4 ms·
Radioactive, yes. "Super" radioactive, no. Longer half-life -> less radioactive, by definition. Infinite half-life -> not radioactive at all.
by Turing_Machine 3y ago
Radioactive, yes. "Super" radioactive, no.
Longer half-life -> less radioactive, by definition. Infinite half-life -> not radioactive at all.
- wkat4242 3y agoThat is an oversimplification, it disregards a few things: the concentration of radioisotopes (which is extremely high in spent fuel) and type of decay products (which each have their own half lives, in many cases the radioactivity goes up for some time after the initial decay while decay products break down and eventually reach a stable isotope) and the type of emissions. Also containers that don't break down under centuries of ionising radiation bombardment haven't been invented yet.
- Turing_Machine 3y agoTaking all those into account, after a few hundred years the waste is no more radioactive than the ore from which it came. Note that natural uranium ore has a similar mix of decay products, and isn't in any kind of "container". The notion of it being INSTANT!!! DEATH!!!! FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!!!! is just plain wrong.
- wkat4242 3y ago> Note that natural uranium ore has a similar mix of decay products, and isn't in any kind of "container". A similar mix, yes. A similar concentration, absolutely not. The concentration in ore is extremely low. The Soviets ruined the landscape of half the Czech Republic for a few warheads.
- Turing_Machine 3y agoWell, you're not throwing away any actual uranium in any realistic uranium cycle. You're separating out the "depleted" uranium and using it to breed more fuel (potentially orders of magnitude cheaper than extracting fresh uranium from ore and enriching it).