## Understanding basic nuclear topics

I have never touched upon complicated topics of nuclear related subjects in my class(High school), except for the half life of uranium 238 and other nuclear decay subjects to find the age of rocks etc...
I was reading some of the topics in this particular category and I saw that the conversations are those of advance nuclear topics. But, wanting to understand more about nuclear power, I had to ask the following questions.

Why are most of the people including me, to my belief see the word "nuclear" as a threat of some sort?

Can nuclear waste somehow be disposed of its nuclear effects? As in people don't get affected by it [ A simple google search can answer this question, but I would like to see the forums opinion]

Is Computer Science largely used in the, nuclear field? ( This is mostly a personal question, since I'm interested in Computer Science and science in general)

Pardon me for my grammar, and if the discussion does not provide details or is ignorant
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Leading 3-D printer firms to merge in $403M deal (Update)>> LA to give every student an iPad;$30M order>> CIA faulted for choosing Amazon over IBM on cloud contract
 Recognitions: Gold Member Computer science is very much integral to nuclear work. The basic physics of nuclear reactions are well understood, but keeping the multiple parameters involved properly sorted is exactly what computers do best. Nuclear simulations are pretty close to the most advanced computer work done in the US. The idea of 'nuclear wastes' is misleading, because it covers some very different items. Most people think of spent nuclear fuel as nuclear waste, although it is only spent in terms of use within current reactor designs. The vast bulk of the energy potential is still in that fuel for future access. This is a valuable resource, not waste. However, there is also real nuclear waste, machinery that has been contaminated, clothing and handling elements that are more or less radioactive, mining wastes and processing residues. These must be treated as the dangerous materials they are, much as we treat toxins or poisons, we remove them from human interaction. Do note that most poisons, such as arsenic, never become less dangerous, so they have to be kept safe forever just as much as nuclear material. Nuclear gets considerable attention, but is really just another such long term danger that our civilization deals with.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by vaironl Why are most of the people including me, to my belief see the word "nuclear" as a threat of some sort?
The cold war and the threat of nuclear annihilation along with multiple nuclear reactor meltdowns or other incidents that has spread radioactive material over a large area. Also, there has been an almost 1 sided approach to the subject in popular films, shows, and books, which is the side that nuclear power and weapons are dangerous and can kill you and do weird things to you and all life. This has led to a severe misunderstanding about what radiation is and what it can do, and hence has led to great fear of it. (Not all of it is unreasonable fear, but I know of pretty much no one that actually knows what radiation is outside of physics people)

 Can nuclear waste somehow be disposed of its nuclear effects? As in people don't get affected by it [ A simple google search can answer this question, but I would like to see the forums opinion]
Only in very specific conditions and it is very difficult to do. It pretty much isn't feasible at all.

Recognitions:
Gold Member

## Understanding basic nuclear topics

 Why are most of the people including me, to my belief see the word "nuclear" as a threat of some sort?
I think because the power reactor came after the bomb not before it.