Re: [Texascavers] radioactive
How about the little plastic boy scout badges from China that the media was hyping/freaking-out over they were painted with something lead-based. Didn't they used to MAKE those little badges out of lead? -WaV On Dec 19, 2007 11:41 PM, George Nincehelser wrote: > You know, if we just wrapped our homes in lead-based materials, we > wouldn't have to worry so much about radiation. > > It's always something, though >
Re: [Texascavers] radioactive
You know, if we just wrapped our homes in lead-based materials, we wouldn't have to worry so much about radiation. It's always something, though
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Just to briefly merge two off-topic discussions, here are some lyrics to a popular Dan Fogelberg song: I hear the thunder three miles away The Island's leaking into the bay The poison is spreading The demon is free And people are running from what they can't even see [Chorus:] Face the fire You can't turn away The risk grows greater with each passing day The waiting's over The moment has come To kill the fire and turn to the sun It was years before I noticed the lyrics were anti-nuclear and pro-solar and realized Dan was a durn hippie. I still like the tune, though, and I admire the way he was able to slip his position in without using any hot-button words. George
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Ediger chimed in - and his explanation supports the unbiased findings of my random discoveries. I know I did not say concrete blocks, and according to Gill, there's a pretty good explanation to why cinderblocks from 50 years ago could be sufficiently radioactive to be read by a Geiger counter. It might not be a surprise that there is radioactivity of some level in almost everything including people. Caveat: Radioactive is - as far as I can tell a "relative" measure. It is not "either present or not present" In this place, it's all around. The radioactivity of cinderblocks was REAL. But is it significant enough to cause health problems in a hundred years? I HAVE NO IDEA. But thank you for the interruption- Now back to your regular scheduled internet experience. -WaV On Dec 19, 2007 4:41 PM, John P Brooks wrote: > Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you that if > there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything harmful in these > blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability insurance would > prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would think twice > about building a concrete block home or school in a high humidity area > > Fritz Holt wrote: > > Nico, > > I would assume that like so many things, the > > radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of > proportion. But > > I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be > better > > informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 years it > > is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and > > therefore not considered a hazard to human health. > > There is a small subdivision in > > Jacinto City , Texas , > > surrounded by Houston > > on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete > block in > > the 1940'S OR 50'S. > > From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, > > concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those > with no > > wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than > the brick > > veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one of these in > > the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. > > Fritz > > > > From: Nico Escamilla > > [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 > > 11:30 AM > > To: Fritz > > Holt > > Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; > > texascavers@texascavers.com > > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > > > I have lived in a > > cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as > can > > be. a little overweight but thats another story. > > Nico > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt > > < fh...@townandcountryins.com > > > wrote: > > Don, > > "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't > > know enough about – cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). > > As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building > > materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. > > I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have > > about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain > > Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure > > inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it > > allowed to be used so extensively? > > Fritz > > > > From: Don Cooper [mailto: wavyca...@gmail.com ] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 > > 11:34 PM > > To: Simon Newton > > Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com > > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > > > That is correct! > > As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon > > Dioxide. > > Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly > greater > > than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. > > This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear > > engineers) > > that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. > > Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock > > is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a > > Geiger counter! > > -WaV > > On Dec > > 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton < csnew...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Some food for thought... > > From the article: > > Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is > > actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear > > counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for > > power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. > > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 > > - > > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] radioactive ash
Funny, at La. Tech they had an actual "pile" within bricks of lead, carbon and cadnium and stuff with real uranium inside it. It wasn't large enough to be self-sustaining. It was what they call "sub-critical mass". The nuclear nerds that spent most of their free on-campus time there, loved to demonstrate with a Geiger Counter - "Nuclear Reactor: -tick--tick. Now, Cinder Block wall: - tick tick -tick tick tick -tick tick -tick tick" Granted, the Geiger Counter could have been seriously sensitive... The Nuclear Science building was probably constructed in the late 50s or early 60s. Cinder origin unknown but all interior walls were all painted cinderblock. O! As I reminisce - let me lay on to you cats a really cool blue light these egg haids had in their lab. At the bottom of a 20 foot deep pool of pure clear water, cobalt ingots rested at the bottom. With the lights off you could see the cool blue light of the radiation striking water molecules. Now here's something really twisted - you could take a glass object like a beer pitcher and lower it down on a string near the cobalt - and after a couple of days, your clear beer pitcher would have the wierdest yellow/brown color. Neato. Like, gamma rays actually striking atoms - corrupting the elements somehow to make amber pigmentation withing the silica. -WaV On Dec 19, 2007 12:08 PM, Gill Ediger wrote: > At 11:21 AM 12/19/2007, Mixon Bill wrote: > >Let's not get carried away, here. > > We haul a lot of "ash" produced in coal-fired power plants on our > trains; it goes as a minor hazardous material to some landfill > somewhere. The main solid by-products of coal-fired power plants are > >
Re: [Texascavers] radioactive cinderblock, too
Yeah - those three-eyed fish help keep Austin weird! Scott Allan Cobb wrote:> Hey, we like three-eyed fish in Austin! - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Texascavers] RE: That's absurd...
At 05:41 PM 12/19/2007, John P Brooks wrote: Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you that if there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything harmful in these blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability insurance would prohibit the use...concrete block is safe... Maybe now, yeah. But maybe not 20 or 30 or 40 years ago when they were actually using the stuff. And a lot of houses still have those blocks in um, though probably not many in Texas. What I didn't point out earlier is that most of the problems I mentioned about cinders produced in the fire boxes of steam engines were a problem for the industrialized northern and eastern US where major pollution was already underway. Texas was a johnny-come-lately in the toxic waste department, although once they got started they got right on the pollution band wagon--but mostly with oil, not coal, except up there by Mineral Wells and Thurber. And we didn't and don't build many houses with basements in Texas or houses with cinder block or concrete. Most of us have not to worry. - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] digging
Just curious, what cave is it that you were digging on. I haven't heard the story. Nancy Weaver wrote:Yesterday I went digging. A friend came and picked me up and off we went to one of those ubiquitous oversized subdivisions where the city pushes hungrily against former ranch and pasturelands. We walked through the upscale 'backyard' zone, with barking dog and chiminea to the liveoak that marked the border of thicket and brush and whose roots twined down into the same crevice that we were interested in. An easy sloping depression funnels into a massively bedded slot 8 feet long, 3 feet wide and after many dig hours on another day, 4 feet deep. Glorious rich black clayey soil tantalized at the bottom of a crack which clearly gathers a substantial watershed, replenishing the aquifer. We were there to remove the last soil and see what lay beneath. It was a cold hard clear blue day, we were bundled in several layers. Alternately, we squeezed into the narrow slot, crouched on a ledge and digging prying scooping out soil from foot level, then passing a small bucket up to the person on top who went off and emptied it. As the dirt receded, our optimism waxed and waned. We worked companionably for a couple of hours, talking of books and movies, of ideas, of the uselessness of the pot metal gardening tool which immediately curled up, of how nice a pair of loppers would be for the thick tree roots that ultimately penetrated further than we did. Our efforts warmed us up to shirt sleeves and used combinations of muscles rarely called on. Finally we agreed that we had reached the limits of our exploration. Thoroughly satisfied, we trudged our muddy tools back to the truck, drove off to get some food, discuss other possible digs. It was just such a day as this, of pleasant easygoing companionship in the woods many years ago, when we discovered what is now the one of the largest caves in travis county. but that is another story. If you believe there is nothing left of value to find, that is the experience you will have. Nancy - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [Texascavers] Dan who?
It's not too late to listen to some good music, Mixon Bill wrote: Don't feel bad, Ediger. I'd never even _heard_ of Dan Fogelberg. -- Mixon -- You may "reply" to the address this message came from, but for long-term use, save: Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu AMCS: edi...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Texascavers] radioactive
I wouldn't be surprised if just about everything from the Earth's crust has some low but significant amount of radioactivity. This would be less true of soils, since they have had a chance to eradiate into the air, which in turn has a chance of bleeding it off into space. The point is that you have a small amount of long half-life radioactives like uranium in rocks, but the by-products of decay (electrons, neutrons, and alpha particles) have a small chance to make neighboring nuclei radioactive, and they have really short mean free paths in solid rock. I imagine short half-life "hot" nuclei like Cesium 137 are good absorbers of some product of another decay. Our helium comes from radioactive decay. What this all means is that we should expect to see some radioactivity in a lot of different minerals. It is responsible for a significant part of the cancer base rate (the rate excluding human-made or augmented risk factors like smoking.) It can be concentrated in the home by choosing building materials that contain more radioactive minerals. If you wanted to be very adventurous, you could build your house from pitchblende or some other uranium ore. You can probably reduce risk some by lining the inside of your radioactive walls with non-radioactive material. This would block most or all particulate emission, even if the buffer were only a millimeter thick. Decay products like radon would still have to go somewhere, but at least you wouldn't be getting bombarded by high speed electrons or helium nuclei coming from your walls. Properly constructed, your wall might vent all radioisotope gasses outside, but you'd still get some from the ambient air. If you smoke or have other worse risk factors, invest in stopping them instead. Gregg - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you that if there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything harmful in these blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability insurance would prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would think twice about building a concrete block home or school in a high humidity area Fritz Holt wrote: > Nico, > I would assume that like so many things, the > radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of proportion. > But > I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be better > informed. While many people don’t live in the same home for 23 years it > is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and > therefore not considered a hazard to human health. > There is a small subdivision in > Jacinto City , Texas , > surrounded by Houston > on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete block in > the 1940’S OR 50’S. > From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, > concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those with > no > wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than the > brick > veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven’t insured one of these in > the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. > Fritz > > From: Nico Escamilla > [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 > 11:30 AM > To: Fritz > Holt > Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; > texascavers@texascavers.com > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > I have lived in a > cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can > be. a little overweight but thats another story. > Nico > On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt > < fh...@townandcountryins.com > > wrote: > Don, > "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't > know enough about – cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). > As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building > materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. > I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have > about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain > Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure > inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it > allowed to be used so extensively? > Fritz > > From: Don Cooper [mailto: wavyca...@gmail.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 > 11:34 PM > To: Simon Newton > Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > That is correct! > As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon > Dioxide. > Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater > than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. > This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear > engineers) > that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. > Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock > is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a > Geiger counter! > -WaV > On Dec > 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton < csnew...@gmail.com > wrote: > Some food for thought... > From the article: > Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is > actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear > counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for > power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 > - > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com > > - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[Texascavers] caves in California
Lost family found alive in snow-covered California wilderness. Rescuers stated: they had hoped the family found refuge in the: "caves that dotted the heavily wooded and canyon-crossed area." I don't know where the family got lost at. But I have been hiking in the area below where some of the marble caves are supposed to be. I would have been in serious trouble had I needed to seek refuge in a cave.Especially if it was snowing. I don't remember seeing any Christmas trees either. David Locklear - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[Texascavers] NCKRI Distinguished Lecture Series
(I sent this message this morning from my work address but never saw it posted. Here it is again from my home address. My apologies for any duplication.) If you happen to be in the Carlsbad area just after New Year, or want to come regardless, you are invited to the next installment of the National Cave and Karst Research Institutes Distinguished Lecture Series. Marcus Gary, of Zara Environmental L.L.P. in Buda, Texas, will speak about some incredible exploration, geological, and biological work in El Zacatón, the worlds deepest water-filled pit, which is located in northeastern Mexico. His research team is supported by NASA and involves use of an autonomous probe that mapped and collected biological, geological, and hydrological samples and data from throughout the 339-m-deep pit. The probe is a prototype for one that will be deployed on Jupiters moon Europa, to study the probable ocean which is hidden below a thick surface of ice. Exciting stuff! The lecture will be given on January 3, 2007, at 7 p.m. at the New Mexico State University Carlsbad campus in Room 153. If you are interested in more information, I can send you a PDF with a location map, formal abstract, and a little information about Marcus. Feel free to pass this information to anyone you think may be interested. George
RE: [Texascavers] record dive in Florida
Just as an FYI the decompression schedule used by the wkpp is VERY aggressive. A "classic" non GUE/DIR decompression schedule would have been much longer -Original Message- From: Mixon Bill [mailto:bmixon...@austin.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:01 AM To: Cavers Texas Subject: [Texascavers] record dive in Florida What that article didn't say is that the average depth of the passage connecting the two caves is 275 feet--definitely technical diving territory. The same two, in the process of seeking the connection from both ends, had actually made a longer dive, because the connection was not in the middle of the 7 miles, but rather 23,800 feet from the Wakulla entrance, which made their round trip from Wakulla to that point about 9 miles. On that dive, they spent 580 minutes (10 hours, close as matters) at around 275 feet, followed by 15 hours of in-water decompression. The actual through-trip just completed was, comparatively, a piece of cake, just following the line, except that apparently the visibility in Wakulla has dropped again. The connection explorations had only been possible because of unusually good visibility in the Wakulla Spring water during late 2006 and the first half of 2007. For expedition reports during the quest for the connection, which was made on July 28, 2007, see www.gue.com/Expeditions/WKPP/Updates/. -- Bill Mixon -- You may "reply" to the address this message came from, but for long-term use, save: Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu AMCS: edi...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[Texascavers] radioactive ash
At 11:21 AM 12/19/2007, Mixon Bill wrote: Let's not get carried away, here. We haul a lot of "ash" produced in coal-fired power plants on our trains; it goes as a minor hazardous material to some landfill somewhere. The main solid by-products of coal-fired power plants are the clinker (cinders) and the ash from the scrubbers. Both have relatively high "trace" levels of mercury, uranium, other heavy metals, and additional toxic or radioactive elements which, in their own right, might be minimal. Taken together, however, the stuff is not fit for much other than burying or export to third world countries. There were early attempts to use it for aggregate in structural concrete, cinder blocks, road base, highway asphalt, and other such items in which it could be diluted. I think the cinder blocks which Cooper referred to came from such a source and produced an environment inside of structures (basements, commercial buildings, etc) which produced elevated radioactive readings--outside federal limits in some cases. (The State Capitol in Austin has a similar situation due to the naturally occurring radiation of the Texas pink granite from which it is constructed.) I also think that some of this type of ash and cinders is still being used in asphalt when it can be adequately diluted--but I'm not sure. Also, use in concrete for projects (bridges, retaining walls, etc) which are not habitations may still be allowed??? 2 generalized technical notes: 1) During its formation, the organic matter in coal was intermixed with air borne particles ranging from microscopic clays to moderate grained sands. These are the basic building blocks of pottery (from clay) and glass (from silica sand). These particles also contained a goodly portion of heavy metals which made up the rock from which they were eroded--including radioactive ones. When coal is burned these inclusions are baked at a temperature high enough to melt and fuse them into a bubbly, glassy, pottery mix known by several terms: clinker, cinders, and ash, which fell to the bottom of the fire box and were later dumped. During the days when steam engines turned the wheels of industry in factories and freight trains and steam ships, cinders were a major and mounting commodity and a lot of resourceful methods were devised for getting rid of them, including as aggregate in concrete and general rubble and land fill to level areas for residential and commercial use--even school yards and playgrounds. Most of it is still in place. I don't know of any studies done to determine the residual radioactivity of those areas today. 2) Concrete blocks are made of concrete--sand, gravel, and cement. They are heavy and difficult to handle. Cinder blocks were developed to create a lighter weight concrete block. They use, ostensibly, crushed cinders of volcanic origin, that are naturally infused with air or steam bubbles which make them inherently lighter, in place of the heavier sands and gravels traditionally used in concrete, but with adequate compressive strength for their intended use. Due to its firey origin coal clinker has a look and feel and weight very similar to volcanic cinders and was an obvious and virtually free replacement for them when steam engine operators went looking for ways to get rid of their ever increasing piles of clinker. As we said, that clinker had high levels of radioactive materials and the cinder blocks made with it was used in the construction of homes, schools, offices, factories, and warehouses, many of which are still in use, long before the Geiger counter became a common household appliance. --Ediger - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Nico, I would assume that like so many things, the radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of proportion. But I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be better informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 years it is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and therefore not considered a hazard to human health. There is a small subdivision in Jacinto City, Texas, surrounded by Houston on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete block in the 1940'S OR 50'S. >From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those with no wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than the brick veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one of these in the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. Fritz _ From: Nico Escamilla [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:30 AM To: Fritz Holt Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story. Nico On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt < fh...@townandcountryins.com> wrote: Don, "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it allowed to be used so extensively? Fritz _ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM To: Simon Newton Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: Some food for thought... >From the article: Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash-a by-product from burning coal for power-contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] radioactive cinderblock, too
> -Original Message- > From: Allan Cobb [mailto:a...@oztotl.com] > > > And oh -- so according to that map, Texas is pretty low in above- > > ground background stuff. Er -- oh, except for a hot spot right > > around... north Austin? I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions > > about the effect of that! :o) > > Hey, we like three-eyed fish in Austin! Makes 'em darned hard to catch! -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] radioactive cinderblock, too
And oh -- so according to that map, Texas is pretty low in above- ground background stuff. Er -- oh, except for a hot spot right around... north Austin? I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions about the effect of that! :o) Hey, we like three-eyed fish in Austin! - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] radioactive cinderblock, too
Depends on the source, but overall, it's very, very, very low
background stuff - not above the radioactivity we normally get for
living here on Earth. A walk around some rocks with a geiger counter
can attest to that.
Anyhow, the USGS offers a map of the general background radiation
("above ground") across the states: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/
DDS-9.html that, if you spent enough non-caving time (or crunched
the numbers in a cave?) one might figure out how much radiation was
in that cinder based on its source.
And oh -- so according to that map, Texas is pretty low in above-
ground background stuff. Er -- oh, except for a hot spot right
around... north Austin? I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions
about the effect of that! :o)
Cheers,
--Dave
On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Mixon Bill wrote:
Let's not get carried away, here. I doubt seriously whether the
radioactivity in the ash (and smokestack emissions) from a coal
plant is as radioactive as high-level waste from a nuclear power
plant. If it was, the vicinity of every large coal-fired plant
would be another Chernoble (or however it's spelled). What is
correct is that the emissions from a coal plant are more
radioactive than the emissions from a properly operating nuke.
And radioactive carbon has nothing to do with that, since the
carbon-14 in coal has long-since decayed away. I think the main
thing is potassium-40, but of course coal also has trace amounts of
various other elements like uranium. People also fuss about the
mercury impurities in coal going up the stack. Nevertheless, minor
things like that have done no perceptible harm to anybody. (Neither
has any nuclear plant except that one in Ukraine.) All the coal-
mining fatalities (and uranium-mining fatalities, too) are another
matter, as is the general air pollution (sulfur, NOx, etc), which
is very much reduced from modern coal plants--except the CO2. -- Mixon
--
You may "reply" to the address this message
came from, but for long-term use, save:
Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu
AMCS: edi...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org
-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[NMCAVER] NCKRI Distinguished Lecture Series
If you happen to be in the Carlsbad area just after New Year, or want to come regardless, you are invited to the next installment of the National Cave and Karst Research Institutes Distinguished Lecture Series. Marcus Gary, of Zara Environmental L.L.P. in Buda, Texas, will speak about some incredible exploration, geological, and biological work in El Zacatón, the worlds deepest water-filled pit, which is located in northeastern Mexico. His research team is supported by NASA and involves use of an autonomous probe that mapped and collected biological, geological, and hydrological samples and data from throughout the 339-m-deep pit. The probe is a prototype for one that will be deployed on Jupiters moon Europa, to study the probable ocean which is hidden below a thick surface of ice. Exciting stuff! The lecture will be given on January 3, 2007, at 7 p.m. at the New Mexico State University Carlsbad campus in Room 153. If you are interested in more information, I can send you a PDF with a location map, formal abstract, and a little information about Marcus. Feel free to pass this information to anyone you think may be interested. George *** George Veni, Ph.D. Executive Director National Cave and Karst Research Institute 1400 Commerce Dr. Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220 USA gv...@nckri.org www.nckri.org 001-575-887-5517 (office) 001-210-863-5919 (mobile) 001-413-383-2276 (fax) ***NOTE NEW 575 AREA CODE*** ___ NMCAVER mailing list nmca...@caver.net http://caver.net/mailman/listinfo/nmcaver_caver.net
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Maybe it's like irradiated food - all the bugs that cause disease are killed off by the low-level radiation leaving the main, stronger, body more healthy? Stefan From: Nico Escamilla [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:30 AM To: Fritz Holt Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story. Nico On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt < fh...@townandcountryins.com> wrote: Don, "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it allowed to be used so extensively? Fritz From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM To: Simon Newton Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: Some food for thought... From the article: Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash-a by-product from burning coal for power-contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story. Nico On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt wrote: > Don, > > "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about – > cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). > > As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of > choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. > > I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three > hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain > > Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside > buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it > > allowed to be used so extensively? > > Fritz > > > -- > > *From:* Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM > *To:* Simon Newton > *Cc:* texascavers@texascavers.com > *Subject:* Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than > Nuclear Waste > > > > That is correct! > As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon > Dioxide. > Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly > greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. > This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear > engineers) > that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. > Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock > is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a > Geiger counter! > -WaV > > On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: > > Some food for thought... > > From the article: > Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is > actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear > counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for > power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 > > > - > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com > > >
[Texascavers] radioactive coal
Let's not get carried away, here. I doubt seriously whether the radioactivity in the ash (and smokestack emissions) from a coal plant is as radioactive as high-level waste from a nuclear power plant. If it was, the vicinity of every large coal-fired plant would be another Chernoble (or however it's spelled). What is correct is that the emissions from a coal plant are more radioactive than the emissions from a properly operating nuke. And radioactive carbon has nothing to do with that, since the carbon-14 in coal has long-since decayed away. I think the main thing is potassium-40, but of course coal also has trace amounts of various other elements like uranium. People also fuss about the mercury impurities in coal going up the stack. Nevertheless, minor things like that have done no perceptible harm to anybody. (Neither has any nuclear plant except that one in Ukraine.) All the coal-mining fatalities (and uranium-mining fatalities, too) are another matter, as is the general air pollution (sulfur, NOx, etc), which is very much reduced from modern coal plants--except the CO2. -- Mixon -- You may "reply" to the address this message came from, but for long-term use, save: Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu AMCS: edi...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[Texascavers] Dan who?
Don't feel bad, Ediger. I'd never even _heard_ of Dan Fogelberg. -- Mixon -- You may "reply" to the address this message came from, but for long-term use, save: Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu AMCS: edi...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[Texascavers] record dive in Florida
What that article didn't say is that the average depth of the passage connecting the two caves is 275 feet--definitely technical diving territory. The same two, in the process of seeking the connection from both ends, had actually made a longer dive, because the connection was not in the middle of the 7 miles, but rather 23,800 feet from the Wakulla entrance, which made their round trip from Wakulla to that point about 9 miles. On that dive, they spent 580 minutes (10 hours, close as matters) at around 275 feet, followed by 15 hours of in-water decompression. The actual through-trip just completed was, comparatively, a piece of cake, just following the line, except that apparently the visibility in Wakulla has dropped again. The connection explorations had only been possible because of unusually good visibility in the Wakulla Spring water during late 2006 and the first half of 2007. For expedition reports during the quest for the connection, which was made on July 28, 2007, see www.gue.com/Expeditions/WKPP/Updates/. -- Bill Mixon -- You may "reply" to the address this message came from, but for long-term use, save: Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu AMCS: edi...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Don, "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it allowed to be used so extensively? Fritz _ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM To: Simon Newton Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: Some food for thought... >From the article: Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash-a by-product from burning coal for power-contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
[Texascavers] digging
Yesterday I went digging. A friend came and picked me up and off we went to one of those ubiquitous oversized subdivisions where the city pushes hungrily against former ranch and pasturelands. We walked through the upscale 'backyard' zone, with barking dog and chiminea to the liveoak that marked the border of thicket and brush and whose roots twined down into the same crevice that we were interested in. An easy sloping depression funnels into a massively bedded slot 8 feet long, 3 feet wide and after many dig hours on another day, 4 feet deep. Glorious rich black clayey soil tantalized at the bottom of a crack which clearly gathers a substantial watershed, replenishing the aquifer. We were there to remove the last soil and see what lay beneath. It was a cold hard clear blue day, we were bundled in several layers. Alternately, we squeezed into the narrow slot, crouched on a ledge and digging prying scooping out soil from foot level, then passing a small bucket up to the person on top who went off and emptied it. As the dirt receded, our optimism waxed and waned. We worked companionably for a couple of hours, talking of books and movies, of ideas, of the uselessness of the pot metal gardening tool which immediately curled up, of how nice a pair of loppers would be for the thick tree roots that ultimately penetrated further than we did. Our efforts warmed us up to shirt sleeves and used combinations of muscles rarely called on. Finally we agreed that we had reached the limits of our exploration. Thoroughly satisfied, we trudged our muddy tools back to the truck, drove off to get some food, discuss other possible digs. It was just such a day as this, of pleasant easygoing companionship in the woods many years ago, when we discovered what is now the one of the largest caves in travis county. but that is another story. If you believe there is nothing left of value to find, that is the experience you will have. Nancy
[Texascavers] Paging Carol Shumacher
Carol Shumaker please reply. Russ K. Johnson Llano, TX
