Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221
From: sethrosner at nycap.rr.com (Seth Rosner)
Date: Thu Feb 2 08:45:13 2006
References: <8E304C968A1F6444B2F8B33150CE72C705A3DB73@NAEAWNYDEX17VA.nadsusea.nads.navy.mil> <43E10C66.6030409@gmx.de> <B8DCD209-EF21-4A8C-B808-1AB3DB66EB9F@btinternet.com> <43E13B71.9080909@gmx.de> <00a201c62815$fc938b70$91cb9253@Korhonen>

Oooo, Raimo, better not to speak when you do not know.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raimo K" <raimo.m.korhonen@uusikaupunki.fi>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221


> How can used stuff have more radiation than unused? If it had, it would be 
> usable.
> OK, it is concentrated into granules but if you store it deep in stable 
> rock caves (like we plan to do in Finland) and take into account the 
> immense mass of stone around the storage I see no way it can have 
> increased radiation compared with hot uranium mines.
> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Douglas Sharp" <douglas.sharp@gmx.de>
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221
>
>
>> Hello Frank,
>> the refined stuff has a much higher radiation output than the ores - 
>> think of tiny granules of uranium mixed in with great chunks of rock 
>> which, at least partially stop the radiation, and, btw, make uranium 
>> mines so hot.
>> There is one method of sealing nuclear waste which is effective as far as 
>> it goes, sealing it in glass with a large proportion of lead (which 
>> doesn't shield from radiation, it absorbs it and changes over time) this 
>> has again the inherent problem of heat, the energy has to come out 
>> somewhere. Before somebody suggests dropping it into volcanos, the molten 
>> lava is much too close to the surface, getting sprayed with molten rock 
>> is bad enough, but making it radioactive too is a bit much.
>>
>> As to the plastics, there are some fascinating developments on the way 
>> with high quality plastics made from potato starches and waste straw from 
>> maize crops, then there's always multitudes of natural vegetable oils 
>> which haven't really been tested for making the polymers we need for 
>> plastics.
>> The power of biological products can be seen in the recipe for casein 
>> glue - just mix curds and chalk - one of the best and oldest glues there 
>> is.
>> The energy business  is going to become one of the main areas for the 
>> development of genetically modified plant strains, the other area is the 
>> creation of  bacteria which can reduce waste plastics to their original 
>> source materials - but that is a pandora's box I don't care to think 
>> about -  just let a bacterium like that get out of hand or mutated and 
>> start chewing up plastics just where it shouldn't, I shudder at the 
>> thought.
>> It's interesting that most of the large oil companies are working very 
>> hard in this direction, particularly Shell and BP, they want to have the 
>> market cornered when the time is ripe. There was a research project for 
>> loosening up heavy oil deposits in a reservoir by dropping anaerobic 
>> bacteria down through the borehole, but I left the business before 
>> hearing more about it.
>> The last stuff I was working on was the localisation of deep seated magma 
>> bodies for geothermal energy production in Tuscany (Larderello,where 
>> they've been doing it since the early 1920s) my theory for variations in 
>> their heat production was that these bodies are also subject to tidal 
>> forces caused by the position of the moon pulling them closer to the 
>> surface, unfortunately I never did hear what came of that either. At 
>> least there was a significant increase in microseismicity (tiny earth 
>> tremors) at full moon, which seems to support my theory.
>> To get back on track, the visit to ENEL GreenPower in Pisa was a 
>> wonderful opportunity to wander around that beautiful city with a camera.
>> cheers
>> Douglas
>>
>> Frank Dernie wrote:
>>
>>> Douglas,
>>> I have always wanted to ask a specialist this question, and it looks 
>>> like you may just be the person.........
>>> What is wrong with burying nuclear waste in the exhausted mines from 
>>> which it originated? Presumably it won't be any more dangerous there 
>>> than the raw nuclear material originally mined????
>>> The biggest concern I have re oil is not its use as a fuel, that  seems 
>>> a terrible waste to me, but as the raw material for  manufacturing 
>>> materials such as plastics for which we have no  reasonable alternative.
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> On 1 Feb, 2006, at 19:30, Douglas Sharp wrote:
>>>
>>>> The technologiy is clean enough, and close to being as safe as it  can 
>>>> be - the problem is still nuclear waste. As a production and 
>>>> exploration geophysicist I've worked on nuclear waste storage  sites, 
>>>> working and prospective, in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland  and a few 
>>>> other places. For the long-term storage of nuclear waste  there is NO 
>>>> really safe solution, that stuff stays highly  radioactive on a 
>>>> geological time scale.
>>>> Salt dome caverns  are no good - salt moves and migrates so you've 
>>>> never got a constant thickness shielding your waste, the Swiss 
>>>> solution of putting it in caverns blasted out of native impervious 
>>>> (supposedly) rocks is better but radiactive gases (Radon for  example) 
>>>> always manage to find a way to the surface. The Belgian  method of 
>>>> hiding it under a thin layer of impervious clay isn't a  long term 
>>>> solution either.
>>>> So what do we do with it?  Shooting it into the sun is the only  real 
>>>> way of getting rid of it, there's been enough dropped into the  sea and 
>>>> more than enough buried already, these "fly-dumps" will  take their 
>>>> revenge on the environment one of theses days.
>>>> You say that  present day technologies are safe, I agree - problem  is, 
>>>> even the most recent reactors just haven't been built with  these new 
>>>> technologies, Temsvar in the Czech Republic is one of the  newest NPSs
>>>> and is just not safe, the same applies to the latest French  reactors, 
>>>> Germany's reactors have been plagued with problems and  Sellafield in 
>>>> the UK is a dirty word already. No need to mention  reactors in the 
>>>> former soviet block countries.......
>>>>
>>>> Fusion power is pie-in-the-sky (unless the billions for defence are 
>>>> re-channeled), you might just as well try a further development of 
>>>> Nikolaus Tesla's idea by building orbiting spaceborne solar power 
>>>> stations transmitting power as high energy microwave frequencies  back 
>>>> to earth, though I dread to think what would happen if a plane  flew 
>>>> through one of those tight banded transmissions.
>>>> The only clean options are  terrestrial solar energy farms, wind  and 
>>>> tidal energy and geothermal energy - these are the only future  I can 
>>>> see in power production.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the latest developments reek of science fiction but could  be 
>>>> effective - half mile high chimneys set up in desert regions,  the 
>>>> temperature differential between ground level and the top  creates 
>>>> winds of incredible velocities, all you have to do is put  aturbine in 
>>>> the way of it. Using waste energy (off peak production  is always too 
>>>> high and just gets wasted) from conventional power  stations to pump 
>>>> water into high level reservoirs
>>>> to run hydroelectric turbines at peak demand times, storing energy  as 
>>>> compressed air in salt domes is another option, use it to supply  the 
>>>> energy needed to get gas turbines running.
>>>>
>>>> None of these, however give us any kind of solution for automotive 
>>>> transport - when the oil runs out we're going to back with sailing 
>>>> ships and steam engines again, individual or personal  transportation 
>>>> will be the rich man's game.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 



In reply to: Message from william.mattheis at navy.mil (Mattheis, William G CIV) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from raimo.m.korhonen at uusikaupunki.fi (Raimo K) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)