Talk:Long-lived fission product

Relevance of the dubious nature of LNT, the Linear No- Threshold hypothesis

See linear no-threshold model.
Inasmuch as living organic cells all have a threshold damage point below which their repair mechanisms can withstand and correct chemical injuries, etc. it is a remarkable special exception to suppose that the damage done by 100 mSv of radiation received over a period of 20 years is the same as that of a single dose of 100 mSv in a day.
But this is what the LNT hypothesis, so widely used to set radiation limits, implies. In actual fact, there are numerous instances which contradict it. Data of health effects from exposure to radon at popular spas are an example.
There is even plausible evidence of hormesis, see the Wikipedia reference.

If the LNT model is invalid, or madder still, if hormesis applies, the low radiation rate of long lived isotopes may be harmless or even beneficial. DaveyHume (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I don't see that it has much to do with this article. The article is about some fission products, not the damage that they might or might not do. Gah4 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a long-lived fission product not of uranium or plutonium?

The first sentence reads, "Long-lived fission products (LLFPs) are radioactive materials with a long half-life (more than 200,000 years) produced by nuclear fission of uranium and plutonium." This seems to imply that there are no long-lived fission products of any other elements, for example americium, curium, berkelium, californium, and so on, not to mention thorium, but the IEAE says, "Thorium-232, the only naturally occurring isotope of thorium, is a fissionable material but not a fissile one, meaning that it needs high-energy neutrons to undergo fission — the splitting of atomic nuclei which releases energy that is used for electricity generation." Are none of the fission products long-lived?

So the term "long-lived fission products" is misleading, if it is to mean only those of uranium and/or plutonium. Shouldn't it be "long-lived fission product of uranium and/or plutonium" (LLFPUP)? Polar Apposite (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

How about listing the seven LLFPs in the intro?

How about listing the seven LLFPs in the intro? How about in order of how much harm each causes to people as fallout from a nuclear explosion or some particular (preferably typical) type? when Polar Apposite (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)