> Well, what about the "waste" from other power generation? Coal 
> plants
> have spewed all kinds of crap into the air for a century now. LOTS 
> of
> health problems have resulted. Yet to many coal is FAR more 
> appealing
> then nuclear, despite it's huge amount of harm.
>
>> > If one looks at the figures dispassionately, nuclear plants have
>> > operated safely in most
>> > locations.  They do cause deaths and the cost vs benefit ratios 
>> > are
>> > acceptable.

The issue with nucler waste is that the dangers are of a different 
nature than those from all other types of waste. As a bonus they also 
have guaranted longevity that would make any poison green with envy.

Ionising radiation harms by altering the very structure of the matter 
it interacts with - whether by transmutation of elements or by 
knocking 'bits' out of molecules or altering genetic structures. 
Everything else attacks from without. Nuclear effectively from within. 
ie "normal" physical barriers against chemical activity, genetic 
interactions et al are no match for particles which, quite literally, 
ignore these barriers utterly and work on the atomic structure itself.

Other forms of pollution largely tend to do their thing in the short 
to medium term and your descendants get to inherit the damage. With 
nuclear they tend to get the damage themselves first hand (as well as 
in, in some cases, theuir mutated genes)(rare). You can get large 
pools of poisonous byproducts (leachate dams from mining, perchlorate 
ions from silicon valley, pentavalent chromium from hollywood, ...) 
but you have to work very hard at it and the effects tend to scale 
with the volumes. Some substances achieve effects out of normal 
proportion to their concentrations (such as, perhaps, the much debated 
DDT) but most chemical substances are going to be limited in their 
ability to harm unless you set up really large volume production.

And, as well as damaging differently, and requiring tiny 
concentrations to be effective, and having vast periods of activity, 
some nucleotides also use more traditional chemical means to assist 
their attack. For example, Strontium 90 would be nowhere near as 
dangerous as a contaminant were it not for the fact that it chemically 
substitutes for calcium in biological organisms (such as you and me). 
If you ingested equal and small quantities of U235 and Strontium 90 - 
the first may well pass relatively safely pass through your body but a 
significant proportion of the latter would end up in your bones and 
commence zero distance radioactive damage. Strontium 90 has a 
relatively small half life - around 10 years - while it is of great 
concern in the case of a reactor event it is not going to overly 
bother your children's children - should you survive to have any. But 
some other materials also have nasty body attaching properties and 
half lives of 10's of thousands of years. Or millions. Iodine 129 has 
a half life of over 10 million years. It's only about 100 times as 
active as U235. Not nice stuff at face value but not liable to kill 
you in minutes if you handled a sample tube of it. BUT ingest a little 
and a fair proportion will end up in your thyroid and start it's 100 x 
U235 Beta particle attack. Whether someone ingest this now or in a few 
decades, century, millenia or millions of years is going to make very 
little difference to its potency.

"Spreading it thin" is one way to help ensure that such substances 
don't come back to bite you. Alas, food chains often have the property 
of gathering some inobvious and minutely represented substance and 
concentrating it at an increasing level as you progress up the chain. 
A current example is mercury. Sardines are safe to eat mercury wise as 
they have only slightly elevated mercury levels. But if eating Tuna, 
which eat things that eat things that ... eat sardines, in any volume 
(as some people do - such as some body builders who use it as a cheap 
source of concentrated protein)  then checking mercury levels becomes 
very wise. As the top of many food chains is usually the group which 
contains you and I, many substances which are concentrated in this 
manner are delivered to us at levels well above their environmental 
average. It's entirely likely that Iodine 129 could be included in 
such a concentration process somewhere along the line. Similarly 
Strontium 90 from fallout tends to be deposited on ground surfaces, is 
ingested by cattle, ends up in milk in place of calcium and we 
complete the last stage of the concentrating process.

"Burying it deep" is another approach. But, store enough of a given 
nucleotide in an utterly secure location [[Yukka Mountain, Simpsons 
Desert or wherever]] and, given long enough, Murphy will with 
certainty work out how to get it out and spread it more or less thinly 
across the landscape and Dawrin will work out a natural system to 
reconcentrate it for you. The harder you try the longer it may take 
and the more surprised the recipients are liable to be.

Waste stored in vitrified glass was found to be leaching certain 
radioactive components to the surface through the matrix. 
Investigation revealed that bacteria  were present which had found 
just the thing deep inside this convenient package and were mining it 
and bringing it to the surface for their own reasons (or none at all). 
That anything at all could or did live in such an environment had not 
been previously known.

I'm informed that:  (no ref offered, work beckons)(gargoyle for it 
yourself) that there is MORE biomass and living creatures present in 
the "solid" rocks and subterranean body of the earth than exists on 
the whole surface and within the oceans. Odds are some of these 
denizens are eagerly awaiting new sources of entertainment. Living 
bacteria have been returned from rock samples from miles deep.

Clue - for starters try mixes of:   endolithic autotriphic hydrogen 
solid rock bacteria hydrogen

___

A similar process of concentration as occurs for mercury was said to 
occur for the insecticide DDT, with large avian predators such as 
hawks and eagles ending up with high concentrations. In the case of 
DDT the result was said to be redued egg shell thickness leading to a 
lower hatchling rate and a consequent reduction in bird numbers. The 
concentration of DDT in this manner can be demonstrated by direct 
measurement. (Whether such measurements have in ever fact been done in 
an adequately rigorous  manner is a matter of bitter debate and 
outside the scope of the present tirade). BUT whether such 
concentrations, if present, actually have the effect on egg shell 
thickness is far far less certain. Some argue (with a degree of 
plausibility) that such claims, which form the main basis for the 
international ban on DDT,  are based on extremely bad science and 
small sample sizes and that the results have been swamped by 
confounding factors.  ie it's debateable whether measured quantities 
of DDT in eagles can be correlated to reductions in numbers. In case 
you think I've let DDT divert me irrelevantly from nuclear matters, be 
assured I haven't :-). In the case of concentration of nucleotides of 
a given sort there is no debate over outcomes. If there are xxx 
micrograms of some nucleotide in the liver of a Canada Goose then the 
consequent radiation dose can be determined and the discussions moves 
to another field. ie while the effect of many "poisons" may be moot, 
with nuclear contamination it's all too certain. The substance is 
simply the delivery mechanism for a radiation dosage system.
_____

Undoubtedly *ALL* forms of energy conversion have costs that are not 
obvious and cause damage to health and deaths. There is little doubt 
that the fatalities from well run nuclear fission plants during the 
life of the plants is far lower than that from some alternatives such 
as coal. Systems such as solar or hydro also have their direct and 
indirect costs and attributable fatalities. But nuclear has the 
ability and probability of keeping on keeping on doing damage long 
long after every trace of a solar or hydro system has vanished. Coal 
has the ability to create pollution with indirect effects lasting 
centuries. But, compared to eg Iodine 129, and many of its friends, 
its a flash in the pan.

Consider - If there'd been a very large coal mine and coal fired power 
station near where you live 1,000 years ago it would probably largely 
now be a matter of academic interest. But, if there'd instead been a 
large nuclear waste dump there 1,000 years ago your interest would be 
liable to be far more focused.

I welcome people telling me that I'm wrong about any or all of this 
and explaining why. The more detail the better. "Just knowing" doesn't 
count:-)



        Russell


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist