Spread it over a large surface area?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of accelerating the decay of radioactive waste by spreading it over a large surface area. Participants explore the implications of this idea, particularly in relation to the nature of radioactive decay and the characteristics of individual atoms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether spreading radioactive material over a large surface area could enhance energy dispersion and speed up decay.
  • Another participant asserts that the decay of atoms is independent of their environment, indicating that spreading them out would not affect their decay rate.
  • A participant confirms that individual uranium atoms have a long half-life of approximately 4.7 billion years, suggesting that they remain stable for that duration on average.
  • It is noted that all radioactive atoms remain radioactive and potentially harmful for several half-lives until they decay, and they may decay into other radioactive atoms while emitting various types of radiation.
  • One participant mentions that certain low-Z electron-capture decay half-lives might be altered slightly by packing atoms in dense crystals, and proposes neutron irradiation or subcritical reactors as potential methods for treating reactor waste.
  • Another participant reiterates that spreading radioactive material over a larger surface area does not influence its decay process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the initial proposition of spreading radioactive waste to accelerate decay. While some participants emphasize that the decay process is unaffected by surface area, the original question remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of radioactive decay and the effects of environmental factors, which are not fully explored. There are references to specific decay processes and waste treatment methods that may require further clarification.

Blenton
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
I assume there is something wrong with my thinking, but couldn't you be able to speed up the decay of radioactive waste by spreading it over a large surface area so that it could disperse its energy much better? I understand half life refers to the majority bulk of a material, but if you were to spread the material into individual atoms, what happens then?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The atoms decay when they decay. The environment they are in makes no difference.
 
Then individual uranium atoms are safe for about 4.7 billion years?
 
Blenton said:
Then individual uranium atoms are safe for about 4.7 billion years?

On average, yes :smile:
 
All radioactive atoms (nuclei of atoms) remain radioactive and potentially harmful for a few or many half-lives until they decay. Sometimes they decay into other radioactive atoms. They normally emit alphas, betas (electrons or positrons), or gamm rays. I have read that some low-Z electron-capture decay half lives can be changed by maybe 0.1% by packing them in dense crystals. The best way to treat reactor wastes (other than Yucca Mountain) is to irradiate them with neutrons or "burn" them up in a subcritical reactor that is assisted by a proton accelerator. See
http://www.wipp.energy.gov/science/adtf/ATW.pdf
 
Bob S said:
All radioactive atoms (nuclei of atoms) remain radioactive and potentially harmful for a few or many half-lives until they decay. Sometimes they decay into other radioactive atoms. They normally emit alphas, betas (electrons or positrons), or gamm rays. I have read that some low-Z electron-capture decay half lives can be changed by maybe 0.1% by packing them in dense crystals. The best way to treat reactor wastes (other than Yucca Mountain) is to irradiate them with neutrons or "burn" them up in a subcritical reactor that is assisted by a proton accelerator. See
http://www.wipp.energy.gov/science/adtf/ATW.pdf

Well that's very interesting, but the answer to the OP is as stated above: No, it does not matter if you "spread it out over a larger surface area."
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K