What exactly is the radioactive waste we're needing to protect? is my question to google tonight

[madokie]

Texas is at risk of becoming the nation's radioactive waste dumping ground. The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission is pushing forward a rule that essentially invites 36 states to dump radioactive waste in Texas, and possibly international sources as well. The commission should instead limit waste to that generated by the two compact states Texas and Vermont. Financial and safety risks are being ignored in the rush to approve the rule, which has no volume or curie limits for waste.

Everything except the fuel rods of nuclear reactors could go to Waste Controls Specialists' Andrews County dump. Nuclear reactors vessels, "poison curtains" that absorb reactor core radioactivity, and sludges and resins could all go to West Texas. In fact, there is not a single radionuclide that cannot go to a so-called low-level radioactive waste dump.

Exposure to radioactive materials can cause cancer, radiation poisoning, genetic defects and even death, depending on the type of radioactive material and the level of exposure. Tritium, found in reactor waste, remains hazardous for up to 240 years. Strontium-90 remains hazardous for up to 560 years, and Iodine-129 remains hazardous for 320 million years. How can we ensure that these materials will not contaminate water and soil during vast stretches of time?

Existing radioactive waste dumps across the country have leaked, and billions of dollars are needed for cleanup. Radioactive waste going to the compact site would be disposed of in trenches and covered with dirt.
This information comes from this link: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/hadden-we-must-protect-texas-from-others-radioactive-740362.html
------------------------------------------

I. Framing the Problem

The United States is at a "gridlock" position regarding nuclear waste management. Existing nuclear power plants, left to manage wastes in the absence of a coherent national policy, have become de facto long-term storage sites, using facilities designed only to temporarily house such materials. Radioactive waste has emerged as one of the issues inhibiting further development of the nuclear power industry, and the safety implications of forcing every power plant to handle wastes on a longer-term basis are severe.

Former nuclear weapons production sites face even more significant problems with radioactive waste management. The scale and scope of the cleanup at these sites is enormous; officials estimate that seventy-five years and $300 billion will be required to remediate these facilities. The Department of Energy (DOE), which is responsible for these sites, faces both an environmental and an administrative quagmire as it attempts to clean up after fifty years of nuclear weapons production.

The lesson that follows is an introduction to these issues, focusing on an understanding of how, over time, the problems associated with radioactive waste have developed. This lesson is predicated on the assumption that radioactive waste management is not a single task to be accomplished but is rather a multidimensional issue that needs to be understood and addressed physically, socially, and historically.

The multiple aspects of radioactive waste management this lesson examines include physical and value-oriented issues. What radioactive waste is, where it is, how it has been generated and handled, what some of the difficulties are in handling, treating, and disposing of the stuff--these are central issues in radioactive waste managment. Values are also critical in understanding radioactive waste, and must be understood in their social and historical contexts--how radioactive waste has been understood (or misunderstood, as the case may be), how it has meant different things to different people, and how these meanings have changed over time. An understanding of these value-oriented issues will enable a discussion of the political problem of radioactive waste, how it has developed into a metaphorical "hot potato" that nobody is willing to hold. Understand both values and the physical aspects of radioactive waste will help foster an understanding of the bureaucratic problems involved in managing this material --resolving the radioactive waste problem will involve administrative and managerial feats that the DOE has not yet shown itself capable of handling.

This comes from this link: http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/gd/education/edradiocase.html
--------------------------------------------

Radioactive Waste Now Hidden in Everyday Household Products
By Satori

Radioactive materials from nuclear weapons facilities are being released to regular landfills and could get into commercial recycling streams, finds a report issued by the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service, NIRS. Radioactive scrap, concrete, equipment, asphalt, plastic, wood, chemicals, and soil are placed in ordinary landfills, researchers learned.

"People around regular trash landfills will be shocked to learn that radioactive contamination from nuclear weapons production is ending up there, either directly released by DOE or via brokers and processors," says lead author Diane D'Arrigo, NIRS' Radioactive Waste Project director. "Just as ominous," she said, "the DOE allows and encourages sale and donation of some radioactively contaminated materials."

This free release opens up the potential for the materials to enter the recycling stream to make everyday household and personal items or to be used to build roads, schools, and playgrounds.

The NIRS report tracked the laws, guidance and technical justifications that DOE uses to rationalize allowing commercial businesses and recreation areas - places unprepared to handle radioactivity - to recycle and reuse these materials.

This comes from this link: http://hubpages.com/hub/Radioactive-Waste-Now-Hidden-in-Everyday-Household-Products
-------------------------------------

February 19th, 2010 9:32 PM
My Radioactive Water

By Crystal Zevon

I woke up thirsty at around 3 a.m., so half asleep, I made my way to the bathroom faucet, filled my glass and started drinking. All of a sudden, I wasn’t sure whether I was wide awake, in the middle of a nightmare or having an acute attack of déjà vu…but the consistent thread through any one of those scenarios was the thought that, maybe, this glass of water could kill me.

Crazy? Not really. I live in the shadow of a 38 year old nuclear plant, Vermont Yankee. A couple months ago, they discovered that a radioactive substance called tritium was present in groundwater monitoring well. The new groundwater tests found levels more than 40 times higher than a federal safe drinking water limit. At first the executives at Entergy assured everyone that it was all safe—in fact they publicly said the pipes they were using couldn’t possibly be leaking tritium. In a matter of weeks, it all turned out to be a lie. In a matter of days after the lie was admitted by Entergy, the news was that the leaks could be contaminating the Connecticut River. So, there you have it—a glass of water that could kill me.

The déjà vu part is that on April 26th, 1986, when the explosion at Chernobyl occurred, I was living in France. Not exactly Russia, true, but what happened after Chernobyl was that the wind patterns brought this cloud full of radioactive particles from the exposed waste floating over Europe. We were all advised, by the government, newpapers, TV broadcasts, not to go out unless we had to. We were told to take umbrellas to protect ourselves from nuclear particles, and to buy frozen food from before the accident. I remember they couldn’t use the grapes for wine. It was like something out of a sci-fi movie, except that you couldn’t see the invading predators.

And now, here I am wondering I can drink a glass of water… and worse, what about my twin 6 year old grandsons? So, I start calling and writing everyone I know. There will be a vote in Vermont NEXT WEEK about whether or not to re-license this plant for another 20 years! Are they insane? They haven’t even found the source of the current leak!

This came from this link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/shut-down-yankee-vermont
----------------------------------------

Now does someone want to explain to me why we should be making more of this?
Theres plenty more where this all came from in case anyone is interested.

[Taverner]

1. Hell, I think we should dump Nuke Waste in space, headed for the sun

Compared to the sun, its so small it won't make a difference

Just remember those laws of Thermodynamics

[3waygeek]

2. Actually,some places in Texas should store nuclear waste...

especially a certain house in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in Dallas, or a certain ranch near Crawford.

[izquierdista]

3. It's part of modern technology

Even the most hardcore anti-nuke would have difficulty arguing for shutting down the use of medical isotopes and imaging. And that is just one industry that has come to depend on the use of radioisotopes, there are others.

The responsible use of radioisotopes is something that will make our lives better, and part of that is managing the wastes in a safe manner. In the early years, the dangers were not well studied, but with time, the ability to use and dispose of radioisotopes has improved dramatically. Just as there are foolish people who don't want to have any taxes and want all taxes cut, the people who want no radioisotopes are just as foolish.

You should also Google the technology that is being used to contain and safely dispose of radioactive wastes. Here is one place you can start: http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

[NNadir]

4. I don't think hard core anti-nukes have anything but contempt for nuclear medicine.

They routinely hate all nuclear sciences, even though it is very, very, very, very, very, very, very clear that they know zilch about any nuclear science.

Let us compare the life of say, http://isswprod.lbl.gov/Seaborg/">this man, with the lives of anti-nukes.

Trying to discuss nuclear science with an anti-nuke is very much like trying to discuss evolutionary genetics with Pat Robertson, and, I think, equally as useful.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. And the answer is.... (opens envelope)

According to MIMS, 2009 saw just over 22588 Curies of LLW handled. Over half of this is tritium--

ZOMG! TEH TRITIUM!

--and digging a little deeper, we find most of that - 12814 Curies of tritium, still over half the US's LLW - from just one place: MA8954. Turns out that's QSA Global in Burlington MA, who make equipment for materials testing, safety inspections and medical devices.

Down with testing!
Down with medicine!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Sorry

I should have learned by now that facts and figures are as naught compared to the ramblings of people who measure radiation in cubic feet.

[txlibdem]

8. I measure radioactive material in tons

As in the 5.8 TONS of Uranium that spew out of each and every coal power plant annually. Year in and year out.

I also measure the toxic mercury, toxic arsenic, and toxic metals like lead from coal ash that are being dumped all over our country.

A new report by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club has identified an additional 39 sites in 21 states where toxic coal ash is contaminating drinking and surface water with arsenic and heavy metals. These new sites added to those already identified by the Environmental Protection Agency brings the US total to 137 in 34 states.

According to the new study, each of these new sites equipped with groundwater monitoring wells show concentrations of heavy metals, arsenic and lead that exceed federal health standards for drinking water. At worst, a site at Hatfield's Ferry, Pennsylvania had contamination of arsenic 341 times higher than the federal standard.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/39-more-toxic-coal-ash-sites-contaminate-u-s-water-supply.php

[DrGregory]

9. source of most of the tritium...

Of course the source of most of the radioactive
tritium in the environment is.....Mother Nature.

One of the components of the stream of radiation
from the Sun that we call the "solar wind" is
high energy neutrons.

When high energy neutrons interact with the atoms
of Nitrogen in our atmosphere the reaction gives
you Carbon and Tritium.

That's where the vast majority of the tritium in
the environment comes from...not nuclear power plants.

Dr. Greg