[ 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