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

bobcherry at satx.rr.com bobcherry at satx.rr.com
Mon Jul 30 19:55:18 CDT 2007


>>Nevertheless, the perceived threat of nuclear waste 
provides a nice living for the hoards (sic) of geologists, material scientists, 
bureaucrats,  and others involved [in] nuclear waste research.<<

Not to mention, herds of health physicists.
Bob C

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> 
Date: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:51 pm 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Spent Fuel and autompbile batteries- Dangerous for Millionsof Years? 
To: Peter Bossew <peter.bossew at jrc.it>, "Leo M. Lowe" <llowe at senes.ca>, radsafe at radlab.nl 
Cc: JGinniver at aol.com 

> 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/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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/ 
> 



More information about the RadSafe mailing list