●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bycrazyvortex ( 9942666 ) writes:
Excellent findings!
However, I'm worried that the economies that drive innovation in nuclear power will favor convenience and short term cost over long term sustainability.
byJanSand ( 5746424 ) writes:
I am certainly no one to claim real depths of possibilities for the safety in nuclear power generation and safety but current indications indicate that human understanding and control seem to put us in the same category as neanderthals in regard to their control of fire, When huge profits are involved in the mass production of crude devices for spreading nuclear power systems throughout the world, the lesson to be learned from the massive spread of the spread of weaponry throughout the populace and its lack
bye3m4n ( 947977 ) writes:
Do not conflate the word waste with actual radioactive waste as measured by an AN/PDR-56. Most waste is completely free of contamination and is no more dangerous than your smelly socks. Regulations require it bagged as RAM regardless.
byJanSand ( 5746424 ) writes:
Very good, Then I must only fear the minor 400,000 tons of reported annual radioactive waste. That's a great relief.
bye3m4n ( 947977 ) writes:
Yes you should be relieved. If that was an actual measurement of actual radioactive material, then your source point radiation equation would have the shit pegging a Geiger-Muller detector the next county over. Let me put it this way, if they regulated viral contamination the way they do radioactive contamination, they wouldnt be allowed to just wipe down the point-of-sale screens at a store. There would be too many grooves and seams, that they couldnt get a good reading on, to determined it was free of con
byJanSand ( 5746424 ) writes:
In all probability you have a point, but human and other biologies have been designed by evolution over many millions of years to deal with all sorts of biological dangers. High radioactivity, on the other hand, although it is a common phenomenon outside the planet's atmosphere away from the radioactive shielding from most of this activity involved with our planetary forces, have little if any protection from the strong radio activities associated with reactor energies. Statistics associated with atomic pow
bye3m4n ( 947977 ) writes:
I would start with reading on how radiation interacts with matter. There is two primary types: EM radiation, gamma particles not all that different than visible light and your wifi router. What varies is frequency. Then there is sub atomic particles like protons, neutrons, and ions. They interact kinetically. The physics is that of scattering reactions. The cancer relationship is when it creates mutation in the DNA strands of cells by wiping out alleles. In some ways prolonged exposure is more dangerous than an acute dose of higher energy simply because its a dice game as to if it strikes the right atom in a strand of dna to cause an affect. Talking on your cellphone 10hrs a day every day probably increases your chances of that em radiation generating a defect.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byJanSand ( 5746424 ) writes:
Alpha radiation and beta are particles whereas gamma is electromagnetic and at the high frequencies of x rays and beyond is particularly dangerous. All three are involved in nuclear activity and gamma can be most penetrating, II radioactive material becomes lodged where it sends radiation continuously into sensitive tissue it can severely damage basic cell structure and is difficult or impossible to remove.
bye3m4n ( 947977 ) writes:
Alpha particles are not specifically radiation, its a helium atom with no electrons. So it has a +2 charge. Its charged particle interaction. But its charge also keeps it from penetrating the dead layer of skin. Your alpha risk exist entirely from gasses that alpha decay in your lungs as they have no protection from charged particles. Beta is a little more concerning (a hydrogen ion) +1, but clothing also stops it. You forgot neutrons. Those are the ones that create ions by colliding with nuclei. Neutron em
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...