64. 



MEMBER: I think it would be a lot easier to handle this stuff. 

 It is going to be awfully hot from the gamma radiation standpoint. 



DR. ABELSON: Once you have got this red hot brick, what are 

 you going to do with it? 



DR. ZUMWALT: You can have a remote operation and let it 

 heat itself. 



MEMBER: I assume you are going to keep it right there. 



MR. STRUXNESS: Part of our answer is self-fusion and low- 

 firing temperature, and there is a feeling that uses will be found for 

 some of these fission products, and it would be nice if we could im- 

 mobilize them until then rather than pump them into an inaccessible 

 place . 



DR. HUBBERT: Isn't it probable the production of fission prod- 

 ucts is likely to keep pace with the development of the needs? Suppose 

 we throw everything away right now. There is more coming along. 

 The way this thing is promising to develop it looks to me like we are 

 always going to have ample supplies of hot material for all current 

 needs. If so, a little waste is not important. 



CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions? 



Thank you, Mr. Struxness. 



GENERAL DISCUSSION 



DR. LOOFBOUROW: Is it correct to say that reactors will 

 generate moderate to low intensity wastes, and those reactors must 

 be located for reasons of operating economy near where the power is 

 required, but the problem of disposal at those sites is not a serious 

 one because of the type of waste. But the highly concentrated wastes 

 generated at chemical plants, which can only be shipped with serious 

 costs or hazards, can be shipped farther, so that the site of those 

 plants can be chosen where disposal is most simple? 



DR. ABELSON: No. It would be most economical to process 

 at the spot. The radiation hazard would be very great. 



