4 ms·
> it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source. Really? That would be mostly oxidized uranium - white not really ha
by nisa 10y ago
> it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source.
Really? That would be mostly oxidized uranium - white not really harmless it's something different than highly toxic plutonium - besides that you have extremly toxic decay products that e.g. pose a problem for the chernobyl area.
Besides that there are more than enough isotopes used in nuclear energy that have a half-life of millions of years.
If you look at the history of Europe in the past 2000 years it's not exactly been peaceful - also something to consider - especially as we have the knowledge to use nuclear reactors to weaponize this waste.
- Reason077 10y agoNuclear waste shouldn't contain plutonium. That stuff is expensive, so there's an economic incentive, as well as environmental, to reprocess waste and recover any remaining fuel. Chernobyl (and Fukushima) are entirely different (and much worse) because you do have the nuclear fuel itself being exposed to the environment. But waste fission products in a modern reactor are far less dangerous compared to the fuel that goes in, especially once they have been properly reprocessed and then stored for while. Isotopes with half lives in the millions of years, as opposed to years or decades, really aren't all that dangerous in terms of radioactivity. Longer half life generally means less radiation.