A world where nuclear fission does not produce radioactivity
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I think the title explains it, but I am interested in how a world might differ from our own if fission had no radioactivity associated with the fuel, process, or waste/byproducts. The obvious answers are more nuclear power and maybe more common use of nuclear weapons, but I'm looking for other unexpected outcomes or unexpected secondary effects of the outcomes I mentioned.
If you've gotten this far without your head exploding: I understand how this sounds ridiculous, as radioactivity is a natural consequence of fission reactions. Try to focus on the outcome here, instead of the mechanism. If you just can't help it and feel the need to school me on why this is a spectacularly dumb question, go for it. Just make sure I learn something about nuclear physics along the way.
society nuclear-weapons nuclear-power radioactivity
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I think the title explains it, but I am interested in how a world might differ from our own if fission had no radioactivity associated with the fuel, process, or waste/byproducts. The obvious answers are more nuclear power and maybe more common use of nuclear weapons, but I'm looking for other unexpected outcomes or unexpected secondary effects of the outcomes I mentioned.
If you've gotten this far without your head exploding: I understand how this sounds ridiculous, as radioactivity is a natural consequence of fission reactions. Try to focus on the outcome here, instead of the mechanism. If you just can't help it and feel the need to school me on why this is a spectacularly dumb question, go for it. Just make sure I learn something about nuclear physics along the way.
society nuclear-weapons nuclear-power radioactivity
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
1
At present the question is profoundly unclear. Please explain in a little bit more detail what is to be understood by "nuclear fission had no radioactivity associated with the process". More specifically, (1) how is the chain reaction supposed to work and (2) in what form is the energy supposed to be released. Ah, and by the way, "radioactivity" in general is not a scare word. We live in a radioactive world, we always did, and we are adapted to it. Uncontrolled radioactivity is dangerous, but so is uncontrolled heat or uncontrolled electric power.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
2
As usual, when you change basic physics you end up with universe totally unlike our own. You probably just made stars not work...
– Mołot
3 hours ago
2
Are you talking about nuclear fission not producing dangerously harmful radioactive waste? So basically a world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki can happen, but not Chernobyl and Fukushima creating uninhabitable zones of exclusion?
– Andrew Grimm
50 mins ago
no conservation of energy?
– user6760
3 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I think the title explains it, but I am interested in how a world might differ from our own if fission had no radioactivity associated with the fuel, process, or waste/byproducts. The obvious answers are more nuclear power and maybe more common use of nuclear weapons, but I'm looking for other unexpected outcomes or unexpected secondary effects of the outcomes I mentioned.
If you've gotten this far without your head exploding: I understand how this sounds ridiculous, as radioactivity is a natural consequence of fission reactions. Try to focus on the outcome here, instead of the mechanism. If you just can't help it and feel the need to school me on why this is a spectacularly dumb question, go for it. Just make sure I learn something about nuclear physics along the way.
society nuclear-weapons nuclear-power radioactivity
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
I think the title explains it, but I am interested in how a world might differ from our own if fission had no radioactivity associated with the fuel, process, or waste/byproducts. The obvious answers are more nuclear power and maybe more common use of nuclear weapons, but I'm looking for other unexpected outcomes or unexpected secondary effects of the outcomes I mentioned.
If you've gotten this far without your head exploding: I understand how this sounds ridiculous, as radioactivity is a natural consequence of fission reactions. Try to focus on the outcome here, instead of the mechanism. If you just can't help it and feel the need to school me on why this is a spectacularly dumb question, go for it. Just make sure I learn something about nuclear physics along the way.
society nuclear-weapons nuclear-power radioactivity
society nuclear-weapons nuclear-power radioactivity
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
asked 3 hours ago
ben
3696
3696
1
At present the question is profoundly unclear. Please explain in a little bit more detail what is to be understood by "nuclear fission had no radioactivity associated with the process". More specifically, (1) how is the chain reaction supposed to work and (2) in what form is the energy supposed to be released. Ah, and by the way, "radioactivity" in general is not a scare word. We live in a radioactive world, we always did, and we are adapted to it. Uncontrolled radioactivity is dangerous, but so is uncontrolled heat or uncontrolled electric power.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
2
As usual, when you change basic physics you end up with universe totally unlike our own. You probably just made stars not work...
– Mołot
3 hours ago
2
Are you talking about nuclear fission not producing dangerously harmful radioactive waste? So basically a world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki can happen, but not Chernobyl and Fukushima creating uninhabitable zones of exclusion?
– Andrew Grimm
50 mins ago
no conservation of energy?
– user6760
3 mins ago
add a comment |
1
At present the question is profoundly unclear. Please explain in a little bit more detail what is to be understood by "nuclear fission had no radioactivity associated with the process". More specifically, (1) how is the chain reaction supposed to work and (2) in what form is the energy supposed to be released. Ah, and by the way, "radioactivity" in general is not a scare word. We live in a radioactive world, we always did, and we are adapted to it. Uncontrolled radioactivity is dangerous, but so is uncontrolled heat or uncontrolled electric power.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
2
As usual, when you change basic physics you end up with universe totally unlike our own. You probably just made stars not work...
– Mołot
3 hours ago
2
Are you talking about nuclear fission not producing dangerously harmful radioactive waste? So basically a world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki can happen, but not Chernobyl and Fukushima creating uninhabitable zones of exclusion?
– Andrew Grimm
50 mins ago
no conservation of energy?
– user6760
3 mins ago
1
1
At present the question is profoundly unclear. Please explain in a little bit more detail what is to be understood by "nuclear fission had no radioactivity associated with the process". More specifically, (1) how is the chain reaction supposed to work and (2) in what form is the energy supposed to be released. Ah, and by the way, "radioactivity" in general is not a scare word. We live in a radioactive world, we always did, and we are adapted to it. Uncontrolled radioactivity is dangerous, but so is uncontrolled heat or uncontrolled electric power.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
At present the question is profoundly unclear. Please explain in a little bit more detail what is to be understood by "nuclear fission had no radioactivity associated with the process". More specifically, (1) how is the chain reaction supposed to work and (2) in what form is the energy supposed to be released. Ah, and by the way, "radioactivity" in general is not a scare word. We live in a radioactive world, we always did, and we are adapted to it. Uncontrolled radioactivity is dangerous, but so is uncontrolled heat or uncontrolled electric power.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
2
2
As usual, when you change basic physics you end up with universe totally unlike our own. You probably just made stars not work...
– Mołot
3 hours ago
As usual, when you change basic physics you end up with universe totally unlike our own. You probably just made stars not work...
– Mołot
3 hours ago
2
2
Are you talking about nuclear fission not producing dangerously harmful radioactive waste? So basically a world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki can happen, but not Chernobyl and Fukushima creating uninhabitable zones of exclusion?
– Andrew Grimm
50 mins ago
Are you talking about nuclear fission not producing dangerously harmful radioactive waste? So basically a world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki can happen, but not Chernobyl and Fukushima creating uninhabitable zones of exclusion?
– Andrew Grimm
50 mins ago
no conservation of energy?
– user6760
3 mins ago
no conservation of energy?
– user6760
3 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The short answer is that no radioactivity from fission means no energy released, and so no nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The radioactivity is how the energy is released — it may be emitted as neutrons, photons (gamma rays) or bits of the atom (alpha or beta radiation). Because nuclear reactions release much more energy than chemical reactions, the energy released is high enough to be damaging.
You could envisage a world where the typical energies of chemical and nuclear reactions are similar, and so the energy from nuclear fission is released as thermal energy (heat) instead of radioactivity, but in that case nuclear power and nuclear weapons will be no more powerful than coal power and conventional weapons.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
1
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Sorry, but your world just can't exist in a way even remotely close to our world. Fission releases neutrons and photons, both are a types of radiation, to make it impossible, you have to remove neutrons and light from existence. Photons are carriers of electromagnetic interaction, neutrons are made of the same stuff that protons are: quarks. Quarks interact through electromagnetism and strong nuclear force, so removal of those two forces, removes both photons (light) and hadrons (class of particles to which protons and neutrons belong), leaving only gravity and weak nuclear force, so 2 out of 4 fundamental forces. In such world, atoms as we know them simply do not exist, world like that can not exist in way even remotely similar to our world.
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The short answer is that no radioactivity from fission means no energy released, and so no nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The radioactivity is how the energy is released — it may be emitted as neutrons, photons (gamma rays) or bits of the atom (alpha or beta radiation). Because nuclear reactions release much more energy than chemical reactions, the energy released is high enough to be damaging.
You could envisage a world where the typical energies of chemical and nuclear reactions are similar, and so the energy from nuclear fission is released as thermal energy (heat) instead of radioactivity, but in that case nuclear power and nuclear weapons will be no more powerful than coal power and conventional weapons.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
1
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
The short answer is that no radioactivity from fission means no energy released, and so no nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The radioactivity is how the energy is released — it may be emitted as neutrons, photons (gamma rays) or bits of the atom (alpha or beta radiation). Because nuclear reactions release much more energy than chemical reactions, the energy released is high enough to be damaging.
You could envisage a world where the typical energies of chemical and nuclear reactions are similar, and so the energy from nuclear fission is released as thermal energy (heat) instead of radioactivity, but in that case nuclear power and nuclear weapons will be no more powerful than coal power and conventional weapons.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
1
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
The short answer is that no radioactivity from fission means no energy released, and so no nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The radioactivity is how the energy is released — it may be emitted as neutrons, photons (gamma rays) or bits of the atom (alpha or beta radiation). Because nuclear reactions release much more energy than chemical reactions, the energy released is high enough to be damaging.
You could envisage a world where the typical energies of chemical and nuclear reactions are similar, and so the energy from nuclear fission is released as thermal energy (heat) instead of radioactivity, but in that case nuclear power and nuclear weapons will be no more powerful than coal power and conventional weapons.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
The short answer is that no radioactivity from fission means no energy released, and so no nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The radioactivity is how the energy is released — it may be emitted as neutrons, photons (gamma rays) or bits of the atom (alpha or beta radiation). Because nuclear reactions release much more energy than chemical reactions, the energy released is high enough to be damaging.
You could envisage a world where the typical energies of chemical and nuclear reactions are similar, and so the energy from nuclear fission is released as thermal energy (heat) instead of radioactivity, but in that case nuclear power and nuclear weapons will be no more powerful than coal power and conventional weapons.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Scott
10.5k32045
10.5k32045
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
1
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
add a comment |
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
1
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
... And chemistry won't work reliably, and life is an application of chemistry.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
Heat partly fall under infrared radiation, so that become really funky at best.
– Spoki0
3 hours ago
1
1
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
Is there any real reason that the waste products of nuclear fission need to be radioactive? That would mean that nuclear reactors are very dangerous while they're operating, but you wouldn't have any nuclear waste, which is the biggest problem with nuclear reactors.
– Peter Shor
48 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Sorry, but your world just can't exist in a way even remotely close to our world. Fission releases neutrons and photons, both are a types of radiation, to make it impossible, you have to remove neutrons and light from existence. Photons are carriers of electromagnetic interaction, neutrons are made of the same stuff that protons are: quarks. Quarks interact through electromagnetism and strong nuclear force, so removal of those two forces, removes both photons (light) and hadrons (class of particles to which protons and neutrons belong), leaving only gravity and weak nuclear force, so 2 out of 4 fundamental forces. In such world, atoms as we know them simply do not exist, world like that can not exist in way even remotely similar to our world.
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Sorry, but your world just can't exist in a way even remotely close to our world. Fission releases neutrons and photons, both are a types of radiation, to make it impossible, you have to remove neutrons and light from existence. Photons are carriers of electromagnetic interaction, neutrons are made of the same stuff that protons are: quarks. Quarks interact through electromagnetism and strong nuclear force, so removal of those two forces, removes both photons (light) and hadrons (class of particles to which protons and neutrons belong), leaving only gravity and weak nuclear force, so 2 out of 4 fundamental forces. In such world, atoms as we know them simply do not exist, world like that can not exist in way even remotely similar to our world.
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Sorry, but your world just can't exist in a way even remotely close to our world. Fission releases neutrons and photons, both are a types of radiation, to make it impossible, you have to remove neutrons and light from existence. Photons are carriers of electromagnetic interaction, neutrons are made of the same stuff that protons are: quarks. Quarks interact through electromagnetism and strong nuclear force, so removal of those two forces, removes both photons (light) and hadrons (class of particles to which protons and neutrons belong), leaving only gravity and weak nuclear force, so 2 out of 4 fundamental forces. In such world, atoms as we know them simply do not exist, world like that can not exist in way even remotely similar to our world.
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
Sorry, but your world just can't exist in a way even remotely close to our world. Fission releases neutrons and photons, both are a types of radiation, to make it impossible, you have to remove neutrons and light from existence. Photons are carriers of electromagnetic interaction, neutrons are made of the same stuff that protons are: quarks. Quarks interact through electromagnetism and strong nuclear force, so removal of those two forces, removes both photons (light) and hadrons (class of particles to which protons and neutrons belong), leaving only gravity and weak nuclear force, so 2 out of 4 fundamental forces. In such world, atoms as we know them simply do not exist, world like that can not exist in way even remotely similar to our world.
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
answered 2 hours ago
M i ech
4,92511633
4,92511633
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132457%2fa-world-where-nuclear-fission-does-not-produce-radioactivity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
At present the question is profoundly unclear. Please explain in a little bit more detail what is to be understood by "nuclear fission had no radioactivity associated with the process". More specifically, (1) how is the chain reaction supposed to work and (2) in what form is the energy supposed to be released. Ah, and by the way, "radioactivity" in general is not a scare word. We live in a radioactive world, we always did, and we are adapted to it. Uncontrolled radioactivity is dangerous, but so is uncontrolled heat or uncontrolled electric power.
– AlexP
3 hours ago
2
As usual, when you change basic physics you end up with universe totally unlike our own. You probably just made stars not work...
– Mołot
3 hours ago
2
Are you talking about nuclear fission not producing dangerously harmful radioactive waste? So basically a world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki can happen, but not Chernobyl and Fukushima creating uninhabitable zones of exclusion?
– Andrew Grimm
50 mins ago
no conservation of energy?
– user6760
3 mins ago