http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/10/02/political-opponents-unite-behind-nuclear-vision/
the submission is linked to.
JudgeMental said:
http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/10/02/political-opponents-unite-behind-nuclear-vision/the submission is linked to.
Australia is fairly stupid when it comes to nuclear stuff anyway
they allowed some one to actually blow nuclear bombs up over here!!
wookiemeister said:
JudgeMental said:
http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/10/02/political-opponents-unite-behind-nuclear-vision/the submission is linked to.
Australia has most likely been accepting nuclear waste for the last few decades – they just haven’t told anyoneAustralia is fairly stupid when it comes to nuclear stuff anyway
they allowed some one to actually blow nuclear bombs up over here!!
Yeah the Poms, best cracker nights ever.
bob(from black rock) said:
wookiemeister said:
JudgeMental said:
http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/10/02/political-opponents-unite-behind-nuclear-vision/the submission is linked to.
Australia has most likely been accepting nuclear waste for the last few decades – they just haven’t told anyoneAustralia is fairly stupid when it comes to nuclear stuff anyway
they allowed some one to actually blow nuclear bombs up over here!!
Yeah the Poms, best cracker nights ever.
management can never be wrong
by rights the only real use for nuclear is subs and spacecraft
why anyone would be using nuclear power for the national grid is beyond me.
its a giant steam engine with all of the inefficiencies of coal except if anything goes wrong you contaminate huge areas of land
the Australian gov has most likely already been accepting it – the population is just kept in the dark
if anyone ever finds out its too late, they wont be able to move it from the dump anyway
Nuclear isn’t only about power, wookie.
Australia has had to dispose of the wastes generated from nuclear medicine for quite some time.
Not that I support using Australia as a garbage tip.
First question – which nuclear waster?
Low level nuclear waste is safe enough to eat.
Intermediate level nuclear waste is safe enough to keep in an urn on the mantlepiece. On Brainiacs they were able to show that intermediate-level nuclear waste had less radioactivity than low-sodium salt which was sold for human consumption.
High level nuclear waste is safe enough under nine feet of water – such as the Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the arctic.
Time matters too, radiation from high level nuclear waste has dropped in intensity by a factor of 10 in 100 years. That’s why nuclear waste is generally held for 30 to 50 years before permanent disposal. Borosilicate glass is a good strategy for containing high level nuclear waste. The ANSTO Synrock method is even better.
Also, by 100 years after initial formation, the dominant source of radiation has shifted from strontium-90 and caesium-137 to americium-141. Americium-141 can then be mined for use in home smoke detectors. You do know that your home contains high level nuclear waste already don’t you? If not, you don’t care, do you?
BUT
Whereas I’m quite happy to bury nuclear waste in the back yard (literally) when it comes from civilian power sources. At least twice as much nuclear waste was produced in the production of atomic bombs than has ever come from civilian nuclear reactors. I’m not happy about supporting nuclear weapons production.
mollwollfumble said:
First question – which nuclear waster?Low level nuclear waste is safe enough to eat.
Intermediate level nuclear waste is safe enough to keep in an urn on the mantlepiece. On Brainiacs they were able to show that intermediate-level nuclear waste had less radioactivity than low-sodium salt which was sold for human consumption.
High level nuclear waste is safe enough under nine feet of water – such as the Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the arctic.
Time matters too, radiation from high level nuclear waste has dropped in intensity by a factor of 10 in 100 years. That’s why nuclear waste is generally held for 30 to 50 years before permanent disposal. Borosilicate glass is a good strategy for containing high level nuclear waste. The ANSTO Synrock method is even better.
Also, by 100 years after initial formation, the dominant source of radiation has shifted from strontium-90 and caesium-137 to americium-141. Americium-141 can then be mined for use in home smoke detectors. You do know that your home contains high level nuclear waste already don’t you? If not, you don’t care, do you?
BUT
Whereas I’m quite happy to bury nuclear waste in the back yard (literally) when it comes from civilian power sources. At least twice as much nuclear waste was produced in the production of atomic bombs than has ever come from civilian nuclear reactors. I’m not happy about supporting nuclear weapons production.
>>Low level nuclear waste is safe enough to eat.<< and maybe so too is camel shit, but why would you eat either?
mollwollfumble said:
First question – which nuclear waster?Low level nuclear waste is safe enough to eat.
Intermediate level nuclear waste is safe enough to keep in an urn on the mantlepiece. On Brainiacs they were able to show that intermediate-level nuclear waste had less radioactivity than low-sodium salt which was sold for human consumption.
High level nuclear waste is safe enough under nine feet of water – such as the Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the arctic.
Time matters too, radiation from high level nuclear waste has dropped in intensity by a factor of 10 in 100 years. That’s why nuclear waste is generally held for 30 to 50 years before permanent disposal. Borosilicate glass is a good strategy for containing high level nuclear waste. The ANSTO Synrock method is even better.
Also, by 100 years after initial formation, the dominant source of radiation has shifted from strontium-90 and caesium-137 to americium-141. Americium-141 can then be mined for use in home smoke detectors. You do know that your home contains high level nuclear waste already don’t you? If not, you don’t care, do you?
BUT
Whereas I’m quite happy to bury nuclear waste in the back yard (literally) when it comes from civilian power sources. At least twice as much nuclear waste was produced in the production of atomic bombs than has ever come from civilian nuclear reactors. I’m not happy about supporting nuclear weapons production.
wookiemeister, you wanted a nuclear power source for your moon rocket, didn’t you. Here’s your chance. High level nuclear waste contains high quantities of both strontium-90 and americium-141. Both of these are used a fuels for radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs), see sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator .
“90Sr decays by β emission, with minor γ emission. Its half life of 28.8 years” is just about perfect for spaceflight use. Strontium-90 has “a power density of 0.46 watts per gram. 90Sr is a high yield waste product of nuclear fission and is available in large quantities at a low price.”
“241Am has a half-life of 432 years and could hypothetically power a device for centuries.The power density of 241Am is” about 0.135 watts per gram. “Its shielding requirements in an RTG are the second lowest of all possible isotopes”.
(I mentioned before that the isotope with the lowest shielding requirements, 238Pu, has to be specially produced to order and is so rare that the stockpile of the entire USA is not sufficient for even a single rocket.)
No one’s asked how you separate 241Am from 242Am so I assume everyone is asleep.
Results of long term exposure to nuclear radiation.
Hiroshima.
Nagasaki
mollwollfumble said:
Whereas I’m quite happy to bury nuclear waste in the back yard (literally) when it comes from civilian power sources. At least twice as much nuclear waste was produced in the production of atomic bombs than has ever come from civilian nuclear reactors. I’m not happy about supporting nuclear weapons production.
FWIW my desired option is to encase the waste in Synroc, then dump it in the ocean – Over an active subduction zone.
The waste then gets carried back into the Earth, where it can do no harm at all.