Should we be shipping radioactive waste through the Great Lakes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter encorp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radioactive
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the controversial decision to ship radioactive waste through the Great Lakes, specifically focusing on the safety and implications of such actions. Participants explore the technical aspects of radioactive waste, including its composition and the processes involved in its containment and transportation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about public naivety regarding the containment of nuclear waste and questions the appropriateness of shipping it through the Great Lakes.
  • Another participant challenges the accuracy of claims regarding the composition of radioactive materials, specifically disputing the assertion that steam generators contain a significant percentage of plutonium.
  • Some participants discuss the types of radioactive isotopes present in activated steel, suggesting that Co-60 and Co-58 are significant sources of radiation, while also noting industry practices to mitigate these issues.
  • There is mention of the decontamination processes that utilities must perform before shipping radioactive materials, indicating that surface contamination is managed before disposal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the safety and rationale behind shipping radioactive waste through the Great Lakes. While some agree on the technical inaccuracies in certain claims, there is no consensus on whether the shipping of radioactive waste is justified or safe.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific isotopes and technical processes related to radioactive waste management, but there are unresolved questions about the accuracy of claims made by various parties involved in the discussion.

encorp
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Critics+attack+plan+ship+tonnes+radioactive+waste+across+Great+Lakes/3591392/story.html

Hey, I apologize if this is posted elsewhere - I tried a search and nothing came up.

I've been following this story about Canada's decision to ship radioactive waste through the great lakes and over the ocean to Sweden.

I personally believe a lot of people are naive about our ability to control and contain nuclear waste and I think the groups who are trying to stop this are over reacting completely.

What do you guys think? Is this something we should be doing or not, and why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
With a statement like "Edwards also said the generators contain 15 per cent plutonium and other man-made materials with high toxicity," it is safe to say that Edwards is making this stuff up, and he's a nut. There's not even 15% Pu in the fuel!

The steam generators are not in the core. They do however get some surface contamination because they pick up corrosion particles that do get activated, or they might collect some minute fuel particles if there are fuel failures. However, utilities are required to decontaminate surfaces before they can ship offsite.

The Swedes can further decontaminate the material and recycle the non-radioactive steel components.
 
I agree with Astronuc that the part of Pu in the steam generators sounds like a bunch of hot air, or some horribly erroneous information. Also I believe the steam generators is just another word for the heat exchangers between the hot and cold side loops. Isn't Co-60 the nastiest thing in the steel from neutron activation?
 
I believe Co-60 and Co-58 are the most significant sources of radiation from activitated steel. But the comes from steel in a neutron flux/field. Also, the nuclear industry adopted low Co stainless steels (less than 300 ppm Co) in order to mitigate the formation of Co-60. Co-58 comes from activation of Ni via an (n,p) reaction.
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=27&n=32 (select zoom 1)

The schematics of the CANDU show that the steam generator is outside of the core, where the neutron field falls off dramatically.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

Parts of steam generator is exposed to the reactor coolant which can transport activated corrosion products to the inlet plenum, tubing and outlet plenum. However, like PWR utilities, CANDU operators do a decontamination which basically removes the contaminated surface. The contamination is collected on filters and sent to an appropriate site for disposal.
 
Awesome guys; thanks for your replies.

I find it frustrating how naive and limited the general publics knowledge of this stuff is, considering Nuclear -anything- could really stand to help civilization a lot right now. heh.

It's sort of scary then, how off-base this Edwards guy is, considering the organization he's apparently head of. @_@
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K