Re: radium disposal

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 08:31 06.01.1997 -0600, you 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
>---------------------------------------------------------

Lester,

Also other radionuclides like uranium, thorium etc have a certain abundance
in the ocean as well as in soil, rock etc. I do not have any figures at
hand, but there must be a much higher activity of uranium present than
radium according to my feeling. Since the surface of the earth covered by
oceans is much large than the surface covered by land, there is good reason
to believe that the activity of the amount of artificial radionuclides in
the oceans originating from weapons testing fallout is higher than on land.
Then there would be no reason not to dump everything into the ocean. I
suppose you know that there exists a convention which forbids dumping of
radioactive waste into the ocean. Well, this is not a technicsal issue, but
a political. Nevertheless I assume you know that a lot of radioactive
material has been dumped by the former Sovjet Union, the USA and probably
also by other nations, which I cannot confirm from at home. You may know
about the Kara Sea and the Barent Sea and the deliberately sunken nuclear
powered submarines and boats.

Concerning your second question I can only answer from my knowledge of
legislation in European countries and my home country. In some countries
natural radionuclides are exempt from legislation when it concerns their
original abundance in nature, but not when they are emitted by some
technical process or when their concentration is technically enhanced, or
when they are used in medicine. To illustrate this: In Austria in theory
well water with a concentration of Ra-226 exceeding 0.122 Bq/l (3.3 pCi/l),
the limit given in the Radiation Protection Ordinance, would be allowed for
consumption according to the Radiation Protection Law. In practice it is
not, because we have implemented regulations in our legislation related to
food that this is not allowed, if the water will be provided by a water work
to other persons. Nobody can prohibit use of this water by the owner of the
well. But if some industry would emitt radium, which would enhance the
Ra-226 concentration in groundwater to a level above 0.122 Bq/l, then this
emission would be forbidden. 

One special case is radon in air. I think that no government in the world
would dare to set levels for artificial radionuclides which would result in
such high doses as would result from radon concentrations which are within
the limits or recommendations by the same government. Not of scientific
reasons, but for the public opinion of course. I remember very well, when
our Austrian Radiation Protection Commission, which I have the honour to be
a member of, met to set recommendations for radon concentrations in indoor
air. One of my collegues put forward the theoretical request to raise the
limits for artificial radionuclides in such a way that the maximum
permissible doses would reach the ones from the just recommended maximum
radon concentration. The representative of our Ministry of Health did not
know, what to answer!!!!

May I conclude, that there really seems to be a political difference between
natural and artificial radionuclides, but the natural radionuclides are
without doubt in the better position!

Best wishes for the rest of 1997!

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at