[ RadSafe ] Re: Spent Fuel and autompbile batteries- Dangerous for Millionsof Years?

[Jerry Cohen]

The Lead used in manufacture of automobile batteries  each year, if properly 
distributed, would be sufficient to poison to death the entire world 
population several times over. Considering that lead has essentially an 
infinite half-life, it would appear that reactor produced plutonium would be 
"peanuts" in comparison. Nevertheless, the perceived threat of nuclear waste 
provides a nice living for the hoards of geologists, material scientists, 
bureaucrats,  and others involved nuclear waste research.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Bossew" <peter.bossew at jrc.it>
To: "Leo M. Lowe" <llowe at senes.ca>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: <JGinniver at aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Spent Fuel and Decay - Dangerous for Millionsof 
Years?


> Leo, and others,
>
> I agree with you. The figure which you gave clearly shows that the 
> frequently heard claim, that spent fuel is a "deadly danger for 100.000s 
> of generations", is obviously nonsense, in terms of handling that stuff. 
> On the other hand, I would not recommend eating it, even after 1 Mill. 
> years ;-)  . Also, some of the longest-lived nuclides (99Tc, 129I) are 
> quite mobile, unfortunately.
>
> regards,
> pb
>
>
>
>
> Leo M. Lowe wrote:
>> Your point about "dangerous" is well taken.  A simplistic comparison of 
>> total activity or dose rates certainly does not give the entire picture 
>> of the potential hazards of spent fuel.  A more complete description is 
>> required.
>>
>> However, the purpose of my comment about the dose rate near spent fuel, 
>> which perhaps could have been more clearly stated, was to indicate that 
>> spent fuel would not necessarily be immediately hazardous for "millions 
>> of years" to anyone exposed.  While it would be very radioactive for a 
>> long time, the direct doses, such as for example might be encountered if 
>> retrieval were required, could be easily handled long before millions of 
>> years have past.  Note that the dose rate of 0.82 mSv/h from one spent 
>> fuel bundle after 500 years is with no shielding.
>>
>>> Message: 6
>>> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:39:36 +0200
>>> From: Peter Bossew <peter.bossew at jrc.it>
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Spent Fuel and Decay - Dangerous for
>>>         Millions        of      Years?
>>> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>>> Message-ID: <46AA11B8.7070205 at jrc.it>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> A useful document (although 10 y old), I find:
>>>
>>>  http://www.senat.fr/rap/o97-612/o97-612_mono.html
>>>
>>> A table with inventories can be found in sec. 2.1, Le butoir du césium.
>>> tMLi = t de métal lourd irradié.
>>>
>>> What "dangerous" means, is rather a philosophical question which can
>>> hardly be solved by scientific reasoning. Comparing the total activities
>>> or dose rates of U ore and spent fuel or reprocessing residues is
>>> somewhat problematic, because the compositions are very different, and
>>> therefore their behaviour in the environment and the biological
>>> efficiencies.
>>>
>>> pb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Leo M. Lowe wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > Further to the on-going discussions on the decay of spent fuel, the
>>> > National Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the Canadian
>>> > organization responsible for advising on how Canada should manage it's
>>> > spent nuclear fuel, gives a graph of the decay of the radioactivity of
>>> > CANDU (natural uranium) fuel and a table of the dose rate around a
>>> > spent CANDU fuel bundle (see Table A3-3 in NWMO final report available
>>> > at http://www.nwmo.ca/ )
>>> >
>>> > At 500 years of decay, the dose rate at 0.3 m distance from the bundle
>>> > is 0.82 mSv/h.  Therefore, as has been pointed out by others, a worker
>>> > could spend up to  7 working days (56 hours) next to the bundle and
>>> > still not exceed the 50 mSv/y occupational dose limit for exposure in
>>> > a single year.   While this is certainly not recommended, and the fuel
>>> > is still quite "hot', this puts the oft-heard statements about the
>>> > spent fuel being dangerous for millions of years in a different
>>> > perspective.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Leo Lowe
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Peter Bossew
> European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for 
> Environment and Sustainability (IES)
> TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 
> 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it
> WWW: http://rem.jrc.cec.eu.int "The views expressed are purely those of 
> the writer and may not in any
> circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European
> Commission."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/