[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MOX fuel and Lawyers
With all due respect, it is so obvious the problem was written with
predjudice and absence of technical merit, that the problem is meant to be argued on
the point of arbitrary liability and not true risk. The problem already asserts
Don't exactly recall the amount of Pu-239 used, but I believe it is
essentially the same amount that would be in a core at the end of a typical cycle.
Pellets are generally a metallic oxide, much like a ceramic. Radiologically
speaking, the difference between depleted Uranium, new fuel, and MOX are likely to
be very similar. If I remember correctly, PWR fuel, which is more enriched
than BWR fuel is only 5 wt% U-235, which once again shows its not that
different from depleted uranium.
If you were to smear a depleted uranium slab that is often used for beta
correction factors for ion chambers, you'd probably find 50 kdpm/100 cm^2 beta and
40 dpm/100 cm^2 alpha from oxides on the surface. The primary contributors
to an average beta energy near that of Sr-90 are daughter products, not
uranium. I believe one of the Po isotopes is the big hitter. No real good transport
mechanism for fish or people. It takes a 4x4x1/2 inch slab to get
approximately 200 mrem/hr beta. Even if someone ate and later passed the pellet, not a
good transfer of dose.
With respect to transporting Fissile material, you're supposed to get
approval from the competent authority of each country your package travels through.
The problem really doesn't go in deep enough to assess any real shipping
Once again, I think it's clear the problem was never intended to be argued on
technical merits, so I don't think anyone will listen...