4 ms·

> 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 mat

> 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).
    - chrischen 4y ago
      Yea it can definitely give me fatal burns, especially if I remove the shielding thing on the front of it.
      - RobertRoberts 4y ago
        Only when it's turned on, or hot for a short time after it's been turned off. Neither apply to nuclear waste.
        chrischen 4y ago
        Yes but my point is that the nuclear waste exhibits those characteristics of danger only when it's unsheathed.
  - Kon5ole 4y ago
    But you will be aware that you are being hurt. And only you will be hurt. A single fuel rod can kill millions without them even knowing why they are dying. Your daughter will not die from playing with a burning stove, she will burn her fingers and stop. In Brazil, a little girl ate an egg with radioactive dust on it. [0] Your stove will not slowly kill people living on the other side of the wall.[Happened in russia]. The water supply will not be ruined if you drop your stove into it. If someone puts your oven in a truck full of fertilizer and detonates it in a large city, it will not kill millions of people and make a large area unsuitable for human life for thousands of years. So fuel rods really are ferociously dangerous, in a way that very little else on this earth is. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      The same farcical logic can be applied to any substance in a hazardous concentration. PFAS, heavy metals, the list is long. Sure they won't instantly fry you but it's basically guaranteed terminal illness if you have enough expose. As we've seen from the industrial hazards of the 20th century, once people start dropping dead the living start asking questions. It's impossible to really kill that many people with a spill of any type. Poison a watershed, render land uninhabitable, sure, but killing millions is childish fantasy.
    - chrischen 4y ago
      Radiation is easily detectable, compared to say, carbon pollution and its effect on health. If it were actually released into the environment, we'd know about it.
      - Kon5ole 4y ago
        No that's not true, radiation is not easily detectable it requires advanced instruments. Humans can't detect it at all. Instantly lethal doses will cause you to vomit, but you're a already a walking corpse by then. Carbon pollution you can smell and feel long before it's lethal.
wumpus 4y ago
> they're not anything special when it comes to toxic materials You have to actively cool them for 5 years before putting them in a dry cask. If you fail to keep them cool, they will release a lot of bad stuff. One big potential disaster which was narrowly averted at Fukashima Daiichi was related to a leaking spent rod cooling pool.
dtagames 4y ago
Plutonium-239 [0] is the byproduct of the fission process in Uranium-235 [1], of which the fuel pellets are composed. The modern, large scale nuclear reactor was designed for making plutonium, not energy [2]. PU-239 has a half life (meaning it will be emit half as many radioactive particles per second) of 24,000 years. PU-239 is a gamma emitter [3], meaning its radioactive particles can slice through DNA, causing chromosomal and heritable damage. So... it's not quite accurate to say they're "not dangerous." BTW, there is no way to "dilute" radiation, it doesn't work that way. Radiation comes from subatomic particles, not the matter they're contained in. Moving the matter (container) around doesn't "dilute" the particles, it only exposes more people to them! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
- fsh 4y ago
  The graphite piles in Hanford have literally nothing in common with PWRs or BWRs that are used for power generation.
  - dtagames 4y ago
    The only part they have in common is the idea of fissioning uranium, which results in plutonium. I was merely pointing out that, even at the origin, plutonium creation and contamination was a big problem. The Hanford Site still isn't cleaned up today!
- zackees 4y ago
  FYI, Plutonium is burned in the new breeder reactors. We can literally remove all the nuclear waste by building MORE nuclear reactors.
  - petre 4y ago
    Plutonium is burned in regular reactors as well. As MOX.

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).
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Yea it can definitely give me fatal burns, especially if I remove the shielding thing on the front of it.
    - RobertRoberts 4y ago
      Only when it's turned on, or hot for a short time after it's been turned off. Neither apply to nuclear waste.
      - chrischen 4y ago
        Yes but my point is that the nuclear waste exhibits those characteristics of danger only when it's unsheathed.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  But you will be aware that you are being hurt. And only you will be hurt. A single fuel rod can kill millions without them even knowing why they are dying. Your daughter will not die from playing with a burning stove, she will burn her fingers and stop. In Brazil, a little girl ate an egg with radioactive dust on it. [0] Your stove will not slowly kill people living on the other side of the wall.[Happened in russia]. The water supply will not be ruined if you drop your stove into it. If someone puts your oven in a truck full of fertilizer and detonates it in a large city, it will not kill millions of people and make a large area unsuitable for human life for thousands of years. So fuel rods really are ferociously dangerous, in a way that very little else on this earth is. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The same farcical logic can be applied to any substance in a hazardous concentration. PFAS, heavy metals, the list is long. Sure they won't instantly fry you but it's basically guaranteed terminal illness if you have enough expose. As we've seen from the industrial hazards of the 20th century, once people start dropping dead the living start asking questions. It's impossible to really kill that many people with a spill of any type. Poison a watershed, render land uninhabitable, sure, but killing millions is childish fantasy.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Radiation is easily detectable, compared to say, carbon pollution and its effect on health. If it were actually released into the environment, we'd know about it.
    - Kon5ole 4y ago
      No that's not true, radiation is not easily detectable it requires advanced instruments. Humans can't detect it at all. Instantly lethal doses will cause you to vomit, but you're a already a walking corpse by then. Carbon pollution you can smell and feel long before it's lethal.

wumpus 4y ago

> they're not anything special when it comes to toxic materials You have to actively cool them for 5 years before putting them in a dry cask. If you fail to keep them cool, they will release a lot of bad stuff. One big potential disaster which was narrowly averted at Fukashima Daiichi was related to a leaking spent rod cooling pool.

dtagames 4y ago

Plutonium-239 [0] is the byproduct of the fission process in Uranium-235 [1], of which the fuel pellets are composed. The modern, large scale nuclear reactor was designed for making plutonium, not energy [2]. PU-239 has a half life (meaning it will be emit half as many radioactive particles per second) of 24,000 years. PU-239 is a gamma emitter [3], meaning its radioactive particles can slice through DNA, causing chromosomal and heritable damage. So... it's not quite accurate to say they're "not dangerous." BTW, there is no way to "dilute" radiation, it doesn't work that way. Radiation comes from subatomic particles, not the matter they're contained in. Moving the matter (container) around doesn't "dilute" the particles, it only exposes more people to them! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

fsh 4y ago
The graphite piles in Hanford have literally nothing in common with PWRs or BWRs that are used for power generation.
- dtagames 4y ago
  The only part they have in common is the idea of fissioning uranium, which results in plutonium. I was merely pointing out that, even at the origin, plutonium creation and contamination was a big problem. The Hanford Site still isn't cleaned up today!
zackees 4y ago
FYI, Plutonium is burned in the new breeder reactors. We can literally remove all the nuclear waste by building MORE nuclear reactors.
- petre 4y ago
  Plutonium is burned in regular reactors as well. As MOX.