Timeline for Why is nuclear waste more dangerous than the original nuclear fuel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2016 at 16:28 | comment | added | J. Manuel | @isilanes When combining question title with the following passage in the body of the question: “… it has to be more stable than what was put in and thus safer …” one is driven to it. Remember that in terms of radioactivity more stable usually implies less radioactive, since radioactivity itself, is the result of instability of an atom nucleus. We do say $\rm ^{238}U$ is a more stable than $\rm ^{60}Co$ because first is less radioactive than the former and vice-versa. As always, conclusions from “implies” are always open to discussion. I just wanted to clarify it before starting my reply. | |
| Nov 22, 2016 at 16:21 | comment | added | J. Manuel | @isilanes From the perspective that the explosion (power generated) is the end product, waste is a byproduct. From the perspective of the physical process ending up in power generation it is not. The process is: Fuel (input)->Fission (reaction)->Radioactive waste (output). Since I don’t believe the OP is comparing how dangerous is the power generated with the radioactivity of the fuel; more importantly, he clearly compares “nuclear waste” [or output of fission reaction] with the “original nuclear fuel” [or input of fission reaction], I believe that my conclusion is legit. | |
| Nov 22, 2016 at 12:50 | comment | added | isilanes | Who said that "the output of a reaction is necessarily less dangerous" than its input? What the OP implies is that (in your example), it's counterintuitive to assume that the byproducts of a dynamite explosion are more dangerous than dynamite itself (if the danger comes from explosion). | |
| Nov 21, 2016 at 10:19 | history | edited | J. Manuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| S Nov 18, 2016 at 21:36 | history | edited | Prof. Legolasov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fix typos, spelling, grammar, awkward phrasings.
|
| S Nov 18, 2016 at 21:36 | history | suggested | ErikE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fix typos, spelling, grammar, awkward phrasings.
|
| Nov 18, 2016 at 21:28 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 18, 2016 at 21:36 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2016 at 12:40 | history | edited | J. Manuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2016 at 11:03 | history | edited | J. Manuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| S Nov 16, 2016 at 10:58 | history | suggested | Graipher | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed typos of atomic masses
|
| Nov 16, 2016 at 10:57 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 16, 2016 at 10:58 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2016 at 10:53 | history | edited | J. Manuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2016 at 10:44 | history | answered | J. Manuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |