DOE Submits Plan to Recycle Radioactive Waste into Consumer Goods
February 16, 2013
Story at-a-glance
-
The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a proposal that
would allow nearly 14,000 tons of radioactive metals to be
recycled for use in consumer goods
-
The proposal would modify an existing suspension to allow scrap
metals from radiological areas to be released to private
industry to be used for any purpose, including recycling
-
The DOE’s proposal would only add to the growing amount of
radioactive scrap metal already circulating globally,
contributing to increasing “background” levels of radiation
exposure that have been linked to cancer, cataracts, birth
defects and more
By Dr. Mercola
If you had a choice to purchase eyeglasses or a stainless steel
water bottle that was either radioactive, albeit only slightly,
or not, which would you choose? You would almost certainly choose
the non-radioactive product, as it is well- known that no amount of
radiation exposure is “safe.”
Yet the U.S. government – specifically the Department of Energy
(DOE) – has released a proposal1
that would allow nearly 14,000 tons of radioactive metals to be
recycled for use in consumer goods…
Department of Energy Wants to Recycle Their Radioactive Waste Metal
Into Common Products
There is currently a suspension in place that restricts the
release of scrap metal originating from radiological areas at U.S.
DOE facilities (such as research laboratories or nuclear weapons
facilities) for the purpose of recycling.
This suspension, which has been in place since 2000, is there for
obvious reasons – it was imposed because of public concerns about
the potential health and environmental effects of radioactive metals
coming from these sites.
Now the DOE has issued a proposal to modify the suspension to
allow scrap metals to be released to private industry to be used for
any purpose, including recycling.
The draft proposal notes that only metal with the potential for
surface, not volume, radioactivity, would be included in this plan,
and they are touting it as benefit to the environment “from
a decrease in the need for the mining and refining of metals due to
the recycling of these materials.” The draft noted:
“Mining and smelting activities are large users of water
and power, both of which would be reduced by the recycling of
these materials.
In addition, there would be benefits to the environment
resulting from reduced land use, reduced disturbance of geology
and soils, reduced GHG [greenhouse gas] and other emissions, and
reduced occupational injuries associated with the reduced need
for mining and refining of metal ores attributable to the
recycling of these materials.”
It is unclear just how significant these purported environmental
“benefits” could truly be, considering the draft also notes that the
radioactive metal in question represents only an “extremely small
fraction (of the order of 0.004 percent) of the total metal
recycled” in the United States. Of course, it also doesn’t hurt that
sales of the metals could bring in up to $40 million a year for the
DOE …2
Radioactive Metals Could Increase Cancer Risks and be Used by
Pregnant Women and Children
According to the DOE, only a “negligible individual dose” of
radiation would be gleaned from exposure to their contaminated
metals. They likened the annual exposure amount to half the amount
of radiation you’d get from flying across country.
This is an inappropriate comparison, as the internalization of
low-dose radioisotopes can have decades-long, severe toxicological
consequences due to their bioaccumulation and persistence within the
body, whereas external natural radiation exposure only lasts as long
as the body is exposed, e.g. the several hour duration of a flight.
Also, the DOE’s minimization of the risks involved do not take
into account mistakes that have already happened in the past when
the government recycled metal from nuclear sites in the 1990s to
2000s. During that time inadequate testing of the materials was
noted, and one test in particular showed metals with radioactivity
levels several times higher than were supposed to be allowed.3
Other unanswered questions include the risks that could be posed
to workers who must handle the radioactive metals on a daily basis,
or to those who end up with a “slightly” radioactive surgical
implant or set of braces. The Wall Street Journal reported
on just a peppering of the backlash that has already surfaced:4
“Some critics argue the DOE's proposed exposure standards
are too high and that information provided in its 50-page
document explaining the proposal is even more worrisome.
Higher exposures could occur if contaminated metal is
made into items such as belt buckles or hip-replacement joints,
said Daniel Hirsch, a lecturer on nuclear policy at the
University of California, Santa Cruz, and critic of the
government's proposal. Such exposures would further increase a
person's cancer risk, he said.
…Rep. Ed Markey wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu,
calling the recycling proposal 'unwise' and stating the proposal
'should be immediately abandoned.' The Massachusetts Democrat
added that contaminated products could 'ultimately be utilized
by pregnant women, children and other vulnerable populations.'”
Radioactive Scrap Metal is Already a Problem
The DOE’s proposal would only add to the growing amount of
radioactive scrap metal circulating globally. You may remember
headlines from last year when radioactive metal tissue boxes were
found at Bed, Bath and Beyond stores in the United States. In this
case the products were tainted with cobalt-60, a radioactive
compound used in the medical industry to diagnose and treat cancer.5
The radiation-safety chief for one of the world's biggest
stainless-steel scrap yards actually told the Seattle Times
last year that:6
“The major risk we face in our industry is radiation… You
can talk about security all you want, but I've found
weapons-grade uranium in scrap. Where was the security?”
That company alone found 145 nuclear items in their scrap metal
in 2011 and another 200 in 2010. It’s unclear how much of this
radioactive metal slips through the cracks and ends up getting
processed into metal goods that are then sold to unassuming
consumers…
And this isn’t only a matter of cancer. Radiation exposure of the
developing embryo or fetus during pregnancy can also contribute to
the development of diseases other than cancer in children. There is
evidence of radiation exposure leading to increased incidence of
cataracts, and there is also a phenomenon known as the "bystander
effect," which multiplies the dose and harm from radiation
exposures. According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, cells that have not been
exposed to radiation can be harmed by nearby cells that have.
Writing for ISIS, Dr. Ho explains:7
"…low dose radiation is all the more dangerous because it
does not kill the targeted cell, but allows its influence to
spread widely to adjacent cells, thus multiplying the radiation
effect (about 100 fold) …a wide range of bystander effects in
cells not directly exposed to ionizing radiation have been
found, which are the same as or similar to those in the cells
that were exposed, including cell death and chromosomal
instability."
Share Your Concerns About the Release of Radioactive Scrap Metal
Although the 30-day comment period for the DOE draft proposal to
release radioactive scrap metal for recycling has ended, late
comments may still be considered. You can share your comments with
the Department of Energy by emailing:
Scrap_PEA_Comments@hq.doe.gov
Written comments can be mailed to:
Dr. Jane Summerson, DOE NNSA
P.O. Box 5400
Bldg 401
KAFB East
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Protecting Yourself in Our “Radioactive World”
"The general public basically isn't aware that they're living in
a radioactive world," said Ross Bartley, technical director for the
Bureau of International Recycling.8
Indeed, today's "background" levels of radiation have been greatly
increased by discharges from nuclear activities including tests of
nuclear weapons, use of
depleted uranium, and uranium mining, not to mention
environmental catastrophes like the
Fukushima nuclear plant. If you're looking for strategies to
help prevent damage caused by radiation exposure, there are several
I recommend, including:
-
Vitamin D3 (also known as calcitriol) may
offer protection against a variety of radiation-induced damages,
including even those caused by background radiation or a
low-level nuclear incident.
- Spirulina – a blue-green algae – might be
another useful alternative to protect against the effects of
radiation.
Spirulina was actually used to treat children exposed to
chronic low levels of radiation after the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster.
- Turmeric contains a broad spectrum of
water, fat and alcohol-soluble components, all of which may
contribute to reducing damage associated with both external
radiation and internalized radioisotope exposures.
- Whey: the use of a high-quality whey
protein concentrate may help protect against absorbing
radioactive minerals.
The following foods, herbs and supplements may also help support
your overall health in the event of radiation exposure:
Ginseng |
Kelp and other seaweeds (high in natural iodine) |
Zeolites (to neutralize radiation) or bentonite clays |
Ashwaganda (an adaptogenic herb) |
Fulvic Acid |
Reishi mushrooms (strong immune support) |
High-dose vitamin C |
Magnesium |
Selenium |
Coconut oil, which supports optimal thyroid health |
Astaxanthin (has some protective function against
ionizing radiation) |
Chlorella (contains chlorophyll, which will increase your
resistance to radiation) |
© Copyright 1997-2013 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/16/recycling-radioactive-waste.aspx?e_cid=20130216_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130216
|