3 ms·
This has to be one of the most short-sighted comments I’ve ever read on HN. 60 years for something with a half life of 24,000 years or so and you are calling i
by JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
This has to be one of the most short-sighted comments I’ve ever read on HN. 60 years for something with a half life of 24,000 years or so and you are calling it good?
- didbfkf 7y agoAdd an order of magnitude!
- mlyle 7y agoIn fairness, the stuff with a half life of 24,000 years isn't that radioactive/scary. It's the stuff with half lives of 3-300 years that you need to worry about, really. Compared to its activity a month after being removed from the reactor-- spent fuel loses 90% of its activity in 80 years or so and 99% of its activity in 200 years, at which time it's still about 150x as active as the original uranium ore (which itself is 6x or so diluted, so about 25x as active as the original uranium)