4 ms·

My old Physics teacher always said to put it on cornflakes. The surface area of all cornflakes in existence (back of the envelope) would result in totally harml

My old Physics teacher always said to put it on cornflakes. The surface area of all cornflakes in existence (back of the envelope) would result in totally harmless concentrations, undetectable above background. Of course getting the waste evenly distributed over all the cornflakes is another matter, one for the engineers...

jessriedel 7y ago
No one knows with any confidence whether radiation levels below background levels are harmful or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
- AbrahamParangi 7y ago
  Sure but the assumption is that however infinitesimally bad it is, it’s not worse than what you’re already tolerating.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    "Tolerating" might mean experiencing the normal levels of cancer, which is 2nd only to heart disease as a leading cause of death in the US. If we take a given amount of radiation, then, assuming the linear-no-threshold model, spreading that radiation around a giant population does not decrease the number of deaths induced.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Doesn't work that way if you ingest it, right? And obviously not all radiation is equal (alpha, beta, gamma) and even among those they have varying level of energy based on source. The concern here - if I understand correctly - is that it's ingestion and absorption of a low half live (more energetic) beta emitter.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    No, I don't think the distinction between ingestion and external exposure is fredley's point. Indeed, a fixed amount of radiation is much more destructive when ingested. But regardless, that's not the point I'm disputing. I'm disputing whether "the radiation has been reduced to background levels" necessarily means the negative effect of the radiation has been made negligible. Rather, assuming the linear-no-threshold model, the number of radiation-induced deaths will not decrease.
cpeterso 7y ago
James Lovelock (formulator of the Gaia hypothesis) suggested sprinkling radioactive waste through out wilderness areas. This would, in a way, also help preserve these areas because humans would be wary of entering them or building in them.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Lovelock was very naive in this sense, as the radioactive Ucrainian wildboars moving to Deustchland and Poland showed us.

jessriedel 7y ago

No one knows with any confidence whether radiation levels below background levels are harmful or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

AbrahamParangi 7y ago
Sure but the assumption is that however infinitesimally bad it is, it’s not worse than what you’re already tolerating.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  "Tolerating" might mean experiencing the normal levels of cancer, which is 2nd only to heart disease as a leading cause of death in the US. If we take a given amount of radiation, then, assuming the linear-no-threshold model, spreading that radiation around a giant population does not decrease the number of deaths induced.
throwaway5752 7y ago
Doesn't work that way if you ingest it, right? And obviously not all radiation is equal (alpha, beta, gamma) and even among those they have varying level of energy based on source. The concern here - if I understand correctly - is that it's ingestion and absorption of a low half live (more energetic) beta emitter.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  No, I don't think the distinction between ingestion and external exposure is fredley's point. Indeed, a fixed amount of radiation is much more destructive when ingested. But regardless, that's not the point I'm disputing. I'm disputing whether "the radiation has been reduced to background levels" necessarily means the negative effect of the radiation has been made negligible. Rather, assuming the linear-no-threshold model, the number of radiation-induced deaths will not decrease.

cpeterso 7y ago

James Lovelock (formulator of the Gaia hypothesis) suggested sprinkling radioactive waste through out wilderness areas. This would, in a way, also help preserve these areas because humans would be wary of entering them or building in them.

pvaldes 7y ago
Lovelock was very naive in this sense, as the radioactive Ucrainian wildboars moving to Deustchland and Poland showed us.