4 ms·

Radioactive waste from spent nuclear fuel has a shelf life of hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe even more than a million, it’s not possible to precisely pre

Radioactive waste from spent nuclear fuel has a shelf life of hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe even more than a million, it’s not possible to precisely predict. The fact that a journalist can write such a thing demonstrates the level to which public discourse about the sciences has sunk. We have very accurate measurements of the half-lives and decay pathways of all the isotopes found in non-trivial quantities in spent nuclear fuel, and it is indeed very possible to predict the level of radioactivity at a given time in the future.

amelius 11y ago
Not if we invent methods to reduce the shelf life. Difficult to predict indeed :)
- MertsA 11y ago
  Not too difficult, with a high neutron flux, the waste can be "burned" and that half life can be dropped to something manageable on a human timescale.
  - achamayou 11y ago
    That involves either creating more waste, or a sizable particle accelerator though. It's not too difficult, but it's quite expensive on a large scale to say the least.
    - adrianN 11y ago
      Breeder reactors burn up >90% of what we call "waste" now, leaving behind only relatively short-lived isotopes. They're not more expensive than normal nuclear power plants, but because they can be used to breed weapons grade plutonium we don't build them.
      - ckozlowski 11y ago
        We don't, and that's a shame. They /can/ be used to breed plutonium, or they can me used to transmute into non-proliferation concerned materials. (Plutonium may be an interm step still; you'll need to read further on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle) France does this still actually, but we do not. Too toxic an issue. (no pun intended.) I've always been perplexed though at the 10,000 year requirement of the repository, as if envisioning all progress stopped for that period of time. Would this not be considered an interim step if, one hundred years from now, we found an economically sound alternative not available earlier? I am not suggesting for a moment that this become a "kick the can" solution, but rather, the issue of nuclear waste is an ongoing project of management, not simply "stick in the ground for 10,000 years." If it turns out that in 200 years, we still do not have a better way of dealing with it, then take it out of the vault and put it in a better one.
    - elektromekatron 11y ago
      Might be a good job for CERN.
andyjohnson0 11y ago
The only circumstances I can think of in which the decay of radioactive waste might be unknown is in the case of mixed waste where the content or origin is unknown or ambiguous. Some old waste material might fall into that category, but I don't think that recent spent reactor fuel would.
- arethuza 11y ago
  My understanding is that radioactive emissions are readily measurable so what elements/isotopes are involved should be identifiable and therefore the rate at which these will decay will be predictable - this could well be wrong! One potential other risk is chemical instability of nuclear waste materials - that has caused lots of problems e.g. the Kyshtym disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster Edit: Modified the first part to make it clear that I should have been asking a question rather than making a statement!
  - andyjohnson0 11y ago
    Is it possible to precisely identify the composition of a body of mixed waste solely from its emissions? Wouldn't chemical analysis of a sample be necessary?
    - kijin 11y ago
      Two substances might emit the same kind of particles, but their rate of decay will be different. Measuring the emissions of a container over a period of several years will probably yield enough data points to solve for all of the unknowns.
      - hga 11y ago
        Also the energies, specifically of the more penetrating gamma rays (very energetic photons). And the more dangerous stuff has shorter half-lives, so it wouldn't take all that long to get the full picture. WRT to nuclear weapons, we can determine what the fissionables were, where they were mined, and some details of design all from sniffing the air downwind.
Altay- 11y ago
The writing quality was a lacking overall. I actually found that uplifting, I'm not a great writer but if VICE is willing to publish this story, I shouldn't be as self conscious about my own work!
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  In other words, not only the article sucks, it also teaches others not to care about quality. :(.
scriptman 11y ago
I find it frustrating that so much journalism these days exaggerates environmental issues, with any factual errors seemingly brushed off as just showing an excess of virtue.

amelius 11y ago

Not if we invent methods to reduce the shelf life. Difficult to predict indeed :)

MertsA 11y ago
Not too difficult, with a high neutron flux, the waste can be "burned" and that half life can be dropped to something manageable on a human timescale.
- achamayou 11y ago
  That involves either creating more waste, or a sizable particle accelerator though. It's not too difficult, but it's quite expensive on a large scale to say the least.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    Breeder reactors burn up >90% of what we call "waste" now, leaving behind only relatively short-lived isotopes. They're not more expensive than normal nuclear power plants, but because they can be used to breed weapons grade plutonium we don't build them.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      We don't, and that's a shame. They /can/ be used to breed plutonium, or they can me used to transmute into non-proliferation concerned materials. (Plutonium may be an interm step still; you'll need to read further on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle) France does this still actually, but we do not. Too toxic an issue. (no pun intended.) I've always been perplexed though at the 10,000 year requirement of the repository, as if envisioning all progress stopped for that period of time. Would this not be considered an interim step if, one hundred years from now, we found an economically sound alternative not available earlier? I am not suggesting for a moment that this become a "kick the can" solution, but rather, the issue of nuclear waste is an ongoing project of management, not simply "stick in the ground for 10,000 years." If it turns out that in 200 years, we still do not have a better way of dealing with it, then take it out of the vault and put it in a better one.
  - elektromekatron 11y ago
    Might be a good job for CERN.

andyjohnson0 11y ago

The only circumstances I can think of in which the decay of radioactive waste might be unknown is in the case of mixed waste where the content or origin is unknown or ambiguous. Some old waste material might fall into that category, but I don't think that recent spent reactor fuel would.

arethuza 11y ago
My understanding is that radioactive emissions are readily measurable so what elements/isotopes are involved should be identifiable and therefore the rate at which these will decay will be predictable - this could well be wrong! One potential other risk is chemical instability of nuclear waste materials - that has caused lots of problems e.g. the Kyshtym disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster Edit: Modified the first part to make it clear that I should have been asking a question rather than making a statement!
- andyjohnson0 11y ago
  Is it possible to precisely identify the composition of a body of mixed waste solely from its emissions? Wouldn't chemical analysis of a sample be necessary?
  - kijin 11y ago
    Two substances might emit the same kind of particles, but their rate of decay will be different. Measuring the emissions of a container over a period of several years will probably yield enough data points to solve for all of the unknowns.
    - hga 11y ago
      Also the energies, specifically of the more penetrating gamma rays (very energetic photons). And the more dangerous stuff has shorter half-lives, so it wouldn't take all that long to get the full picture. WRT to nuclear weapons, we can determine what the fissionables were, where they were mined, and some details of design all from sniffing the air downwind.

Altay- 11y ago

The writing quality was a lacking overall. I actually found that uplifting, I'm not a great writer but if VICE is willing to publish this story, I shouldn't be as self conscious about my own work!

TeMPOraL 11y ago
In other words, not only the article sucks, it also teaches others not to care about quality. :(.

scriptman 11y ago

I find it frustrating that so much journalism these days exaggerates environmental issues, with any factual errors seemingly brushed off as just showing an excess of virtue.