For reference:
Chernobyl did 85 PBq
Global nuclear weapons testing: 400 PBq
Natural Uranium-238: 37,000 PBq
Natural Potassium-40: 15,000,000 PBq
https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-in-t...
For reference:
Chernobyl did 85 PBq
Global nuclear weapons testing: 400 PBq
Natural Uranium-238: 37,000 PBq
Natural Potassium-40: 15,000,000 PBq
https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-in-t...
Not to downplay the risks or consequences, people need to decide that for themselves and the dynamics of how this material ends up dispersed in the environment are complicated, but talking in terms of mass helps put things into perspective.
Wiki has a good writeup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...
Vastly oversimplifying: two versus three dimensions.
E: "Cesium dissolves easily in water."[1]
[1] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137
This is also why mass expansion of reprocessing facilities is completely untenable.
Liquid / molten salts can be reprocessed "online" and the fission products extracted (yeah, handwaves a LOT of chemistry), so you don't get these partially transmuted solid rods.
Even if you have solid rods or solid pebbles doing the primary power, maybe you can have a secondary on-site molten processor to take care of the waste without it shipping.
One of the annoying aspects of arguing with pro-nuclear people is their blind spot for reprocessing/waste. It just gets shrugged/handwaved away, but to the voting public, having a reactor that produces no waste in the traditional solid fuel sense would be a political boon.
The real issue is that nuclear simply isn't price competitive, it barely beats coal. I would like it to be otherwise.
It would be nice, but the list of reasons which are sufficient to stop it happening is very long.
I'm genuinely asking