1. Meaning of “stable” – mechanical vs radiological/ecological persistence
Many commenters stressed that the study’s use of “stable” refers to the physical integrity of uranium‑oxide particles, not their radioactivity.
- “Stable” here means mechanically stable (they don’t fall apart as quickly as was expected), not radiologically stable (the radioactive elements, of course, still decay at their normal rate). – bad_username
- It means “mechanically stable”, which could be either good or bad depending on the question, but is generally a limited good thing. – timr
- The grains of uranium oxide dust remain grains of uranium oxide dust… Ingest these dust particles, not so much. It's a question of concentration, and it seems that it's not diluting out naturally. – eqvinox
2. Safety comparisons: nuclear weapons vs. nuclear power
Several participants contrasted the long‑term hazards of bomb fallout with those from reactor accidents or fuel waste, often arguing that bombs are “safer” in certain respects.
- Basically, nuclear bombs are much safer than nuclear power plants. – antonvs
- 40 years and counting, vs 1 year for Hiroshima – readthenotes1
- For radionuclides more long‑lived means less radioactive per unit of time… uranium compounds can be toxic in the chemical sense as well… – Mutjake
3. Harnessing nuclear explosions for energy
A recurring thread was the idea (or historical proposals) of using nuclear detonations as a power source—ranging from propulsion concepts to underground electricity generation.
- next step: use nukes as an energy source – Foskya
- Some of the nuclear rocket propulsion ideas propose exactly that, like Project Orion. – antonvs
- Check out this 1970s project that proposed extracting electricity from thermonuclear explosions… – DennisP (link to Project PACER)
- Coming soon: thermonuclear fracking. – euroderf