I read a comment elsewhere that thorium is a alternative to uranium with no downside. Is this true?

[snagglepuss]

"Thorium Fission is intrinsically safer than Uranium Fission. Thorium is so stable, it can't even spontaneously start a reaction on its own. Its waste products are much safer. 20th century reactors used Uranium because its by products could be used in weapons programmes. Thorium is also more plentiful, and we have supplies that would last for a thousand years. So now, are we still certain that all nuclear power should be dismissed?"

[bananas]

1. No, it has lots of downsides, ignore the hype. nt

[kristopher]

12. delete duplicate

[kristopher]

13. You have to keep your eye on the ball when it comes to nuclear industry claims

There are a number of competing technologies that each have a different set of positive and negative characteristics.

The 2003 MIT pronuclear study "The Future of Nuclear Power" looked at all the available technologies, and rated them on their efficacy in 4 crucial areas:
Cost, safety, waste, proliferation.

They selected the uranium once-through fuel cycle as the technology providing the best balance in the 4 areas. Thorium was looked at.

In 2010 MIT looked at alternative fuel cycles including thorium and in reference to once through uranium concluded:
"1. our analysis of thorium versus uranium fuel cycles (appendix a) found advantages and disadvantages for both fuel cycles—but the differences were not sufficient to fundamentally alter conclusions."

Thorium is not a better solution than uranium, nor does it make fission generally a good solution to AGW.

[bananas]

36. New article in The Guardian: "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
It produces less radioactive waste and more power but it remains unproven on a commercial scale.

From the Ecologist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
* Eifion Rees for the Ecologist
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 June 2011 16.52 BST

<snip>

In fact, a 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) report (PDF)concluded the thorium fuel cycle 'does not currently have a role to play in the UK context is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead' – in short, it concluded, the claims for thorium were 'overstated'.

<snip>

Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a 'dishonest fantasy' perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

<snip>

[txlibdem]

42. Don't believe the pro-fossil fuel shills

Thorium is common in the Earth’s crust, consisting of about 10 parts per million of common continental crust, approximately three to four times more common than uranium. Thorium is not fissile and consists of a single natural isotope (232) but thorium can be converted to a fissile fuel by the absorption of a neutron followed by a short period of beta decay. After absorbing a neutron, thorium-232 is transmuted into thorium-233, which then beta-decays with a half-life of 22 minutes into protactinium-233, which is chemically distinct from the parent thorium. Protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days, after which is beta-decays to uranium-233, which is fissile and has impressive properties. Uranium-233 produces enough neutrons from fission by a thermal neutron to sustain the continued conversion of thorium to energy, even accounting for normal losses, provided that the reactor is neutronically efficient.

...snip...

Thorium, with an atomic mass of 232, begins the nuclear energy generation process at least five neutron absorptions removed from the first transuranic isotope that could be generated. As previously mentioned, thorium-232 absorbs a neutron, transmuting to protactinium-233 and then uranium-233, which is fissile. In a thermal neutron spectrum, uranium-233 tends to fission 90% of the time it absorbs a thermal neutron. The other 10% of the time is converts to uranium-234. Another neutron absorption in uranium-234 leads to conversion to uranium-235, which is also fissile and represents another opportunity for destruction through fission. Uranium-235 fissions in a thermal neutron spectrum approximately 85% of the time, and the other 15% of the time is converted to uranium-236. Uranium-236 has a rather low neutron absorption cross-section, and only after absorbing a neutron is the first transuranic isotope of this approach produced: neptunium-237. Neptunium can be removed from the fluoride salt mixture readily by fluorination from NpF4, which is in solution to NpF6 which is gaseous. Thus, unlike our current approach to nuclear power where the majority of the fuel (97% U-238) is a single neutron absorption away from the production of the first transuranic isotope (Pu-239), in the thorium-based approach, the fuel is five neutron absorptions away from the production of a transuranic isotope, and in the course of those absorptions roughly 98.5% of the original fuel is removed by fission.

Thus, by using thorium in the fluoride reactor rather than uranium in the solid-oxide reactor, it is possible to REDUCE the amount of transuranic material generated by a very large factor.

http://energyfromthorium.com/essay3rs/

[Harmony Blue]

2. It has the same downside as uranium

where to store the waste?

[Taverner]

3. Did anyone immidiately think of this when they heard "Thorium"?

[lfairban]

44. Not really, but . . .

. . . that is the Norse God it is named after.

[Tommy_J]

4. Everything has downsides

but the downsides of thorium fission are very small compared to uranium fission.

Hype goes both ways. I've encountered many folks who are against thorium without knowing the technical details.

[TheWraith]

5. Yes, it's true. The following is from Wikipedia.

Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste;
Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U-235;
Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming,<22> so fission stops by default.

However, unlike uranium-based breeder reactors, thorium requires irradiation and reprocessing before the above-noted advantages of thorium-232 can be realized, which makes thorium fuels more expensive than uranium fuels.<14> But experts note that "the second thorium reactor may activate a third thorium reactor. This could continue in a chain of reactors for a millennium if we so choose." They add that because of thorium's abundance, it will not be exhausted in 1,000 years.<23>

The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." <24> Reducing coal as an energy source, according to science expert Lester R. Brown of The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC, would significantly reduce medical costs from breathing coal pollutants. The Institute estimates that coal-related deaths and diseases are currently costing the U.S. up to $160 billion annually.<25>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

[RC]

6. Thorium is much safer all around.

What is special about thorium?
(1) Weapons-grade fissionable material (uranium233) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from the thorium reactor than plutonium is from the uranium breeder reactor.
(2) Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium reactors.
(3) Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U235.
(4) Because thorium does not sustain chain reaction, fission stops by default if we stop priming it, and a runaway chain reaction accident is improbable.
Besides, the priming process is extremely efficient: the nuclear process puts out 60 times the energy required to keep it primed. Because of this, the device is also called, (quite inappropriately) an "Energy Amplifier."
Naturally occurring thorium is in the form of the stable isotope, 90Th232. Notice that thorium is just two places removed on the periodic table from Uranium. In a sequence of nuclear processes exactly like those by which the non-fissionable isotope, 92U238 is bumped up through Neptunium to Plutonium, 94Pu239, Thorium can be bumped up to a light weight isotope of Uranium, 92U233. (See p 135, Eq 15.01 and 15.02 of "A serious but not ponderous book about Nuclear Energy".) In each case, a non-fissionable isotope is converted to a fissionable one.
Plutonium, while highly radioactive, can be shielded and concealed for shipping and storage, because the alpha rays that it emits do not penetrate lead. On the other hand, uranium233, the weapons-grade material that could be recovered from the thorium reactor, can not be as easily concealed. U233 is almost inextricably accompanied by 0.1% of U232, which, after a series of dissociations (to thallium208) emits gamma rays that penetrate everything.

>SNIP<

The radioactive waste from the thorium reactor contains vastly less long-lived radioactive material than that from conventional reactors. In particular, plutonium is completely absent absent from the thorium reactor's waste. While the radioactivity during the first few days is likely to be similar to that in conventional reactors, there is at least a ten-fold reduction of radioactivity in the waste products after 100 years, and a 10,000 fold reduction after 500 years. From a waste storage point of view, this is a significant advantage.

http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm

More reading:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

[bananas]

8. How could Thorium be safer? I've been told that Uranium reactors are perfectly safe!

:popcorn:

[bananas]

10. Your first link mentions Carlo Rubbia - he has become anti-nuclear and pro-solar

He's a Nobel-winning physicist who did much research on nuclear energy.
I posted a translation of an interview with him a while back: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x60525

[snagglepuss]

18. That is an interesting read. Thanks. nt

[bananas]

32. I'm glad somebody read it! Thanks for taking the time. nt

[SpoonFed]

14. Yeah, cool...

From a waste storage point of view, this is a significant advantage.

This shit only lasts for 1/2 of forever.

[bananas]

21. That Wired article is full of errors

I pointed out one in the Science forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=60916&mesg_id=60973

and the person who maintains the Nuclear Weapon Archive website pointed out others:

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&cid=30623708

Wired Article Errors and Omissions (Score:5, Informative)
by careysub (976506) on Saturday January 02 2010, @01:20PM (#30623708)

The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors. A key fact about thorium reactors mentioned no where in the article: you can't build a reactor, load it with thorium alone, and have it work. It will sit there producing no power forever. This because thorium is only the breeding material and is not fissile. To get the reactor to produce power the thorium has to be mixed with plutonium or U-233 bred in some uranium fueled reactor somewhere, or with highly enriched U-235. In other words - the reactor has to be loaded with bomb-usable material and there has to be a lot of it, enough for hundreds of weapons.

This is part of why the whole quasi-conspiratorial story of "why we didn't go with thorium in the first place" is utter nonsense. It was not because "we wanted bombs instead" and were prejudiced against "superior thorium", it is because only if you have an established nuclear industry cranking out materials usable in bombs by the thousands can you build these reactors in the first place. Either you must have natural/low enriched uranium reactors to produce plutonium, or you need large amounts of highly enriched uranium (prime bomb material) to load into thorium breeders.

Also unacknowledged is that the particular type of reactor being promoted, the molten fluoride salt reactor, was and is a complex technology that requires substantial additional development. Only one single reactor of this kind was ever built, and it was an 8 megawatt (thermal) materials test reactor, not a power reactor. We are looking at many years of additional development before construction can start on a prototype full scale power reactor. I agree that this technology should be further pursued, and it may turn out more successful that plutonium breeders (no successful power plants have been built, just several failures) but it is by no means guaranteed.

Hyman Rickover, by the way, was interested in light water uranium fueled reactors because they are a good technology for powering submarines, not because they produce plutonium (they are lousy plutonium producers, the yield is low and the material produced has terrible properties for bombs).

Check out the 2005 IAEA survey document (http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/IAEA-TECDOC-1450.pdf) for a good summary of the thorium technology options and prospects.

[Confusious]

27. That article leaves out an alternative design

which uses a particle accelerator to generate neutrons to make the reaction.

shut off the accelerator, the reaction stops.

[bananas]

31. See post #10 - Carlo Rubbia invented the accelerator-driven reactor, he's now anti-nuclear pro-solar

edit to add: He's been anti-nuclear and pro-solar for some time now.

[Confusious]

33. And?

Doesn't discount that it might work. If we're going to get off this rock we're going to need more then solar and wind.

Or are you against research also? Or just nuclear Research?

[bananas]

35. It's called a clue-by-four.

When the inventor abandons it in favor of something more promising, it should be a clue by four.
Sure, it might work, but don't get your hopes up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier

Disadvantages
- General technical difficulties.
- Each reactor needs its own facility (particle accelerator) to generate the high energy proton beam, which is very costly. For example the Spallation Neutron Source facility cost 1.1 Billion dollars, although it has a lot research equipment not needed for a commercial reactor.
- Apart from linear accelerators, which are very expensive, no proton accelerator of sufficient power and energy (> ~12 MW at 1GeV) has ever been built. Currently, the Spallation Neutron Source utilizes a 1.44 MW proton beam to produce its neutrons, with upgrades envisioned to 5 MW.<4>

As far as getting off this rock, nuclear reactors aren't needed at all, at least as far as Mars, and we won't be sending humans further than that for a very long time. Eventually we could mine the Moon etc for nuclear fuel, but that's very far in the future. Launching small rtg's and rhg's is ok, but anything larger is a bad idea.

I've said a number of times I'm not really anti-nuke. I'm in favor of research on fusion, and I don't mind some research on fission, but I agree with the MIT report that Gen 4 reactors probably won't be worth deploying. Maybe Gen 5 or 6 will be more useful, maybe not.

I don't think the Gen 3 reactors are worth deploying either, but I didn't mind the $18B in loan guarantees in exchange for climate legislation. The Republicans turned solidly against climate legislation so it's no longer a bargaining chip, the loan guarantees should be revoked. The loan guarantees were supposed to show that we could build new reactors cheaply and quickly, to be the start of a new fleet of reactors, but now we know they can't be built cheaply or quickly and there will be no new fleet, so there's no point in building this handful of dinosaurs.

[Confusious]

38. He probably gave up because there are easier ways

to create neutrons

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/neutronGenerator.html

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/super-compact-fusion-reactor-secures-funding/1007426.article

They're also looking at using it to destroy nuclear waste.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

[txlibdem]

43. LFTR's burn up 98.5% of the fuel to create energy - once thu Uranium burns only 5% of its fuel

LWRs, PWRs, and all Uranium cycle reactors burn only 5% of the fissile material in the fuel rods. Then they have to remove them and store for Lord knows how long. That is not "Nuclear Waste," it is wasted potential energy.

LFTRs burn up 98.5% of its fuel:

... in the thorium-based approach, the fuel is five neutron absorptions away from the production of a transuranic isotope, and in the course of those absorptions roughly 98.5% of the original fuel is removed by fission.

Thus, by using thorium in the fluoride reactor rather than uranium in the solid-oxide reactor, it is possible to REDUCE the amount of transuranic material generated by a very large factor.

http://energyfromthorium.com/essay3rs/

That is one of the reasons why LFTR's produce 200 times the energy per pound compared to Uranium cycle reactors.

[izquierdista]

7. Safer is a relative term

It's still radioactive and once a reactor is assembled, it has to be kept isolated from the environment.* That's been the problem, both in Chernobyl and Fukushima, keeping the reactor innards isolated from the environment. As we have seen, any surface structure can be compromised and spill reactor guts where they don't belong. Thorium reactor guts are still going to be toxic if they get spilled.

*I don't think most lay people know how hot irradiated fuel gets. A freshly manufactured fuel pellet can fit in the palm of your hand, and there is more chemical toxicity from the uranium than there is radiological hazard. After it has been in a reactor though, it can give you a lethal dose in minutes.

[txlibdem]

45. So true. Just like a factory that makes bread or wood products

They have a high concentration of flammable fine dust particles in the air and sometimes the unthinkable happens: the entire factory explodes in a burning flash.

Coal power plants don't have to follow any regulations in most parts of the country but the internal parts are caked with radioactive material - tear one down with a bulldozer and you'll likely get a serious dose of radiation, perhaps lethal.

References:
1) "Throughout agriculture and food processing, there were 115 reported dust explosions between 1994 and 2003, the most recent numbers available, most of them in grain elevators. These stats left me asking: why is dust explosive? "
...source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/the-explosive-t/

2) http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-dust-explosion.htm

3) Even coal dust is explosive: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=coal+plant+explosion&aq=2c&aqi=g-c5&aql=&oq=coal+explosion&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=27b93cf21cbb40b9&biw=1280&bih=601

So, you were more right than you knew. Safety is relative.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Much discussed in the E/E forum. Worth a DU search.

The US nuclear industry has focused on uranium and plutonium because the development of nuclear power was so closely linked to the development of nuclear weapons. The thorium nuclear cycle is not so good for making weapons, so of no interest to the MIC.

One of the most interesting aspects of thorium:

Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming,<22> so fission stops by default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Benefits_and_challenges

If only those Fukushima reactors had been thorium fueled ...

[Yo_Mama]

26. They were all shutdown by the quake

It's not fission that is or has been the problem - it is the highly radioactive fuel decaying and producing heat.

If the same had happened at a thorium reactor, you would have had about the same course of events.

[bananas]

11. A lot of people fell for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor hype, too

South Africa finally gave up on it a few years ago,
Germany gave up on it much earlier.

[snagglepuss]

15. I know very little about the nuke industry and this is the first I heard about thorium

I don't support nuclear energy but wondered if this might be relatively better than uranium. As far as I can tell nuclear isn't going to be stopped in the short term so might not this be better than simply using uranium or MOX?

[kristopher]

16. Not according to MIT - see post 13.

[RC]

17. It is much harder to make nuclear bombs from thorium derived materials.

So, of course we are not interested in it. It is less radio active and there is much less waste, and that waste is easier to refine into new fuel for another reactor. There really not much comparison between a thorium reactor and a conventional uranium reactor. If Japan had been using thorium reactors, there would not be a problem at Fukushima.

[kristopher]

19. Two interpretations are possible regarding not wanting thorium because it isn't as good for bombs.

Presuming (not admitting, just presuming) it is true to a meaningful degree - the claim that thorium technology isn't useful for weapons and therefore we aren't interested in it as a commercial product must have a more specific meaning, right?

It might have been a factor in the beginning of the atomic age when the current nuclear powers were chasing nuclear weapons. With current stockpiles , though, it simply isn't credible that 5 or more countries who are engaging in commercial development for wide-scale sale would bypass better technology based on the ability of the existing nuclear weapons states needing more uranium fuel cycle reactors.

You didn't mean that, did you?

The only other option is that the non-nuclear weapons states making up the population of potential customers isn't interested in thorium because it is harder to build a nuclear weapons program than if they go the uranium once through route.

Is that what you are specifically referring to when you say that "of course we are not interested in" thorium - even though it is a superior technology - because it "is much harder to make nuclear bombs from thorium derived materials"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[SpoonFed]

23. Did you read post #21?

You load the things with weapons grade fuel...
so like "it's much harder to make" seems moot.

[bananas]

20. They've been doing R&D on thorium reactors for many decades and still need a few more decades.

They still need at least another twenty yeas of R&D.
You can't run the existing fleet of reactors on thorium, those need uranium or mox fuel.
That's also true for the new "Generation 3" reactors they want to build now, the AP-1000 and EPR require uranium or mox fuel.
So thorium can't be a short-term solution.

[bananas]

22. Also, read post #21 above, even if you haven't read the Wired article. nt

[FranMonet]

24. video on thorium reactor

this video might help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

[kristopher]

25. No it wont. Sorenson has been hyping every type of nuclear no matter what.

MIT said clearly that the thorium fuel cycle is not as good a technology as the once through uranium fuel cycle. Why in the hell would you then turn to a saleman for the industry?

[Confusious]

28. You keep saying that

How is it not as good? lower efficiency? I'll take that tradeoff. There's enough thorium to power the world for thousands of years, even with that.

Other then that, lower waste can't be a drawback, being able to shut the reaction off at a moments notice can't be a drawback.

Or is the drawback that it's some sort of nuclear reaction?

[txlibdem]

29. You'll never pry an actual answer from the anti-nuker posters - just Koch brothers BS

They dislike all nuclear power - for whatever reason - which serves the coal, oil, and natural gas industries just fine. Whether they realize it or not, they are tools being used by the fossil fuel industry; willingly, enthusiastically even.

One of these fine anti-nuker posters loves to claim that renewable energy sources need ZERO energy storage -- because natural gas power plants will handle the power requirements when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. How much more of an indictment do you need than that? Meanwhile, the UK has 2.3 GW of pumped hydro storage to level out the power output from their wind farms, and is planning to add much more pumped hydro.

Facts are your friends, as they are mine. Anti-nukers do not like to talk facts, they prefer smears, avoidance, false assertions, ad hominem attacks, etc.

[Confusious]

30. I know, but hope springs eternal

I just thought it was weird that the premier sophist sounded like he was supporting uranium reactors.

I think it's just how the wind blows. If thorium reactors ever came on line, anti-nukes would have nothing to complain about.

So they have to make thorium sound bad, support uranium reactors when needed, and try to tie up solutions to the waste problem as much as they can.

If it a problem, then they can drum fear. If it's not a problem, no one will listen.

[txlibdem]

34. Excellent summation

Thus my opinion that many of them were secretly cheering the Fukushima disaster because there was a nuclear plant there. Look at the sheer number of OPs since the trouble began in March. I tried as best I could to remind people that the Japanese are HUMANS, just like you and me and to use the tragedy to blatantly push their anti-nuker agenda is nothing short of sickening, INhuman.

[madokie]

39. Thorium reactors has their own issues

some of which is shared with our present day reactors. If you really want to know the truth that is, but if you just want to anti-nuke this and pro-nuke that then go have fun. I'll not pay any attention to what you have to say in that case, MK

[Confusious]

40. They have their issues

mostly research and development. It would be hard to say they have any other issues, since one hasn't been built since the 60's.

If you want to have a go at it, let me know.

oh, and if it's the plutonium or uranium thing, there are easier ways to generate the neutrons necessary to cause the reaction. look up compact fusion neutron source.

[bananas]

37. New article in The Guardian: "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
It produces less radioactive waste and more power but it remains unproven on a commercial scale.

From the Ecologist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
* Eifion Rees for the Ecologist
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 June 2011 16.52 BST

<snip>

In fact, a 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) report (PDF)concluded the thorium fuel cycle 'does not currently have a role to play in the UK context is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead' – in short, it concluded, the claims for thorium were 'overstated'.

<snip>

Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a 'dishonest fantasy' perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

<snip>

[Confusious]

41. Actinides can be destroyed by neutron bombardment.

Or at least that's what I hear from university physics departments from Austin to the UK.

it's not like a anti-nuclear activist would leave out or exaggerate facts. So who to believe? :sarcasm:

It isn't "highly radioactive." If something is radioactive for 300,000 years, the radioactivity isn't the problem. It's the fact that it's a heavy metal.

If you ingested it, you would die of heavy metal poisoning before you died from the radioactivity. If you stood near it, you would die of old age before you died of radiation poisoning.

carbon 14, half life of 5000 years. your body takes it all the time. made naturally by nitrogen in the upper atmosphere taking in a proton. It's used for radiocarbon dating. Its more radioactive then all the elements on the list. Why an't we dead yet?