the public may be a little too afraid. I'm not entirely sure I buy the argument though.StevePoling wrote:As you may be aware, there was a reactor in Gabon at a place called Oklo which was decommissioned some years back. The radioactive waste was left in situ exposed to ground water. Most significantly, transport of radioactive isotopes did not render the surrounding countryside a sterile wasteland. The reaction products were rendered harmless by mere passage of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo
For one thing, what type of radioactive waste are we talking about here? Actual spent uranium fuel? Coolant (or other plant materials) that might have become slightly radioactive due to contact/proximity to the fuel, but is much much less dangerous than the spent fuel?
I'll have to read up on the Oklo link you provided, but my gut reaction is that, even if eventually the exposure level isn't that bad, that you would still have problems during the 'initial' lead event - because the radioactive materials will be more concentrated in smaller spaces, meaning any organism which happens to be sufficiently near to the more highly concentrated release, may still be at risk.
In any case, all of the warnings we get about radiation exposure must have some basis in science? I mean, it can't possibly be that for 30 years we've been afraid of nothing? There must be some scenarios where, e.g. release of core fuel material into the air or ground water, the dangers are very real?