radioactive

Her journals did not become radioactive because they were neutron-activated, but because they were contaminated by radioactive material.

But when the alternative is coal, nuclear power is less polluting, less radioactive and less likely to kill you.

But there's a limited amount of that, so only a small amount of material becomes radioactive that way.

And radioactive elements come from long dead suns, so all energy on earth originally comes from A sun.

Except for geothermal energy brought on by radioactive decay, all energy on earth originally comes from the sun.

Since it was so close to the blast, wouldn't it still be radioactive, like Marie Curie's journals?

GIF file format) and IBM's patents on arithmetic coding both rendered entire fields of computer science radioactive for years.

What happens if incompetence, natural disaster or malicious actor disrupts the cooling ponds where radioactive waste products are stored?

TMI's radioactive gas release was nothing compared to the years of above-ground nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's.

The coal burning plant would actually release more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear power plant would.

Airburst nuclear bombs for the most part don't make things radioactive, air pretty much can't become radioactive (pure water also can't become radioactive, although you can mix radioactive elements into it of course).

When Chernobyl had its meltdown, they weren't pumping up to 400 tons of radioactive waste into an ocean every single day [2].

What you think of as "radioactive" could simply be researchers concluding that specific area was not worth exploring anymore.

Harvesting the steam is a clever idea, but I don't know if the average consumer is ready for what would be spun as "radioactive Franken-water".

Faster response time than coal or nuclear, less carbon output than coal, easier to move across the country, no radioactive waste to store onsite "temporarily" for decades.