[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
Raymond:
The problem with the "non-energized, hermetically
sealed jar" concept is that human beings do not live
in a non-energized, hermetically sealed jar. In other
words, ionizing radiation, like non-ionizing radiation
is part of the human environment no matter where the
human goes. Obviously, without visible light human
life expectancy would be severely limited and with too
much visible light (e.g. higher powered visible light
lasers or mirror focused visible light) human life
expectancy would be severely limited. Without x-rays
for medical diagnosis or gammas and higher LET
ionizing radiation for cancer tumor therapy, some
humans' life expectancy would be severely limited.
One could go on to say "too much Pu or Pu used in the
wrong way (bombs or contamination by soluble forms of
Pu)" would severely limit human life expectancy and
"not using Pu in the proper way (oxide or carbide fuel
for power reactors) could severely limit human
existence, one way or another. The point is the Pu is
here now...what do we do with it? ("Burn" the Pu up in
PBMRs and get rid of it and make electricity instead
of trying to stockpile it and/or bury it. Eventually
with the PBMR technology as the pilot we may master
fusion electric power).
Paul W. Shafer
--- Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net> wrote:
> Bernard, Robert,
> You say, " --
> The implication in the remark I was responding
> to is that radiation
> is unique in that no contact is
> necessary to cause harm. That
> may be so for gamma rays, but I was pointing
> out that it is not
> relevant to the discussion about plutonium."
> Why say, "...that may be so"? It IS so.
> Thediscussion or "thread" had gone
> on to comparing radioactive material to other
> hazardous material when I
> joined in. The statement was made that radioactive
> material is not unique.
> Well, again...Yes, it is for a number of reasons,
> the most obvious being
> that it is the only material, at least that I can
> think of, that can kill
> you from inside of a non-energized, hermetically
> sealed jar. Why cavil and
> equivocate? Radioactive material presents a unique
> hazard! Under applied
> conditions radioactive materials may be more or less
> hazardous than
> non-radioactive toxins, but they are nonetheless,
> unique.
> Thanks for your comments. Rest assured I'll respond
> to no further on this
> ever so simple distinction.
> I hope you will forgive me if this is not clear.
> English is my second
> language. I have apparently not yet mastered a
> third: plain English.
>
> Ray
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> To: Wilson Robert H PSNS <wilsonr@psns.navy.mil>
> Cc: Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net>;
> <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>; maury
> <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:20 AM
> Subject: RE: So, is reprocessing in America's
> future?
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Wilson Robert H PSNS wrote:
> >
> > > I am not sure I understand the point here, is
> this to suggest that some
> type
> > > of contact is not necessary for harm to be done
> when in the presence of
> > > some hazardous material or equipment that emits
> an energy form?
> >
> > --The implication in the remark I was responding
> to is that
> > radiation is unique in that no contact is
> necessary to cause harm. That
> > may be so for gamma rays, but I was pointing out
> that it is not relevant
> > to the discussion about plutonium.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bob Wilson
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bernard L Cohen [mailto:blc+@PITT.EDU]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:00 AM
> > > To: Raymond Shadis
> > > Cc: tedrock@CPCUG.ORG; maury;
> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> > > Subject: Re: So, is reprocessing in America's
> future?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Raymond Shadis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ted,
> > > > Radioactive materials ARE uniquely hazardous
> in that no contact is
> > > necessary
> > > > for harm to be inflicted.
> > >
> > > Plutonium, which started this thread, inflicts
> no harm without
> > > contact; in fact it must be inhaled or ingested.
> > > Nerve gases kill without any obvious contact, as
> does aflotoxin
> > > and other biological agents in food or water
> supplies.
> > >
> > >
>
************************************************************************
> > > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe
> mailing list. To
> unsubscribe,
> > > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Put the text
> "unsubscribe
> > > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the
> e-mail, with no subject
> line.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing
> list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put
> the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line.
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.