On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:13, James Newton, Host wrote:
> Ok, but the net release of radiation is the same or less. And when
> you compare the mass involved with the mass of the earth, waiting
> thousands of years for it to settle down is not an issue.

Rather than talking about the net radiation, you really need to consider
radiation as a function of time. Sure, over hundreds of millions of
years, the net radiation will be less, but over hundreds or even
thousands of years, it will be a lot more. I really don't think we need
to worry about the hundreds of millions of years timescale. I'm not
sure where the breakpoint is.

Also, the effects of radiation are not linear - I don't think twice as
much radiation does twice as much damage (I think it may in at least
some cases do more).

> Compare the area of the U-238 mine, actually the area of the U-238
> that was mined, with the available area of the earth. This far (FAR)
> exceeds a factor of 200,000.

There is also the point that U-238/U-235 before it is mined is mostly
sitting underground, presumably somewhere relatively geologically
stable (or it wouldn't still be there) decaying away where it's not
really affecting anyone - it's not in our immediate environment.

<snip>

> A better solution would be to, literally, break it up into finer and
> finer solution and spray it over the surface of the earth. Sounds
> absolutely mad doesn't it? <GRIN> But that really is the safest way
> to do it. Soil naturally contains a variety of radioactive materials
> - uranium, thorium, radium and the radioactive gas radon which is
> continually escaping to the atmosphere. Naturally-occurring
> radioactive materials are widespread throughout the environment,
> although concentrations are very low and they are not normally
> harmful.

In some ways I kind of like that idea :-) As long as it can be
convincingly demonstrated that properties of that solution that makes
it at least an order of magnitude less harmful than the naturally
occurring stuff - remember, there is chemistry (such as strontium-90 is
much worse than it's radiation profile would suggest, because it gets
into our bones) and different types of radiation to consider too, not
just the amount of radiation.

In the interests of polluter pays, I would make one suggested change -
the land area of those countries that use nuclear power should be
adequate, rather than the whole surface of the earth :) Perhaps just
send the appropriate tiny amount of it out with the power bill ;-).

What I'd like to see us get a way from is the current pushing the costs
(whatever they are) onto someone else - either our descendants, or (as
happened with nuclear testing in the pacific) another area of the
world.

> Aren't you glad I'm not on the NRC? <GRIN> Have to run, I hear a
> black helicopter coming.

I don't think that's a helicopter ... I think thats the approach of
several thousand annoyed greenies ...

Cheers,
Roy Ward.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics