4 ms·
I don't think so. Nuclear fusion releases tons of neutron radiation; neutron radiation induces radioactivity in things it hits. It's a common misconception t
by catalogia 6y ago
I don't think so. Nuclear fusion releases tons of neutron radiation; neutron radiation induces radioactivity in things it hits. It's a common misconception that a fusion power plant wouldn't create radioactive waste; in truth the neutron radiation would turn the reactor itself into radioactive waste. One of the hard engineering problems of fusion power is creating a reactor that can be serviced using robotics since it would be too dangerous for humans technicians.
If you used a pure fusion bomb to dig out a harbor, much of the the rock and soil the bomb threw into the air would be radioactive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation
- garmaine 6y agoNote that there are some fusion designs that do not result in radioactive waste. They're not the easiest to build though, so are unlikely to be what we use for first or second generation plants. For example, neutrons hitting lithium shielding produce tritium and helium, which can be fed back into the fusion reaction as fuel.
- sudosysgen 6y agoOf course. However neutron activation of soil is generally much smaller compared to radioactive fallout. Indeed, even fallout of nuclear weapons of the scale required for engineering project is overstated. Hiroshima, despite receiving much more fallout that a pure-fusion weapon of the same yield, became habitable quite rapidly thereafter. Another possible design could be to encase the pure fusion weapon in water, absorbing most of the neutrons and turning them into pressure and heat.