Talk:Plutonium in the environment

message: I wonder if something more could be said about the RTG 238Pu hazard.  I am thinking in particular about the comparison between the Pu dispersed in bomb tests, which would be mostly 239Pu and 240Pu, in much larger (ton) quantities, but also with  a much longer lifetime than the 88 years for 238Pu.  I believe that a high inclination angle (ie, near the center of the planet instead of the edge) impact from a spacecraft on a high speed flyby that missed due to some serious navigation error (like the 1999 Mars orbiter failure) or spacecraft malfunction could result in dispersal of much or all of the 238Pu into the atmosphere, and then the lifetime ratio of (24,000 y)/(88 y) ~ 265 could result in a large total activity in the environment, even compared to the bomb-related   material, during the years shortly after the accident.  Is anything known about this?  The timescale for Pu to be sequestered would be a major consideration I think.  Wwheaton (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  238Pu hazard from RTGs =

message: I'm missing a reference to "Hanford Site" in Hanford, WA. This is where most of the US weapon plutonium was processed. A place where hundreds of waste containers leak highly radioactive waste into the environment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyjones (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanford 

message: A great deal of semi-useable material on plutonium environmental contamination, including cites, has been dropped on the plutonium talk page, by an editor who cannot write. Most of it is formless and free of punctuation and even (sometimes) a train of logical presentation. However, there are cites and interesting links and anybody interested in this should probably go over and have a look at it, to see if anything is salvagable for THIS article. I'm not interested enough, but some here might be. SBHarris 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of mixed-up factual material dumped on plutonium TALK page 

message: I cannot understand why this diagram is repeated here..there are sevral other reproductions of this diagram on other more relevent pages.Sebastian barnes (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it illustrates the plutonium pit in atomic bombs. Karmos (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is there a diagram of bomb construction here? 

message: it is widely stated that atmospheric bomb tests are the largest source of plutonium in the environment yet according to the pdf;  Plutonium Wastes from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complexby Robert Alvarez], Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C. July 7, 2010
over 12 tonnes was lost in the U.S through normal operating losses in weapons production and by early reactors,although figures are hard to find russian nuclear production is well known to have been dirtier ,add to this other countries nuclear programmes  and we may well be looking at 25 to 30 tonnes released into the environment,2 to 3 times more than all atmospheric testing.Sebastian barnes (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of plutonium in the environment 

message: prior to its banning high level radioactive waste was dumped into the sea  by the russians ;http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/24/science/soviet-nuclear-dumps-disclosed.html and by britain;http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/thousands-of-radioactive-waste-barrels-rusting-away-on-the-seabed im not sure if or how much of this may be pu but i feel its worth investigating..please note i have only intermittent connextion and think this topic deseves though reporting .so i appeal to the wiki community to spend some time assesing the truth thank youSebastian barnes (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  dumping of reactors and waste in sea 

message: whilst ;Argonne National Laboratory, EVS Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005(section "whats in the environment")provides a figure for pu released into the air  underground testing is never admitted a a source of pu and other radioactivity in the enviroment,It has been assumed that this radiation source would remain "glued " to the rock in the test sites but there is increasing evidence thatit is leaking out (the nevada test site has recently been tested by ameteurs for surface radiation)Anyway surely a estimate might be arrived at by comparing the number of tests ,air burst and underground as even though these releases are out of site  they contribute to pu in the enviroment.Sebastian barnes (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  underground testing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Plutonium in the environment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225154131/http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/plutonium.pdf to http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/plutonium.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110328131849/http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/radioactive_waste/martac_report.pdf to http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/radioactive_waste/martac_report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section of Plutonium Production it was claimed 200 curies of plutonium was released into environment from each of the two plutonium plat facilities. When following the referenced web source #1  in paragraph 6, "Richland promised..." the source says "more than 200 curies", not 200 million curies. So I deleted the word million from the main wiki page. Silverbach (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plutonium production 

message: I tried making sense of the last sentence in the introductory section, but I cannot. Here is how it is worded currently: 
"However, one paper on marine sediments for plutonium in marine sediments, atomic bomb fallout is responsible for 66% of the 239Pu and 59% 240Pu found in the English Channel, while nuclear reprocessing is responsible for the majority of the 238Pu and 241Pu present in the Earth's oceans (nuclear weapons testing is only responsible for 6.5 and 16.5% of these isotopes respectively)." Pooua (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish Sentence in Intro