Re: radium disposal

[Wes Van Pelt <VanPeltW@mail.idt.net>]

Lester.Slaback@nist.gov wrote:
> 
> >No doubt:
> >Ra-226,  greatest headache . Geological repository is necessary... but
> >such a repository does not yet exist anywhere in the world...and probably
> >will not be in operation for some decades.
> 
> Given the natural abundance of radium in the oceans I have never
> understood not using this 'site' for this particular radionuclide (other
> than of course the environmental politics 'rationale').  I presume this
> has been discussed by the relevent authorities in the past (i.e., radium
> specific disposal, not ocean dumping in general).  Is anyone familiar with
> the arguments (technical, not political) on this method?
> 
> Politically is it possible that a 'natural' radionuclide might be viewed
> differently than those nasty man-made ones?
> 
> Ocean concentration : .05 pCi/L  (from Kathren)
> Ocean volume (a guess): 4 e+18 L
> Total est. activity: 1E5 Ci
> 
> --
> the above are the personal musing of the author,
> and do not represent any past, current, or future
> position of NIST, the U.S. Government, or anyone else
> who might think that they are in a position of authority.
> NBSR Health Physics
> NIST
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899
> 301 975-5810
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Lester.Slaback@nist.gov
> -----------------------------------------------------------

Les and Radsafers,

Eisenbud (2nd Edition) estimates that about 1300 Ci of Ra-226 was sold
in the US between 1912 and 1961. Even if all of this were put in the
oceans, it would increase the natural concentation by only 1%.  But
uniform mixing would be tricky.

Wes
-- 
Wesley R. Van Pelt, Ph.D., CIH, CHP                   KF2LG
President, Van Pelt Assoc., Inc.      vanpeltw@mail.idt.net
Consulting in radiological health and safety.
"TIME, its what keeps everything from happening at once."