[ RadSafe ] DU Disposal in Utah

Peter Bossew Peter.Bossew at reflex.at
Sat Jul 18 21:28:05 CDT 2009

Are you aware that you & I are also radioactive material: we contain a few
kBq of 40K, quite a bit of U and Th & progenies, some 14C, 3H, and
horribile dictu, even 22Na, 87Rb and 138La !!!

But well well well, you are right: humans are evil (any theologians around
? - now we know the reason, finally !) and should be disposed of at some
place where their presence does not disturb anyone.


jjcohen at prodigy.net writes:
>As is the case with all radioactive material, DU is evil and therefore
>must not be disposed of anywhere where its presence might disturb anyone.
>I have heard that the Obama administration is considering making this
>idea into a law.
>--- On Sat, 7/18/09, Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
>From: Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
>Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] DU Disposal in Utah
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Cc: "'Roger Helbig'" <rhelbig at sfo.com>
>Date: Saturday, July 18, 2009, 5:04 AM
>I have a very simple question regarding DU. Maybe I miss some point or
>I am simply naiv. 
>Why is everybody so eager to dispose of DU? Why is much work done to
>DU-Hexafluoride into a disposable compound? Wouldn't it be better to keep
>for the time, when Pu-breeders will be commercially available? It might
>be a
>commercial question, that at the time being there is enough Pu-239
>from surplus weapons that no additional Pu-239 is needed? Or is there any
>political question like the decision long ago in the USA not to reprocess
>nuclear fuel? 
>My personal opinion is that the worst option of disposing it of is to
>dispose it in form of ammunition at the battle field.....
>Best regards,
>Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
>MinRat i.R.
>Habicherg. 31/7
>A-1160 Wien/Vienna
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
>von Roger Helbig
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009 08:30
>An: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Betreff: [ RadSafe ] DU Disposal in Utah
>The Utah Radiation Control Board decided to postpone voting on banning
>disposal of DU at Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah.
>Here is an earlier article from the Salt Lake Tribune.  The reporter Judy
>Fahys actually seems like someone who is interested in learning and does
>have her mind made up.  Some of you might want to contact her at
>fahys at sltrib.com  and provide some advice if there are any glaring errors
>this story.
>Is depleted uranium too hot for Utah site?
>Environment > State Radiation Control Board has decided to look further
>the question.
><mailto:fahys at sltrib.com?subject=Salt%20Lake%20Tribune:%20Is%20depleted%20ur
><mailto:fahys at sltrib.com?subject=Salt%20Lake%20Tribune:%20Is%20depleted%20ur
>anium%20too%20hot%20for%20Utah%20site?> By Judy Fahys
><mailto:fahys at sltrib.com?subject=Salt%20Lake%20Tribune:%20Is%20depleted%20ur
>anium%20too%20hot%20for%20Utah%20site?> The Salt Lake Tribune
>Updated: 06/10/2009 03:53:35 PM MDT
>Utah's Radiation Control Board will dig deeper into the long-term risks of
>depleted uranium before it decides whether the unusual form of low-level
>radioactive waste warrants a moratorium. 
>But an attorney for EnergySolutions Inc. cautioned board members about
>and technical challenges they will face if they try banning depleted
>temporarily or permanently. 
>"It's a fairly high bar" for the board to justify a moratorium, said
>attorney James Holtkamp. 
>Board members said they would rather have waited for the U.S. Nuclear
>Regulatory Commission to wrap up its own in-depth study of how much DU, as
>its called, can be safely buried in a shallow disposal site like
>EnergySolutions' mile-square landfill in Tooele County. 
>But the that federal review could take years, and DU is already piled up
>government nuclear sites and an equal amount is expected from new uranium
>enrichment plants coming online in the next few years. NRC estimates the
>total needing disposal at 1.4 million tons, with just two disposal sites
>available to take it: EnergySolutions and a yet-to-be-opened Texas
>DU in small amounts clearly falls within Class A for low-level waste, as
>NRC reaffirmed a few months ago. But, because DU transforms over time to
>high-radon "decay" products, it actually gets more hazardous over time and
>peaks in danger in 1 million years. 
>EnergySolutions said it has disposed of 49,000 tons of DU in the past 20
>years, but that won't top the state's Class A hazard limit for at least
>35,000 years. 
>That's a problem for regulators. 
>Do they write a law that ensures the safety of public health and the
>environment for 100 years? A thousand years? A million? 
>"First of all, I believe the public should be protected and the
>should be protected," said board vice chair Elizabeth Goryunova,
>that the board had a responsibility to consider the need for a moratorium
>despite hassles that might be involved in imposing one. "That's
>absolutely a
>Board members will hear presentations from Energy-Solutions, the Healthy
>Environment Alliance of Utah and its legal advisors at its next meeting. 
>"I think it behooves us in terms of our responsibility," said board member
>David Tripp, a University of Utah physicist. 
>Vanessa Pierce of HEAL was pleased with the board's decision to take more
>time on the subject. HEAL requested the moratorium at the board's May
>"They're showing good due diligence," she said, "in how they are
>with this issue." 
>fahys at sltrib.com 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list