Perhaps I was a bit unclear. The waste will _definitely_ be dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years. No questions here.
But in aggregate, it will be less radioactive than the uranium (and its natural daughter products in secular equilibrium) that was expended to produce the waste.
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by acidburnNSA on Tuesday November 14, 2023 @10:27PM
(#38272955)
We're aligned on that metric. I'm using the 'less radioactive than the ore from which it was mined' as the metric here as well. It's between 10,000 and 100,000 years.
Though couldn't you get under 'less radioactive than the ore from which it was mined' by just mixing your waste with a big enough quantity of eg ocean water?
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by acidburnNSA on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @09:32PM
(#38285266)
No, because this metric is normalized as radiotoxicity per tonne of heavy metal. You could dilute it with lots of tonnes of natural or depleted uranium, I suppose, to game it.
The publication above shows the graph vs. time in terms of radiotoxicity, which is widely considered to be the key metric.
What'd you use for the calculations? Generally you need to use something like ORIGEN to get it right.