Some radioactive elements like Plutonium and Amercium are man made and didn`t exist before the 20th century, not generally comparable with naturally ocurring background radiation.
"most long lived radioactive compounds are totally innocuous in small quantities"
For a naturally ocurring one that isn`t , try Radon.
Main issue being these are not small quantites, description is of tanks `size of several olympic swimming pools` its not something that will `water down` its got the reverse Midas touch, what it comes in contact with becomes just as bad as the rest, its not a useful property.
Its what make radioactive waste different from almost all other waste, handling lead dosen`t turn everthing it touches into lead.
I don't think mine counts anyway as its not installed. It just gets connected to the hose tap every week or two to fill a couple of jerry cans.
The tap water is a bit hard for the fish.
The waste water goes into the water butt so it waters the garden.
If it were installed under the sink it would have a pressurised storage tank which could feed back into the system if enough things went wrong. But as they are typically only a couple of gallons I don't see how they would have much effect.
Picked those 2 out of a few candidates as plutonium is generally now a problem waste product and amercium has been metioned as the radioactive element in smoke detectors.7
They would not have been (re) created without man`s manipulation in the last century.
Difference is in concentration.
If only it did.
Radioactive contamination is not really `washable` with our current understanding and technology, materials in close proximity to highly concentrated radioactive sources become radioactive themselves, not in a removable way , so handling equipment becomes part of the waste.
C`mon John, no such suggestion at all, interested in open debate about the issues not poor points , badly made.
Lead was probably bad choice of example waste going by its fluctuating cost.
That`s not reassuring, radioactive contamination is a modern man made problem.
No-one said *if* there was a problem that it would be easy or more exactly cheap to fix. This is why, as the good senator says, you need the science (rather than focus groups and public enquiries) to decide the scale of the problem. And therefore how much should be spent on it (as opposed, say, to cancer research or other public health issues).
Radioactive toxicity is characterised by two or three things.
- what sort of radioactivity it emits
- its biological activity (does te body store it or immediately excrete it)
- its biological half life - how long it STAYS in the body. I.e C14 is less dangerous because its burnt as energy largely and gets excreted rapidly.
In general the more dangerous compounds are those which are fast decay - like radon or those that get stored in the body, like Iodine 131.
Radon, which is natural, is more dangerous because it rapidly decays to polonioum and that is nasty stuff if it stays in the lungs.
Plutonium is a very long half life and not nearly so radioactive.
Neither would you, which perhaps might have been advantageous.
No it isn't. There is far far less man made radioactivity than there is natural and most of the man made is medical treatment or diagnosis created.
again they simply dont.
One or two do, but the absorption of a neutron usually leads to a very unstable short lived isotope - thats why its better to leave a reactor for about 50 years before dismantling it. That way all those compounds simply decay.
No, you are not interested in open debate, you are interested in promulgating scary myths.
Its not.
Except in the sense it was so created in the minds of the public as a deliberate policy in the Cold War.
Perhaps its more length of exposure than quantity , or a combination of the two.
It is an example of a radioactive hazard that existed without man made intervention though.
Refer you to the original article about the Hanaford Nuclear Reservation, appears to be contaminated water.
Obviously missed the devlopment of the fantastic technology that transforms tanks of radioactive waste contaminated water to a few grams of solid waste and drinking water, do you have a link to this breakthrough?
Thats it , just bring out the pressure washer and it all cleans up fine....
Sorry, perhaps you would like to `blaze forth` with an explantion of how nuclear waste is simply and safely disposed of, the "small quantities" that are in existence?
Your stuck in the Smiling Sun world of power too cheap too meter and Nuclear is fine , it`s how the Sun works, its natural...
There is no clear idea on how to deal with nuclear waste, yet to hear to hear one from you for sure.
"Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element by virtue of its most stable isotope, plutonium-244, whose half-life of about 80 million years is just long enough for the element to be found in trace quantities in nature."
Primordial elements are made in supernova explosions, and are those which predate the formation of the Earth.
Any fast breedeers still running or any under construction or planned?
or is just dangerous waste?
Believe it is in quantity and there is the Boy scout reactor tale..
and you`d have got away with your nonsense unquestioned?
Fascinating , got a link with the numbers?
Attemting to ignore the glowing ponds of Sellafield are what makes a lot of people supicious of the nuclear industry,
So a reactor is completely safe to dismantle with a JCB and jackhammer in 50 years, but wait those tanks at Hannaford are 70 years old and still dangerous...
Someone has got mixed up here....
Your only interested in side stepping awkward questions, decent answers might bestow some credibility but currently your as loony nuclear as some of the loony greens are on the other side.
Could provide some background to radioactive contamnation issues prior to the 20th century?
"Plutonium is considered a man-made element, although scientists have found trace amounts of naturally occurring plutonium produced under highly unusual geologic circumstances"
Based on the quote that I gave: "because it would take a while ? perhaps years ? to reach groundwater". It seems very likely from this that actually (s)he doesn't know.
Consequently, we don't know if it is likely to be 100s or more years before a problem shows, or next year, or even this.
His/her own statement conveys a sense of complacent ignorance. THAT's the only FUD here.
How is saying that someone's complacency is rather alarming arguing to a certainty?
Claiming I've said something I haven't is typical of the way you argue.
yes. stick it well underground. Throw it in the sea. simply leave it where it is..
do you KNOW how much uranium is in the sea ASREADY? and thorium?
Why do you feel the need to lie repeatedly? I have noticed it as a key feature of being green and anti-nuclear..
There are at least half a dozen clear ideas, that are fought tooth and nail by people who have vested interests in there being no nuclear power, and are busy ruining the planet in far worse ways.
Exactly. Something we are advised to put in our homes is in quantity rather dangerous.
There is only one person talking nonsense here and it ain't me.
FFS I gave you one. google "background radiation".
40% of the radiation you get is medical, 59% is natural. Weaponsa test and nuclear power is < 1%.
Who is attempting to ignore *temporary* fuel storage ponds? Not me. manamn and lie about it. Shabby.
Yes.
but wait those tanks at Hannaford are 70 years old and
They are not nuclear reactors with the fuel taken out. They contain the fuel that HAS been taken out.
But it isnt me.
No I am not. I am answering your false assertions with facts, and you are side stepping all these by raising one straw man after another, confusing apples with oranges and making one and one add up to 130,000.
Plent on google. Try Ramsar Dartmoor Gabon.
All heavily 'contaminated' with radioactivity through entirely natural means.
Obviously steel reactor vessels with cobalt in them subject to intense neutron bombardment end up containing cobalt 60. ( some of which ended up once in a block of flats. Oddly no one died. In fact they appeared to have less cancers than normal..
formatting link
)
And other stuff in concrete and so on can end up absorbing a neutron and getting transmuted.
Fortunately the isotopes are usually fairly unstable and decay fairly quickly. It is one of the things that mean reactor vessels have limited life spans.
formatting link
And its the reason why reactors are left for 50-60 years before tearing down. They are very slightly radioactive and its cheaper to wait till that has all gone.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.