3 ms·
I believe that nerve agent disposal sites you can find pictures of are all on-site setups at the depots where the weapons were manufactured and stored. In many
by saulrh 9y ago
I believe that nerve agent disposal sites you can find pictures of are all on-site setups at the depots where the weapons were manufactured and stored. In many cases they were disposing of stockpiles of deployment-ready munitions. Care there was not a matter of safety and surety, it was a matter of arms control and international treaty. Field-expedient disposal in an ongoing military situation, on the other hand:
It can be, though not without some problems. Mauroni describes a
process used in Iraq in 1991. "We'd come across a bunch of
rockets, and you suspect there might be some chemicals in them,"
he says. "The field expedient way, if you're in a hurry, is to
blow it up in place." Army Explosive Ordinance Demolition teams
would use a 10-to-1 ratio of explosives to suspected chemical
weapons.
https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-09/fyi-chemical-weapons-and-disposal#page-2 https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-09/fyi-chemic...
And yes, there are radiologicals that need to be dealt with more carefully than others. I'm not denying that. 90Sr is about the worst I can think of - its half-life is just short enough for it to be immediately dangerous but also just long enough that you can't stuff it in a box and come back in a year. And I agree that you'd have to treat it with the same immediate care that you would dimethylmercury or VX.
The thing is, 90Sr is the worst radiological I can think of. US regulations partition radioactive waste into either low-level or high-level, low-level being things like the gloves the doctor wears when handling the radiotherapy drugs and everything else being high-level. And guess how you have to handle high-level waste? That's right, you have to treat every single kilogram of marginally neutron-activated steel like it's made of 90Sr. That's insane.
(that and, well, if you had a lump of 90Sr, burying it in a hole for a million years is a stupid way to deal with it. 30-year half-life; throw it in a shed on a military base, if the US government collapses mail it to another government to stick on their military base. repeat for 300 years and done. if there're no stable governments to mail it to, you have bigger problems.)
- philipkglass 9y agoPer US NRC definitions, High-level radioactive waste or HLW means: (1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part060/part060-0002.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part060/p... Given that all American irradiated reactor fuel is still young enough to retain substantial portions of its original strontium 90 (and other medium-lived fission product) content, it doesn't seem like an overly broad definition to me. Maybe in practice things like slightly radioactive steel ends up lumped in with spent fuel? If so, yes, that's bad. I agree that we don't need to bury spent nuclear fuel in permanent geological repositories. Don't try to chemically reprocess the waste, bury it beyond observation, or otherwise convert a simple, compact, inexpensive problem into a more diffuse, complicated, expensive one. Monitored/guarded sheds is fine.
- alphaalpha101 9y ago>Field-expedient disposal in an ongoing military situation, on the other hand: That doesn't mean that's a good idea. There are large areas in the middle east that are uninhabitable now because of depleted-Uranium shells and blown up chemical weapons.