AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

[82Rigger]

Brice,

Actually I didn't answer my own question. My question addressed the gamma radiation levels and radiation shielding, not the chemical and respiratory protection.

The 1991 UN mandate was not involved in my question either, but I'm glad you mentioned it, as I want to read that mandate.

You are quite correct in that it can be "plussed up", possibly even by retards from Florida, however after being "plussed up" to reactor-grade or weapons- grade material, it is no longer "yellowcake".


Scamp,

Thank you for the info. I didn't realize that all (gamma?) radiation was permanently cumulative. I know that Strontium 90 accumulates in bone and bone marrow.


Neil,

Yellowcake, if used in a dirty bomb and breathed, would cause heavy metal poisoning...definitely not instantaneous. But such a bomb would create fear, panic, and grossy disrupt the infrastructure. These are all features that appeal to terrorist use of such a weapon.
There are, however, thousands of other agents that are available to anyone over-the-counter that, if delivered aerially in powder or mist over populated areas, would do equal, if not more, damage. Insecticides, for example, or any substances containing heavy metals or cyanides.

You mentioned talcum powder in an earlier post. Talcum powder contains magnesium silicates which have a crystalline structure similar to asbestos. It can cause lung cancer and has been linked to nearly 75% of cervical cancer cases. It is a white powder (remember the white-powder-in-the envelope-anthrax scares?) which could create panic. Yellowcake doesn't LOOK "scary".

[1CAVCCO15MED]

A few things I know: If a coal fired power plant was subjected to the same radiations standards as a nuclear one, it would be shut down for radioactive contamination. No nuclear power plant can ever be built on an old coal fired site because it would fail safety standards. This was told to me by a radiation safety control officer at a nuclear facility. Another thing, it is the radiation EFFECTS that are accumulative. It seems kind of ironic that people on the right are using the same scare tactics used by the left for years about radiation. The concept of relative risk is easily blown out of proportion by anyone with an axe to grind. "Any risk is too much." Risk is risk regardless of the source. All that matters is the odds. I am reminded of the fat guy with emphysema and cirrhosis sitting around with a loaded gun because he wants to be ready for a home invasion. He should be so lucky. No, his killer is already in the room and already killing him and will torture him maybe for years before finally allowing him to die. But all his buddies are fat and have cirrhosis and emphysema so it is not significant to any of them so they can spend their time worrying about home invasions.

[Seascamp]

Yes, there trace levels of heavy metals in coal but may vary in amount from region to region, I couldn’t say. The deal with coal-fired plants is the volume of coal burned per unit time and that is a bunch of bunches of coal. 100 rail cars of coal per day for a 1000 mW base load power plant would be a nominal consumption rate.

Actually, once the coal goes through the ball or rod crusher and rendered to a fine powder, and before being air pressure blown into the boiler burn nozzles, is probably the most dangerous state but is within a tightly closed system. Damn well better be a tightly closed system, or OSHA and the EPA will run their wet hides up the flagpole.

Ha ha, panic time, but coal is the feedstock for many products like carpet fabrics, car plastics, paint, cosmetics, inks, etc. But one would probably get more heavy metal from a garden carrot than from a 50 gal drum of coal based paint or cosmetic base material. So of course, all things are relative and subject to political huckmupary n’ jacking around when dealing with somewhat esoteric topics that are exploitable for the purposes of political leverage and footholds.
Always, always, there is a Dr. Armindingo for hire that can fill the air with supposed lofty important words that, in the end, turn out to be meaningless and disruptive agenda associated jaw motion. Figuring out the topic bono fides and valid points is not unlike subsisting by eating a huge stack of celery. One would die of starvation before ever getting to the bottom of the stack.

Scamp

[darrels joy]

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, estimates that for the average person the by-product accounts for less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.
So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
Radiation from uranium in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."
Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.
With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.
The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...r-waste&page=2

[reconeil]

Thanks for all the info on: "Yellowcake" and all the other good (actually nasty) s--t that
can be incorporated with the unarguably quite deadly & lethal stuff.

STILL and regarding: "Non-existent WMDs" and/or what once Minority and now Majority
Democrat Congressional Regime of Political Supremacists would STILL ridiculously have
We Americans believe,...whatever happened to KNOWN stockpiles of other politically or
duplicitously decreed; "Non-existent WMDs? Such certainly makes me wonder.

Were all mass killing materials used up against The Iranians during The Iraq & Iran War?

Were any left from that war used up to mercilessly kill the 5,000 Iraqi Kurds of Northern Iraq?

Were any or all such found after hostilities destroyed by diligent United Nations Inspectors?

Don't We Americans have a right to know such things, regardless of what Democrat Lords or
Big Brother types quite differently believe best for "THEIR": "Recapturing The White Houses?

Neil

[SuperScout]

To answer your questions in the order asked:

1. Yes.

2. Probably yes.

3. Laughably, no.

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Gamma radiation is over in an instant. Your body doesn't store rays. It is the effect of the rays that is accumulative. All antinuke groups ignore the fact the nuclear power plant science is evolving. A lot of the things they object to will be fixed soon. PBMR In fact, they don't want it to evove to a safer method. When the concept is that nuclear is evil incarnate and will cause the downfall of mankind and all life there can be no debate. It is a concept of the Puritans that all things human are evil due to the original sin of Adam. That is also the basis of the concept of "chemicals" versus "natural substances". And the Left berates the Right for being Puritanical! Yellowcake is not very radioactive but it is a heavy metal so put it up there with lead or cadmium for toxicity. Can you imagine the terror of a bomb exploding full of powdered lead? It would be nowhere near the panic from one from uranium but in terms of relative risk they are not so very diffferent. So, yeah, it would piss me off if someone exploded and uranium laced bomb but I refuse to panic. I would tell the perpetrator, "Dumbass, is that the best you can come up with?"

Coalfired plants concentrate the radioactive compounds found in coal by burning away the carbon. The whole point was, who cares? It is about as dangerous as eating a hot dog.