- Written By: Michael Anissimov
- Edited By: Bronwyn Harris
- Last Modified Date: 04 January 2012
-
Copyright Protected:
2003-2012 Conjecture Corporation
Nuclear waste is the radioactive waste left over from nuclear reactors, nuclear research projects, and nuclear bomb production. Nuclear waste is divided into low, medium, and high-level waste by the amount of radioactivity the waste produces. Although nuclear waste can be very dangerous, and should not be handled by anyone without professional training, it is not necessarily more dangerous than chemical poisons such as ricin and botulin.
The largest source of nuclear waste is naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). All substances are slightly radioactive from the decay of naturally occurring isotopes such as carbon-14, potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232. If the radioactive elements are concentrated by natural processes or human industry, they may become concentrated enough to be treated as nuclear waste. Nuclear waste from NORM is not usually highly radioactive, and might be safe to hold, although it may produce dangerous levels of radioactive radon gas.
The other primary source of nuclear waste is human-built nuclear reactors. After an atom fissions, the two pieces of the nucleus may themselves be radioactive, and may take thousands of years to decay; these pieces are known as fission products. Other sources of nuclear waste include the breeding of new nuclear fuel from uranium, neutron activation of materials in the reactor, and leftover depleted uranium from the enrichment process.
After a nuclear fuel bundle has been removed from a reactor, it still contains most of its original uranium; nuclear fuel is mostly uranium-238, which does not fission easily. Mixed in with the uranium are transuranic elements, produced by neutrons reacting with the uranium, and fission products. This radioactive cocktail can be separated through a process called nuclear reprocessing, which sorts the chemicals inside the spent fuel.
The fission products produced from nuclear reactors are highly radioactive and will remain dangerous for thousands of years; they have no further use, and can be permanently disposed of. Although fission products are the most dangerous form of waste, a nuclear reactor doesn't produce much of them; a 1 GW nuclear reactor only produces around 3,600 pounds (1,500 kilograms) of fission products per year. The transuranic elements are also highly radioactive, but many of them can be used as fresh nuclear fuel; the remainder can be safely fissioned by particle accelerators.
Related Videos
Discuss this Article
|
anon176967
Post 43 |
nuclear waste could probably be an alternative to everyday electricity, because it doesn't produce carbon emissions. although solar power plants would be the best alternative because they are safer than nuclear power plants, and besides they don't have a great chances of exploding like nuclear power plants, obviously it would be the best option, especially for western countries. |
|
anon172769
Post 42 |
what is nuclear waste made up of? I am learning about this for a research paper and this website gave the most useful information yet. |
|
anon160726
Post 40 |
"if it's so safe, why don't you go pick up a fuel rod with your bare hands?" It's funny you should mention that - I happen to have done precisely that, and I'm still here. The primary risk of doing that is dropping it - fuel rods are extremely expensive! A single, unused fuel rod is not dangerous - you need neutrons to make neutrons. Don't forget where all this uranium came from in the first place: the ground. People don't drop dead when they inadvertently walk over a rich uranium seam. "Spent" fuel is hazardous because it has been in a prolonged nuclear reaction and is chock full of fission products such as actinides and other fun stuff. It's probably not as bad as burning coal though. While there's only a small amount of radioactive material in a lump of coal, you go through a heck of a lot of coal per gigawatt, and it all ends up in the atmosphere instead of safely buried in lead lined caskets, not to mention all the other nasty products of combustion. In the final analysis, I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant, and run the minuscule risk of containment breach and contamination, than next to a coal plant and be completely certain of being exposed to masses of carcinogens. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon158006
Post 39 |
Breeder or other reactor technology could greatly extend the lifetime of the nuclear fuel available on the planet and the small amount of long term waste could certainly be launched off the earth by the use of 'super gun' cannons rather than rockets. (Look up Gerald Bull, a Canadian who was building a ballistic satellite launch cannon for Saddam Hussein and was assassinated by Israel). |
|
anon155281
Post 38 |
it is not the naturally occurring decay that needs to be addressed. it is the high concentration levels that humans have processed and continue to do so that does. oh, by the way, if it's so safe, why don't you go pick up a fuel rod with your bare hands?
|
|
anon141712
Post 37 |
NORM is not the biggest source.
|
| Related Topics | |
|
anon128048
Post 36 |
Whoever said that wind power is much better in terms of C02 emissions is just not correct. Nuclear power does not produce C02. It heats water for steam which drives turbines (put very simply). No C02! |
|
anon128045
Post 35 |
To the people who disagree that the largest source of nuclear waste is natural: Where do they get the fuel for the radioactive plants then? Uranium is naturally occurring. |
|
anon112578
Post 33 |
i thought nuclear waste can combust and kill you --something like that. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon109452
Post 32 |
I'm learning about this in english and this was very helpful. |
|
anon107042
Post 31 |
what is needed for the care of nuclear waste? |
|
anon105968
Post 30 |
Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as some people think. my dad has been working with it for years, and says people are too concerned with this stuff. Just because it leaches into the groundwater, and is taken up by fish, and animals that eat fish, and causes cancer, is nothing to be concerned about. Guns are far more dangerous, and bombs. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon105965
Post 28 |
This article is folly, as where it says the largest source of nuclear waste is naturally occurring radioactive material. Every nuclear power station is full of the stuff, as is the groundwater around the site, In the struggle to make the 'nuke' bombs to drop on Japan in World War II, the Washington site was badly contaminated. In short, a nuclear power plant is a chemical factory, producing radioisotopes. They dump these into the rivers and the sea as low level 'waste.' For a time, it was normal to dump the high level waste into the deep oceans. This web page makes out the waste issue to be comparing AIDS to a virus with flu-like symptoms. I suppose the truth is far worse, and this site must be for people who like to pretend that things are fine when the truth is things are clearly not. This is a joke. there is no such thing as disposal. things are either dispersed, or contained. Usually containment leads to dispersal because the containers break down. And about particle accelerators? This article is a joke. I prefer the early 60's propaganda to this garbage. It seems people like to read lies that tell them everything is fine. Hurray for the ostrich. Bury your head in the sand. Whatever happened to intelligence and seeking the truth? I guess I must be an idealist and should not spoil the fantasy of the safe nuclear future and radioactive waste dumped in our oceans! I see, of course, the intelligent people who are busy making up lies and hiding the truth. Doomed, doomed, doomed. Well believe me, when the truth comes out, it will be a stinking mess. Of course by then, it will be a mistake of the past, and well, it is not right to complain about the past. That is wrong. So just enjoy today, and let the corporate giants and governments, and scientists destroy the earth, as they provide for our every need. The irony, folly and tosh utter tripe. God help us all. |
|
anon93687
Post 27 |
To dispose of nuclear waste store in safe location for about 24,000 years with armed guards so someone does not come along and steal it. |
|
anon86968
Post 26 |
What are the health risks of nuclear waste? |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon86226
Post 25 |
nuclear waste is dumb and inferior to other sources. |
|
anon85568
Post 24 |
no one is shooting nuclear waste into the sun! If you're going to say something then research it first. |
|
anon84596
Post 23 |
Nuclear power is the future. Nuclear power politics are the USA's biggest problem to increasing the use of nuke plants. Give everyone a choice on paying for their electricity based on whatever energy source they choose. Let's see if the wind and solar lovers will put their money where their mouth is. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon80448
Post 22 |
I agree we should recycle waste like other countries do. |
|
anon76858
Post 20 |
Let me make one thing clear: no nuclear waste is being shot at the sun! Wind and solar energy cannot handle the current demand for electricity. We cannot bury waste miles down, because we can't dig that far down without the drills melting. The only ways to get rid of it is to contain it, which the USA does, or be smart like the rest of the world and refine it and then recycle into other projects. |
|
anon72523
Post 19 |
In response to comment 17: Cesium-137 is not the longest-lived fission product. Iodine-129 is the longest-lived fission product with a half-life of 15.7 million years. I-129 is particularly dangerous due to its high mobility and health hazards. If I-129 leached out and came in contact with groundwater (if stored in a geologic repository) it could come in contact with drinking water and if consumed by humans would be concentrated in the thyroid gland causing cancer or other health problems. The storage of this particular fission product is challenging. I agree that the US should adopt a closed fuel cycle (including reprocessing and long-term storage). |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon69460
Post 18 |
The US holds no reprocessing program. However, there are many new age theoretical approaches to re-using nuclear waste, such as a terra reactor. It's kind of funny to see so many people think we actually shoot containers of waste into the sun.
|
|
anon67123
Post 17 |
The USA should do what France, Great Britain, Japan and other countries that use nuclear power do - reprocess/recycle nuclear waste. If you do that, the longest lived isotope in the waste will have a half-life of just 30 years (Cesium-137). *All* the long-lived isotopes can be burned as fuel if fission products like Cesium-137 are removed. The *only* reason the USA doesn't do that is that Congress *outlawed* it in 1978 at the behest of those opposed to nuclear power. |
|
anon67048
Post 16 |
you bury them miles down the earth |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon65261
Post 14 |
It would make so much more sense just not to use nuclear power. Instead, we should use wind energy and solar power which is much better when it comes to CO2 emissions and the safety! |
|
anon63528
Post 12 |
Why don't we just not use nuclear power? |
|
anon62431
Post 11 |
Nuclear waste is not shot into the sun! |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon53775
Post 10 |
is there another way to dispose of nuclear waste. |
|
anon53773
Post 9 |
is there another place to shoot nuclear waste. |
|
anon53224
Post 8 |
most nuclear waste is dropped into the sea or shot into the sun. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon48924
Post 6 |
Most nuclear waste is disposed of by being shot into the sun. |
|
anon47028
Post 5 |
In what ways does the nuclear waste impact the environment? |
|
anon29772
Post 4 |
currently there is no known way to "dispose" of the fuel rods. all they can do is to store it somewhere "safe" till they can either figure something out for it or till the radioactivity subsides. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon28480
Post 3 |
Currently, Radwaste is stored on site at the power plant. The US has initiated a plan for a central radwaste burial site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada to keep the radiated material away from populous areas. |
|
anon27123
Post 2 |
how do we dispose of nuclear waste? |
