3 ms·

> [..] all the waste ever generated [...] All the waste? https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/licensing/statistics.html https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-dispos

> [..] all the waste ever generated [...] All the waste? https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/licensing/statistics.html https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/licensing/statistics.... "Approximately 1.01 million cubic feet and 40 thousand curies of low-level radioactive waste were disposed of in 2020"

Accujack 5y ago
Those are numbers for the waste from bomb making, not power generation.
- yencabulator 5y ago
  Those two have been linked together ever since the discovery of the chain reactions. The US nuclear weapons are managed by the Department of Energy..
rosndo 5y ago
>All the waste? Probably not the most boring kind of waste. > "Approximately 1.01 million cubic feet and 40 thousand curies of low-level radioactive waste were disposed of in 2020" It’s worth noting that even a million cubic feet isn’t a big quantity, this is something one guy with an excavator could feasibly bury. (Not that we should actually pursue the guy-with-excavator disposal strategy)
- petre 5y ago
  It's 28317 cubic metres or 500 residential swimming pools, 4 by 7 by 2 metres. By contrast 250000 cubic metres of concrete went into OL3[1]. This is also low level waste such as Fukushima rubble. For reference the UK has LLW in storage amounting to 14700 cubic metres or 17800 tonnes by mass, with an activity of 11 terabecquerels. These are the estimates for decomissioning of all the Olkiluoto reactors[2]: "The amount of decommissioning waste is around 32 000 m3, generated from Olkiluoto 1 and 2 mainly during 2068-2076. The amount of Olkiluoto 3 decommissioning waste is estimated to be around 11000 m3 before packing and generated during 2079-2085. Additionally there will be approximately 2000 m3 of waste from the spent fuel interim storage decommissioning to be generated around 2100." 1. https://www.tvo.fi/uploads/File/2009/OL3_Basic_Facts_2009.pdf 2. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/fi_2nd_nr.pdf
user-the-name 5y ago
Low-level radioactive waste is not really big a problem. It does not pose any significant risk to anyone or anything. High-level waste is the problem.
- lokimedes 5y ago
  And luckily the level of radioactivity is inversely proportional with the half-life. The hotter it burn, the faster it decay.
- yencabulator 5y ago
  There are towns around Utah and elsewhere in the US, with very high cancer rates from open-air uranium/vanadium/etc mining, and working in the mines. I've visited this place and they have like historical monuments dedicated to the handling of the health issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello,_Utah#Uranium_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello,_Utah#Uranium_minin...
- logifail 5y ago
  > Low-level radioactive waste is not really big a problem. It does not pose any significant risk to anyone or anything At some abstract factual level that claim may not be [that] wrong, but I'm not convinced that statements such as that help promote the nuclear cause.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Nothing abstract about it. Low-level waste is really not dangerous.
    - teachrdan 5y ago
      That's not necessarily the case. In Europe after Chernobyl, radioactivity accumulated in cow's milk via grass contaminated with strontium. Children were particularly at risk because strontium is absorbed into growing bones in a similar manner to calcium. Even a low-level of radioactivity in that context can be harmful. https://hidex.com/ebooks/liquid-scintillation-measuring-procedures/measuring-procedures/radionuclides-from-nuclear-fission-activities/2-3-4-strontium-in-milk/ https://hidex.com/ebooks/liquid-scintillation-measuring-proc... https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(96)76532-3/pdf#:~:text=The%20present%20study%20evaluated%20after,monthly%20from%201987%20to%201994.&text=Based%20on%20this%20result%2C%20the,of%2010%2C410%20d%20for%20goSr https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(96)....

Accujack 5y ago

Those are numbers for the waste from bomb making, not power generation.

yencabulator 5y ago
Those two have been linked together ever since the discovery of the chain reactions. The US nuclear weapons are managed by the Department of Energy..

rosndo 5y ago

>All the waste? Probably not the most boring kind of waste. > "Approximately 1.01 million cubic feet and 40 thousand curies of low-level radioactive waste were disposed of in 2020" It’s worth noting that even a million cubic feet isn’t a big quantity, this is something one guy with an excavator could feasibly bury. (Not that we should actually pursue the guy-with-excavator disposal strategy)

petre 5y ago
It's 28317 cubic metres or 500 residential swimming pools, 4 by 7 by 2 metres. By contrast 250000 cubic metres of concrete went into OL3[1]. This is also low level waste such as Fukushima rubble. For reference the UK has LLW in storage amounting to 14700 cubic metres or 17800 tonnes by mass, with an activity of 11 terabecquerels. These are the estimates for decomissioning of all the Olkiluoto reactors[2]: "The amount of decommissioning waste is around 32 000 m3, generated from Olkiluoto 1 and 2 mainly during 2068-2076. The amount of Olkiluoto 3 decommissioning waste is estimated to be around 11000 m3 before packing and generated during 2079-2085. Additionally there will be approximately 2000 m3 of waste from the spent fuel interim storage decommissioning to be generated around 2100." 1. https://www.tvo.fi/uploads/File/2009/OL3_Basic_Facts_2009.pdf 2. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/fi_2nd_nr.pdf

user-the-name 5y ago

Low-level radioactive waste is not really big a problem. It does not pose any significant risk to anyone or anything. High-level waste is the problem.

lokimedes 5y ago
And luckily the level of radioactivity is inversely proportional with the half-life. The hotter it burn, the faster it decay.
yencabulator 5y ago
There are towns around Utah and elsewhere in the US, with very high cancer rates from open-air uranium/vanadium/etc mining, and working in the mines. I've visited this place and they have like historical monuments dedicated to the handling of the health issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello,_Utah#Uranium_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello,_Utah#Uranium_minin...
logifail 5y ago
> Low-level radioactive waste is not really big a problem. It does not pose any significant risk to anyone or anything At some abstract factual level that claim may not be [that] wrong, but I'm not convinced that statements such as that help promote the nuclear cause.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Nothing abstract about it. Low-level waste is really not dangerous.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    That's not necessarily the case. In Europe after Chernobyl, radioactivity accumulated in cow's milk via grass contaminated with strontium. Children were particularly at risk because strontium is absorbed into growing bones in a similar manner to calcium. Even a low-level of radioactivity in that context can be harmful. https://hidex.com/ebooks/liquid-scintillation-measuring-procedures/measuring-procedures/radionuclides-from-nuclear-fission-activities/2-3-4-strontium-in-milk/ https://hidex.com/ebooks/liquid-scintillation-measuring-proc... https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(96)76532-3/pdf#:~:text=The%20present%20study%20evaluated%20after,monthly%20from%201987%20to%201994.&text=Based%20on%20this%20result%2C%20the,of%2010%2C410%20d%20for%20goSr https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(96)....