AW: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste

Franz Schönhofer franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Tue Feb 15 00:30:12 CET 2005


This is just another way of describing my approach to Caspers question:
The answer depends on so many factors that they cannot be answered
within just a short RADSAFE posting. Uncertainties are very large. I do
not question any work of Bernie Cohen (how should I?), but I clearly
referred to the conditions which might be totally different, according
to (see below). Information about the literature available should
probably have to be obtained easily from the library. I do not
appreciate people who want to have literature search being done by
others, like for instance on RADSAFE.  
------------------------------------
  
"The graph on page 85 shows that "relative hazard" for spent fuel
(undefined as to burnup, reactor type, enrichment and any other detail
some folks might want)....." 
---------------------------------

Fine, didn't I put forward my reservations as to the fact, that "Caspar
Sun" did not forward any details for his request as to the core, etc?
Goldinems comment, that Caspar Sun has put forward a "relatively
straightforward question" can because of the above comment of
"undefined....." not been taken seriously. I have asked Caspar
"straightforward" twice for more informations on his request, which can
be read on RADSAFE. I never received an answer. 




If somebody on RADSAFE regards my answer as harsh or whatsoever I would
reply by the words of a good friend on RADSAFE which I received this
evening: "If some have a problem with your rethoric they can quit if
they want to." Anybody sending e-mails to me or the list on my
contributions without identifying himself will be ignored from now on by
me and will receive an adequate notice from me, which will be sent of
course to the list as well. No female contributors have ever sent a
flame to me, which is to explain the "himself". Thank you!

Best regards,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von goldinem at songs.sce.com
> Gesendet: Montag, 14. Februar 2005 19:19
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl; casper at bnl.gov
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste
> 
> About a week ago, Casper Sun (a very experienced certified HP whom
I've
> met
> in years past) asked a relatively straightforward question about the
years
> required to "cool off" when radiation hazard of spent fuel is no worse
> than
> before irradiating.  I replied that one good source for that data is
> (based
> on Bernie Cohen's work) in Raymond Murray's book: "Understanding
> Radioactive Waste."  Page 129 of the latest (5th) edition shows that
> irradiated fuel toxicity is equal to the initial uranium at 14,000
years
> for reprocessed fuel and 120,000 years for unprocessed spent fuel.
The
> figure shown was adapted from B.L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 54(1), Jan. '86
and
> refers to dose contributions from all radionuclides and probability of
> ingestion by humans.  (Note for you techo-weenies, since 1986, ICRP
dose
> factors for most transuranics were revised.)
> 
> Now in my note a week ago, I said that I recalled another graph that
> indicated the levels of radioactivity.  I haven't found that graph but
did
> find useful information in a DOE publication (DOE/RW-0362 TG, Science,
> Society, and America's Nuclear Waste, Unit 2, Ionizing Radiation,
> Teacher's
> Guide, no date but also quite a few years old).  crosses the
> uranium ore line at about 1 million years (greatly dominated by
Np-237).
> The spent fuel toxicity is within a factor of ten of uranium ore
somewhere
> around 5,000 years.  Some explanation on page 82 of the guide states
that
> after about 300 years, the "isotopes with the most intense levels of
> radioactivity will have decayed so that they present about the same
> relative hazard as uranium ore.  By 10,000 years, isotopes in spent
fuel
> will present about the same hazard as naturally occurring uranium ore
that
> is part of our natural environment."   We can argue all day long about
the
> bases for these statements (whether the 300 year date is based on
direct
> gamma radiation hazard while the long periods are due to ingestion
> scenarios from contamination of water) but without some technical
document
> to review, the guide is just that - a teaching guide to inform people
> about
> relative risks.  Bottom line for me, is that the 10,000 year
compliance
> period established by EPA is certainly defensible, along with a 300
year
> period for container integrity.
> 
> Regards,  Eric
> 
> Eric M. Goldin, CHP
> <goldinem at songs.sce.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe




More information about the radsafe mailing list