4 ms·

Will this type of reactor produce material that can be used in nuclear bombs and produce waste we will have deal with for millions? Of years. Is it "just" a sma

Will this type of reactor produce material that can be used in nuclear bombs and produce waste we will have deal with for millions? Of years. Is it "just" a smaller version of the current types of reactors?

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I've never understood this. If the waste product is radioactive for millions of years then doesn't that mean it's not very radioactive? Wikipedia has this to say: Since radioactive decay follows the half-life rule, the rate of decay is inversely proportional to the duration of decay. In other words, the radiation from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129 will be much less intense than that of a short-lived isotope like iodine-131.¹ So my understanding is radioactive products are dangerous because body takes up the elements and they're either chemically toxic, dangerous because of radioactive decay, or both. So isn't this solved by vitrifying the waste and burying it? Glasses tend to be extremely chemically inert. I'm not convinced the spectre of nuclear waste warrants the paranoia it receives. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Physics
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Material will eventually be decaying in the environment at the same rate it is produced, in steady state. This is independent of the halflife. What a long halflife does is increase the time until that steady state is reached. If we operate a nuclear economy for a million years then a hell of a lot of that long lived isotope will have accumulated.
DennisP 8y ago
The only waste from molten salt fast reactors is fission products, i.e. atoms that already fissioned. Encase them in glass and they'll be back to the radioactivity of uranium ore in 300 years. We could use these reactors to eat the nuclear waste we have right now.

4 ms·

Will this type of reactor produce material that can be used in nuclear bombs and produce waste we will have deal with for millions? Of years. Is it "just" a sma

by ToFab123 8y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I've never understood this. If the waste product is radioactive for millions of years then doesn't that mean it's not very radioactive? Wikipedia has this to say: Since radioactive decay follows the half-life rule, the rate of decay is inversely proportional to the duration of decay. In other words, the radiation from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129 will be much less intense than that of a short-lived isotope like iodine-131.¹ So my understanding is radioactive products are dangerous because body takes up the elements and they're either chemically toxic, dangerous because of radioactive decay, or both. So isn't this solved by vitrifying the waste and burying it? Glasses tend to be extremely chemically inert. I'm not convinced the spectre of nuclear waste warrants the paranoia it receives. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Physics
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Material will eventually be decaying in the environment at the same rate it is produced, in steady state. This is independent of the halflife. What a long halflife does is increase the time until that steady state is reached. If we operate a nuclear economy for a million years then a hell of a lot of that long lived isotope will have accumulated.
DennisP 8y ago
The only waste from molten salt fast reactors is fission products, i.e. atoms that already fissioned. Encase them in glass and they'll be back to the radioactivity of uranium ore in 300 years. We could use these reactors to eat the nuclear waste we have right now.