[ RadSafe ] RE: Transmutation

Fri Oct 27 12:11:11 CDT 2006

Dr. McCarn,

Thanks for the summary of the radium/radon conditions.  As is well
known, the lowest natural background dose rates cause increases in
cancer rates.  

Do you have a ref for the CDC review?  Do you know if they looked at
other cancers in addition to bone cancer?

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl 
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: 'Robert J. Gunter'
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Transmutation
> 
> 
> Dear Robert:
> 
> Since I'm a "uranium geologist", I worry! 
> 
> There are several "unreported" instances of anthropogene 
> remobilization of
> uranium from deposits: The Central Valley in California, The 
> Chu-Saryssu
> Basin in Kazakhstan, and the San Luis Valley in Colorado and 
> likely many
> other basins in the Basin and Range Province to mention a 
> few. Or perhaps I
> can state it as follows: Any water-bearing basin that has deposit
> recognition criteria associated with sandstone uranium 
> probably has some
> degree of issue with anthropogene remobilization. Years ago, 
> I discovered a
> 60 km long "uranium feature" (regional redox-controlled, 
> roll-front) in the
> San Luis Valley that I published on in 1982 and 2004. 
> 
> McCarn (2004), "Natural and anthropogenic multi-pathway risks 
> associated
> with naturally occurring uranium mineralization in aquifers: Scoping
> calculations"
> 
> http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1396_web.pdf
> 
> I still consider the San Luis Valley feature (30% of all 
> potatoes in the USA
> are grown there) "unreported" because the media never picked-up on the
> issue.  The locals would rather ignore it since it could have 
> a negative
> affect on potato contracts.
> 
> Uranium is not the issue, over 99% of the total dose is related to
> radium-226 not to mention the 2KCi/year radon-222 released from the 1
> million acre-feet of irrigation water (1500-2000 pCi/L over 
> the valley at
> large). Radium tends to hang in the upper soil zone whereas 
> uranium tends to
> flush through the upper soil zone and doesn't accumulate. See Leaching
> Coefficient.
> 
> But the geochemistry of radium is not as predictable as 
> uranium.  Some of
> the U deposits that I'm familiar with have a miniscule radium 
> signature
> whereas others are very high. Most of these differences are said to be
> related to the nature of the authigenic clays in the deposit 
> and adsorption
> of radium. The water directly from the deposits can have 
> alpha activities as
> high as 1 million pCi/L.
> 
> I'll be field sampling in the San Luis Valley again later 
> this year, or
> early next year for soils irrigated by wells producing from 
> the feature
> (10,000 wells in the Valley - perhaps 500 or more intercept 
> the uranium
> feature). And, the area has been "accumulating" radium for 
> over 100 years
> from farming / irrigation activities.
> 
> I reported my findings to the Center for Disease Control in 
> Atlanta, and the
> CDC re-did all the statistics for bone cancer for that area.  
> The result was
> that there was a significantly lower incidence of bone cancer 
> (about 1/2)
> compared to the rest of Colorado.
> 
> But you might be surprised to know that uranium mining and 
> other mineral
> mining sometimes involves a declaration of an "Aquifer 
> Exemption" (see EPA,
> Aquifer Exemptions) to declare the water unsafe for drinking 
> because of the
> nature of the mineralized water.  This also occurs for 
> petroleum leases and
> EPA makes allowance for both mining and petroleum.  The 
> boundary is located
> at an appropriate distance from the mineralized feature to 
> prevent a well
> "sweeping" mineralized water into the cone of influence.  There's a
> licensing paper in the above IAEA TECDOC (Pelizza & McCarn, 2004) that
> describes the issue about Aquifer Exemptions.
> 
> Dan ii
> 
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> Houston & Albuquerque
> 1-505-710-3600
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl 
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
> Of Robert J. Gunter
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 09:20
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Transmutation
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
> settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
> settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 
> 