In many cases, radioactive materials can prove more effective than surgery. This only applies in cases where the mass or object of concern is not able to be operated on. There are some better alternatives than either radioactive treatment or surgery, but this would depend on the type of issue.
ef you
No. At least no more than any other rocks. Almost all materials contain some trace of radioactive material.
In addition, younger patients tend to do better with surgery and suffer fewer adverse effects from the surgery.
Conductors
thesynthetic surface is better than wood because it let the materials lasts than that of wood
Better quality and materials.
efehgsdbfjhgsdjhbvcshgdfhcgvasgfdcjhdgfgasfda
This depends on the type and water content of the soil, but usually it is less than 45 cm.
True. If fusion can be made to work in manmade equipment, for power production, (and this is not certain), there should be much less radioactive waste than for fission reactors. The product of the fusion, helium, is harmless. The engineering details of such a plant have not been established, but the energy produced will presumably be extracted from materials surrounding the reaction chamber which absorb the neutrons produced, so these materials will become irradiated and radioactive. Whether the structure will remain for the life of the plant or perhaps neutron absorbing materials have to be replenished from time to time is unknown, but obviously there will be some radioactive waste to be dealt with.
It starts out that way.It became radioactive when it was produced in an ancient supernova explosion, long before earth formed. Supernova explosions are responsible for producing all elements heavier than nickel and iron (radioactive or not), the heaviest elements that can be formed by nuclear fusion.
Some are more radioactive than others.
A conventional stove is better, as it uses less wood burning materials.