Ron DeSantis Signs 'Radioactive Roads' Bill Allowing Mining Waste In New Highways

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

has never before been used in road construction.

that is untrue, it even says in your first link it was used, i even posted a reply to you about it. here let me remind you

from your link and my reply to you,

you do realize that limestone has phosphate in it don't you, and in 3.3 on page 3-4 and 3-5 from your link it says that phosphogypsum mixed with other aggregate bed materials has been used in road construction, parking lots, and storage areas.
it's not like it hasn't been used in the past.

my post

then in the last quote you from this reply to it says

The EPA says "phosphogypsum remains prohibited from use in road construction," as it has been almost continuously for more than 30 years.

so yea it has been used in the past, and is still used in other construction materials other than highways today.

What we can gather from all the links I posted is the one where it says they have not used it for the last 30 years up to today. That should set red flags off for everyone.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

has never before been used in road construction.

that is untrue, it even says in your first link it was used, i even posted a reply to you about it. here let me remind you

from your link and my reply to you,

you do realize that limestone has phosphate in it don't you, and in 3.3 on page 3-4 and 3-5 from your link it says that phosphogypsum mixed with other aggregate bed materials has been used in road construction, parking lots, and storage areas.
it's not like it hasn't been used in the past.

my post

then in the last quote you from this reply to it says

The EPA says "phosphogypsum remains prohibited from use in road construction," as it has been almost continuously for more than 30 years.

so yea it has been used in the past, and is still used in other construction materials other than highways today.

What we can gather from all the links I posted is the one where it says they have not used it for the last 30 years up to today. That should set red flags off for everyone.

The only red flag I'm seeing is that you seem to not care your source wasn't accurate, are ignoring that the thread title has been exposed as a complete lie, and you expect everybody to still believe the rest of your anti-science alarmism.

Studying beneficial use is how you reduce waste streams. If any of the people that have the most to say about issues took some time to learn about them we might be able to have an honest discussion here.

The trouble is, it's not about facts or science, but politics.

This is just to study if this product is safe and effective. Are you now against studying safety and efficacy of new and potentially dangerous products? Please elaborate, as this seems to contradict your risk standards professed elsewhere. I'd be fascinated to see how the crap under the asphalt rates of higher concern than a gene expression therapy that has no long term studies and more adverse event reports than all others in the class combined. What is causing this massive disparity in your expectations of the risk tolerance the public should be expected to endure for corporate profit?

this seems to be blown a bit out of proportion. the main reason that it is a concern is not the trace elements uranium, thorium, and radon. as those are filtered out and not used in the actual end product. the main concern seems to be the radium and its relatively high concentration, that raises the radioactivity and could cause some long term effects such as cancer and other problems related to radioactivity.
it has been used in the past for home materials in places like NJ USA and some countries in Europe and the studies are still on going to my knowledge.

while I do agree that this is a bad idea as it not known what the long term effects are and that is a cause for concern and should prohibit the use of the materials. I do not agree with the idea that commissioning a study to find out if it can be used is a bad idea, as otherwise its sitting there taking up space and potentially seeping into our ground water where it causes more damage to us in the ling run.
as it states it is not a outright go ahead to use it but rather a go ahead to test if it can be used.
Florida supposedly has a massive surplus of the stuff and needs to do something with it.
a reply to: MrInquisitive

a reply to: MrInquisitive

You seem to have little to no faith in the fact that they will be going about this in the safest way possible.

Do you really think that Desantis would do something that would literally be killing his constituents?

The amount of things you come into contact with on a daily basis that is considered to be "cancer risk" would probably blow your mind. But as another poster mentioned, you are so blinded by the fact that this guy doesn't hold the same political/social agenda as you and that scares you. You don't want to think that he will be doing something good with waste and, hopefully, in the safest way they possibly can.

You know that the alternative is just to seal it in a metal drum and burry it underground, right? The only difference there is that it will take longer for those "affects" you're worried about to actually make their presence known.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

has never before been used in road construction.

that is untrue, it even says in your first link it was used, i even posted a reply to you about it. here let me remind you

from your link and my reply to you,

you do realize that limestone has phosphate in it don't you, and in 3.3 on page 3-4 and 3-5 from your link it says that phosphogypsum mixed with other aggregate bed materials has been used in road construction, parking lots, and storage areas.
it's not like it hasn't been used in the past.

my post

then in the last quote you from this reply to it says

The EPA says "phosphogypsum remains prohibited from use in road construction," as it has been almost continuously for more than 30 years.

so yea it has been used in the past, and is still used in other construction materials other than highways today.

What we can gather from all the links I posted is the one where it says they have not used it for the last 30 years up to today. That should set red flags off for everyone.

The only red flag I'm seeing is that you seem to not care your source wasn't accurate, are ignoring that the thread title has been exposed as a complete lie, and you expect everybody to still believe the rest of your anti-science alarmism.

Studying beneficial use is how you reduce waste streams. If any of the people that have the most to say about issues took some time to learn about them we might be able to have an honest discussion here.

The trouble is, it's not about facts or science, but politics.

This is just to study if this product is safe and effective. Are you now against studying safety and efficacy of new and potentially dangerous products? Please elaborate, as this seems to contradict your risk standards professed elsewhere. I'd be fascinated to see how the crap under the asphalt rates of higher concern than a gene expression therapy that has no long term studies and more adverse event reports than all others in the class combined. What is causing this massive disparity in your expectations of the risk tolerance the public should be expected to endure for corporate profit?

I believe you're right on your criticism of the posters' arguments. It's clear there is an anti-scientific alarmism grounded on nothing other than false perceptions fuelled by political ideology. Even in one of my threads the alarmism was quite obvious by the same member who somehow argued eating insects can help reverse catastrophic climate change. Then the conversations switched to how cruel we are on animals and nature. Arguments fell apart naturally.

It seems safety and effectiveness of new and potentially dangerous products are not on the top of the list if ideology is involved when gene therapy is involved. But in contrast the OP and this member discuss about radioactive materials in the streets and how they can impact health. As mentioned earlier stericycle has been using medical waste- including radioactive- for a long time as an aggregate in its steri-cement products. There is no impact on human health by these wastes. They cannot be inhaled and are part of the final product.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

has never before been used in road construction.

that is untrue, it even says in your first link it was used, i even posted a reply to you about it. here let me remind you

from your link and my reply to you,

you do realize that limestone has phosphate in it don't you, and in 3.3 on page 3-4 and 3-5 from your link it says that phosphogypsum mixed with other aggregate bed materials has been used in road construction, parking lots, and storage areas.
it's not like it hasn't been used in the past.

my post

then in the last quote you from this reply to it says

The EPA says "phosphogypsum remains prohibited from use in road construction," as it has been almost continuously for more than 30 years.

so yea it has been used in the past, and is still used in other construction materials other than highways today.

What we can gather from all the links I posted is the one where it says they have not used it for the last 30 years up to today. That should set red flags off for everyone.

The only red flag I'm seeing is that you seem to not care your source wasn't accurate, are ignoring that the thread title has been exposed as a complete lie, and you expect everybody to still believe the rest of your anti-science alarmism.

Studying beneficial use is how you reduce waste streams. If any of the people that have the most to say about issues took some time to learn about them we might be able to have an honest discussion here.

The trouble is, it's not about facts or science, but politics.

This is just to study if this product is safe and effective. Are you now against studying safety and efficacy of new and potentially dangerous products? Please elaborate, as this seems to contradict your risk standards professed elsewhere. I'd be fascinated to see how the crap under the asphalt rates of higher concern than a gene expression therapy that has no long term studies and more adverse event reports than all others in the class combined. What is causing this massive disparity in your expectations of the risk tolerance the public should be expected to endure for corporate profit?

Nobody here was following my train of thought. I posted a link from the '90s where the material was used, then another link asking everyone here could we be confused as to the material used with links to materials (a question not a stance on anything), then I posted a link stating the material has not been used for the last 30 years up to today and pointed out that that should be a red flat to everyone. There is nothing untrue in any of those links, just my train of thought veered off course from the material or mining waste used in roads in question.

As for the thread title, it can conjure up many varying thoughts; politics, environmental hazards, Ron DeSantis' agenda, Florida's exceptional interest in what to do with the mining waste when they create 80% of that particular waste worldwide, whether or not 'radioactive' poses harm to humans, etc. you see thread titles can open up many cans of worms.

As for this being used beneficially in paving for roads, doesn't the paving material crumble with wear/tear and time? Will the radioactive materials leach into the ground and then the groundwater? And the OP is right, what is the environmental impact of transporting and actually using this material from start to finish? These questions need to be answered, so as one other member here stated, another study is needed.

The way I see this, and honestly I didn't read it in depth, is
1. The bill authorizes the study of the sustainability of using the material, does not authorize actually using it (admittedly still not a great idea probably, but still two different things).
2. Where is this waste going now? Landfill? I honestly don't know and at the moment too lazy to research it.
3. He signed a bill, no executive order or secret squirrel stuff uncovered, this means that a state legislator introduced the bill, the legislative branch passed it, and he signed it meaning a whole bunch of eyes have seen the bill and voted yes on it
Granted, sounds bad up front but the details should be considered and presented accurately. But of course today's media only knows sensationalism so the actual truth of any matter is unlikely to be reported

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: MrInquisitive

You seem to have little to no faith in the fact that they will be going about this in the safest way possible.

Do you really think that Desantis would do something that would literally be killing his constituents?

The amount of things you come into contact with on a daily basis that is considered to be "cancer risk" would probably blow your mind. But as another poster mentioned, you are so blinded by the fact that this guy doesn't hold the same political/social agenda as you and that scares you. You don't want to think that he will be doing something good with waste and, hopefully, in the safest way they possibly can.

You know that the alternative is just to seal it in a metal drum and burry it underground, right? The only difference there is that it will take longer for those "affects" you're worried about to actually make their presence known.

You're right. I don't trust the initial study to be done objectively, and no, I don't trust the GOP governor or legislature of Florida to do the right thing by their constituents. And not because I am blinded by my political ideology, but because I saw how he and the legislature handled the pandemic, which resulted in one of the highest infection and death rates per capita amongst all of the states; it's one thing to prohibit vaccine mandates, but it is another thing to prohibit mask mandates in schools and businesses. His stance on climate change is nutty for a governor of a state where much of the land is near sea level. You, of course, can disagree with me on these matters, but this is my reasoning.

But I generally don't trust the government to do right by the people when there are big business interests whose agenda does not go hand in hand with public health.

And once again, consider this hypothetical scenario: that instead of using phosphogypsum as road aggregate, they were dispersing plutonium in road aggregate in the same levels as the radium content in phosphogypsum. Would you be for that? Actually that would be safer to do.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

And not because I am blinded by my political ideology,

Not buy'n it!

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Your entire response shows that you are, indeed, blinded by your political ideology.

You are so focused on how the Gov of Florida handled COVID, but fail to see how POTUS and his gang of miscreants did the same thing.

It was, thoroughly, proven that the masks that they were mandating did nothing to "protect" from COVID. Hence why they said you need to double mask, then it was triple mask. I think you would be very disappointed if you saw, how many of the people that were making the laws and mandates, were in bed with the people making the most money off the plandemic.

Either way, not on COVID here so back to the matter at hand.


Anything and everything that is being, or will be, done in this country has the interest of big business. Until you are given the evidence that Desantis will not be going about this usage of materials the right way, you might sit back and give him the chance to prove himself or make himself look like the ass everyone claims he is.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Your entire response shows that you are, indeed, blinded by your political ideology.

You are so focused on how the Gov of Florida handled COVID, but fail to see how POTUS and his gang of miscreants did the same thing.

It was, thoroughly, proven that the masks that they were mandating did nothing to "protect" from COVID. Hence why they said you need to double mask, then it was triple mask. I think you would be very disappointed if you saw, how many of the people that were making the laws and mandates, were in bed with the people making the most money off the pandemic.

Either way, not on COVID here so back to the matter at hand.


Anything and everything that is being, or will be, done in this country has the interest of big business. Until you are given the evidence that Desantis will not be going about this usage of materials the right way, you might sit back and give him the chance to prove himself or make himself look like the ass everyone claims he is.

No, my response doesn't show that I am blinded by my political views, although it certainly affects my outlook on political matters, just like your political views and everybody else's affects yours and theirs.

As for masks, it's not that the mask wearing protected people from catching Covid, but that mask wearing kept people with Covid from spreading it. Wearing a mask, assuming it is done correctly, does help to minimize the amount of aerosolized droplets that are spread, and that's a big deal with any airborne disease. Are you saying that covering one's nose and mouth when one sneezes or coughs doesn't reduce the spread of germs either? Why the hell do you think doctors and nurses wear masks in surgery? It ain't to protect against the patient, it is to protect the patient from germs potentially spread by the surgical team.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominantly by inhalation of respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets by the wearer (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others (estimated to account for more than 50% of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions).1, 2 Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for wearer protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these two effects (source control and filtration for wearer protection); individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.

Studies demonstrate that cloth mask materials can also reduce wearers’ exposure to infectious droplets through filtration, including filtration of fine droplets and particles less than 10 microns. The relative filtration effectiveness of various masks has varied widely across studies, in large part due to variation in experimental design and particle sizes analyzed. Multiple layers of cloth with higher thread counts have demonstrated superior performance compared to single layers of cloth with lower thread counts, in some cases filtering nearly 50% of fine particles less than 1 micron.14, 18-30 Some materials (e.g., polypropylene) may enhance filtering effectiveness by generating triboelectric charge (a form of static electricity) that enhances capture of charged particles20 while others (e.g., silk) may help repel moist droplets31 and reduce fabric wetting and thus maintain breathability and comfort. In addition to the number of layers and choice of materials, other techniques can improve wearer protection by improving fit and thereby filtration capacity. Examples include but are not limited to mask fitters, knotting-and-tucking the ear loops of medical procedures masks, using a cloth mask placed over a medical procedure mask, and nylon hosiery sleeves.32-36

Science Brief: Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2

There are citations in the above report to studies that show that mask wearing does help to limit the spread of the disease.

Am curious, did you contract Covid? I didn't and I rode public transportation five days a week to and from work for over a year during the pandemic. I started wearing a mask before it was recommended (back when there weren't enough masks), and continued wearing one when going into businesses up until last month.

And again, Florida's fast 'n loose Covid policies resulted in higher rates of infection and death than about 80% of the rest of the states.

But back to DeSantis and how the Florida legislature rolls, and why I don't trust them:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed into law a spaceflight bill that protects companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin from legal liability if crewmembers or passengers are injured or killed during missions.

The Spaceflight Entity Liability bill, or CS/SB 1318, was one of 27 bills he signed a day after launching his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination during an event on Twitter with its owner, Elon Musk, who is also the CEO of SpaceX.

The bill now requires crewmembers and passengers to acknowledge the risks of spaceflight by signing a waiver that contains the following statement: “WARNING: Under Florida law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant or crew in a spaceflight activity provided by a spaceflight entity if such injury or death results from the spaceflight activity.”

Injuries may include damage to land, people, equipment and animals, in addition to “the potential for you to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to your injury or death,” according to the bill.

DeSantis signs Florida bill limiting the liabilities of private spaceflight companies

Now you may, well it's reasonable to limit liability for crew and passengers, to which I'll say two things: the Titanic sub, and the fact that the bill also says damage to land, people and animals. It sounds like it is talking about collateral damage, such as the damage to the protected wetlands that resulted from a Space-X misfire. And in any case, it seems that shielding a company from liability just encourages a company to skimp on safety. So DeSantis and his legislative buddies care more about the companies than the people.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Your entire response shows that you are, indeed, blinded by your political ideology.

You are so focused on how the Gov of Florida handled COVID, but fail to see how POTUS and his gang of miscreants did the same thing.

It was, thoroughly, proven that the masks that they were mandating did nothing to "protect" from COVID. Hence why they said you need to double mask, then it was triple mask. I think you would be very disappointed if you saw, how many of the people that were making the laws and mandates, were in bed with the people making the most money off the plandemic.

Either way, not on COVID here so back to the matter at hand.


Anything and everything that is being, or will be, done in this country has the interest of big business. Until you are given the evidence that Desantis will not be going about this usage of materials the right way, you might sit back and give him the chance to prove himself or make himself look like the ass everyone claims he is.

Don't want to go down the Covid rabbit hole either, but your making claims about mask without substantiating them. Sure, there have been a few studies that reported that masks made no difference, but the preponderance of studies say otherwise. It's not unlike cherry picking climate studies by climate change deniers. Seems your political bias is poking through.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

You mean kind of how the big Tabaco companies have that immunity from lawsuit?

I'm not saying this is a completely good idea, but at the same time, if you want to go on an experimental mission/aircraft/sea craft/ etc, you assume the risk that something bad could happen. If you are reading a contract and in 3 DIFFERENT PLACES states that you could die, and you still sing it. That is 1000000% on you. Just as if you see all of the warnings on cigarettes, and other products of that sort, you assume the responsibility that you could die from usage.

Collateral damage could, and ha been, an issue in the past. There is no denying that. But, at the same time, if you live next door to an experimental space flight program, there is a possibility that you are going to get some chunks of space craft in your yard. Just as if you move in to a house next door to a drag strip, there will be a lot of noise most weekends of the summer.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

No political bias there, real world experience.

I never wore a mask, outside of work, and I never got it. Everyone I know at work that got the "vax" right away and wore masks every second of their lives got it.

Pretty easy to establish the falsehood that the gov put on how effective masks are(not).

a reply to: PorkChop96

Just as if you move in to a house next door to a drag strip, there will be a lot of noise most weekends of the summer.

true dat, hell even if you live 5,7, 10 miles away from some circle tracks where your always turning left and trading paint, there's gonna be lots of noise on Saturday night. and about half if not more it's coming from the loud speakers.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Yeah, we have a dirt track close to where I live. Some new owners bought houses right behind the track and in the following year had filed a petition to get it closed, due to excessive noise on weekends and that is was scaring their dogs.

a reply to: PorkChop96

that happened to one near my house, not sure if they filed a law suit, but a bunch of home owners tried to get the county to shut them down. county asked them didn't they see the track when they looked at the houses, and realize that there would be noise on the weekends.

beside that, all those folks get a great fireworks show every holiday without leaving their house. i bet that really dives some of their dogs insane. oh did

ETA: did i mention that i live in fl, and the home owners are snowbirds and woketards moving into a newly constructed sub division. and that the track was there for 25 years before the sub division was even thought about being built.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Sounds about right