Gates Goes Nuclear

[sgominator]

Re: Gates Goes Nuclear

Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 both have half lifes in the 30 day range. Meaning in 1 year, any amount of either would reduce 99.98% or more.

No,
30 Years.
unless the EPA , the IEAA and Wikipedia are wrong

[c1ue]

Re: Gates Goes Nuclear

No,
30 Years.
unless the EPA , the IEAA and Wikipedia are wrong

Quite correct - my bad.

In other words, the roughly 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the US, Soviet Union, France, Britain, etc - the world ending Cesium, Iodine, Strontium, Plutonium and other radioactive byproducts must surely have ended the world already, because the radioactives released by these are almost all still around.

Let's not forget all the naturally occurring radioactive breakdown substances.

The Earth weighs roughly 6 x 10exp24 kg

The Earth's crust is about 1% of that - so weighs roughly 6x10exp22 kg
Uranium is roughly in the part per million range, so that means there's 6 x 10exp16 kgs of uranium, and U235 is .75% of all uranium - giving us 4.5 x 10exp14 kgs of U235 in the Earth's crust.
U235 half life is 703.8 million years, so the annual breakdown of this mass would be 640,000 kg.

640,000 kg of radioacives produced every year - even without man!

Its a wonder we exist at all.

[aaron]

Re: Gates Goes Nuclear

I don't see this happening any time soon (the next 100 years, at least). And why has nothing to do with solving the technical problems. Cheap energy would result in a model of economic prosperity based on abundance where the big winners would be the common people. The big losers would be vested special interests whose profits depend on scarcity. Those special interests are quite willing and able to spend billions to shape "public" opinion to whatever best suits their continued dominance. Sorry about the pessimism but that's the way I see it.

I have a feeling Bill Gates agrees with you, and he wants common people to have more prosperity. I am happy somebody is trying if government/vested interests are not willing.

[sgominator]

Re: Gates Goes Nuclear

In other words, the roughly 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the US, Soviet Union, France, Britain, etc - the world ending Cesium, Iodine, Strontium, Plutonium and other radioactive byproducts must surely have ended the world already, because the radioactives released by these are almost all still around.

Mathematics matter.
Let's pick the Fat Man device as an example, as most of the later nuclear weapons designs are classified.
The fat man device was fueled by 6,2 Kg of Plutonium, 1 Kg of which got fissioned at the time of detonation.
Let's assume this as an averege of later bombs, as the many small tactical weapons in the kiloton range compensate for the biggest ones like "Castle Bravo".
Fission products are roughly the same mass as the fissioned fuel

1000 x 1 = 1000 Kg of fission products

"Each year, nuclear power generation facilities worldwide produce about 200,000 m³ of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m³ of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste"
1 m^3 x mass of nuclear waste > 1 T (assuming nuclear waste is denser than water)
hence

Total nuclear waste produced by weapons since the 40s = 1 T
Nuclear waste produced each year for power generation = 210,000 T

Let's not forget all the naturally occurring radioactive breakdown substances.
[...]
the annual breakdown of this mass would be 640,000 kg.

Most of it buried kilometers under the surface

Its a wonder we exist at all.

I agree with You on this

PS. I have the distinct feeling that US people have no idea of the scale of the problem of nuclear waste

[c1ue]

Re: Gates Goes Nuclear

Total nuclear waste produced by weapons since the 40s = 1 T
Nuclear waste produced each year for power generation = 210,000 T

The problem is - you're comparing the bomb weights vs. total reactor output.

Actual radioactive amounts in the latter grouping is significantly smaller.

Most of it buried kilometers under the surface

Doesn't matter - with long half lives, they get churned up by convection just like everything else.

I agree with You on this

PS. I have the distinct feeling that US people have no idea of the scale of the problem of nuclear waste

I agree nuclear waste is a problem - but at least part of it is due to tremendous fearmongering on what is and is not a real problem.

PCBs, for example, dwarf the amount of nuclear waste.

Thing is - unless we're prepared to return to a neolithic existence, impossible to avoid them.