Concentrating fissionable material causes it to undergo fission faster than it would if left alone, because of the chain-reaction effect (the extreme, obviously, is the super-critical chain reaction of a nuclear bomb, but even the reactions in nuclear power plants cause fissionable material to decay an accelerated rate). Thus, the various short-lived (and thus highly radioactive) fission products are produced much faster than they would be produced if the uranium just sat in its original rocks.
It’s not an insuperable, or even particularly difficult (except politically), problem, but it’s not just a matter of shrugging it off as stuff that would exist in the earth’s crust anyway.
So when it is concentrated fissionable stuff produces daughter elements with short half-lives at a higher rate than would otherwise be the case? However, if the stuff isn’t concentrated but rather is distributed widely as in its natural state I don’t see why it should make any difference whether or not short half-life daughter elements are produced.
As to the Bush energy policy. It looks to me like the only part of it that addresses the long term energy question would be that which promotes renewable sources and nuclear energy. I think that renewable is a good thing and our most permanent and reliable energy source is the sun. Improving the efficiency with which solar energy is converted to electricity is well worth supporting with tax money.
I think nuclear energy is certainly needed but I’m not all that sure that the waste problem is merely a political one. I suppose I could be convinced otherwise but most things like this are actually worked out by a process of trial and error and the consequences of errors in this case might not be small potatos.
Most of the other stuff, like drilling in the Arctic Wilderness, is just a placebo for people who are pissed at high fuel prices. Well, I think we just have to get used to high energy. What with China having what? a couple of billion people and a growing consumer economy the demand for energy can only increase geometrically, at least for a while. And it is undeniable that actual geometric growth is unsustainable in nature. Be that as it may, I think energy costs can only go up and our policy should be to be as efficient as possible in its use. According to free-market economic theory the increasing cost should force that improvement in efficiency without any official government policy favoring such improvement. Of course there will be dislocations along the way, but government actions also result in dislocations. Life’s a bitch and then you die.
So I guess I lean toward the laissez faire in this one but some governmental poking and proding might be necessary. However, it’s a world wide problem and I don’t thing the US government can do much effective poking and proding all by itself.
