[Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

Radon is definitely one of the sources to avoid. Radon is an
alpha-emitter. Normally alpha isn't a big deal as long as you don't
let it into your body - a piece of paper will stop it. But Radon is a
gas and so the gas goes into your lungs where the radiation is applied
directly to unprotected internal tissues - so caring about radon makes
a lot of sense. Fortunately basements can be vented.

Adam

On 2/3/06, Douglas Sharp <douglas.sharp@gmx.de> wrote:
> Most of Cornwall (UK) is built on granite bed-rock, many houses there
> suffer from high concentrations of naturally occuring radioactive radon
> gas seeping into cellars through the bedrock.
> Douglas
>
> Raimo K wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification of the picture - but I still see no
> > radiation escape from the deep granite caves.
> > All the best!
> > Raimo K
> > Personal photography homepage at:
> > http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Bridge" <abridge@gmail.com>
> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221
> >
> >
> >> When Uranium is fissioned two different elements are created and each
> >> of these elements is unstable (usually quite seriously unstable) and
> >> so they decay into different nuclides by various mechanisms, all of
> >> which give off serious amounts of gamma radiation. The half-lives of
> >> these fission products vary but the entire chain takes tens of
> >> thousands of years to reach low-level proportions. The spent fuel
> >> isn't explosive although it does produce heat as a result of the
> >> radioactive decay. They don't burn, in general they are metals
> >>
> >> The amount of radiation in a reactor core which has never been
> >> critical, that is to say a self-sustaining nuclear reaction has never
> >> happened in it, is quite small. Before the core was loaded into PARCHE
> >> I was able to look up inside it with no protection except for the
> >> requirement to keep everything VERY clean.
> >>
> >> But at the end of life the amount of radioactivity is quite vast -
> >> many mega-Curies of radioactivity. (The Curie itself is a huge amount
> >> of radioactivity, it represents a certain number of disintegrations
> >> per second. Normal limits for things are normall expressed in
> >> micro-micro-Curies to give you an idea.)
> >>
> >> As a rough approximation, if you are 1 meter away from a 1 Curie
> >> source of gamma-emmiting you'll receive an exposure of 1 REM/hr. REM
> >> is a measure of biological damage produced by radiation.
> >>
> >> The limit for non-radiation workers are .1 REM/year over and above
> >> what you get from normal background radiation - ie cosmic rays etc. If
> >> you live at altitude you get more than if you live at sea level for
> >> example. Medical/Dental x-rays aren't counted in this either. You
> >> typically get about 200 mili-rem from natural souces - radon gas which
> >> happens naturally is the biggie - and 40 mili-REM from x-rays per
> >> year.
> >>
> >> An exposure of (oh boy these numbers are hazy, it's been a long time)
> >> of 50 REM over a short period will produce identifiable changes in
> >> your blood. 100 Rem acute will make you ill, the threshold of
> >> mortality is 150 REM and I think the 50/50 dose is 500 REM IF you get
> >> the best medical treatment - meaning 50% of the people exposed will
> >> die. 100% mortality is 800 REM.
> >>
> >> Radioactive waste from nuclear reactors is in the realm of mega-REM.
> >> The decay of the fission products produces heat. Many of the elements
> >> are themselves corrosive. So it's a tricky problem - especially if you
> >> want to have something stored unguarded. Most fuel-rods are stored
> >> deep under water in pools that are on the grounds of the reactor plant
> >> that produced them. In fact, in the US this is where they have to STAY
> >> since there is no long-term storage facility.
> >>
> >> As you might guess they are not easy to steal, either. Somehow you'd
> >> have to take over a facility, find a big lead container, use remote
> >> handling equipment, remove the rods, put them  into the container,
> >> move them. They are typically in stainless steel or zirconium cladding
> >> of some sort or other. Trying to grab one without the remote handling
> >> would be seriously ugly for the people attempting it. It ain't like
> >> the movies.
> >>
> >> I hope this was useful and not too technical. My days as a reactor
> >> operator are three decades past. I know that new units of measure are
> >> now included in the SI system but I haven't had a reason to keep up.
> >>
> >> Adam Bridge
> >>
> >> On 2/2/06, Raimo K <raimo.m.korhonen@uusikaupunki.fi> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>