Revision as of 12:20, 23 February 2015 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,192 editsm Signing comment by Graemem56 - "→Misrepresentation of source: "← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:30, 23 February 2015 edit undoGraemem56 (talk | contribs)251 edits →Misrepresentation of sourceNext edit → | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
I might edit this a bit, in part because of misuse of words, using radioisotopes, rather than radionuclides. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I might edit this a bit, in part because of misuse of words, using radioisotopes, rather than radionuclides. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Specifically, <sup>11</sup>C & <sup>14</sup>C are radio-isotopes, <sup>12</sup> & C<sup>13</sup>C are non-radioactive isotopes. But <sup>14</sup>C, <sup>40</sup>K & <sup>90</sup>Sr are not radio-isotopes for the same reason that <sup>12</sup>C, <sup>41</sup>K & <sup>88</sup>Sr are not isotopes. <sup>14</sup>C, <sup>40</sup>K & <sup>90</sup>Sr are radio-nuclides.] (]) 12:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:30, 23 February 2015
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Radioactive Waste
radioactive waste contains very toxic material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.11.123 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Cost of Storing Radioactive Waste Through Staff
If we take some of the models of storing radioactive waste at 10,000, 100,000 or 1 million years.
I was just wondering if there was a security personnel and there wage were say from the year 2000 as a baseline say a salary $10,000 per year.
What would the salary be of that person doing that job in 10,000, 100,000 or 1 million years time be?
I believe it would take more than one person to maintain such a facility to hold radioactive waste.
This is just a simple question on economics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertoaster2 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 June 2009
Figures lack units
A few figures give the activities in Curies (1 Curie = 3.7e10 decays/sec) as a function of time. But they need to state the amount of waste that produces this activity. Is this for one kg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.140.124 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
according to a turncoat
http://en.wikipedia.org/Radioactive_waste#Illegal_dumping
shouldn't it say "according to a whistleblower"? Turncoat seems unfairly harsh.Ballchef (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Not just harsh, but value laden in a way that whistleblower is not. i am changing it. Just more examples of nuclear industry influence on WP content, i guess. Paxus Calta (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Another idea - while, admittedly, not quite as probable as this being a conspiracy by the nuclear industry big pharma reptilian illuminati - is that the editor who added it was quoting the word used repeatedly in the Guardian article. Kolbasz (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of source
In the section "Geologic disposal": "Aside from dilution, chemically toxic stable elements in some waste such as arsenic remain toxic for up to billions of years or indefinitely."
- The source mentions arsenic in the context of long-term waste problems from carcinogenic elements from the buried wastes produced by non-nuclear methods of generating electricity ! The point being that while we worry about the danger of nuclear waste, these dangers dissapear with time, unlike those of non-nuclear carcinogens in the waste produced by fossile fuel plants. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I might edit this a bit, in part because of misuse of words, using radioisotopes, rather than radionuclides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, C & C are radio-isotopes, & CC are non-radioactive isotopes. But C, K & Sr are not radio-isotopes for the same reason that C, K & Sr are not isotopes. C, K & Sr are radio-nuclides.Graemem56 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Unknown-importance Environment articles
- B-Class glass articles
- Mid-importance glass articles
- B-Class glass articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject Glass articles
- C-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Engineering articles
- Low-importance Engineering articles
- WikiProject Engineering articles