Re: re a real solution

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

I don't recall anyone stating that 300 year old spent fuel is less
"radioactive"  than the original unfissioned fuel. However, if you accept
the ICRP-2 dosimetry values for ingestion (rem/ci ingested),
it can be  calculated that the "radiotoxicity" of   a waste/spent fuel
repository becomes less than that of a typical uranium ore body in about 300
years. (see previous posting)
It is a commonly accepted myth  that nuclear waste management
poses a hazard of unprecedented severity and duration. I believe this myth
has been perpetuated by a coalition of anti-nukes (hoping to impede
development of
nuclear power),  hoards of bureaucrats, regulators, politicians, and
Nuke-waste researchers (hoping to continue the megabucks gravy train), and
of course, the news media (anything that scares the hell out of people makes
good press).
There are lots of things that per unit mass are potentially more toxic
and/or hazardous than nuclear waste ( viruses, botulism toxin, etc.). If one
is not
concerned with probabilities,
theoretically, only one knife could be used to stab everyone on earth to
death. The concern  that nuclear waste, because of its long half-life
components, poses a unique problem of such long duration that human
institutions are incapable to of dealing with it, is also nonsense. If such
concern were rational, than we should be most worried about waste containing
stable toxic materials such as lead, cadmium & mercury which will persist
forever.
As I see it, the main problem in all this is, if one wants to measure how
dangerous anything is, what yardstick should be used? In the last few
decades, those involved in the field of risk assessment have been trying to
develop  rational, objective methods for the purpose. They have not met with
much success. One good scare story in the news appears to have a far
greater impact on public opinion than many well conceived scientific risk
assessments. I wish I could suggest a way of dealing with the problem so
that we could reach a "real solution" to nuclear waste management.
Unfortunately, I can't.
However. one thing is clear. Technological research cannot, in itself,
provide the answer. The billions of dollars that have already been
squandered
 in attempts to find the solution  have resulted only in dismal failure.
Before the government spends another dime on such research, I'd like to
 see them put some effort
into defining the true nature of the problem, and accordingly,
what would constitute an acceptable (real) solution for it. If you don't
know what you are looking for, chances are that you won't find it.
jjcohen@prodigy.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Heinmiller, Bruce <heinmillerb@aecl.ca>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: re a real solution


>This explanation for the statement questioned in the original post about
>spent fuel "being no more radioactive than the original unirradiated fuel
in
>about 300 years" provides a classic example of how factoids get distorted
>during their propagation.  The radioactivity of unirradiated fuel is quite
>different from that of the ore from which it was derived, and neither
>reprocessing nor toxicity is mentioned in the quote above.  The quote above
>not only lacks qualification with respect to any reprocessing option, but,
>if derived from the source cited, would appear to have lost fidelity in any
>case.  Consequently, it should be dispatched to the dust bin containing
>other factoids such as the recently dispatched
spousal-irradiation-from-K-40
>factoid.
>
>Bruce Heinmiller CHP
>heinmillerb@aecl.ca



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html