NMR Shows That Nuclear Storage Degrades

eldavojohn writes to point out recent research using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imagery that shows that certain nuclear waste storage containers may not be as safe as previously thought. From the article: "[R]adiation emitted from [plutonium] waste could transform one candidate storage material into less durable glass after just 1,400 years — much more quickly than thought... The problem is that the radioactive waste damages the matrix that contains it. Many of the waste substances, including plutonium-239, emit alpha radiation, which travels for only very short distances (barely a few hundredths of a millimeter) in the ceramic, but creates havoc along the way."

Comments

Whiskey Tango Hotel

[AKAImBatman]

Many of the waste substances, including plutonium-239, emit alpha radiation, which travels for only very short distances (barely a few hundredths of a millimeter) in the ceramic, but creates havoc along the way.

First of all, why is that stuff sitting in a nuclear waste container? It's good, fissile material that could supply much-needed energy to our power grid. Stop being a bunch of pansies and BURN IT IN A REACTOR! That will not only massively reduce the amount of waste, but it will turn much of the remaining material into extremely hot isotopes that will go inert (or nearly so) in a much shorter period of time.

Secondly, Pu-239 emits a very small amount of radiation. With a half-life of 24,000 years, it barely even raises the background levels. At a whopping 10 fissions per kilo per second, I doubt that much of the radiation is even escaping the material. I presume that the real safety problem is Pu-240 contaimination. A problem that wouldn't exist if they burned the materials instead of storing them.

Lastly, can someone please inform the press that the 1980's called? They want their "one of the most deadly by-products" scare-mongering back. There are far more deadly materials in this world than a bit of plutonium. Caffeine being a prime example. We dillute caffeine so much that we don't realize that too a few grams is actually quite deadly. (Find out how much of your favorite caffinated product would be needed to kill you here.) So maybe we can start reporting these things for what they are (engineering and safety issues) rather than what they're not (mini-Chernobyl levels of contamination). Maybe? *sigh* I suppose not.

Someone should setup a lobby group who's job would be to convince the government to let us use our nuclear fuels instead of declaring everything as waste in a mostly useless gesture to stop the mythical nuclear terrorist of the month.

Re:Whiskey Tango Hotel

[AKAImBatman]

A few micrograms of inhaled plutonium dust could significantly increase your risk of lung cancer.

And you're going to get airborne particals of a material with an atomic weight of 94 from an underground bunker, how again?

Safety tip: Don't grind up your plutonium with diamond reinforced tools from Home Depot.

Moreover, the "most deadly material" label for plutonium is usually associated with the Pu238 used in RTGs.

1. RTFA. It calls Pu-239 "one of the most deadly by-products of nuclear power". Their words, not mine.

2. Pu-238 is HOT. As in temperature wise. Its actual radioactive properties are not nearly as deadly due to its primary mode of decay being Alpha particles. (Unless, of course, you just can't resist drilling or grinding some in your home workshop to make airborne particles. In that case, you'll be forever immortalized in the Darwin awards. And if you manage to survive somehow, expect the feds to be less than happy with your posession of such materials.)

Seriously, it's not like this stuff is going to start oozing into everything. It's pretty stable (and HEAVY!) stuff. It's not going anywhere. It should be treated as a potentially toxic material, but it's not anywhere near a leading cause of death, nor is it likely to become one. Most of the nuclear materials problems we have are due to contamination from nuclear detonations. Contamination we've lived with for over 50 years.

This is a totally different isotope from the waste you're discussing, and with a half-life measured in a few decades rather than thousands of years, it is extremely deadly.

You forgot, "if inhaled or ingested". Touching it will probably give you third degree burns and a mildly elevated dosage of gamma and X-rays.

Basically, handle with care as you would any volatile industrial material. It's deadly to the handler if handled improperly, just like every other dangerous industrial material. Treat with proper respect, and don't stick your fingers in any rotating blades.

Re:So why not sink it?

[Short Circuit]

Burying waste at sea is a violation of international law.

My own idea was to bury the waste in a subduction zone, so that the waste would be drawn back into the Earth's mantle. Turns out, however, that that's also considered burial at sea.

No, I don't remember where I read the above info. Some site dedicated to discussion of the disposal of nuclear waste, IIRC.

Re:It's an economic problem in the US.

[Firethorn]

It was banned by presidential order by Jimmy Carter in 1977 due to fears of reproccessing resulting in proliferation.

Still, reprocessing is going on today in France and Japan, at the least.

Like others said, the 'waste' sitting on site could be reprocessed to provide enough fuel and reduce the amount of waste to the point that Yucca mountain wouldn't be necessary.

Going with breeder reactors and other more efficient designs would be good too.

Personally, if I was the EO(Evil Overlord) of the USA, I'd institute a practice of reprocessing nuclear waste as well as a building program to replace all the coal plants with modern nuclear ones. Kyoto, eat my dust. After shutting down all the coal plants, I'd work on replacing the old nuclear ones.

Result: Clean, safe, plentiful electricity, reduced emissions, etc...

Re:It's an economic problem in the US.

[Chris Burke]

Three Mile Island is an example of how the system actually works to protect.

Fun Three Mile Island fact: The TMI reactor suffered a form of worst-case failure -- a runaway reaction when all of the control rods were removed and could not be reinserted -- and as a result released less radiation into the atmosphere than a coal plant does in a single day of normal operation.

Reactor designs have only improved since then.

There are political forces at work against nuclear power, and they have galvanized a large portion of the populace with fear of the nuclear boogeyman. There is no rational reason to fear nuclear power any more. If we can work on that issue, then maybe we can start to work on the political issues. With people still screaming in terror at the thought of nuclear power, we can never build the momentum to take on the special interests.

Re:It's an economic problem in the US.

[Vellmont]

It was banned by presidential order by Jimmy Carter in 1977 due to fears of reproccessing resulting in proliferation.

Which might have made some political sense at the time, given that we were in the middle of a cold war and everyone was insane about making more and more nuclear weapons.

But now it's just dumb, and should eventually be reversed. There's no political will to do it right now for a number of reasons. It's cheaper to just buy new fuel, so the power plant lobby doesn't really want it to happen. The far left is scared shitless by anything nuclear, so even though it's a wise environmental move they sure as hell don't want to support it, and the far right wants to bury it's head in the sand with any environmental concern. So who's left? A few geeks who value efficiency and aren't afraid of things they don't initially understand.