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

Mon Jul 30 20:26:56 CDT 2007

Bob,
  I can't agree with you on this one. If you look at the historical 
development of our idiotic NWM policies, you find that Health Physicists or 
other radiation protection professionals played little if any role. The NAS 
committee that proposed the initial policy in the 1950's consisted mostly of 
geologists with a few radiochemists. No HP's or radsafety people. Had they 
been included, they would likely have recognized that the miniscule dose 
levels that might result from any reasonable WM scheme would be no big deal. 
However, to Geologists and most of the general public any radiation exposure 
is considered to be too much. Since no method can guarantee zero release for 
millions of years, we
have the mess we have now.    Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bobcherry at satx.rr.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Spent Fuel and autompbile batteries- Dangerous 
forMillionsof Years?

>>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/
> >>
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > ï»¿
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------- 
> > 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/
>
_______________________________________________
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/ 