OT: Hey Nevada people. Yucca Mt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yvsa said:
With all this said does the "hot material" generate any heat or just radiation? If it generated heat would there be any way to safely tap into that for energy use?
Click to expand...




The decay products do indeed generate heat. I have not heard much about using this heat but it is an interesting idea.





On another tack....

I have read accounts of uranium mine tailings being used for the resurfaceing of gravel roads on the Navajo Rez and also used for fill in an area where a school and clinic was built IIRC.

It's been a while since I researched all of this but it seemed that there was a high incidence of cancer because of exposure to radiation on the rez than other places.

It was also said that due to the uranium 238 laying so close to the surface in many places on the rez that a lot of surface mining was done by individuals that over the years also suffered a higher incidence of cancer.

The really scary areas were in Russia though where there was no regualtion of waste dumping because of the vast areas.



Like I said, "It's been a while since I researched this." so is this similar to the problem that Nevada is facing or are we talking two different situations?

Click to expand...




Surfacing gravel roads sounds like a poor use for mill tailings. In addition to the natural radioactive isotopes there are numerous unhealthy chemicals in mill tailings. It is certainly possible that there could be a higher cancer incidence in such areas due to the dust from the tailings. It would bear some research. I suspect it would be hard to separate the radiological from the chemical effects.



Naturally occurring isotopes are much more benign than reactor-produced isotopes. They have been in the ground for billions of years and the short lived constituents that give up their energy quickly have long since disappeared. Not so for reactor-produced isotopes and in general they will be a lot more hazardous than things like mill tailings.



We have an opportunity to learn a lot from studying the populations in the contaminated areas of the former Soviet Union. We really have very little good human data on exposures to small quantities of radioisotopes. Large populations are necessary to get statistically valid studies showing small effects, and such populations have been hard to come by.



raghorn said:
Thanks, Howard, well spoken! I like to discuss the topic of risk assessment but tire quickly of writing about it. I used to be a certified HP myself, until Uncle Sam informed my colleagues and me that he was no longer in need of our services. Even guys who refuel reactors understand that the most risk-fraught activity we perform every day is to drive to and from work.
Click to expand...



Cool. HPs turn up in the strangest places. We’re a very small percentage of the population. If I write anything too absurd please be sure to call me on it.
 
Satori said:
Energy concerns: environmental overregulation will be the death of us.


Plug "biodiesel" into your search engine and do some reading. It's the one alternative energy source we've got right now that's well understood and works. (Don't get me started on the fallacies of hydrogen.) I don't understand what the holdup is here. It won't fix the problem entirely but it'll give us a lot more breathing room and will keep more of that money spent on foreign petroleum inside our borders. The big problem I'm seeing with it is the price - it runs around $3.00 a gallon here as opposed to $2.30 or so for dino. I'm guessing that once the dino prices match (and exceed) the bio we'll be seeing more of it.:
Click to expand...

True environmental regulations add to the cost, but when there are a large number of places you can't eat the fish you catch cause of mercury falling into the water form coal fired plants I think we don't have ENOUGH regulation of some things. Also my area of the country has way more smog and heart and lung disease that shorten peoples lives due to high particulate in the air from burning coal. If you count the cost as only the cost of energy to the consumer that is only part. What of the cost of disability benefits and lost productivity?

I am with you 100% on Biodiesel though. I think the gov't should subsidize it to the max. Think of the money STAYING in the US. Right now we have a trade deficit with the world on almost everything. We cannot in the long run pay more OUT to other countries for goods, than we get IN without becoming a third world nation in the long run.
 
I'm with you, hollow.

While regulation can hurt economy, they can definately help the environment. I'm not a zealot here. I'm just saying we need to take what's happing to our environment seriously and act accordingly. I'm not talking about economy-ruining steps, but sound, practical measures. I'm not enough of an expert to know what they are.

I think that biodiesel sounds great. So does ethanol for gasoline. This is one definite upshot of living in Iowa. The state subsidises fuel with ethanol added. It can get up, I believe, to about 10% per volume of gas and burns relatively cleanly. It's always the cheapest one on the pump in Iowa. (to clarify, it is subsidized because it's produced from corn, which is a huge part of Iowa's farm economy.) These are all great in the short term.

Longer-term, these are still no good. 90-ish% of ethanol gas is still gasoline. I'm guessing biodiesel is similar, but I'm not well-versed here. Also, these are combustion engines, which means that they pump CO2 and other harmful things into the atmosphere. Somebody mentioned falacies for hydrogen. No doubt there are many. But there certainly must be some technology, be it hydrogen or others that is a viable alternative to internal combustion.

Lastly, I don't really believe that the situation is currently getting better. With hummers selling well, and gas economy getting worse, we are headed for bad things. I'm not blaming Detroit, but the consumers. Very few people have a need for a Hummer H2. Personally, if I needed such a vehicle, I'd get a suburban or something. With the rising gas prices, accelerating global warming, and our current issues with the middle east, it's crazy that we are increasing our reliance on petroleum.

I'm not saying we sould get off petroleum now, but we should sure start to plan for the future. When the stuff runs out, our economy had better be prepared.

Namaarie
 
Yeah, I'm always saying gas is not expensive enough, cause people are still buying gas guzzlers, and our gov't is not really encouraging conservation. Also it is still cost effective to produce large amounts of goods abroad and ship them here to sell.

Biodiesel has no petroleum in it.

So when I hear stuff like timber companies wanting to cut large amounts of lumber in National Forests, or Oil Drilling in the Artic National Refuge I cringe. Not that I'm against those things, really, it's just that what if we would get into a big war sometime in the future and would really NEED that oil or timber.
It seems like our attitude now is so greedy. We want to plunder a lot of the RESERVES that future generations might really need, just so we can waste it now.

:(
 
Yeah, I'm always saying gas is not expensive enough, cause people are still buying gas guzzlers, and our gov't is not really encouraging conservation. >>>>>>>
Hollow

Well, our 'gov' are not the French. Because of EPA crazy standards, Detroit makes throw away autos. Even a minor fender bender results in complete total because of thin metal and compartment frames. ADD that to the cost of the environment- all that junk, all that heat burned in manufacture.

I would believe in a just einvronmental cause, when and if I can find it. Mostly. I find people listening to whatever 'facts' suit their need to feel concerned



munk
 
munk said:
Well, our 'gov' are not the French. Because of EPA crazy standards, Detroit makes throw away autos. Even a minor fender bender results in complete total because of thin metal and compartment frames. ADD that to the cost of the environment- all that junk, all that heat burned in manufacture.
munk
Click to expand...

What EPA standards are you talking about and how would EPA standards have anything to do with the body of a car being thinner?

Do you think we should go back to having leaded gasoline? The argument was lead was good for engines, but it is interesting that since we took lead out the car with 100,000 miles is the norm not the exception.

I have had several accidents and my cars have always been fixable. Also if we make throw away autos why does my 4 cylinder truck have 150,000 miles on it and my 8 cyl farm truck have 165,000 on it??

I would be interested to know whether you are just being knee jerk or whether there are actual specific EPA policies you mean?
 
I believe a just environmental cause can be found in global warming. Global trends indicate a definate warming. Alaskan winter is shorter. Thousands of acres of forest have died in that state because the warmer temps meen new beetles, to which the trees have no resistance. It is real. :(

I also believe that we have something to do with it. The millions of tons of CO2 produced by our cars and industry each year, which is known to produce the greenhouse effect, simply must have some effect.

I don't know what the answer is, but we really need to find something.

BTW, many scientists believe that forest fires are increasing as a result of global warming. Is there talk of that where you live, Munk? You mentioned once that you live in a fire area. Just wondering what your take is.

Namaarie
 
I'm still a skeptic. In 1978 we were told we were heading into another ice age.
 
Hollowdweller: when did that mercury get into the water? Did the people who put it there do so legally? What I'm getting at is that some of our environmental protection policies as a nation are a little foolish. They're not fairly applied, they're not fairly enforced, and some folks are already trying to figure out new ones for next year. It is totally impossible to protect the environment 100% and have a functional economy at the same time - totally impossible. Some people still seem to think that it is and lobby very hard for that direction. It's folly.

I totally agree with you on your basic gist - it's not fair for me to get sick from eating fish or just breathing air. It's also unfair what happened to the former timber towns (just plain former towns now) around here under Clinton.

Munk: I agree with you on the cars. When we really start feeling the pain at the pump, a lot of people around here are going to ask themselves, "Did I really need that SUV?" Of course they didn't. They'll find that out soon enough. I got a bit of teasing last winter when I bought my TDI. I do a bit of teasing now. ("Hey, I've got 323 miles on my trip odometer and I've still got half a tank left...I'm going to have to fill her up again in a few weeks.") Things are going to get more interesting this winter to be sure.


Namaarie: before you get too worried about global warming, take a look at recorded weather patterns over the last thousand years or so. The only thing weird about the last two hundred years or so is that it didn't do anything too weird. The weather has changed constantly throughout recorded history. It was doing this well before we as a race were doing anything that might've affected it. It will continue to do so after we as a race are gone. I'm not convinced (far from it, in fact) that we're responsible for any perceived weather shifts.
 
Hollow

ever hear of miles per gallon or fleet standards? Sorry, most of us don't drive your model t
What do thin walled metal autos have to do with EPA? You are living in a wonder world.

munk
 
I would be interested to know whether you are just being knee jerk or whether there are actual specific EPA policies you mean?>>>


Yeah, I jerk from my knees to my chin every time I enter an auto you approve of. What an ******* question. You might have well have asked me how many children I've killed lately.

Your wonder land is not fit to live in


munk
 
Satori, I think that humans are a variable that nature's not prepared for. We are capable of doing things that nothing else can. Literally millions of tons of CO2 each year from America alone. CO2 is *known* to be a greenhouse gas. Come on, you think this does nothing?

What about back in the summer when the largest fresh-water ice lake in the world (at the north pole) cracked open and drained into the sea. Saw that on evening news. Or the unusually warm weather in Alaska that has drawn so much attention. Or the NASA weather-monitors detecting presumably human-caused problems, with global warming, ozone, smog, and much more?

Only within the past 50-100 years have humans really been capable of polluting as much as we do. I believe that this new-found ability can and is rapidly affecting the environment.

Namaarie
 
I have had several accidents and my cars have always been fixable. Also if we make throw away autos why does my 4 cylinder truck have 150,000 miles on it and my 8 cyl farm truck have 165,000 on it??>>>> Hollow

those are called oil additives- those products you detest- oil is better than ever and modern lubbricants make autos more efficient and long lasting
??

I would be interested to know whether you are just being knee jerk or whether there are actual specific EPA policies you mean?>>>> Hollow

Lighter autos use less gas and meet epa standards- they also do not survive a crash in the sense they can be driven again. this means more hydrocarbon in production- more 'stuff' made. WE make 'stuff' and throw it away. Industry loves this.
munk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top