FIRST, THE NRC HAS CLAIMED IT HAD NO IDEA IT WOULD EVER DEAL WITH THIS MUCH NUCLEAR WASTE.
WHATEVER.
NEXT, IT SEEMS THE NUCLEAR "REGULATORS" HAVE A TYPO (WE WILL PRETEND IT'S A TYPO FOR NOW) THAT'S REMAINED A TYPO FOR A LONG TIME THAT CHANGES, TO OUR GREAT DISADVANTAGE, THE WAY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY FOLKS CAN DISPOSE OF ALL THAT BAZILLION MEGA-TONS OF RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE THAT THEIR CRUMBLING, WORTHLESS LITTLE FACILITIES PUMP OUT EACH YEAR, AND THAT WE ACCEPT FOR DISPOSAL FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND CRAM DOWN THE THROATS OF FOLKS LIKE "AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES", LOWER INCOME AMERICANS AND ANYONE ELSE THEY THINK WON'T RAISE A FUSS OR CAN'T AFFORD A GOOD LEGAL TEAM TO GO TO COURT AND FIGHT THEM ABOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO NUCLEAR WASTE THAT MAKES THEM 'GLOW IN THE DARK'.
IF THE NRC CAN "RECLASSIFY" RADIATION AS "LOW-LEVEL", THEN ANYBODY CAN DUMP IT JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE, SORT OF LIKE JAPAN IS DUMPING THEIRS IN PLAYGROUNDS AND SCHOOLYARDS.
SWEET, RIGHT?
ONE MIGHT THINK THE NRC KNOWS BETTER...AND ONE WOULD BE CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION...BUT WHO'S GOING TO RAISE HELL ABOUT IT BEING DONE?
[SHOW OF HOOVES TIME...RAISE 'EM!]
NAAAAH, NOBODY MUCH IS GOING TO SCREAM BLOODY MURDER AND DEMAND TO BE KEPT SAFE FROM THIS LITTLE "FAUX PAS", THIS TYPO, THIS "LITTLE INCONVENIENT DEATH SENTENCE" AND THE NRC KNOWS THAT.
IT'S NICE TO KNOW THE NRC HAS THIS ATTITUDE, ISN'T IT?
AS MICHAEL EXPLAINS, AS ONLY MICHAEL CAN:
"The real issue here appears to be the diluting of nuclear waste with fillers of various sorts (or mixing more and less radioactive waste together), so that it can be declared sufficiently low level waste for responsibility to be passed down to States; it can be buried; even sent to landfills, or released to the public, depending on dilution level.
The NRC claims that blending is a mixing of more and less radioactive wastes, but the classification of low level waste allows dilution. And blending is still dilution:
“Blending, as defined here, refers to mixing of LLRW of different concentrations. It does not mean mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste (i.e., dilution) and concerns only disposal of the blended waste in a licensed facility, not its release to the general environment.” http://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/llw-blending.html
Either way, it’s a con game pure and simple.
In the same vein, the US NRC has a web site TYPO, which has remained uncorrected for an unknown length of time.
We became aware of it almost one year ago.[TEA ROOM NOTE: VIEW THAT PAGE IN A VERY LARGE FORMAT BY CLICKING <HERE>, “PART 61—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE”]
THE "TYPO" IS ...
According to the NRC library site for “Alpha emitting transuranic nuclides with half-life greater than 5 years“, there is allowed up to 1100 curies per cubic meter. It is supposed to be 100 nanocuries per gram.
There are 37 billion becquerels (radioactive disintegrations-emissions per second) in one curie. Whereas the maximum allowed for low level waste sites is supposed to be then 3,700,000 Bq/kg, the error allows roughly 40,700,000,000 Bq/kg [(m3=1000 liter is approximately 1000 kg (based on water at 4 C)].
Recall that a kilogram is 2.2 pounds. For this, although significantly over what should be allowed, at 1.1 curie per liter, we are still under the 23 curies per liter allowed for remotely handled, too dangerous to touch, waste at WIPP.
For Plutonium 241 (Pu-241), the NRC reading room tells us that 13,500 curies per cubic meter are allowed, whereas it is 3,500 nanocuries per gram.
Recall that a kilogram is 2.2 pounds. For this, although significantly over what should be allowed, at 1.1 curie per liter, we are still under the 23 curies per liter allowed for remotely handled, too dangerous to touch, waste at WIPP.
For Plutonium 241 (Pu-241), the NRC reading room tells us that 13,500 curies per cubic meter are allowed, whereas it is 3,500 nanocuries per gram.
It allows radioactive waste which is even too radioactive to be placed in a transuranic facility, such as WIPP, to be classified as low level radioactive waste!
While many will recall how dangerous and bio-accumulative (over a life time) plutonium is, most may not recall how dangerous Americium is:
While many will recall how dangerous and bio-accumulative (over a life time) plutonium is, most may not recall how dangerous Americium is:
“Americium-241 poses a significant risk if ingested (swallowed) or inhaled. It can stay in the body for decades and continue to expose the surrounding tissues to both alpha and gamma radiation, increasing the risk of developing cancer.
Americium-241 also poses a cancer risk to all organs of the body from direct external exposure to its gamma radiation. One source of direct exposure would be contaminated soil." …
People may be directly exposed to gamma radiation from americium-241 by walking on contaminated land. They may also be exposed to both alpha and gamma radiation by breathing in americium contaminated dust, or drinking contaminated water. Because americium-241 was widely dispersed globally during the testing of nuclear weapons, … found in the soil, plants, and water. …
People may be directly exposed to gamma radiation from americium-241 by walking on contaminated land. They may also be exposed to both alpha and gamma radiation by breathing in americium contaminated dust, or drinking contaminated water. Because americium-241 was widely dispersed globally during the testing of nuclear weapons, … found in the soil, plants, and water. …
Americium-241 is an unstable (radioactive) isotope with a half-life of 432.7 years. As it decays, it releases alpha and gamma radiation and changes into neptunium-237, which is also radioactive.” (Emphasis added)
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/americium.html
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/americium.html
WIPP is supposed to be Transuranic, TRU, waste:
“Transuranic waste (TRU) is, as stated by U.S. regulations and independent of state or origin, waste which has been contaminated with alpha emitting transuranic radionuclides possessing half-lives greater than 20 years and in concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g (3.7 MBq/kg).
Elements having atomic numbers greater than that of uranium are called transuranic. Elements within TRU are typically man-made and are known to contain americium-241 and several isotopes of plutonium.
“Transuranic waste (TRU) is, as stated by U.S. regulations and independent of state or origin, waste which has been contaminated with alpha emitting transuranic radionuclides possessing half-lives greater than 20 years and in concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g (3.7 MBq/kg).
Elements having atomic numbers greater than that of uranium are called transuranic. Elements within TRU are typically man-made and are known to contain americium-241 and several isotopes of plutonium.
Because of the elements’ longer half-lives, TRU is disposed of more cautiously than low level waste and intermediate level waste.
In the U.S. it is a byproduct of weapons production, nuclear research and power production, and consists of protective gear, tools, residue, debris and other items contaminated with small amounts of radioactive elements (mainly plutonium).
Under U.S. law, TRU is further categorized into “contact-handled” (CH) and “remote-handled” (RH) on the basis of the radiation field measured on the waste container’s surface.
CH TRU has a surface dose rate not greater than 2 mSv per hour (200 mrem/h), whereas RH TRU has rates of 2 mSv/h or higher.
CH TRU has neither the high radioactivity of high level waste, nor its high heat generation.
In contrast, RH TRU can be highly radioactive, with surface dose rates up to 10 Sv/h (1000 rem/h)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranic_waste
The amounts of radiation allowed, according to the NRC reading room, were higher than RH TRU waste!
Assumptions on which we based our calculations:
1 nanocurie is 37 Bq
1 curie is 37 billion Bq (37,000,000,000)
1,000 grams is 1 kg
1 cubic meter (m3) is 1,000 liters
1 liter is approximately 1 kg (based on pure water at 4 degrees centigrade (39.2 degrees F); obviously this then will vary but it gives a sense).
1 nanocurie is 37 Bq
1 curie is 37 billion Bq (37,000,000,000)
1,000 grams is 1 kg
1 cubic meter (m3) is 1,000 liters
1 liter is approximately 1 kg (based on pure water at 4 degrees centigrade (39.2 degrees F); obviously this then will vary but it gives a sense).
We hope that all of you have learned by now, if you hadn’t known it before, that you can’t trust the US NRC
The NRC page has been updated many times, and it remains uncorrected, so it now seems to be intentional.
Thus, the dilute and deceive scam perpetuated during nuclear reactor operations, whereby what is released into the environment is defined as concentrations in air and water, rather than amounts, and dilution is encouraged by both the NRC and the EPA, is used for reclassifying nuclear waste. This allows burial, sending to landfill, and even more general dispersal into the environment, depending on the dilution.
[OH, LOOK! BY RECLASSIFYING THE STUFF, NRC GETS A BIG OLD BONUS!]
By reclassifying the nuclear waste, they are able to make it the responsibility of the States, as they explain.
[OH, LOOK! BY RECLASSIFYING THE STUFF, NRC GETS A BIG OLD BONUS!]
By reclassifying the nuclear waste, they are able to make it the responsibility of the States, as they explain.
This corresponds to a long-standing US government trend, where they dump responsibilities on the States, without giving the States funding, apparently so they can squander the money in pork barrel ways.
The US government has squandered billions, simply in bringing radioactive waste from foreign countries, mostly friendly foreign countries, like Sweden, to dump on America in the name of non-proliferation.
That program will cost the US taxpayer $1.9 billion for 2016 alone, and it has been going on for years.
Oh, maybe that is the origin of some of this new, unexpected, nuclear waste?
Oh, maybe that is the origin of some of this new, unexpected, nuclear waste?
The 45 page NRC draft rule, or whatever it is, let the cat out of the bag early on in the document:
“Why do the regulatory requirements need to be revised?
Recently, the industry and the NRC have identified new LLRW streams that were not envisioned during the development of 10 CFR part 61. These LLRW streams include depleted uranium (DU) from enrichment facilities, LLRW from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operations, and blended LLRW streams in quantities greater than previously expected”.
[The NRC tells us right there. Where did this greater quantity of blended radioactive waste come from? It came because they blended more and less radioactive waste together or mixed in filler with radioactive waste. And, if it all gets buried together it will be higher level anyway! This is a major con game.]
[TEA ROOM NOTE: "GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY EXPECTED" MEANS THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HADN'T COUNTED ON RECEIVING LARGE AMOUNTS OF NUCLEAR WASTE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, NOR LET THEMSELVES IMAGINE HOW MUCH EACH NEW REACTOR HERE WOULD PRODUCE, HOW MUCH WASTE THE MILITARY'S PROGRAMS WOULD PILE UP, HOW MUCH MINING WOULD PRODUCE, THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES, ETC...]
THE NRC CONTINUES:
“…. The blending of different classes of LLRW could also result in LLRW streams with concentrations that are inconsistent with the assumptions used to develop tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55. Blending of LLRW would enable some materials that would otherwise have been disposed of as a higher class (e.g., Class B or Class C LLRW) to be blended with a lower class (e.g., Class A LLRW) or lower concentration LLRW of the same class.
The result of the blending process would be to create large volumes of blended LLRW that have concentrations near the LLRW classification limits.
The NRC did not evaluate the disposal of large volumes of LLRW with concentrations near the LLRW classification limits in the final regulatory basis for the current 10 CFR part 61. ” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules, pp. 16087-16088
“…. The blending of different classes of LLRW could also result in LLRW streams with concentrations that are inconsistent with the assumptions used to develop tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55. Blending of LLRW would enable some materials that would otherwise have been disposed of as a higher class (e.g., Class B or Class C LLRW) to be blended with a lower class (e.g., Class A LLRW) or lower concentration LLRW of the same class.
The result of the blending process would be to create large volumes of blended LLRW that have concentrations near the LLRW classification limits.
The NRC did not evaluate the disposal of large volumes of LLRW with concentrations near the LLRW classification limits in the final regulatory basis for the current 10 CFR part 61. ” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules, pp. 16087-16088
Here they explain that reclassifying it allows them to dump the responsibility on the States:
“In addition to determining the acceptability of LLRW for disposal in a near-surface land disposal facility, the LLRW classification system is also integral to determining Federal and State responsibilities for LLRW and requirements for transfers of LLRW intended for disposal.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (as amended in 1985) defines Federal and State responsibilities for the disposal of LLRW based on 10 CFR 61.55, as in effect on January 26, 1983. Specifically, the Act assigns responsibility for disposal of Class A, Class B, and Class C commercial LLRW to the States and responsibility for disposal of commercial LLRW with concentrations that exceed the limits for Class C LLRW to the Federal Government.” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules, 16085
“In addition to determining the acceptability of LLRW for disposal in a near-surface land disposal facility, the LLRW classification system is also integral to determining Federal and State responsibilities for LLRW and requirements for transfers of LLRW intended for disposal.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (as amended in 1985) defines Federal and State responsibilities for the disposal of LLRW based on 10 CFR 61.55, as in effect on January 26, 1983. Specifically, the Act assigns responsibility for disposal of Class A, Class B, and Class C commercial LLRW to the States and responsibility for disposal of commercial LLRW with concentrations that exceed the limits for Class C LLRW to the Federal Government.” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules, 16085
Thus, the NRC reading room error allows for 120 curies per liter, compared to the 23 curies per liter maximum allowed at WIPP.
Therefore, waste 5 times more radioactive than that allowed in WIPP could be, or has been, placed in low level radioactive waste dumps, if a company-employee uses the NRC reading room, rather than using the Cornell law web site or the original GPO text!
Whereas Curium 242 has a half life of only 160 days, it becomes Plutonium 238 (Pu 238) with a half life of 87.7 years. This means that it will be around for over 1,400 years. It becomes Uranium 234 with a half life of 246,000 years. U 234 makes up only 0.0055% of natural uranium, and is still not stable.
<END QUOTE FROM MINING AWARENESS, WISHING THE TEA ROOM HAD A WAY TO ASK AUTHOR'S PERMISSION TO QUOTE VERBATIM INSTEAD OF JUST HAULING IT OVER HERE AND PASTING IT IN. BE AWARE THAT NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED, FULL CREDIT IS GIVEN TO THIS AMAZING JOURNALIST AND THE TEA ROOM APPRECIATES HIS EFFORTS TO ENLIGHTEN AND INFORM..>
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF ALL THAT?HMMM, RIGHT?
SO, HIGH LEVEL RADIATION, WITH A SIMPLE WAVE OF THE NRC'S MAGIC WAND, BECOMES LOW-LEVEL RADIATION AND LET'S SEND IT WHEREVER WE PLEASE?
FOR A GROUP HANDED THE TASK OF KEEPING THE MEANEST MONSTER ON PLANET EARTH FROM DESTROYING ALL OF US, THIS SURE LOOKS LIKE A MAJOR FAIL, DOESN'T IT?
HOW CAN YEARS PASS AND NOBODY AT THE NRC CATCH THIS "TYPO"?
DARE WE IMAGINE IT'S AN INTENTIONAL, A "LET IT STAND, LET IT RIDE" PLAN OF SOME SORT TO EASE THE 'HEAVY BURDEN' OF DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE?
SURELY NOT...
WOULD THE NRC TRADE HUMAN LIVES FOR LOWER COST OF OPERATING OUR FAVORITE DEATH MACHINES?
ARE THEY MORE CONCERNED WITH MAKING FAILING "NUKE ENERGY" PROFITABLE THAN WITH SAFEGUARDING OUR HEALTH?
HAVE THEY BEEN CAUGHT AT SIMILAR BEFORE?
HAVE THEY EVER "PLAYED THE HARLOT" TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY?
[GIVE ME A MINUTE TO STOP LAUGHING, THOUGH IT ISN'T REALLY FUNNY AT ALL, IS IT?]
DEPLETED URANIUM...HOW MANY OF YOU THINK DEPLETED URANIUM WOULD BE SAFE TO BURY IN YOUR BACKYARD IN A USED OIL DRUM?
KEEP YOUR HANDS UP FOR A MINUTE OR SO IN CASE THE NRC CAN SEE THEM...THEY WANT YOU FOR A DISPOSAL SITE!
HERE COMES SOME DEPLETED "U" FOR YOU FOLKS IN UTAH...OPEN WIDE!
WHY, YES, YES THOSE ARE RUSTY OIL DRUMS AND, YUP, THAT'S DEPLETED URANIUM.
MAKES ONE WONDER EXACTLY WHO THE LUCKY STIFFS ARE WHO GET THIS MEGA-DOSE OF CARCINOGENS, DOESN'T IT?
WAVE TO THE TRAIN, KIDDIES!
LOOK!
DEPLETED URANIUM!
HEY, WHAT'S A LITTLE CANCER AND A FEW BIRTH DEFECTS AND DAMAGED DNA IF WE CAN HELP OUT THE NUKE FACILITIES, THE NRC, AND MAKE THE ECONOMY GROW, RIGHT?
WHAT WOULD BE THE "SHIELDING" VALUE FROM THAT DIRTY OLD URANIUM IF THOSE WERE NOT RUSTED PIECES OF CRAP, IF THEY WERE SHINY NEW BARRELS?
NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!
BUT WAIT...IF THEY BURY IT AND COVER IT UP WITH CONCRETE, THAT'LL MAKE IT SAFE, RIGHT?
DID YOU EVER SEE VIDEO ON WHAT RADIATION DOES TO VARIOUS MATERIALS, ESPECIALLY CONCRETE?
IT JUST SORT OF GOES BRITTLE AND CRUMBLES, LOOKS A LOT LIKE SAND ONCE THE PROCESS IS COMPLETE.
THE NRC HAS KNOWN SINCE DAY 1 THAT ALL MATERIALS USED IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES DETERIORATE FAIRLY RAPIDLY.
FROM THE NRC WEBSITE:
THE STUDY WAS PUBLISHED IN 2013...
Abstract
The current understanding of the effects of radiation on concrete materials is summarized.
Much of the research related to this topic was conducted from the 1960s into the 1970s in support of development of prestressed concrete reactor vessels for high-temperature reactors and radioactive waste storage facilities.
From the 1970s until 2012, the efforts addressed development of computational models of radiation damage to concrete and assessment of the effects of radiation on concrete durability.
Concrete structures used as biological shields and as support for the reactor pressure vessel in current light-water reactor plants are subjected to two types of radiation, gamma and neutron. Gamma and neutron radiation are described, and their interactions with concrete constituents are noted.
A summary of the effects of neutron and gamma radiation on the mechanical and physical properties of concrete is provided.
Information is presented on thermal effects due to gamma heating of the concrete. Coupling effects of mechanical loading, thermal effect, moisture content, and radiation are described, and an example provided using a computational model to indicate radiation damage in a shield for a next-generation nuclear facility.
Nondestructive testing methods are identified for assessment of the condition of reinforced concrete structures.
Radiation limits for neutron and gamma exposure are listed.
Finally, recommendations are provided to (1) expand the very limited database on the effect of neutron and gamma radiation on concrete’s microstructure and mechanical and physical properties, (2) conduct calculations to establish the neutron and gamma fields that develop in concrete shields and support structures after various operating periods, and (3) quantify the interaction of temperature and irradiation effects.
SO, I DOWNLOADED THE PDF...YOU CAN, TOO!OR, YOU CAN JUST GO READ IT AT http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1332/ML13325B077.pdf
HERE'S ANOTHER 'STUDY', State of knowledge of radiation effects on environmental cracking in light water reactor core materials
Laboratory and field data amply demonstrate that accelerated intergranular stress corrosion cracking of stainless steels and nickel-base alloys can result from long term exposure to the high energy neutron and gamma radiation that exists in the core of light water reactors (LWRs).
Radiation can exacerbate specific aspects of cracking susceptibility via its effects on material micro-chemistry (e.g., radiation induced segregation), water chemistry (e.g., radiolysis), and stress (e.g., radiation induced creep and hardening).
SUMMARY
Water in the concrete can be decomposed by gamma rays by a process called radiolysis and can be converted to hydrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide. Water can also be removed from the concrete by evaporation due to heat generated by gamma radiation.
Because most of the water in concrete is contained in the cement paste, gamma radiation has a greater effect on the cement paste than it has on the aggregate materials.
In the instance of neutron irradiation, the neutrons do not interact with the electrons but with the nuclei of atoms.
Because neutrons interact with the nuclei of atoms, the lattice spacing within
the material may change after the collisions.
Therefore, the neutrons have a more significant effect on dense and well-crystallized materials (e.g., aggregates) than on randomly structured materials with high porosity (e.g., cement paste).
Interactions between nuclear radiation and the internal structure of concrete produce geometric changes of the structure resulting from displacements of atoms from their lattice sites and phase transformations of the concrete constituents resulting in a reduction in porosity and/or formation of microcracks.
These interactions result in changes in the various concrete properties."
ALLOW ME TO TRANSLATE THIS TO TEA ROOM LINGO...
"NO MATTER WHAT MATERIAL YOU USE OR WHAT YOU ADD TO IT, AFTER A WEE BIT OF TIME, IT BECOMES FUBAR, VERY, VERY FUBAR."
[I FORGET WHETHER IT WAS MY NAVY DAD OR MY AIR FORCE/ARMY UNCLE WHO TAUGHT ME THE TERM "FUBAR". IT JUST SEEMED TO FIT NICELY UNDER THAT "NRC" LINK.]
NOTHING CAN STAND FOR LONG UNDER THE INCESSANT ONSLAUGHT OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR "DOING ITS THING"... NOT MATERIALS, NOT A HUMAN BODY, NOTHING.
A SHORT "PRIMER":
Effects OF RADIATION on materials and devices.
Of the three, alpha particles are known to have the most “ionizing power,” a term describing the number of ion pairs produced per centimeter through a material, followed by beta, then gamma.
However, a common misconception is that the higher ionizing power a particle has, the more damaging it is to matter.
Electromagnetic waves can also ionize, hence the reason electromagnetic radiation is often placed as part of ionizing radiation.
- By causing the materials to become radioactive (mainly by neutron activation, or in presence of high-energy gamma radiation by photodisintegration).
- By nuclear transmutation of the elements within the material including, for example, the production of Hydrogen and Helium which can in turn alter the mechanical properties of the materials and cause swelling and embrittlement.
- By radiolysis (breaking chemical bonds) within the material, which can weaken it, cause it to swell, polymerize, promote corrosion, cause belittlements, promote cracking or otherwise change its desirable mechanical, optical, or electronic properties.
- By formation of reactive compounds, affecting other materials (e.g. ozone cracking by ozone formed by ionization of air).
- By ionization, causing electrical breakdown, particularly in semiconductors employed in electronic equipment, with subsequent currents introducing operation errors or even permanently damaging the devices. Devices intended for high radiation environments such as the nuclear industry and extra atmospheric (space) applications may be maderadiation hard to resist such effects through design, material selection, and fabrication methods.
Effects on liquids
Like gases, liquids lack fixed internal structure; the effects of radiation is therefore mainly limited to radiolysis, altering the chemical composition of the liquids. As with gases, one of the primary mechanisms is formation of free radicals.
All liquids are subject to radiation damage, with few exotic exceptions; e.g. molten sodium, where there are no chemical bonds to be disrupted, and liquid hydrogen fluoride, which produces gaseous hydrogen and fluorine, which spontaneously react back to hydrogen fluoride.
Water subjected to ionizing radiation forms free radicals of hydrogen and hydroxyl, which can recombine to form gaseous hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and peroxide radicals.
In living organisms, which are composed mostly of water, the majority of the damage is caused by the reactive oxygen species, free radicals produced from water. The free radicals attack the biomolecules forming structures within the cells, causing oxidative stress (a cumulative damage which may be significant enough to cause the cell death, or may cause DNA damage possibly leading to cancer).
HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW ALL OUR NUCLEAR FACILITIES WERE NOT DESIGNED TO STAND UP TO THAT IONIZING RADIATION STUFF FOR MORE THAN 30-40 YEARS?All liquids are subject to radiation damage, with few exotic exceptions; e.g. molten sodium, where there are no chemical bonds to be disrupted, and liquid hydrogen fluoride, which produces gaseous hydrogen and fluorine, which spontaneously react back to hydrogen fluoride.
Water subjected to ionizing radiation forms free radicals of hydrogen and hydroxyl, which can recombine to form gaseous hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and peroxide radicals.
40 YEARS WAS KNOWN TO BE PUSHING THE LIMITS ON EVERY REACTOR INSTALLED ANYWHERE.
THE DATA ABOVE SHOWS WHY.
HERE'S SOME BAD NEWS...
"Increasingly dependable and emitting few greenhouse gases, the U.S. fleet of nuclear power plants will likely run for another 50 or even 70 years before it is retired -- long past the 40-year life span planned decades ago -- according to industry executives, regulators and scientists.
"We think we can replace almost every component in a nuclear power plant," said Jan van der Lee, director of the Materials Ageing Institute (MAI), a nuclear research facility inaugurated this week in France and run by the state-owned nuclear giant EDF.
"We don't want to wait until something breaks," he said. By identifying components that are wearing down and replacing them, he said, suddenly nuclear plants will find that "technically, there is no age limit."
Indeed, as U.S. regulators begin considering the extended operations of nuclear plants -- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects the first application for an 80-year license could come within five years or less...."
"INCREASINGLY DEPENDABLE???TRY "INCREASINGLY LETHAL"!!!
"WE THINK WE CAN REPLACE..."
"WE THINK..."
"REPLACE"...
THEY ARE NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THEY CAN, BUT THEY DO ALMOST STATE THAT ALL OF THEM WILL DAMN WELL NEED REPLACING!!!
DO YOU SEE WHY I KEEP USING THAT CRASS, DISGUSTING PHRASE "WE ARE SO SCREWED?"
AND SO, EVER-LEAKING, OOZING, ALL OUR FALLING DOWN NUKE FACILITIES ADD, ADD, ADD TO THAT CONVENIENT, HAPPY "BACKGROUND RADIATION" AND IT CLIMBS AND CLIMBS.
WHAT WILL THE CLEVER LITTLE NUKE BUNNIES DO WHEN "BACKGROUND LEVELS" REACH THE LETHAL STAGE?
NO WORRIES!
ABOUT "BACKGROUND RADIATION"...
WHAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO MANIPULATE THAT, MUCH AS TEPCO WAS DOING WHEN IT WAS RECENTLY 'BUSTED' DOING SO?
HOW HARD IS IT TO CHANGE LEVELS OF BACKGROUND RADIATION?
"EASY AS PIE".
"There are a number of factors that influence the magnitude of the background radiation dose rate and the types and amounts of some materials are among the influencing factors....
...Also, larger thicknesses of less dense material may make a noticeable difference.
This is often evident if one makes measurements of the typical background radiation in the land area around a pond or lake and then makes similar measurements from a boat well out, far removed from the shoreline, into the body of water where the water depth is at least several feet. The water is quite effective at shielding gamma radiation coming from the earth, and the measured dose rate will often be markedly lower than that measured on land."
OHHHHH...SO THAT MAY BE WHY THE EPA, ET AL, ARE NOT MONITORING... WHERE?
IF WE MONITORED RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PACIFIC COASTLINE OR JUST ONSHORE, AND COMPARED THAT TO DEEP WATER READINGS....WHAT THEN?
WELL, ONCE AGAIN, AND OVER AND OVER, THE JOKE (AS IN TYPOS AND HOW THEY "MONITOR" RADIATION AND THE LIES ABOUT EASILY OR QUICKLY THEY JUST MAY BE ABLE TO REPLACE BUILDING MATERIALS CONSTANTLY BREAKING DOWN BY BEING CONSTANTLY BOMBARDED BY A NUCLEAR REACTOR'S "DAILY WORK" ) IS ON US.
BUT IT ISN'T FUNNY, IS IT?
NO, I'M NOT LAUGHING NOW...
FURTHER SOURCES, READING
FIRST AND FOREMOST:
A FOUR-PART SERIES BY NBC, OF ALL MEDIA, "HOW LONG CAN NUCLEAR REACTORS LAST?""WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS REALLY A FABRICATION," RETIRED REACTOR DESIGNER SAYS.
[ LINK IS TO PART 4, BUT LINKS TO FIRST 3 PARTS ARE GIVEN ON SITE.]
06-28-2011
"By rewriting history, plant owners are making it easier to extend the lives of dozens of reactors in a relicensing process that resembles nothing more than an elaborate rubber stamp.
As part of a yearlong investigation of aging issues at the nation's nuclear power plants, the AP found that the relicensing process often lacks fully independent safety reviews. Records show that paperwork of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sometimes matches word-for-word the language used in a plant operator's application.
Also, the re-licensing process relies heavily on such paperwork, with very little onsite inspection and verification.
And under re-licensing rules, tighter standards are not required to compensate for decades of wear and tear.
So far, 66 of 104 reactors have been granted license renewals. Most of the 20-year extensions have been granted with scant public attention. And the NRC has yet to reject a single application to extend an original license. The process has been so routine that many in the industry are already planning for additional license extensions, which could push the plants to operate for 80 years, and then 100."
- Nappi, E.; Seguinot, J. (2004). Proceedings of the Workshop of the INFN ELOISATRON Project: Innovative Detectors for Supercolliders, Erice, Italy, 28 Sept - 4 Oct 2003. World Scientific. p. 199. ISBN 9789812702951.
- Integrated Publishing. "Effects of Radiation on Water Chemistry (Synthesis) - h1015v2_23". tpub.com.
- "Radiochemistry in Nuclear Power Reactors". nap.edu.
- Yosuke Katsumura, Kiyoshi Kiuchi, Masafumi Domae, Hidetoshi Karasawa, Norihisa Saito and Tadasu Yotsuyanagi (6 May 2005). "Research Program on Water Chemistry of Supercritical Pressure Water under Radiation Field" (PDF).14th International Conference on the Properties of Water and Steam in Kyoto: 545–550.
- Spotheim-Maurizot, M.; Mostafavi, M.; Douki, T. (2008). Radiation Chemistry: From Basics to Applications in Material and Life Sciences. EDP Sciences. ISBN 9782759800247.
- COMPUTATIONAL METHODS IN REACTOR SHIELDING
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319610311000068 - LaHAGUE, FRANCE
BELCHING DEATH WHILE LOOKING NICE
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/la-hague-nuclear-waste-nightmare.html
SOME NICE VIDEOS OFF THAT SITE, THO' I DON'T AGREE WITH 'SUSTAINABILITY' AS WE ARE OFFERED IT.... I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH "SUSTAINING" HUMANS THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
No comments:
Post a Comment