3 ms·

Made me wonder what people think about the naturally occurring radioactive sites in nature.

mikeash 9y ago
I don't think there are any naturally occurring sites whose radioactivity comes anywhere close to that of high-level nuclear waste.
- pmorici 9y ago
  They have discovered naturally occurring nuclear reactions in rock formations. There is also the issue of radio active radon gas. My point is more that radiation hazards exist naturally on earth. A carefully constructed handful of man made ones doesn't feel like it changes the risk profile all that much. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-r...
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  There are natural nuclear reactors in Africa¹, though they fizzled out 2 billion years ago. Fortunately high radiation nuclear materials burns out pretty quickly. The stuff that is active very long term also has very low levels of radiation. ¹ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion-year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nucl...
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  Radon leaking into buildings has killed many orders of magnitude more people than nuclear accidents and nuclear weapons combined, no matter how liberal your estimates.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    That's only because radon is way more common.
    - pmorici 9y ago
      That's kind of the point.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I don't get the point. It's quite reasonable to treat a pervasive, small risk differently from a rare, large risk. You're far more likely to die from sunlight than from botulism, but we treat the latter far more carefully. That's only to be expected, since the risk from exposure is far higher for botulism. What I'm pointing out is different behavior when dealing with substances that have similar risks. If I had a basement, I'd much prefer to have naturally occurring radon in it than either high-level nuclear waste or toxic chemical waste, if somehow that was my choice.

I don't think there are any naturally occurring sites whose radioactivity comes anywhere close to that of high-level nuclear waste.

pmorici 9y ago
They have discovered naturally occurring nuclear reactions in rock formations. There is also the issue of radio active radon gas. My point is more that radiation hazards exist naturally on earth. A carefully constructed handful of man made ones doesn't feel like it changes the risk profile all that much. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-r...
BurningFrog 9y ago
There are natural nuclear reactors in Africa¹, though they fizzled out 2 billion years ago. Fortunately high radiation nuclear materials burns out pretty quickly. The stuff that is active very long term also has very low levels of radiation. ¹ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion-year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nucl...
johncolanduoni 9y ago
Radon leaking into buildings has killed many orders of magnitude more people than nuclear accidents and nuclear weapons combined, no matter how liberal your estimates.
- mikeash 9y ago
  That's only because radon is way more common.
  - pmorici 9y ago
    That's kind of the point.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I don't get the point. It's quite reasonable to treat a pervasive, small risk differently from a rare, large risk. You're far more likely to die from sunlight than from botulism, but we treat the latter far more carefully. That's only to be expected, since the risk from exposure is far higher for botulism. What I'm pointing out is different behavior when dealing with substances that have similar risks. If I had a basement, I'd much prefer to have naturally occurring radon in it than either high-level nuclear waste or toxic chemical waste, if somehow that was my choice.