Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/04

[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: Sat Feb 4 05:15:21 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$91cb9253@Korhonen> <4cfa589b0602020955m9faf518yffb9722ab525c29f@mail.gmail.com> <007401c62833$eb820e10$91cb9253@Korhonen> <43E389B9.9080808@gmx.de> <4cfa589b0602031757w4bbfa852o2d234b1af125d67b@mail.gmail.com>

A few, fortunately very few, years after we bought our farm in Easton NY, a 
lovely old (for this country) 1860 farmhouse, we discovered that there were 
faint traces of radon in our cellar, a bare dirt floor and heavy limestone 
walls. Thereafter, we regularly left cellar windows open to vent.

Seth

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Bridge" <abridge@gmail.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221


> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([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)
Message from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)