[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Andrew Daley
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] nuclear
waste train routes
I want to reiterate that that the term waste to describe this is
somewhat misleading since by reprocessing the used fuel bundles we can make new
fuel bundles and extract much more energy from them. In the future this
will be economically feasible as well and today's "waste" will in
fact be tomorrows ENERGY!!
Incidentally, this means tha! t other rumours that are out there, such
as them burying this stuff in old mines or dumping it in the ocean are also
Let's first consider what is "nuclear
A pretty general definition used by some
folks is byproducts of nuclear reactions.
By this definition, the! material from
which all the trains running through your village, as well as your village
and all the rest of this planet is "nuclear waste," as it was all
produced by the nuclear reactions in stars, novae and supernovae (this excludes
hydrogen in water etc., an un-burnt nuclear fusion fuel).
Other folks prefer to define nuclear waste
byproducts of nuclear reactions.
But this is also a fairly general
definition, that would include things like medical radiopharmaceuticals
used in diagnosing diseases and treating cancers, etc.
Radiopharmaceuticals typically do not
become "waste" until they are disch! arged by patients, for
example in urine.
Also, radiopharmaceuticals are shipped by
automobile or helicopter, not train.
Besides which, the radioactive
byproducts definition includes a good deal of what the earth is made of, since
some of those primordial siderogenic
products remain radioactive to this day -- particularly Potassium-40, Uranium-238
Other cosmogenic radionuclides are
constantly supplied to the surface of the earth by interactions with cosmic
radiation -- most notably Carbon-14, which scientists use to date animal
and human remains.
Still others prefer the far more specific
definition of used fuel from nuclear power stations.
While it is certainly radioactive, calling
it "waste" is misleading, in my opinion.
Only about 1% of the material in used
nuclear fuel is true "waste," the rest being mostly unchanged
uranium, as it was dug up from the ground.
That 1% incidentally, has a radioactive
half-life many millions of times shorter than the radioactive substances in the
earth and in our bodies (Potassium-40 accounts for about 2/3 of our body's
radioactivity of about 8,000 disintegrations per second, and has a half-life of
~1.8 billion years; uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, which ! is
why its still here, long since the earth has formed).
So as you can see, we are effectively
converting the long-lived radioactive "waste" in the earth, to very
short-lived stuff -- and getting a lot of energy out of it in the process !
Hope this helps you understand a bit
[mailto:email@example.com.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Odellsclarey@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] nuclear
waste train routes
I have heard rumers that a nuclear waste train runs through my local villiage
of Poleworth (Nr Tamworth-Middlands) and im looking for evidence supporting
this to make it public knowledge if the rumers are true, can you help?