🚀 go-pugleaf

ZJKL10@etsu-tn.edu wrote:
> 
>  > But there are studies which do show that moderate increases
>  > in radiation (even 2 to 3 times normal background) do NOT cause
>  > additional health problems.
> 
>  That's a tricky thing to determine.  The lethal dose level varies
>  with the individual but can be predicted using a bell shaped curve.
>  What the show said was somewhere around 200 REMs can kill a person
>  but it didn't give any more information like mean and standard
>  deviation.

From the point of view of toxicity Pu is still one of the most potent 
heavy metals - the paper barrier for alpha was a bit misleading to the 
public I thought - if that were the case why does everyone "suit" up in 
DOE facilities when the deal with Pu - paper suits and paper masks should 
just work swell.

And it still comes down to what actually is the cause of death with Pu 
exposure - toxic chemistry resulting from ionization - the toxicity of 
the Pu itself - or radiation poisoning - As I said before there is not a 
pathologist in the world that can differentiate between these - they 
don't want to deal with the "stuff" at any great length - even in a paper 
suit - the cause of death woulod always be accute radiation poisoning - 
But NORM results in the same ionizing effect - the ionization of a single 
water molecule with resulting peroxides, hydroxides, free radicles, etc. 
gives one pause - 

We once again find ourselves talking about "Mixed Waste", a topic on 
which there is little written, little research and very little knowledge.


>  The question remains, is background radiation safe?
>  Or as I suspect, enough to allow us to reproduce without
>  radiation induced complications.
> 
>  > One should spend resources on what will increase health,
>  > not on things which won't make a difference (or much less difference).
>  > And, quite argueably, nuclear power can reduce radiation exposure,
>  > compared to coal, which is really the competator source.
> 

>  Depends upon the time scale.  There won't be a Chernobilzation
>  in the states, but that's not what people are worried about.
>  As mentioned in the program, Nevada doesn't want the site because
>  of fear that a hundred years from now it'll leak out and pollute
>  the local environment.  It's a sound fear.  

Chernobilization - I like that and I do agree - However there is an 
excleent chance for a repeat of Tomsk (at the Hanford above ground 
storage tanks) - Anyone who says that "we" even have a hint of having 
those under control - much yet characterized - is fibbing through their 
pearly whites.
 

>  But getting back to the Frontline program, in France the society
>  is completely different from the states.  That part was a wow.
>  Education programs, plant tours, standardized design & lower cost,
>  recycling programs, and even research to find new and hopefully
>  safe uses.  But that'll never happen here.

Good food, good wine and good sense - what more can a Francophile wish 
for!!!

Regards -

Peter MacDowell