[ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

Sat Oct 23 17:52:38 CDT 2010

Dan:

That's good to hear.  Will they accept waste from Washington (Hanford) and 
the reactors?

Ed Baratta
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dan W McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 10:23 AM
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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 