The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Keith R. Williams
Subject: Re: eer
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:05:32 -0500
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
In article <email@example.com>,
> John Larkin jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com
> >On 28 Oct 2002 00:50:58 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (StevJensen) wrote:
> >>I have a question on this.
> >>For a light water reactor the U for it gets dug out of the ground and then
> >>through a very intensive isotope separation process to concentrate it enough
> >>to be usable as fuel for the reactor. Using the fuel rods burns about 50% of
> >>the original isotope and leaves you with some fairly short lived by products,
> >>with the exception of some Pu and Th. Both these elements are emitted
> >>by coal fired generators, so if these are a problem then it seems that the
> >>scope of concern is way to limited.
> >>So, if you really want to get rid of it(which also seems questionable),
> >>why can't you mix the remainder back up with the original talus and put
> >>it back where you found it. Overall less radioactive than when you
> >Spent fuel rods contain a witches' brew of fission by-products, like
> >wildly radioactive iodine, strontium, cobalt, and lots of other
> >middle-of-the-periodic-table isotopes that aren't found in nature. You
> >don't want to leave this stuff lying around on the surface anywhere.
> As far as I know most of this stuff decays in days to years. Not the millions
> of years I seem to hear about. And if it does take millions of years is
> it really meaningful to call it radioactive in the first place.
Some is, some not. The bad-assed stuff is days->thousands of
years. The problem is that it's all mixed together. The point
here was to separate it and deal with it as needed. Apparently
this is quite expensive, so...
> After all the
> hydrogen in water is supposed to have a half life (and thus be "radioactive").
Hydrogen (as in AM=1) is not radioactive. Duterium (AM=2) and
Tritium (AM=3) certainly are, but this stuff is relatively rare
in nature. If you've seen a half-life quoted for hydrogen, it
must be the half-life of the composite isotopes.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup