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

reply to post by Wildmanimal

Hey back. Thanks for the reply... I bookmarked your links, they were quite good. Thanks for those.

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.

Mass spectrometers and detection gear at the point of entry are expensive and not required by law. A lot cheaper though than a returned train load of scrap metal. Higher up the chain, the bigger the load, the more care exercised.

reply to post by intrptr


Anytime Intrptr

Thanks for doing your part to keep The Industry Safe and in Proper Order.
Every effort counts!
Added you as friend.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Hey FryeByrd, this does not mean you have to rid yourself of your metal goods.
It is more about people being aware of what can be hidden in plain sight.

For future reference, it might be a good idea to research your products point of origin
before purchasing it.

By the way, most Metal items produced before the Atomic age are a good bet.
That does not guarantee that an object has not been contaminated at some later
point in time.

Remember Chernobyl.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Alchemst7

 

What would happen if you dropped nuclear waste into the pit of a volcano? Would the Volcano eventually encase and seal the waste?

An erupting one? It would go into the atmosphere with all the ash and smoke and travel around the world. An inactive volcano is even worse. There are multiple tubes and channels in and around it and rain water would carrry the decaying waste down the slopes in rivers to the sea and into the environment eventually. That is why waste is typically buried or stored in special, "safe" underground storage facilities like Yucca flats.

Why wouldn't it go back to becoming the mountain that it came from? That is where we get nuclear material from. Theres got to be a way to put it back into earth in its natural occuring condition.!!

reply to post by Alchemst7

Why wouldn't it go back to becoming the mountain that it came from? That is where we get nuclear material from. Theres got to be a way to put it back into earth in its natural occuring condition.!!

Unlike molecules radioactive elements are in their most elemental form at the atomic level. There is no further process to make them dissolve except time and decay. In some cases a long time (tens of thousands even 100's of thousands of years). For instance, Lead used to be Uranium but has decayed over time to a stable element. Its still toxic, just not radioactive anymore.

All these radioactive elements have been dug up as ore, refined (concentrated and purified) and then "exposed" in reactors. That whole process is what produces the "waste" that must be stored separate from the environment. And that is when the process works and the cycle is operating normally.

When a reactor gets out of mans control and experiences a runaway chain reaction that is the worse case scenario. All that contained nice metal fuel has undergone fission and been released into the open environment where it will remain form many, many years.

Since a lot of these "radionuclides" and isotopes are just radioactive pieces of atoms they cannot be further broken down by any natural process or cleaned up (because they are so small). That is the insidious nature of the beast.

We thought we could contain this against all odds and natural catastrophes and we were wrong. Once you open Pandora's box, its open. There is no "putting it back".

It's OK, no need to worry about this.

Remember, some radiation is good for you, it's got electrolytes!

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


There is no radioactive material involved in this at all - it's a beat up.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
How can they get away with doing something like that. Of course they will give the argument that "It's below 'toxic' levels" or something along those line.

For those who took the time to read the links, the limit planned is 1 millirem above background levels.

I'm no expert on radioactive safety, but wikipedia says a whole 1 rem gives an extra 0.055% chance of eventually developing cancer.
If the effect is linear (but I dont know if it is) , the the government would let you get an extra 0.000055 percent chance of getting cancer by purchasing an item made from the recycled waste.

Any experts on nuclear safety here?

Sustained low-dose exposure to radiation is very poorly studied, but those studies that have been made (including those by Helen Caldicott) indicate that it is quite dangerous indeed.

It's a good decision and nice move from the side of authority to lift or make changes in the restrictions and make smooth way for recycling radioactive scrap metals. This enable an effective way of reuse of nuclear waste as it is transformed into daily life consumer products like belt buckles, silverware, surgical devices, etc. I think, I want to make an India tour to US radioactive site , if I would like to find out the exact count of benefits to be accesses by the process. Anyway, the decision taken by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) needs to be taken as a model to be followed in such cases of making useful things out of considerable wastes.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


The studies done on depleted uranium were not so good, they are extremely dangerous when turned to nano dust, like for example when they're used in weapons, in planes, that can crash, in race cars, all the very things they put it in can turn it into nano dust.

They have no right whatsoever to mix it into the scrap metals.

However, there was an inventor who discovered a way to turn it into energy and render it harmless, and he died!!!!

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

However, there was an inventor who discovered a way to turn it into energy and render it harmless, and he died!!!!

Go figure. These kinds of things always happen...

-SAP-

reply to post by John411

Any experts on nuclear safety here?

Only self-taught, but there is lots of science available on the 'net, and it isn't really 'rocket science', in fact I'm sure a barmaid could understand most of it. A little different if you want to actually construct a reactor, but lets leave that to the engineers. Anyway, from everything I've read, the fear is way overblown. We evolved on a planet that was very much more radio active in the past, and many animals and insects have amazing radiation tollerence, so I'd think we do too. Galen Winsor of course is the 'guinea pig' here, subject himself to huge amounts of radiation, but always looked healthy, and his mind was razor sharp. Other volunteers ate and were even injected with plutonium, no adverse effects noted.

@John411

This is essentially a harmless practice.

Good to see some level headed comments for a change. Hormesis seems to have beneficial effects, maybe people would buy these items instead of the hormesis beads?
Natural Radiation Hormesis
radiation-hormesis.com...

And isn't it a little strange that peoples fears of radiation don't seem to matter if they believe it is good for them? Skin cancer rates from sitting under the big nuclear reactor in the sky, or from tanning beds doesn't seem to worry most folk at all. Then when you get skin cancer, you go and have gamma ray radiation treatment to try cure it. Go figure.