3 ms·

"Infinite half-life" basically means an isotope is stable. Half life is only one piece of the radioactivity story. Knowing how isotopes decay is also important

"Infinite half-life" basically means an isotope is stable. Half life is only one piece of the radioactivity story. Knowing how isotopes decay is also important - alpha, beta decay, spontaneous fission, etc - these differences matter a great deal w.r.t. how to safely handle and store spent fuel. And we don't just "chuck it in a landfill" - here is a good place to start to learn a bit more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository.

mikeash 11y ago
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that modern industry produces a vast amount of poisons with an infinite half life, because they're chemical poisons rather than radioactive poisons. And despite the fact that they last essentially forever, we don't worry about things like deep geological repositories, we just construct reasonably contained landfills and toss the stuff in.
- rwcarlsen 11y ago
  "Poisons" is subjective. Practially all the stable bi-products are naturally occuring in nature and many of them have all sorts of uses [1] [2]. The chemical toxicity of spent nuclear fuel (excluding radioactivity issues) is not worse than many other industrial processes in general. Spent nuclear fuel definitely needs to be treated/handled carefully, but what you say is not a "nuclear" problem - rather it is a 21 century high-tech, industrialized society problem in general. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That's more or less my point. Nuclear waste is similar to other toxic waste in terms of the danger and long-term storage problems. Yet with one we just say "Let's be real careful about how we dispose of this" while with the other we say, "We cannot proceed with any more of this activity until we come up with an absolutely foolproof disposal method that will last longer than civilization itself."

mikeash 11y ago

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that modern industry produces a vast amount of poisons with an infinite half life, because they're chemical poisons rather than radioactive poisons. And despite the fact that they last essentially forever, we don't worry about things like deep geological repositories, we just construct reasonably contained landfills and toss the stuff in.

rwcarlsen 11y ago
"Poisons" is subjective. Practially all the stable bi-products are naturally occuring in nature and many of them have all sorts of uses [1] [2]. The chemical toxicity of spent nuclear fuel (excluding radioactivity issues) is not worse than many other industrial processes in general. Spent nuclear fuel definitely needs to be treated/handled carefully, but what you say is not a "nuclear" problem - rather it is a 21 century high-tech, industrialized society problem in general. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium
- mikeash 11y ago
  That's more or less my point. Nuclear waste is similar to other toxic waste in terms of the danger and long-term storage problems. Yet with one we just say "Let's be real careful about how we dispose of this" while with the other we say, "We cannot proceed with any more of this activity until we come up with an absolutely foolproof disposal method that will last longer than civilization itself."