Chernobyl particles reveal unexpectedly stable nuclear fuel after 40 years

(phys.org)

59 points by geox3 days ago

3 comments

bad_username3 days ago
"Stable" here means mechanically stable (they don't fall apart as quickly as was expected), not radiologically stable (the radioactive elements, of course, still decay at their normal rate).
eqvinox3 days ago
The headline sounds weirdly positive... but it's "stable" as in [ed.: ecologically] "long-lived". Very much not a good thing.
- timr1 hour ago
 It means "mechanically stable", which could be either good or bad depending on the question, but is generally a limited good thing.At the least, it means these particular compounds aren't quickly breaking down into ever-smaller nano-particles that can be absorbed into living things.
- boxed1 hour ago
 I think they mean that the fuel rods are not breaking down, aka leaching into the environment, as fast. That's a good thing.
- Mutjake3 days ago
 For radionuclides more long-livd means less radioactive per unit of time, though. Of course uranium compounds can be toxic in the chemical sense as well, but I’m unsure if uranium compounds make it to the top threats in that list compared to e.g. arsenic and lead.Of course radioactivity needs to be respected, and the exclusion zone is there for a reason due to factors such as hot spots.
 - eqvinox3 days ago
 This is "long-lived" in the ecological sense, not radiological. The grains of uranium oxide dust remain grains of uranium oxide dust, rather than breaking apart. If you ingest a few molecules of uranium oxide, it pretty much doesn't matter, you're fine¹. Ingest these dust particles, not so much. It's a question of concentration, and it seems that it's not diluting out naturally.¹ humans contain, on average, 90µg of uranium. [<a href="https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/DU_Eng.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/DU_Eng.pdf</a>](P.S.: the radiological stability and lifetime of uranium doesn't make much sense to question; the dust flakes aren't large & concentrated enough to significantly shorten their half-life due to their own neutron emissions cascading and this isn't what the study was researching. Note the article talks about weathering: "It remains largely unclear why these particles weather at different rates in their environment.")
readthenotes13 days ago
40 years and counting, vs 1 year for Hiroshima
- wat1000053 minutes ago
 190 tons of nuclear fuel, vs 64 kilograms.
- antonvs3 days ago
 Basically, nuclear bombs are much safer than nuclear power plants.
 - Foskya3 days ago
 next step: use nukes as an energy source
 - DennisP1 hour ago
 Check out this 1970s project that proposed extracting electricity from thermonuclear explosions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER</a>> A series of 50-kiloton bombs would be dropped into the cavern and exploded to heat the water and create steam. The steam would then power a secondary cooling loop for power extraction using a steam turbine. Dropping about two bombs a day would cause the system to reach thermal equilibrium, allowing the continual extraction of about 2 GW of electrical power
 - jandrese1 hour ago
 "Hey boss, do you think there is a chance this scheme might introduce radioactive byproducts into the ground water?""Shut up"
 SV_BubbleTime49 minutes ago
 [dead]
 - antonvs2 days ago
 Some of the nuclear rocket propulsion ideas propose exactly that, like Project Orion.
 - hedgehog1 hour ago
 If you like Orion check out Project Pluto (they even built some some test bench engines)