
US to label nuclear waste as less dangerous to quicken cleanup - hhs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/05/us-to-label-nuclear-waste-as-less-dangerous-to-quicken-cleanup
======
didgeoridoo
> The old definition of high-level waste was based on how the materials were
> produced, while the new definition will be based on their radioactive
> characteristics – the standard used in most countries, the energy department
> said.

So they moved to a more accurate labeling system with regards to the actual
danger posed by the waste, so it can be disposed of more appropriately? How is
this a story?

~~~
jakeogh
Is news supposed to be bad?

~~~
anfilt
Well the title of article makes it sound like a dangerous change. Really,
sounds like fear mongering around nuclear with such a title.

What if the article was titled "US to use Global standard for quantifying
nuclear waste"

Like news does not need to be bad, but when you have a title like this article
what does it imply.

------
foxyv
_The old definition of high-level waste was based on how the materials were
produced, while the new definition will be based on their radioactive
characteristics – the standard used in most countries, the energy department
said.

The old definition said high-level radioactive waste resulted from a military
production stream, Dabbar said. That meant, for instance, that all the waste
from plutonium production at Hanford was classified as high level.

It was a “one-size-fits-all approach that has led to decades of delay, cost
billions of dollars, and left the waste trapped in DOE facilities in the
states of South Carolina, Washington and Idaho without a permanent disposal
solution”, the agency said._

So essentially this is low level waste that was classified as high level
because it was made for military purposes.

