Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Locobot
Personally I'm baffled by this. You see the need for future clean up of heavy metal contamination but you don't see a need to prevent that contamination by not using DU? Do you really believe that once something like this is introduced to an ecosystem that complete clean up is possible? I'm only asking because gosh, 4.5 million years seems like an awfully long time.
|
I thought I was being clear enough, but I will restate it.
I DO NOT necessarily see the need for future cleanup. What I said, was that it is a
possibility. What is in doubt is how
probable it is.
That is why I also said that further monitoring is advisable, so as to determine said probability.
As to the half life of U235, the number in and of itself is meaningless without knowing what the type of decay is and the daughter products. Indeed, in some cases, a longer half life is preferable as it means the substance is decaying slower and giving off
less radiation.
Also, as I've stated, it is the heavy metal aspect that is of more concern with U235.
I also find it interesting that several people have said things akin to "introduced into the eco-system" as if U235 came from outerspace or was made in a laboratory somewhere. It came
from the eco-system albiet one deep underground and before refining. Still, the point is important.
So once again, the key here is not just one or two numbers, but the actual effects it has given the amount, weighed against the cost of not using it and the cost of cleaning it up.
And THAT is what I am advocating; a reasoned approach based on what we currently know.