Something to be aware of: The fact that a radioactive material "is around forever" also implies that it is not very radioactive. You can't make a material that is both intensely radioactive and stays around forever, because it's the radioactivity itself that makes it go away.
Plutonium is Forever
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#22Something to be aware of: The fact that a radioactive material "is around forever" also implies that it is not very radioactive. You can't make a material that is both intensely radioactive and stays around forever, because it's the radioactivity itself that makes it go away.
Plutonium is indeed not "intensely radioactive." The problem with Pu is that if you ingest it, it stays in your body so you can get enough radiation over time to cause cancer. So you're not going to get radiation sickness from Pu, it's just a very potent carcinogen.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just note that robots don't work either, because particle radiation has a nasty way of flipping bits stored in memory. In the presence of a strong beta ray source, you can treat sram and dram as good sources of truly random data. :)
There are of course ways to shield from that (as illustrated by spacecraft and common military electronics), but nuclear station damage control robotics is perhaps too niche application to be implemented.
In fact, an article about this was on HN in the not-too-distant past. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2359081
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#24Something to be aware of: The fact that a radioactive material "is around forever" also implies that it is not very radioactive. You can't make a material that is both intensely radioactive and stays around forever, because it's the radioactivity itself that makes it go away.
[deleted]
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#25Now I'm starting to get worried. This has been up for 2 hours, and typically the "atomic trolls" would have at least 5-6 comments up about how all of this is nothing to worry about. So I guess this is truly bad.
I'm no "atomic troll" and radioactive contamination at Fukushima is potentially a significant problem. But the detected plutonium levels are almost insignificant compared to the detected Cs-137 contamination (whose half-life is 30 years, not months):
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/im... (Pu) http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfil... (Cs-137)
The activity of Cs-137 is orders of magnitude greater.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#26I plead ignorance. Why does a nuclear power station need an external power source? Obviously there is a good reason, but my sleep deprived brain can't fathom it.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#27I plead ignorance. Why does a nuclear power station need an external power source? Obviously there is a good reason, but my sleep deprived brain can't fathom it.
Because when it's shut down, it's not making power anymore...
(It needs power even when operating, but that's for regulatory reasons to maintain redundancy, if I understand correctly.)
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#28A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe.
So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the culture/technology involved (I guess a fortunate meet up of having worked heavily in the nuclear industry and Japan).
Which goes to show; never completely dismiss commentators, one day they might be useful reading.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#29Now I'm starting to get worried. This has been up for 2 hours, and typically the "atomic trolls" would have at least 5-6 comments up about how all of this is nothing to worry about. So I guess this is truly bad.
I'm no "atomic troll" and radioactive contamination at Fukushima is potentially a significant problem. But the detected plutonium levels are almost insignificant compared to the detected Cs-137 contamination (whose half-life is 30 years, not months): http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/im... (Pu) http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfil... (Cs-137) The activity of Cs-137 is o…
Since day 1, I've been reading things like "Unless something catastrophic and unexpected happens, things are ok."
The problem is, catastrophic and unexpected things keep happening. I find the whole thing really depressing, as I think long-term, nuclear power is the best source of energy. But how do you implement it properly? That I don't know.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#30This disaster has caused me to revisit my concerns regarding nuclear energy.
# One of the most challenging technologies ever developed, is under the control of politicians and bankers. A recipe in itself for technical disaster.
# Public concerns, under this regime, end up being counter-productive. "No new nukes" means extending the life of the oldest, most vulnerable technology.
# Human society has demonstrated no stability, sociologically, technologically, nor otherwise, approaching even vaguely the time frames required to safely utilize this technology. It is a huge bet, and burden, on future society -- on the entire planet, actually.
# Nuclear resources on this planet are limited, and unique in their performance profile. There may come a time when we need them for better uses, e.g. early space travel. Forgoing e.g. renewable energy resources for the sake of this "quick fix" is, in the long term, squandering an irreplaceable resource. (Call me when someone finally gets fusion to work.)