5 ms·

> Nuclear waste is not actually that dangerous that long. Everyone (including the planners) like to hype it up for their own reasons. Can you elaborate? E.g. P

by ascar 5y ago

> Nuclear waste is not actually that dangerous that long. Everyone (including the planners) like to hype it up for their own reasons. Can you elaborate? E.g. Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24000 years. That hardly sounds like "not that long"? Leftover uranium-238 even stays radioactive for billions of years (half life of 4.5 billion years).

ncmncm 5y ago
Plutonium, anyway, is not waste, but fuel. And weapons material. But there are other long-lived isotopes, as well. Safe disposal is not a difficult technical problem, but is a political football causing limitless distraction.
lazide 5y ago
The more radioactive it is, by it’s very nature, the shorter it’s half life. That is literally what is going on. Decay means release of radiation. Decay means less of the original radioactive material. Some of these elements have pretty high overall energy levels released in their decay chains (so it’s not just one decay) some less - but sources that are more radioactive are decaying and releasing energy faster, have shorter half lives, and are very dangerous for shorter periods of time. You can literally buy Uranium 238 ore through the mail and handle it with no more special precautions than washing your hands afterwards and not eating it. It’s seriously fine. Except in a few spots where it was heavily concentrated, most of the legitimately dangerous stuff has decayed to ‘meh, not that bad’ levels already even at Chernobyl. It’s still not a good idea to lick it, or spend all your time in the main reactor hall, but give it another 50 years and you’ll probably be able pet the elephants foot on a tour. Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been fine for awhile. People do tours at ground zero of the Trinity test site. Some of these elements are chemically active in weird ways, and even without the radioactivity, eating plutonium, cesium, or uranium will be a bad time. Same with mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. so I’m not advocating for being careless with them. But the idea of a big chunk of radioactive waste being a glowing orb in 10k years is fantasy.

by ascar 5y ago

ncmncm 5y ago

Plutonium, anyway, is not waste, but fuel. And weapons material. But there are other long-lived isotopes, as well. Safe disposal is not a difficult technical problem, but is a political football causing limitless distraction.

lazide 5y ago

The more radioactive it is, by it’s very nature, the shorter it’s half life. That is literally what is going on. Decay means release of radiation. Decay means less of the original radioactive material. Some of these elements have pretty high overall energy levels released in their decay chains (so it’s not just one decay) some less - but sources that are more radioactive are decaying and releasing energy faster, have shorter half lives, and are very dangerous for shorter periods of time. You can literally buy Uranium 238 ore through the mail and handle it with no more special precautions than washing your hands afterwards and not eating it. It’s seriously fine. Except in a few spots where it was heavily concentrated, most of the legitimately dangerous stuff has decayed to ‘meh, not that bad’ levels already even at Chernobyl. It’s still not a good idea to lick it, or spend all your time in the main reactor hall, but give it another 50 years and you’ll probably be able pet the elephants foot on a tour. Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been fine for awhile. People do tours at ground zero of the Trinity test site. Some of these elements are chemically active in weird ways, and even without the radioactivity, eating plutonium, cesium, or uranium will be a bad time. Same with mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. so I’m not advocating for being careless with them. But the idea of a big chunk of radioactive waste being a glowing orb in 10k years is fantasy.