Radioactive Metal from Nuclear Weapons Facilities May End up in You...
If the Department of Energy gets its way you may up with eye glasses, pacemakers, zippers, braces and more made from our nuclear weapons complex.
How would you like radioactive metal from nuclear weapons facilities to be recycled for use in consumer goods like silverware, pots and pans, eye glasses, zippers, kid’s braces, and even pacemakers and artificial hip joints? If the U.S. Department of Energy gets its way (after a public comment period ends Feb. 11), that is exactly what we can expect in our future.
DOE, the steward of the sprawling—and massively contaminated—American nuclear weapons complex, wants to lift a ban on recycling imposed in 2000. That action came in response to an earlier proposal to sell radioactive metal from DOE facilities to scrap metal recyclers. Once the contaminated metal is mixed into the scrap supply, it could be turned into virtually anything made with metal. [emphasis mine]
NIRS asks "Will the next zipper on your pants be radioactive?"
Image and description source Take action against DOE's radioactive metal "recycling" scheme!
Tags:
that doesn't sound like a good idea Ruth - Radioactive sunglasses - I think I'd pass on that
Anyway so far behind on the site - getting caught up
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 10, 2013 at 1:07pm SignOn.org has a petition to stop the scrap dump here. Already signed it myself. Avail yourself of it at your leisure.
Cool - will go to the petition site - thanks Loren.
Permalink Reply by jay H on February 16, 2013 at 5:39pm No one questions that actual radioactive products are unacceptable, including the DOE. On the other hand it is absurd to permanently quarantine a big amount of recycled metal because a small (as in insignificant) amount of contaminated material may have gotten into it. The ultimate (and only meaningful) question is "what is the level in the final ingot"
Since radioactivity is quite easy to non destructively detect and quantify, even to levels far below legal and background values, testing at the ingot level provides better protection--since now inadvertent or criminal contamination would pass undetected (and actually DOES) into the final products.
Richard Goscicki replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
Natalie A Sera replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion New fungus killing cats in Australia in the group Atheist Ailurophiles
Joan Denoo replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Facebook in the group Hang With Friends
Debra Stevenson commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Halloween 1978 film critical themes and analysis ( please read)!
Debra Stevenson commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Halloween 1978 film critical themes and analysis ( please read)!
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Our Political Need to Learn from Religion in the group Religion For Atheists© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

