|
|
|
|
|
by Asooka
35 days ago
|
|
> To do both, they’ll have to guarantee that that column of water stays isolated from groundwater for a long time after the fuel is used up. I wonder if just letting the water gradually dissolve the uranium might not be fine, actually. If it is done far from wells and rivers used for drinking water, then the small amount of radioactive minerals that slowly seep out might not pose a danger. I can't find any studies to back it up, but I imagine there are places on Earth at which enriched uranium buried 1.6km underground poses no threat. I am no expert, so I would love to hear what others think. |
|
One possible of measure of danger is median lethal dose LD50:
Uranium LD50 in mice 114 mg/kg (about the same as Cocaine LD50 96 mg/kg)
Plutonium LD50 in dog 320 μg/kg
Caesium-137 LD50 245 μg/kg
Polonium-210 LD50 10 ng/kg (estimated)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose
There are places underground with high concentration of uranium, they are called uranium ore and sometimes they are mined for uranium.
"The deposit is located at depth of 450 m (1,480 ft), surrounded by and isolated within a layer of water-impermeable illite-chlorite clay, within the Athabasca Sandstone formation. Its age is estimated to be 1.3 billion years. Due to natural containment and lack of any traces of radioactive elements on the surface, the deposit is used as an example of an effective natural deep geological repository."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar_Lake_mine