Top post: merely late reply as opposed to really, really late reply still-to-come... ;)
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > <Dan wrote> > > > I've looked up the total risk, and after 200 > years it approaches that of > > > the ore that was originally mined. After a > > > million years, the risk of > > > radiation damage should be far less than that > > > incurred by spending the night with someone. > > Ah - my recall may have been thousands of years to > > reach "background radiation level" rather than > that of the *ore* (this still isn't the site I > > recall, which had hard data rather than prose): http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/reports/1995/geodisp/geological-disposal.html > > "...Through a system of multiple containment > barriers, > > this strategy would isolate the wastes from the > > biosphere for extremely long periods of time, > ensure > > that residual radioactive substances reaching the > > biosphere after many thousands of years would be at > > concentrations insignificant compared for example > > with the natural background of radioactivity, and > > render the risk from inadvertent human intrusion > > acceptably small..." > But, look at how rigorous the criterion is: > insignificant compared to > natural backround radiation. The spice section at > Krogers has a radiation > level that fails this test by a big margin, one part > of it will have > radiation far above background. If one of those > death of all human stories > is true, it will remain far above background for > billions of years. Yet, > we take things from here and eat it. But we don't _live_ there for years. Here is an abstract which urges caution in interpreting "adverse pregnancy outcomes" and exposure to radiation, yet *did* find a "statistically significant association between uranium operations and unfavorable birth outcome was identified with the mother living near tailings or mine dumps." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1399640&dopt=Abstract I think we've already agreed that uranium miners have an increased risk of lung cancer, but here is one abstract from a population-based case-control study about Navajo men and lung cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10738707&dopt=Abstract "Navajo men who were underground miners have excess risk of lung cancer...Smoking did not account for the strong relationship between lung cancer and uranium mining. The Navajo experience with uranium mining is a unique example of exposure in a single occupation accounting for the majority of lung cancers in an entire population." > > Second problem: how can we insure that no humans > enter > > a hazardous site even a thousand years from now, > > let alone a million? > Sigh, it is very frustrating that someone as bright > and reasonable as you > will have such an unfair criterion for nuclear > power. We have something > that will be a moderate risk in a few hundred years. > It is locked up. If civilization continues, > its hard to believe that the nature of the waste > disposal site will not be understood in 200 years. There is the rub: you seem to be assuming that not only can "we" keep track of and contain toxic & hazardous substances for centuries, but that whatever mistakes we are currently making can be corrected in the future -- I take the "conservative" approach, based on how we have lost track of things like where we buried/stored nerve gas bomblets a mere 50 years ago, and that certain birth defects are associated with the mother's living near hazardous waste sites.* We have different biases, yours an optimistic "can do" engineers outlook, mine a more cynical "law of unintended consequences" one [yet not quite Murphy's Law bad]. *This abstract doesn't specify the type of hazardous waste site, but is a very large study (N > 13K): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12018013&dopt=Abstract Even living near a landfill increases the risk of "congenital anomalies," albeit a small increase: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11509424&dopt=Abstract And does this one that found "The risk of birth defects among index children was significantly associated with mother's military service in Vietnam" reflect chemical exposure, or something else? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10982986&dopt=Abstract > If it doesn't its > unlikely that someone will break in. If they do, > maybe a few people would > die; maybe not. But, if civilization fails, > billions would die. Why have > nuclear power held to this standard when there are > zillions of other things > that are less important that would also fail this > criterion without anyone worrying about it. I don't think that continuation of our civilisation depends upon nuclear power, and I hold not only the nuclear power industry but the chemical industry (WRT biologically active and poorly degradable chemicals like PCBs) to the standard of "if it's going to affect our children's children, prove that the current benefit so greatly outweighs the future deficit that we should support your current work anyway." For that matter, I also hold the logging industry responsible WRT loss of old-growth forest that will not be duplicated/replaced until ~ 1000 years (coastal redwood forest), and the loss of the many species dependent upon those ecosystem (frex various salmon populations). Debbi well that went a bit further afield than I meant to... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
