3 ms·
I assume it does not need to be mentioned that this does NOT "clean up" nuclear waste. It just means that the constant energy emitted by it can be harnessed by
by tempfile 11mo ago
I assume it does not need to be mentioned that this does NOT "clean up" nuclear waste. It just means that the constant energy emitted by it can be harnessed by these fungi. The radioactive material will remain hazardous for the same amount of time as if the fungi did not exist.
- HelloNurse 11mo agoFungi "eating" radioactive materials would disperse them to some extent, making the contamination problem worse.
- matthewfcarlson 11mo agoIf I had a chunk of uranium but it was covered in an algae that absorbed all radiation out of the chunk, isn’t it much faster? As the effects of the uranium is largely mitigated.
- Akronymus 11mo agoAt most it'd act as a form of shielding, pretty sure. Even if it were to incorporate the uranium, the "best" effect you'd get is diffusion of the chunk.
- tempfile 11mo ago> isn't it much faster No. Radioactive materials decay at the same rate no matter what you do to them. > the effects of the uranium is largely mitigated Very different from decaying faster. It's possible that by covering it in algae you block the radiation from escaping. But the algae is still going to have to sit there for 10000 years without moving before the waste is decayed. You're better off sticking it inside lead.