[ RadSafe ] RE: Transmutation

[Robert J. Gunter]

Greetings All,

Though the numbers speak for themselves, it seems like practically speaking
there is no difference between 1,000 y half life and 10^6.  In fact the
longer lived stuff is "less" radioactive and less of a radiological threat.
After all, who is worried about the trace U radionuclides in the bricks of
their home, gravel in their walks,, and dirt in their yards (no I am not
saying we need to make baby carriages out of the stuff).

The thread from Dr Parthasarathy below discussing the article by Holloway
makes me wonder what the resulting dose is from U migrating from natural
deposits???  Do we need to establish "site" boundaries?  What is the dose?
Do we need to relocate populations???  

Since we don't currently worry about this (other than the odd Rn prong-if
the locals have money..), it seems that our TENORM problem is only
significant because we have decided to make it so.


Robert J. Gunter, CHP
CHP Consultants
Oak Ridge, TN
Ph:  (865) 387-0028
Fax: (865) 483-7189
rjgunter at chpconsultants.com
Products and Services at:
www.chpconsultants.com


Dear Mr Stewart farber,

The current thread in our news group reminds me of an interesting paper
titled " Uranium: don't leave it in the ground" written 16 years ago by by
Nigel Holloway in the "ATOM" magazine. He has worked out the effect of the
fuel cycle on total environmental radioactivity.

Regards


K.S.Parthasarathy
Ph.D