Start stocking Up on water and Canned food guys...

a reply to: Lazarusman04

Hi Laz:

Looks like you're wasting your time waiting for someone with a brain larger than your own to answer your perfectly simple question. Your question was (to paraphrase): "Has there been any progress made in transforming radioactive waste into something that won't harm humans or other life forms?" While waiting for some response, you were treated to a lot of back-and-forth exchanges about semantics, and the difference between diffusion and dilution. Wow, that was really informative, wasn't it?

So to while away the time you spent waiting for a meaningful answer, you resorted to some research. And what have you found so far? Well, it seems that once the Genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in. All you can do it try to contain it as best you can. An analogy that comes to mind is that you can take a "mixture" and remove contaminants, but you can't usually break a "compound" back down into its original components. You can't undo the conversion of fuel back to uranium ore and dirt. All you can do is put it in a barrel and bury it till it goes away in a few thousand years.

The "treatment" of contaminated coolant water, for instance, is pretty much limited to super filters such as reverse osmosis to try and remove as much cesium and strontium as possible, so as to ease your conscience when you dump the "harmless" coolant into the Ocean. Can't find out how much radioactivity is in the waste washing up onto the Left Coast of the US? Can't find out how much degradation of the air you are breathing can be attributed to the meltdown in Japan? How much strontium is in the milk your grandkids are drinking thanks to Tokyo Electric? Did it ever occur to you that maybe EPA doesn't know? Or doesn't care? Or doesn't want you to know?

It's been fun, Laz, looking over your shoulder. Let's get outta' here.

Your evil twin.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

The problem with that logic is called bioaccumulation, the concentrating of elements in denser amounts the higher up the food chain.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: intrptr

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning of dilute, as pointed out below, dispersal would probably have been a better choice of words.

If a gallon of water contains a million atoms, then those will spread to two gallons 500,000 each gallon, 4 gallons 250,000 and so on......

There is already low levels of Cesium in the oceans from other stuff like atomic bomb testing.

I stand by my original statement, people are overreacting.

No matter how widely "dispersed" atomic and subatomic radioactive elements remain as dangerous as they day they were made.

Your body accumulates elements in bone and tissue over time. We are at the top of the food chain. No matter how "diluted", the stuff will remain in the environment for longer than you even if you die a natural death. So the odds of you ingesting it go up over time, not down. The worlds natural processes mixes and spreads nutrients , life forms accumulate them.

The Cesium in your bones will be replaced 4 times over a thirty year span (one half life).

They aren't testing a bombs anymore, they were one event deals anyway, over in microseconds. Fission and release of by products from the melted down cores is ongoing. The earths natural "mixer" doesn't bypass the shores of Japan.

Radioactivity doesn't "dilute", either. You can dilute cyanide, an atom of cyanide won't kill you. One atom of Plutonium is deadly for millennia.

a reply to: Lazarusman04

I'll reply to you, Mr. 04. I created a thread on it, to explore the idea here on the board, here:
ATS Thread
I'm plodding along with it. Please add to it, if you find anything worth contributing. A few links to different ideas there, and I've found more that I have yet to add.

Most of what's out there seems rather unconventional, and may be pseudoscience. Brown's Gas, Bearden's scalar technology, some tech that has the dubious distinction of being considered to be in the realm of cold fusion, and some biological transmutations that have been claimed.

Transmutation seems to be a sort of holy grail of nuclear science, partly for its tantalizing awesomeness, and partly for the fact that it seems somewhat elusive to date. Most scientists seem somewhat skeptical of the notion that the natural transmutation process can be accelerated much. Some scientists claim otherwise, but are widely contested. Radioactive materials are difficult to experiment with safely of course, owing to their high level of toxicity, so it's not like every inventor would want to just tinker around with some in his or her garage.

There are some conventional approaches as well. Molten salt reactors are one. Vitrification(encasing the material in glass) and entombment is another.

I guess I should add my opinion that I smell a rat here. I have no proof of it, but I suspect the disposal problem has been solved long ago, and that the nuke companies are stomping on it hard to squeeze every last dollar/euro/yuan out of the materials that they can. Why dispose of it cheaply when you can get filthy rich storing it for a few decades? Eventually the cat will get out of the bag and they'll just be like: "Oh, so that's how it works! Of course! Great idea Jack!" Besides, if you neutralize the fuel, well then it's not fuel anymore. It probably gets gagged under the guise of protecting national security.

If a few people die in the process, well it wouldn't be the first time resources were fought over. Pound for pound nuclear waste is the most concetrated energy resource known, with the exception of fresh nuclear fuel or enriched nuclear material, of course. We don't think of it that way, but it is. You're also talking about huge sums of money being tossed around for this waste management, or perhaps I should say waste mis-management.

Also from a philosophical point of view: if we truly cannot effectively manage this waste, we shouldn't be concentrating it for use in this manner at all. What if we can't close this box? What then?

Sorry but these threads about stocking up on food always make me chuckle as the main point is missed here. You are saying if sh*t hits the fan then we should prepare for having our own cans and water.

Well. If that happens you should not be relying on canned food from corporations you should be planning more along the lines of disbanding from society and living off nature. Being able to hunt and kill and cook your own food and also filter water from dirty water you find. More time spent looking in those areas then worrying about what self storage facility to purchase to store your huge supply in would be best.

I do not fear the worst because the worst is probably a dream. Off the grid, off the chain, freedom.

a reply to: intrptr

My point is though, there wouldn't be enough once it had dispersed to cause significant harm.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: intrptr

My point is though, there wouldn't be enough once it had dispersed to cause significant harm.

You keep saying that and I'll keep saying there is no safe minimum dose.

Unlike even other man made pollutant, the tiniest bit of radioactive contamination is potentially lethal. Thats the insidiousness of it and why they should stop digging ore, refining, making fuel, reprocessing and making nuclear weapons, period.

a reply to: zinuru

Definitely an interesting choice of topic for your first post.
But your source isn't terribly reputable. Just for future reference, anything you read there should always be followed up by more research before it is taken to heart.
As an example, the article states that the rad-waste cycle is unsolvable, even after 2.5 million years. And it states this in relation to nuclear power in general. But that simply isn't accurate. While most American reactors do produce extremely long-lived waste products, France long ago adopted the method of recycling spent fuel. This basically re-enriches the remaining usable fuel in the old rods or pellets, and after being recycled as many times as is practical the waste products have much shorter half lives than those of the original cycle.

a reply to: intrptr

Just curious about a couple of things you said. Could you please clarify the meaning of subatomic radioactive elements?
And also could you clarify the effective lethality of one atom of Plutonium?
Thanks in advance.

a reply to: engineercutout

I can certainly understand your 'follow the money' argument, but what exactly do you mean by neutralizing the waste? Are you talking about a safe storage method, or neutralizing the material's radioactivity?

Also, you mentioned in the post previous to this one that molten salt reactors were an option. An option to what, exactly?

a reply to: zinuru

Sorry if this was mentioned before, but DAE remember how California's standards for safe amounts of radiation lowered after the spill...that will always grind me the wrong way

a reply to: Khame

Was it just California? Or did they have perhaps more strict limits than the Feds and just allow them to fall in line?

a reply to: Khame

Sorry if this was mentioned before, but DAE remember how California's standards for safe amounts of radiation lowered after the spill.

No. I don't remember.
Can you provide a source? The only changes to California regulation I can find are these and they don't seem to involve changes to allowable radiation levels. They are about industrial reportinf of worker exposures (like to hospital x-rays and such) In fact, a proposal to increase industrial exposure limits which requiring monitoring was rejected.
www.cdph.ca.gov...
www.cdph.ca.gov...

a reply to: engineercutout

Thank you for your very helpful response. I will check out the link you provided; it sounds like what I've been looking for. Hope to see you later. I appreciate your help.

a reply to: Phage
It was a proposal by EPA that was put into effect as an interim measure and was opposed by folks who work in the industry. The article below goes further into it...

The acting EPA director on Friday signed a revised version of the EPA’s Protective Action Guide for radiological incidents, which critics say radically relaxes the safety guidelines agencies follow in the wake of a nuclear-reactor meltdown, dirty-bomb attack, or other unexpected release of radiation. Although the document is a draft published for public comment, it takes effect as an “interim use” guideline. And according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), that means agencies responding to radiation emergencies may permit many more civilian fatalities. “In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems,” PEER advocacy director Kirsten Stade said in a press release. “This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period.”

www.forbes.com...

Not sure what the status of this interim document is at present.

a reply to: diggindirt

It was a proposal by EPA that was put into effect as an interim measure and was opposed by folks who work in the industry.

The member to which I replied was talking about California regulations.

As far as the EPA change in guidelines (not regulations) Have you read the PAGS or do you just always believe the pre-digested and biased versions of what you are presented? The PAGS are guidelines for use in situations when cleanup operations are carried out by authorities other than Superfund programs or other state or federal authorities. As guidelines, the PAGs do not "permit" anything. The updated PAGs do not "raise" any allowable levels.

In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems.

Is a gross distortion. In fact, the updated PAGS recommend relocation of the public if levels are at 2rem (2,000 millirem)/year at an accident site. They do not "allow" anything and the term 2,000 millirems by itself is pretty meaningless.

www.epa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

Argue with the writer from the Forbes article man.

Didn't say I believed any of it. I was simply referencing the story to which Khame might be referring. This was front page news in several publications at the time....inferring that standards were being "relaxed" in the wake of the Japanese accident.
Don't know the truth of the matter but at the time my friends in the KY natural resources department claimed it was an attempt to put more of the work/costs on the state via a "routine" re-writing of the guidelines.

I understand guidelines, recommendations and regulations quite well. Used to write the updates every two years as required by the association that our hospital's licensing authority required.
Did i read these? Nope, I'm not a physicist so don't know or understand their jargon so any mention of millirems is meaningless to me. I must rely on my educated friends for explanations of this sort.

I'm stocked, locked and loaded for whatever comes so this radiation thing is not something I'll get myself twisted up about. I've lived within an hour drive of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant my entire life. I grew up knowing that one of the USSR's nasty rockets was aimed at that plant so a meltdown in Japan isn't going to get me crawling under the table.

Earthquakes, tornadoes and ice storms concern me enough to stock up the pantry and install a generator. But we're old and probably won't be around long enough to see the long-term effects of this disaster. I do have concerns for my grandchildren's future but worrying about radiation exposure isn't terribly high on that list because there's absolutely nothing I can do that would change anything happening over there.

a reply to: diggindirt

Don't know the truth of the matter but at the time my friends in the KY natural resources department claimed it was an attempt to put more of the work/costs on the state via a "routine" re-writing of the guidelines.

The guidelines apply only to work which would be done outside of the scope of the Superfund. In other words, work which the state (or private concern) would be doing. They did not change the specification for Superfund qualification.

But think about it. If, as the claims say, that it was a relaxing of regulation (even though it isn't), how would that make it more costly for anyone?

People really need to actually make the small effort to look at the claims made (by anyone) to see if they are supported by facts. Especially when they involve a whole lot of arm waving.

a reply to: Phage
Perhaps I worded it poorly. My friends at the department were saying that the EPA was transferring costs from their (the EPA's)budget to state budgets by turning over certain phases to the state---as in turning the oversight/inspection of private contractors to the state in some instances. But then, these are people who claim that the EPA and other federal agencies send down conflicting "guidelines" and "recommendations" on a regular basis. They're just whiners I guess.
I didn't see anyone waving their arms.