U.S. government to allow radioactive waste metals to be 'recycled' into consumers products like be

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Intrptr and clarkness..... Thank you for the the information, but you guys are wasting your time replying and trying to add any common sense to this thread. When ever radiaiton, contamination and nuclear are mentioned in any discussion, people go crazy with fear. It is obvious by reading comments that most do not even know the difference between radiation and contamination or radioactivity.

I understand and know that many items disposed of as RAM are not really RAM, but since the program currently treats items that have been exposed to the neutron flux of an operating reactor as RAM that is how thay are disposed of instead of being monitored by direct frsking or gamma counting and released like we used to do. There are many many items that are not activated, contaminated, or inherently radioactive disposed of as RAM....fasteners, grating, grating structure, sheathing for protecting insulation and lagging are a few things that come to mind.

I can understand the general concern, though. We certainly would not want something that could pose a health risk put into our everyday things or medical tools. But there are tons of metal items similar to what I mentioned above that could be melted down and used by the general public with no adverse effects.

I guess my concern would be that procedures put in place to keep the bad stuff from getting to the general public may not be followed, or rad level documents falsfied, or whatever. I do not trust beaureucrats (sp?), although I do trust the procedures, and if this becomes a reality, the possibility of some bad stuff getting loose can increase if not monitored properly.

Just my 2 cents.
edit on 8-2-2013 by Hugues de Payens because: editorial




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


I never claimed to be a expert or anything close. It just hit a nerve with me is all. I relay the info because it is important information. Take it for what it is.

-SAP-



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Belt buckle? Right next to all the equipment required to make babies. This is a joke that isn't making me laugh.

I can't believe how in your face they are getting. Is it that they don't give a fart or they think we

are all that stupid? Got a sprain?.......You need a full set of x-rays and a CT scan........Want to fly somewhere?....

Please step into our irradiatio er ah UM...........Our dangerous stuff detector so we can shrink your testi......um so

we can see your testi........um see if you have dangerous stuff.
I smell something in the air and it aint roses.


Something wicked this way comes me thinks. Peace



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


I never claimed to be a expert or anything close. It just hit a nerve with me is all. I relay the info because it is important information. Take it for what it is.

-SAP-



Believe me I understand the concern, and there is always the potential that something not intended could happen, and I meant no insult to you or anyone else by my reply.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


Oh no, none taken. I get what you are saying and this is ATS, every opinion is welcomed.


-SAP-
edit on 8-2-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well obviously any sane person is going to ask the question "is the metal radioactive upon completion of the manufactured product?" I think that the answer to this question determines whether this is a viable option. If the metal can be decontaminated, and the manufacturers can insure the safety of the consumers, then I think the problems of working with the material can be solved. If however this is not the case, then of course this is a horrible idea.

But even if they claim it is safe, is it really? That is another big question. I think that with the track record of the government, we should not take their word on anything, especially something that can potentially cause people's deaths. But in our capitalistic economy, and with how government actually works, the government and big business are going to work together on this issue. They are like a tag team, and none of it really works out to the benefit of the people.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Radiation is part of the environment and we have all been exposed to it since life developed, the issue is how much. As the battle between economics and the environment goes on, the expose levels have been increasing with nuclear testing, nuclear accidents, nuclear medical, nuclear weapons, ozone depletion and mining all affecting and increasing our exposure, some more than others.

In some parts of Russia due to nuclear accidents and in the Middle East due to depleted uranium, the infertility, cancer and birth deformity are high. While the short term effects on the individuals affected are devastating, the long term effects on the species does lead towards a more radiation resistant population as natural selection promotes biological factors like more resistant cell walls and DNA repair mechanisms.

I very much understand the outrage proposed by this decision as it is our individual responsibility to reduce all risks that we confront. Personally I do not want to be exposed to any more radiation than is absolutely necessary. But what is absolutely necessary for production and development to continue in our disposable based consumer system is to recycle our waste. With little social concern and importance placed on the full product life cycle and recycling issues, what we have is a big messy pile of $h!+ left at the end to work with. Electronics shipped to third world countries so they can be burnt for some alloy slurry is just one of many examples.

Since it is not publicly accepted to take full economic responsibility of all of our repercussions this is the situation we have. As a species, we can either learn how to live of this waste or die as the population strain on declining resources leads to civilization collapse.

As a note, radioactive cobalt has been used to increase crop yields in Russia.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


I have read the article,my jaw dropped and I am speechless.
I only hope that this is some kind of a sick joke and isn't real.


This is nothing new. Already Depleded Uranium is used in munitons and for balast in commerical airplanes.

Here's a link from the end of January on it and how it is a continuing attempt with a link to complain (about half way down the page):

www.counterpunch.org...

There is another article somewhere (I didn't bookmark it) about the history of this push. I'll post it as I find it.

This is a 'SOP' for industry (Standard Operating Procedure), exteriorize the waste products by making (making up) new markets for the wastes. Industry doesn't have to pay to store or clean up their own ****, we do in many different ways.

Floride is a similar situation.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

In some parts of Russia due to nuclear accidents and in the Middle East due to depleted uranium, the infertility, cancer and birth deformity are high. While the short term effects on the individuals affected are devastating, the long term effects on the species does lead towards a more radiation resistant population as natural selection promotes biological factors like more resistant cell walls and DNA repair mechanisms.

.......

As a note, radioactive cobalt has been used to increase crop yields in Russia.


First of all this is a gross exaggeration. You provide no references or sources to backup your supposition that "long term effects on the species does lead towards a more radiation resistant population...." The emphirical evidence from Chernobyl and the East show that each succesive generation shows more defects and weaknesses (see: www.ippnw-students.org... and here is another that is undecided precisely because we don't know enough: www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp... "). Any other suggestion is speculation and only time will tell.

Though there may be some accuracy to your conjecture and we did develop in a mildly radioactive environment with nautral occuring uraninum, radon, etc and we require radiation from the Sun to live at all, that is not comparable to continual exposure to man made trans-uranic elements by either radiation or ingestion. Even the main stream medical establishment states "there is no safe dose" of radiation (see: www.nirs.org... (don't know what they say about ingesting radioactive particles).

And you won't find me eating irradiated crops from Russia any time soon. What good are increased crop yields it the food doesn't norish you and may in fact kill you 20, 30 years down the road.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


I think that would be one eruption I would never want to witness.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


I guess my concern would be that procedures put in place to keep the bad stuff from getting to the general public may not be followed, or rad level documents falsfied, or whatever. I do not trust beaureucrats (sp?), although I do trust the procedures, and if this becomes a reality, the possibility of some bad stuff getting loose can increase if not monitored properly.

Thanks for the reply (and the nod). If I may, It doesn't matter that paperwork is forged or if the government is sneaky about their dealings. When it comes to metal, its not about paper work, just test results. In an exchange of assays a sample of a smelt is taken and divided into three parts. One goes to the customer for assay, usually by an independent lab, one is assayed in-house and one is sealed for a control. When the two next meet the results are compared and if they match then the deal for the particular order is closed. This is an exacting process and foolproof. The independent assay labs certification is golden, they would not remain in business for long if they cheated. Whenever customers come back to buy more the process is repeated as oft as necessary to insure integrity.

This is big business and built upon decades (centuries) of established procedure and reputation at the manufacturing level.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by John411
This is essentially a harmless practice.

Background radiation varies from area to area, but your increase in dosage relative to background would be absolutely minimal.

People see radioactivity mentioned and it scares them... Plain and simple. Anybody who feels this fear should take a few higher level physics courses and really look into radioactivity and how the process works. It isn't something to be worried about. You could honestly go for a swim in the containment tank for spent nuclear fuel rods. As long as you don't dive down and try to get within a couple feet of the fuel rods, you will actually be receiving LESS than the base level of natural background radiation.

The whole topic of radioactivity is rather fascinating, and isn't something to be blindly feared.

Cheers!


It is - and what you state is true as far as radioactivity itself in concerned. However, you are not considering: 1) the dangers of inhalation or ingestion such as those showing up in the Middle East and other areas where Depleted Uranium munitions are used (the radiation is barely detectable (and they are only testing for gamma rays, I believe that's the correct spectra) and radiation (alpha and beta, again I'm just an interested lay person) that is still present but only travels a few 'cell' lengths and only causes localized damage when in the body (human, animal, plant).

I don't claim to understand radioactivity and more then I understand (truly) electricity but I continue to try. Just trusting 'authority' on these issues is foolhardy at best.

Then there is the whole topic of the various radioactive elements, their isotopes and such that each carry different types of dangers.

See:

www.nirs.org...

www.nirs.org...

www.helencaldicott.com...

If you intention is to educate and help eliminate then please add links so that people can come to their on conclusions.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Lets see now. The people that it will harm will be the ones that are making the products and then the people who will eat from it and then the doctors that uses it and the nurses that wash it and the patient that was used on and so on and so forth. Hopefully the doctors who use it will perform operations on the ones that gave the ok to use it in the first place.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by Justoneman
 


HHhhmm, Didn't you notice that Old Wooden American Furniture is extremely valuable
these days.
As for current, the "Well to Do" are purchasing Stickley and Thos. Moser & Sons Handcrafted
Wooden furniture.
S A V V Y ?


All my furniture is old and wood maybe a screw here and there (mostly because I don't have much money and like wood) however appliances are a different matter all together.

Time to get rid of the SS pots and pans and save up for ceramic ones.... never stop learning.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Hey, where are the liberals who demand regulation of everything when you need em? There should be outrage from every camp on this. So where is EPA? Are they too busy protecting the spotted owl and reintroducing wolves back into Yellowstone?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




First of all this is a gross exaggeration.


I am just trying to be blunt about a very complex situation with a lot of factors and repercussions. It is well know that corporate decisions are based on economic factors in which human life is not priceless, but has a varying value. So while the government may have some say in what is the acceptable level of radioactive contamination, in the end it is a corporate decision as governments around the world remain divided and exploitable.

I am no expert on the genetic effects of radiation, but do have a mild interest and have taken some note of various papers and results over the years, as for where these papers are now I am not sure and will leave the technical discussion for those more experienced in the issues. One thing I do expect on the topic is that there is a lot of complexity, debate and many generations involved to define a clearer picture on the situation.

You may very well be right and humans cannot be a part of a world with higher radiation level, similar to what is happening to many ocean species as they cannot adapt fast enough to cope with the plastic rubbish in the oceans. As for what exact level and what kind of exposure defines the difference between evolutionary adaption and extinction is beyond my expertise.

There is also the history of the grey aliens (for those open to such theories) and how they adapted after they had a global thermonuclear war on their planet. This also supports your theory as now they are also a species in decline as their reproductive cloning is becoming stale. Considering that the story goes that they where once more human like, anything that does thrive in such a highly radiated environment would be deserving of a new species title. The size of the worms growing in Chernobyl is quite impressive, but as for this being because of reduced predators or some nuclear energy effect is still being investigated as far as I know.



What good are increased crop yields it the food doesn't norish you and may in fact kill you 20, 30 years down the road.


While GMO may not kill you in 20 or 30 years, some generational studies are raising serious alarms bells with your grand kids. Unless you grow all your own food, chances are you are eating it. The good of it is that it is meeting the food supply demands in a cost effective manner, as it is claimed. So despite radiation exposure being overall good or bad, it is the reality and consequence of industrialization. As our scientist make new things, our bodies have to cope with them with some people doing better than others.

Personally I would rather pay an extra $20 for a non radiated belt buckle, but metals are used everywhere around the home and work place. If a car or house can be made a few $100- cheaper as further refining does not have to be done to remove a 'safe' level of cobalt, the corporate decision is already made. As a consumer, the idea going shopping with a geiger counter sounds quite wise for your own personal protection. I would not at be surprised to learn that there is already some radioactive consumables in the marketplace, some granite bench tops is one example that quickly comes to mind.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 





It is obvious by reading comments that most do not even know the difference between radiation and contamination or radioactivity.


No one is saying that ionizing radiation from a ground zero blast is the same as a hot item registering contamination. But hot particles do exist and the danger depends on what kind of radioisotope it is. People can get exposed and have to take decontamination showers to wash the hot particles off. In the same way, an item which has been exposed may also have some isotopes sitting on it. Is it wrong to worry about iodine 131 and cesium 137 showing up in rainwater or milk supplies? And those have a much shorter half life than plutonium and uranium. PU-239 apparently has a half life of 24,000 years.

Also the biological half life of radioisotopes is shorter than the regular half life.

hypertextbook.com...

Most people probably do not know a lot about nuclear physics or radioactivity, but I did bother to do some reading after the Fukushima accident.
My primary source was an old book dated 1950 with an atomic energy commission stamp inside the cover which was my Dads. The information in it has been pretty consistent with information I have found on the Internet.
edit on 9-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


PU-239 apparently has a half life of 24,000 years.

Also the biological half life of radioisotopes is shorter than the regular half life.

"Half life" is a misnomer term designed for human consumption at the media level. If you divide something in half again and again you still have a bit of lethal something. As lethal as the day it was made. Theres just less of it to irradiate you with.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Hey There Intrpr,

What I mentioned to prior was concerning a few bad apples.
It is in no way systemic throughout the industry. I am only attempting to increase awareness
that this practice does occur. The fact that you or others in the industry screen for this type
of activity is excellent news. Yet I must mention, if the screening methods that you have discussed
are taking place, there is a reason. The reason is, these activities have occurred before. The equipment
that you described is expensive. Generally a scrapyard is not going to invest in gear of this type UNLESS
they have encountered a problem of this type before/or are required by Law.
Best to you,
edit on 9-2-2013 by Wildmanimal because: typo
edit on 9-2-2013 by Wildmanimal because: typo



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


No Worries, The "Safe" Background Radiation Threshold has just been Raised again.

We are all safe now.





top topics
 
41
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join