Submitted by rosTopicEchoChamber t3_zxuwtv in space
Blakut t1_j2387ey wrote
Reply to comment by HeebieMcJeeberson in What if we kept pursuing nuclear spacecraft propulsion? by rosTopicEchoChamber
nuclear waste is made into something more than it is by climate activists, in reality all the dangerous waste ever produced would fit on cube the size of a football field.
HeebieMcJeeberson t1_j2395rr wrote
Yeah the thing is that it's not a cube the size of a football field, it's in thousands of containers in numerous storage locations all over, and in every place the containers have to be checked and periodically replaced or repaired. I know some people overplay the danger but it's not a trivial problem to underplay either.
ShaggysGTI t1_j23rvhj wrote
HeebieMcJeeberson t1_j264fc6 wrote
This is the story of a 1987 incident in Brazil, in which a small canister of Cesium^137 that had been left in an abandoned cancer treatment facility was found by randos who sold it to a junk dealer, who noticed it glowing blue at night and opened it. A handful of cesium chloride crystals and dust ended up being distributed to people around the community, who used it to bling their bodies and possessions. When people immediately got sick the news reached national authorities, who eventually tested over 100,000 people for exposure. Almost 250 people were highly contaminated, 4 died and 20 developed serious injuries, losing fingers and other body parts. A city block of buildings was demolished and the debris was sealed up along with cars, clothing, family possessions, etc. It was the worst radiological disaster in Brazil's history.
It's a good story about the dangers of badly managing radioactive materials, and what can happen when concentrated nuclides used in thousands of hospitals around the world are opened and handled by people who don't know what they're doing. I'm guessing somebody thought this was relevant to my statement that a total rocket failure would release 2% of the contaminants from a single typical 1950s atom bomb test (more than 2000 of which were performed worldwide).
boh_nor12 t1_j24r3ki wrote
But definitely in the size of a few foot all fields. At least for the North American WIPP site (been there in person a few times).
HeebieMcJeeberson t1_j25whne wrote
Nuclear waste depositories in America
When WIPP says "disposal" they mean "storage".
boh_nor12 t1_j26hwfd wrote
You know, that's an interesting thought.... Disposal vs storage. What classifies as "disposal?" Physically altering something? I'm going to think on this a little.
Edit: and apologies for not commenting on your link. You are correct, those are sites of commercial byproduct. From my understanding, the WIPP is only utilized for federal nuclear waste. At the moment, the US does not have a permanent geological storage/disposal facility for commercial waste. Each of those on that map are most facilities that used to have a reactor nearby.
Withstrangeaeons_ t1_j26j6n3 wrote
Yes. And I think this is kind of good - after all, why bury that much potential energy when you can just use it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments