> The point is that human processing can change the threat of a substance
> substantially.

Part of the argument, made by others as well, is that the net
radioactive profile of the waste and the half lives, are no worse than
the original.

I'm not too convinced on that but have never felt exercised by that
aspect alone to go into it in detail. You could safely enough use a
cubic meter of yellowcake (Uranium ore) as a dining room table
(suitable sealed) and probably a kg of U239 under your bed would not
be overly hazardous for a few nights.

I'm told that M1A1 et al tank commanders receive an annual radiation
dose during one tour of duty due solely to proximity  to the "DU"
(depleted Uranium) in their main gun's penetrator rounds. (The DU for
these is reportedly sourced from "purified"  "waste" uranium from
reactors that has had the "good stuff" stripped out, and their are
substantial questions (and equal amounts of denial) about its purity
and radioactive profile.

Another point raised is that if you use breeders to increase the
utility for the fuel you consume greater portions of what you'd
otherwise dump  as waste. This issue is of course 'hotly' [tm]
debated :-).



                      R
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.