Re: Nuclear Waste Paradox

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

    Half-lives  of waste components in this context should be of no concern.
Were this the case, then the toxic stable nuclides (Pb, Hg, Cd, etc) that
will exist forever would elicit the greatest concern, which is hardly  the
case.
 The ocean has been the ultimate repository for toxic materials leached
 from the geosphere  since creation. As a result the levels of  accumulated
toxic
 and radioactive materials have already reached concentrations so great that
the net
resultant hazard from any addition due to anthropic sources would be
trivial.
For example, assuming all of the electrical energy on earth for the next 100
years were to be generated only from nuclear power plants ( an estimated 100
million Megawatt-Years), and the resulting nuclear waste, after 100 years of
decay, were uniformly dispersed throughout the earth's oceans, the net
toxicity of ocean water (based on hazard index using ICRP-30 values)  would
increase by only 1/100 of 1%. I believe the ocean will do just fine
regardless of what mankind does or does not do to it.
    I know that such assessment  conflicts with some  deep-seated beliefs
held by "ocean worshipers". Of course, I may be wrong, but I have yet to see
a credible technological assessment showing that oceanic waste disposal
could result in dire consequences to human health or the environment.
jjcohen@prodigy.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Paradox


>>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



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html