Re: What is an ARFO ?

[Jones Beene]

JR writes: > Jones: Do you REALLY, seriously think it is a good idea to have 500 lbs of > this stuff flapping around in the sky? What would happen if it crashed? > What if a terrorist gets hold of it? Well, it all gets down to a comparative risk vs rewards thing, and I have considered that aspect, in regard to some of the comparative risk issues - vis-a-vis the present day alternative - communication satellites. I could envision 200-500 total of these planes along the east, west, and gulf coast in continuous flight - used for communications instead of orbital satellites. Yes, Murphy's law has not been held in abeyance and you would loose a few of these per decade. However, when you look at the consequences, they are comparatively trivial, compared with loosing a nuclear submarine or nuclear-powered satellite and all communications satellites have some nuclear power in addition to whatever solar power they are using - and when they crash and burn in the atmosphere - due to rentry, then that is where the risk is immensely higher - as even dilluted, you must breath the stuff and it is usually plutonium which is said to be the worst of the worst when airborne. Since for the airplanes (as a substitue) would be at low velocity, not orbital velocity, there is no atmospheric dispersal problem imagineable even with a high altitude failure. As for ocean impact, the structural integrity of a filament wound graphite plane should survive a full speed impact - not intact but the strength of the fibers prevents dispersion, (as with a flywheel) and you would end up with 500 pounds of highly radioactive material on the ocean floor. A pittance compared with what is already there in a few acres of manganese "nodules". For comparative purposes, even if the plane did somehow not survive impact due to insufficient structural integrity, consider the dispersal issue - compared to the levels of highly radioactive material already in the ocean, underneath the area that the plane was flying.   Seawater contains "only" 3 milligrams per ton of uranium, slightly less radon, much more potassium 40, more tritium, and so on. In short there is *already* in Sea water approximately 25 ppb of equally (or more toxic) and fully dissolved radioactive material - this is about 25 metric tons per cubic kilometer. There are about 1000 cubic kilometers of ocean being circled by any one plane. So even if all of the 500 pounds became fully dispersed in the ocean underneath its flight path, that is 500 pounds added to 50 million or an additional one part per 100,000. This is what I would term a minimal risk, although fisherman would not want to use this area for a few weeks following a Murphy's law type accidental impact... but consider present circumstances for comparison of risk/reward:   Twenty-thee miles out from the SF Bay area sit the lovely, seemingly unspoiled Farallones Islands, where fishermen ply their trade daily. This beauty hides a deep grim secret. Even in 2005, as they have for over sixty years, barges from Hunter's Point carrying radioactive waste pass under the Golden Gate Bridge, heading for clandesting nuclear waste dumping into the deep water of the Farallones.   The East coast and Gulf nuclear dump sites are not as well known as this one, but they too exist near fishing grounds. The Naval Radiological Defence Laboratory at Hunters Point, is the West Coast Culprit but there are other names on the other coasts. No amount of present yearly dumping adds much to the already immense burden of toxicity which is already there.   But apparently this is not harmful to people! At least no one is presently raising any issues which point to these sites as problematic.Thank the Lord for deep waters.   The resolution to "pollution," since the beginning of time, has always been "dilution". They even teach this little catch phrase in ecology seminars.   These days, most bulk nuclear waste is sent out in 55 gallon drums - originating at the University of California, operator of three national laboratories, and the acknowledged leader in nuclear research. The US Navy from Virgina Beach dumps Radioactive waste from the East Coast, NCIS notwithstanding. McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento, supposedly home to more nuke-bombs than any place on earth, also dumps in the Farallones.    In a curious anachronism, barrels that do not go down immediately, are "holed" by rifle shooting by sailors in order to hasten immediate sinking. Supposed to be highly sought-after duty. Many of the US Navy’s lower level radioactive waste containers are consequenly breached from the start, but that is de minimis compared to the waste already there - on the sea bottom of the Farallon Islands Nuclear Waste Site.   The Farallon waste site is a triangle shaped piece of sea space at a distance of 30 miles west of San Francisco. It is similar in size to the impact site of one of these planes.   This present site encompasses the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, a refuge of gorgeous marine and other wildlife. The site includes some of the most fertile commercial fishing waters in the Pacific. These waters are rich with fish and other sea life. The islands themselves are home to the nations largest population of breeding sea birds, and sea lions. But astonishingly this is one of America’s largest sea dumps of nuclear waste... megatons.   As long as these dump sites continue to be used, with no apparent health risks - then additional risk of an occasional lost airplane is not troubling as far as I can see - and is highly preferable to a lost communication satellite - for comparative purposes as you do not want to breath the stuff and if it ever shows up in fish - then it is easire to pinpoint and eleiminate.   BTW lost nuclear subs are said by divers to be beneficial to marine life, due to the added heat. Go figure.   Jones