Yes nuclear waste is radioactive, so its possible that just being near it can harm you (if it isn't shielded)
But so is naturally occurring uranium, radium, thorium, etc.
The highly radioactive parts of the waste have shorter half lives. Lock it away in the correct type of container in a place like Yucca mountain, and the concern from the shorter half life materials is largely gone. Yes there may be detectable radiation 10 million years later, but the radiation won't be much of a concern after a thousand to ten thousand years.
And even before that, while it could be a hazard, if it was released in to the environment, there would also be a hazard if a large concentration of durable chemical toxins was not contained.
There isn't any evidence (at least no solid evidence) that suggests that anyone has been killed by nuclear reactors built in wealthy developed countries except perhaps early research plants. And no major environmental damage has been caused by these plants (at least not directly, reactors used to make the material for nuclear bombs obviously are an indirect contributor to death and environmental damage).
Compare this to the safety record when dealing with all different sorts of non-nuclear materials of other forms of energy generation. Or note the fact that coal burning plants release much more radiation in to the environment than nuclear plants do. This is true both in terms of atmospheric release, and in terms of waste
----
"the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
from
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
sciam.com
Also from that article
"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.
McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors."
sciam.com
So while nuclear and coal power do caused issues with radiation, those issues are almost always minor in terms of how people are actually effected by the plants or wastes from the plants.
Sure I'd recommend that you don't go rolling around in concentrated high level radioactive waste, but merely being in the same county as the waste isn't much of an issue.
---
Also -
"Accidental Ingestion Studied
During the Manhattan Project in 1944 and 1945, 26 men accidentally ingested plutonium in quantities that far exceeded what is now considered to be a lethal dose. Since there has been a consistent interest in the health effects of this brand new substance (first discovered by Glenn Seaborg's team at the University of California in 1940), these men were closely tracked for medical studies.
Forty Years Later
As of 1987, more than four decades later, only four of the workers had died and only one death was caused by cancer. The expected number of deaths in a random sample of men the age of those in the group is 10. The expected number of deaths from cancer in a similar group is between two and three.
The sample size is quite small; even during a crash wartime program, people normally handle plutonium with extreme care. Even people who work directly with the material in a manufacturing process that involves grinding and shaping can be adequately protected.
It is, of course, possible that the differences between expected deaths and actual deaths is just a statistical aberration. With small sample sizes, it is likely that large variations in mortality rate will be seen.
It has to be considered important, however, to know that at least 22 men have been able to live more than 40 years after ingesting "the most toxic substance known to man." It should make one question the motives and accuracy of Ralph Nader, a public figure who has actively promoted such an obviously inaccurate statement."
atomicinsights.com |
