Nuclear waste...was RE: Grey Squirrels

Paul Rooney <paulrooney RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ml9m0hqrv80lj2s7mp8ppqjtld8h6ekvc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:05:05 +0100, John Cartmell
> <john RemoveThis @cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <ihe8m0ppqj4st66kdqv1n3qsabao2d4nbl RemoveThis @4ax.com>, Paul
Rooney
> ><paulrooney RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:

<snip of remarks re: nuclear fuel>

> >> Where do you think the stuff comes from in the first place?
> >
> >I know where it comes from - but I fail to see the relevance
> >of your question.
>
> It's just as safe when put back in the ground as it was before
> it was extracted from the ground.

Only true after a certain period of time has elapsed. Some
estimates suggest 1000+ yrs for this to occur.

The big problem is with atoms that have small decay constants but
are not traditionally present in the ecosphere. Processes that
create these do not occur in minerals containing radio-isotopes,
or they happen at such a tiny rate that product atoms are
dispersed at almost infinitesimal concentrations (e.g astatine,
francium).

All the plutonium that exists on earth has appeared in the last
80 years. The same is true for americium, curium, etc., although
many of these haven't the same build-up potential, thanks to
'secular' equilibrium in radioactive isotopes.

This means few organisms will have encountered such elements and
their compounds, and adaptation through natural selective forces
would never have a chance to act.



--
John Morgan
Although the masters make the rules
Of the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, ma
To live up to - Bob Dylan