Re: Nuclear Waste Paradox

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

>we have an apparent paradox here
>in that what is most likely the safest and most economic method for >waste 
>disposal is also the least acceptable politically. Given that >this is the 
>case,  I wonder why the government has squandered multi->megabucks on 
>scientific  & technological research on radwaste >management methods when 
>the results of such research has little or >no impact on the decision 
>process.

The main problem here - if we are dealing with radionuclides like Fe-55, 
Fe-59, Co-60 etc (which I guess was the case?) is probably about risk 
perception. For half lives less than say less than 50 years, consideration 
of the slow transients of the deep sea (vertical mixing time constants in 
the order of perhaps 1000 years or so) and consideration of the natural 
background - I suppose that even conservative (quite pessimistic) scenarios 
would not result in any doses that could compete with the natural background 
(?). Or could living deep sea organisms make this overall picture invalid 
(active vertical transportation)?

Just my reflection about the mathematical modelling that could be done. For 
real modelling to be valid - local currents etc should of course be 
described in a site specific way.

The outcome of deep sea disposal scenarios can be compared with the risks 
involved with the land disposal alternatives as already hinted above...

Bjorn Cedervall  bcradsafers@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html