17 ms·

Dumping the radioactive waste into the ocean is an insanely bad idea.

• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• Retric 11y ago
  Depends on what your dealing with. Many schools are built using cement that's radioactive enough to be detectable. So, we would call it radioactive waste if it was used near a reactor and not contaminated. But, if it was part of a school and exactly as radioactive then no problem.
  • dzdt 11y ago
    Source? Sounds unlikely!
    • Retric 11y ago
      I can't find the school example, but this stuff is a hodge podge of different rules. The basic problem is: Depending on who "owns" the waste, its handling and disposal is regulated differently. " In 10 C.F.R. § 20.2002, the NRC reserves the right to grant a free release of radioactive waste. The overall activity of such a disposal cannot exceed 1 mrem/yr and the NRC regards requests on a case-by-case basis. Low-level waste passing such strict regulations is then disposed of in a landfill with other garbage. Items allowed to be diposed of in this way are: glow-in-the-dark watches (radium) and smoke detectors (americium) among other things." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_waste "Low-level waste (LLW) is nuclear waste that does not fit into the categorical definitions for intermediate-level waste (ILW), high-level waste (HLW), spent nuclear fuel (SNF), transuranic waste (TRU), or certain byproduct materials known as 11e(2) wastes, such as uranium mill tailings. In essence, it is a definition by exclusion, and LLW is that category of radioactive wastes that do not fit into the other categories. " Of note, there is no exclusion for naturally occurring radioactivity.
• philjohn 11y ago
  No, it's not. The sea has extractable uranium in it already, and the volume of water is pretty much a literal drop in the ocean.