Re: MOX fuel and Lawyers

[Gv1@AOL.COM]

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 

the risks.



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 

issues.



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...





Glen