[ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste
JPreisig at aol.com
JPreisig at aol.com
Thu Oct 21 19:42:34 CDT 2010
This is from: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com)
One poster to radsafe or more keeps suggesting we put nuclear waste
into subduction zones for
disposal (in the ocean) and the subduction/convection cycle will carry the
nuclear waste down into
the Earth and keep it there. I doubt that this would work. The surface
areas at the entrance ways to
subduction zones are usually covered by layers of sediment (accretionary
wedges???) which would
keep the waste from being subducted. The nuclear waste would just sit
there on top of the sediment layers
without ever moving downward. Duh...
Let's keep the nuclear waste up here on the surface of the Earth,
with no need to put nuclear waste in
the ocean. Nuclear waste in the ocean was an idea for the 1950's --- not
very viable today.
I don't mind opening up Yucca Mountain at all. So what will happen in the
November 2010 election---
eh, boys and girls. If that republican woman upsets Reid in Nevada, will
the Nuclear Waste trucks be
headed to Yucca Mountain???
Tell me it ain't so, Dr. Stabin,... HP types sitting for the HP CHP
exam and not knowing the difference
between Roentgens, rads and rems??? Isn't this material covered in
many/most first health physics
courses??? HP's who don't know about plateau curves for gas filled
detectors??? Boy, long ago,
I remember running a rad spectrum using a SCA (Single Channel Analyzer) and
not a MCA (Multi-Channel
Analyzer). Talk about tedious. This story reminds me about my Dad
telling me about having Dr. Geiger
as a lecturer for lab demonstrations in Germany. Still don't know if that
story is true. I'm told Geiger
was highly animated in his lab lectures and they were very well attended.
An interesting older book on radioisotope methodology is by Chase and
Nuclear waste is Cs/Sr and things like that, longer-lived low level
(alpha) components and perhaps
some mobile (in groundwater) radionuclides (Tritium, C-14, Tc-99, I-129,
etc.). I guess the French have
limited other energy resources, and need to reprocess their nuclear waste.
The USA has other energy
options, doesn't reprocess much Nuclear Power plant waste, leaving it at
the power generation sites.
The USA spends money for storage, but doesn't waste money on reprocessing
right now, get it???
Global warming, oh my. Perhaps the guy at Penn State and the people
at East Anglia were early
bearers of the the global warming message. If there was scientific
wrong-doing, then they should be
treated accordingly. But this is important stuff!!!! The work/results
should be revisited, re-analyzed by
more serious, more credible, better funded scientists. The hockey stick
(dog leg????) in the
global warming data appears real to me, although my atmospheric training is
Another curve of interest that can be garnered from the Internet is
that of world population versus time
for the last 100 years or so. Those data have somewhat of a hockey stick
(dog leg?) shape also, with
the change in the data slope taking place in about 1945 or thereabouts
(the start of the baby boom???).
One can imagine a 20 year lag/lead time between a person's birth and the
time they enter the adult
(and perhaps industrial) workplace. Compare the two curves. I don't want
to support global
warming all that much, because I know so very little about it.
Funny, in about 1991, folks at Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA USA)
were making Global
Circulation (Atmospheric) Model runs on an IBM 3090 Mainframe computer,
which might have been called
a supercomputer by some. I also used that computer for geophysics
calculational spectrum estimation,
and that computer's memory was stretched to the limit just to run one of my
sitting here, typing this e-mail, on a personal computer which far exceeds
the memory capability of that
IBM computer. Sounds like, one day soon, the average JOE scientist could
be running GCM runs on
a computer sitting right on his/her desk.
I should end here, but I can't resist offering. One poster to
readsafe offered the observation that tritium
will leak out of vacuum systems using O-Ring Vacuum Sealing technology.
Boy, isn't that the truth.
One doing work with tritium should try to use Varian Flange vacuum line
technology, or something
similar. Expensive???, perhaps yes. Also in 1978, EMR
Photoelectric/Schlumberger (Princeton Jct.,
NJ) (No, not EML in New York City!!!!) switched from using some metal which
I cannot recall, to Uranium
or depleted Uranium as a gas storage getter material in their Minitron
(Also known as a Bit__otron to one
of our former QC inspectors) neutron generator processing stations. The
tritium is no longer introduced
during tube processing directly from the tritium (also deuterium)
laboratory cylinder, but rather from a
batch of uranium powder. One heats and cools the Uranium powder to get
the deuterium and/or tritium
in and out of the powder. The deuterium and/or tritium is then absorbed
in a filament (of the other metal)
in each Minitron tube. Each Minitron, if it makes it through the life,
voltage, performance testing heads
to the oilfields for use in oil well logging. One reaction I expect they
use in the well logging is
(n, gamma) with the neutrons being produced in one part of the oil well
logging device and a hardy
Schlumberger photomultiplier tube receiving any produced gamma returns.
The gas gettering technology
using Uranium was described in a brief article in a scientific journal from
around 1978 or before. Such an
article might be on the internet now??? I'm not all that sure
etc. sees a need to disseminate information about how their neutron
generator tubes are built, used and
That's all for now. Enjoy your weekend!!!!
Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, Ph.D.
(not Joseph O. Preisig, formerly of RCA Princeton,
Hightstown and Somerville, NJ USA)
More information about the RadSafe