[ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

Sat Oct 23 12:23:34 CDT 2010

Dear Ed:

I assure you, the WIPP receives shipments of transuranic waste all the time!

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Edmond Baratta
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 12:49
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList';
'Jerry Cohen'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

Dear Colleagues:

The idea to dump radioactive waste in the ocean was tried once and was a 
disaster.  The waste was dumped in Boston harbor, New Jersey and San 
Francisco.  Eventually the containers rusted away.  The waste was at that 
time 'Low-level' radioactive waste.  We spent billions on WIPP and Yucca 
Mountain and now the government refuses to use them.  Meanwhile the waste is

held at the reactor sites, National Laboratories namely Washington State. 
When will the politicians come to their senses.

Ed Baratta
edmond0033 at comcast.net

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dan W McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:45 PM
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; "'Jerry Cohen'" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

> Dear Group:
>
> Since I worked on both WIPP and Yucca Mountain, I'll put in my two cents.
>
> The difference between geologic vs. oceanic disposal is simple: For the
> first 100+ years, the geologic repository is retrievable storage whereas
> oceanic disposal is not.
>
> At-Reactor storage is only feasible to a point. If ultimately fuel is
> reprocessed, then perhaps the only additional "storage" needed is
> retrievable.
>
> Dan ii
>
> --
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Darrough
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 15:55
> To: 'Jerry Cohen'; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health
> Physics)Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste
>
> Uranium is cheap to mine, and plentiful.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:16 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste
>
> George,
>    You are right on! Why do we continue to pursue  the dumb idea of
> geologic disposal of nuclear waste? Because, as Willie Sutton put 
> it--Thats
> where the money is! Many billions of dollars have already been squandered 
> on
> the concept of geologic disposal--and the scam will likely continue until
> whenever the money runs out. Nobody want the kill the goose that lays the
> golden eggs.
>    Oceanic disposal would simply be too inexpensive, safe,and easy for
> anybody to exploit.
>
> Jerry Cohen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 11:35:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste
>
> Joe:
>
>    Here are some thoughts for your consideration.
>
>    If the "nuclear waste" consists of used fuel from thermal reactors,
> deep-sea disposal is indeed a bad idea -- not because of the 
> radioactivity,
> but because only 5% of the fuel's energy (or much less, in the case of 
> HWRs)
> has been used, and it would be expensive to try to retrieve it.  Much 
> better
> to put it in retrievable storage in Yucca Mountain, so that its uranium 
> and
> fissile material
> (plutonium) will be available for when fast reactors are to be started up
> (eventually doing away with uranium mining for centuries, and with 
> milling,
> and enrichment of uranium forever).
>
>    But it's a different kettle of fish if the waste consists largely of
> unwanted fission products (many of which have commercial value).
> I'm not qualified to say whether you're right or wrong about the 
> subduction
> angle, but I'll point out that it doesn't matter - for two reasons.
> First, the waste, packaged in suitable containers, can be dropped where it
> will bury itself in the silt, where it will sit undisturbed for many
> millennia, constituting less of an insult to the biosphere than just about
> any other human activity you care to name.
>
>    Suppose, however, the waste were to start to dissolve in the sea water
> almost immediately (which it wouldn't).  Remember that the oceans are
> already appreciably radioactive (K-40, mainly).
> If you do the calculation, you find that, with reasonable dispersal of the
> waste canisters, the increment to the oceans' radioactivity would be 
> utterly
> inconsequential.
>
>    Why is this not taken seriously?  Because it's so cheap that there's no
> money to be made from it, so there's no lobby for it.  The opposition 
> comes
> from an unholy alliance of uninformed environmentalists and interests that
> want to be paid for researching and developing various expensive methods 
> of
> land disposal.
>
>    -- George Stanford
>        Reactor physicist, retired.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu