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: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:49:30 -0500
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> In article ,
> Keith R. Williams wrote:
> >In article <email@example.com>,
> >firstname.lastname@example.org says...
> >> email@example.com (Richard Steven Walz)
> >> >StevJensen wrote:
> >> >>firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Steven Walz)
> >> >>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
> >> >>started.
> >> >--------------------------
> >> >U is EASY to get rid of. Pu is NOT.
> >> So what makes Pu hard to get rid of?
> >It's far more toxic than U. U is pretty benign stuff.
> >> >Also, wherever we get water is tested,
> >> >and we are experienced at avoiding deriving city water from radioactive
> >> >springs, and there are a bunch in the southwest. If we start putting
> >> >radioactive stuff back, then we wind up putting both Pu and a host of other
> >> >long-lived isotopes with it, and we risk suddenly finding that we didn't
> >> >REALLY understand the aquifer very well and that we have polluted the shit
> >> >out of massive acquifers upon which human life depends!!!
> >> This is what prompted my question. You took half the radioactivity out of
> >> an area that was already radioactive. What is it that would actually make
> >> matters worse by putting the remainder back?
> >You didn't take it out. You made it worse.
> >> Even if an aquifer proves to be a problem it seems, at least to me, that
> >> it would be an even bigger problem if you had not done anything at all.
> >The witches brew of radio isotopes don't exist in nature.
> >> Why won't you get the same brew of isotopes with the stuff sitting right
> >> where it was?
> >No reactor to create said brew.
> >> The decay paths do not seem to change much if any
> >> with the stuff in a reactor, they just get speed up a lot.
> >The "decay paths" change *drastically* in a reactor. We're not
> >letting atoms decay in thar! We be splitin' atoms, more or less
> >into random sizes!
> >BTW, I'm not anti-nuke. The refining/vitrification/dump the bad
> >ass stuff into a subduction zone works for me. Yucca Mountain
> >doesn't seem like such a bad idea either.
> > Keith
> So you want to see Mt St. Helens spew radioactive vapor all over the state
> of Washington next time, eh? Thimk!!
How many hundreds of millions of years would it take for the bad
stuff to migrate from the ocean floor to the Cascares? How many
half-lives would that be for the bad-stuff(tm)? Who cares after
1E9 years, Steve?
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup