5 ms·

It's really hard to evaluate risks when people talk about "nuclear waste". Spent fuel rods are ferociously dangerous and their disposal as nuclear waste needs

It's really hard to evaluate risks when people talk about "nuclear waste". Spent fuel rods are ferociously dangerous and their disposal as nuclear waste needs to be treated with utter seriousness. But "nuclear waste" also includes material less radioactive that granite which we only treat differently than other industrial waste because electricity providers on cost plus contracts teamed up with environmentalists to lobby for absurd rules around how nuclear plants are run.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_Microft 4y ago
German perspective: this material is measured for radioactivity and released from being subject to nuclear material rules if the levels are low enough. It's then treated like any other waste material. The German Wikipedia article on that [0] states that 97% of the material of a nuclear reactor are eventually cleared like this. [0](de) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freimessen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freimessen
- tlb 4y ago
  The cool thing about nuclear waste is that you can measure how radioactive it is with a handheld device. Very convenient compared to biohazard waste.
  - dv_dt 4y ago
    I think this is only partially true. Yes you can measure it, but you also do not want even low radioactivity dust inhaled into ones body for example.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      yes but "bury very low radiation waste in a big pit with a no digging sign" seems very sensible compared to longterm spent fuel rod storage.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      This is a separate fact that does not negate the one above. You can measure it and if it can or can't make harmful dust you know it empirically
      - dv_dt 4y ago
        The fact is separate but it’s just one hint that maybe it really isn’t a simple matter to store and contain nuclear waste for long periods of time.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        But they didn't claim it was simple to store or contain waste either(not that I agree with your conclusion .
bayesian_horse 4y ago
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  To a pretty good first approximation, everything is radioactive to some degree. Mother's milk. "Organic" vegetables. Air. Any random rock you pick up. Glacier water that's been frozen for 100,000 years. All slightly radioactive. "Everything that COULD be radioactive" is not a useful metric.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    There is a difference between mother's milk and concrete/steel that has been activated by neutrons in a reactor core.
    - nevinera 4y ago
      Sure is! And he's pointing out that understanding what that _difference is_ is pretty important. "everything that COULD be radioactive or contaminated" is a worthless and meaningless phrase, and in fact represents a _worthless and meaningless idea_. Describing what constitutes a meaningful and worrisome amount of radiation is fundamentally critical to the topic, and pretending there's some kind of 'just to be safe' level of assumption we can make is silly.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        There are pretty good regulations around what could be radioactive or contaminated in relation to a reactor core. Mother's milk is certainly not mentioned. I'm writing Hacker News comments. I don't care to specify with verbose and overly anal details exactly what is included and excluded in such statements. Luckily, scientists and regulators don't agree with your opinion how ridiculous the risks are. If stuff comes close to a reactor, it has to be tested for contamination. And overall, there is a lot more waste which needs special disposal, than just the fuel.
- 4y ago
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
> Spent fuel rods are ferociously dangerous No, they're not. While they're definitely not good for you they're not anything special when it comes to toxic materials. You're just unaware of all the other equally poisonous stuff humanity deals in at "industrial scales", most of which doesn't get safer by ignoring it. At least we can detect radiation with simple equipment. Detecting most other types of contamination with some type of molecule that's no good for organic life even at low doses is far more involved. Until people start keeling over you generally have no idea whether there's bad stuff in your dirt or water. The factories that make all sorts of things that make your modern life possible necessarily handle some stuff that's really, really, nasty in the concentrations in which they handle it.
- implements 4y ago
  > No, they're not. Yes, they are - an unshielded used fuel road will give anyone within feet of it a lethal dose of ionising radiation literally in seconds. They’re over 10,000 rem/h, and exposure to 100+ causes acute radiation sickness and death.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    By that logic my oven, or gas stove, is ferociously dangerous—especially if I stick my head in it while it’s turned on.
    - kvdveer 4y ago
      If your oven can give you a fatal dose of anything in seconds, I recommend replacing it ASAP. Sticking your hand in a food-grade oven will not give you burns. When you touch the insides, you will receive second degree burns, but those burns are not going to be fatal. On top of that, the oven can be turned off, and is completely safe to handle in that state. and the oven will need to be state. Comparing your oven with spent fuel rods is ridiculous (assuming you are referring to a food-grade oven operated on gas or electricity).
      - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

_Microft 4y ago

German perspective: this material is measured for radioactivity and released from being subject to nuclear material rules if the levels are low enough. It's then treated like any other waste material. The German Wikipedia article on that [0] states that 97% of the material of a nuclear reactor are eventually cleared like this. [0](de) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freimessen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freimessen

tlb 4y ago
The cool thing about nuclear waste is that you can measure how radioactive it is with a handheld device. Very convenient compared to biohazard waste.
- dv_dt 4y ago
  I think this is only partially true. Yes you can measure it, but you also do not want even low radioactivity dust inhaled into ones body for example.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    yes but "bury very low radiation waste in a big pit with a no digging sign" seems very sensible compared to longterm spent fuel rod storage.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    This is a separate fact that does not negate the one above. You can measure it and if it can or can't make harmful dust you know it empirically
    - dv_dt 4y ago
      The fact is separate but it’s just one hint that maybe it really isn’t a simple matter to store and contain nuclear waste for long periods of time.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        But they didn't claim it was simple to store or contain waste either(not that I agree with your conclusion .

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Turing_Machine 4y ago
To a pretty good first approximation, everything is radioactive to some degree. Mother's milk. "Organic" vegetables. Air. Any random rock you pick up. Glacier water that's been frozen for 100,000 years. All slightly radioactive. "Everything that COULD be radioactive" is not a useful metric.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  There is a difference between mother's milk and concrete/steel that has been activated by neutrons in a reactor core.
  - nevinera 4y ago
    Sure is! And he's pointing out that understanding what that _difference is_ is pretty important. "everything that COULD be radioactive or contaminated" is a worthless and meaningless phrase, and in fact represents a _worthless and meaningless idea_. Describing what constitutes a meaningful and worrisome amount of radiation is fundamentally critical to the topic, and pretending there's some kind of 'just to be safe' level of assumption we can make is silly.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      There are pretty good regulations around what could be radioactive or contaminated in relation to a reactor core. Mother's milk is certainly not mentioned. I'm writing Hacker News comments. I don't care to specify with verbose and overly anal details exactly what is included and excluded in such statements. Luckily, scientists and regulators don't agree with your opinion how ridiculous the risks are. If stuff comes close to a reactor, it has to be tested for contamination. And overall, there is a lot more waste which needs special disposal, than just the fuel.
4y ago

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

> Spent fuel rods are ferociously dangerous No, they're not. While they're definitely not good for you they're not anything special when it comes to toxic materials. You're just unaware of all the other equally poisonous stuff humanity deals in at "industrial scales", most of which doesn't get safer by ignoring it. At least we can detect radiation with simple equipment. Detecting most other types of contamination with some type of molecule that's no good for organic life even at low doses is far more involved. Until people start keeling over you generally have no idea whether there's bad stuff in your dirt or water. The factories that make all sorts of things that make your modern life possible necessarily handle some stuff that's really, really, nasty in the concentrations in which they handle it.

implements 4y ago
> No, they're not. Yes, they are - an unshielded used fuel road will give anyone within feet of it a lethal dose of ionising radiation literally in seconds. They’re over 10,000 rem/h, and exposure to 100+ causes acute radiation sickness and death.
- chrischen 4y ago
  By that logic my oven, or gas stove, is ferociously dangerous—especially if I stick my head in it while it’s turned on.
  - kvdveer 4y ago
    If your oven can give you a fatal dose of anything in seconds, I recommend replacing it ASAP. Sticking your hand in a food-grade oven will not give you burns. When you touch the insides, you will receive second degree burns, but those burns are not going to be fatal. On top of that, the oven can be turned off, and is completely safe to handle in that state. and the oven will need to be state. Comparing your oven with spent fuel rods is ridiculous (assuming you are referring to a food-grade oven operated on gas or electricity).
    - 4y ago