I'll wait for DU4 to discuss this paper.

[NNadir]

(I'm looking forward to the return of exponents in text. I've missed them.)

The paper in question:

Feasible Strategy for Large-Scale Production of 224Ra as a Promising ?-Emitting Therapy Radionuclide Long Qiu, Jianrong Wu, Ning Luo, Qian Xiao, Junshan Geng, Lingting Xia, Feize Li, Jiali Liao, Yuanyou Yang, Jinsong Zhang, and Ning Liu Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2023 62 (35), 14001-14011

Teaser graphic:



I absolutely love finding uses, via transmutation series, uses for "waste" nuclides. It's been a long time since radium was isolated from uranium ores, and we do have tailings.

(For the record, we have at Oak Ridge, a viable supply of Th-228; hopefully we don't get stupid and bury it.)

[lapfog_1]

1. hopefully we don't get stupid and bury it

if we bury it in some sort of casks in salt mines, etc... so long as we don't forget where we buried it, can we not retrieve it again later if we need it?

I will assume we don't bury it in leaky containers that corrode and poison our own ground water.

[NNadir]

2. There is no reason at all to bury any radionuclides in my view.

They are all valuable, precisely because they are radioactive.

Were we to do so, and "forget where we buried it," it would be of very low consequence.

As for radium, the planet has always existed with "buried" radium, largely radium-226, which is secular equilibrium with uranium, and has been so for billions of years, since the formation of this planet. Radium-224 is formed in the decay series of thorium, but the concentration is very low, precluding isolation.

[lapfog_1]

3. well, all I was asking was "is there a problem with burying it?"

so long as we remember where we buried it.

I'll take it that as yeah, there isn't any problem with putting it underground for storage.

[NNadir]

4. And I was saying yes, there is a problem with burying it.

It's the waste of valuable material.