Florida considering using radioactive mining waste in road construction

no. it doesn't have the structural capacity but I am not geotech so I will defer to @littlebluelw who has forgotten more stuff about geotech than I will ever know.

It likely can be blended with other aggregates without degrading the structural capacity of that material and the blended material would have levels belwo industrial use standards that would be comparable to roadbed material.

I don't know if this is a god idea or a bad idea, but I would not summarily dismiss it without understanding the science.

OT....sort of

Did anybody know that :

the allowable levels of arsenic in your soil differs substantially from state to state from 0.4 ppm to 40 ppm. Fl residential soil standard set by FDEP = 2.1 mg/kg = 2.1 ppm
the native soils in Dade County are 3x the allowable arsenic level for residential area in Florida but is still below what many other states allow. Ohio average is around 10 ppm. All of Dade and parts of Broward and Collier are over 7 ppm. There is an existing school site in Florida that was north of 60 ppm but it was determined that nobody would be there long enough to consume enough dirt for it ever to be a problem so they were determined exempt. Miami Beach sand has been tested in the 40 - 60 ppm range

SL483/SS696: Soil Arsenic in Miami-Dade County (ufl.edu)



Microsoft Word - Study of State Soil Arsenic mar 1999.doc (rtenv.com)


relevance is that when it comes to these ppm in soils and water, the standards are not all the same and the assumptions used to establish those standards can be subjective. ie how many kg of dirt would little Johnny need to eat to build up enough in his system to create a toxic impact to his body. what are the naturally occurring background numbers in the area, etc.

 

By telling them it has anti-woke properties.

 

All you luddites are missing the opportunity for advancement. A new type of self driving car could be developed that uses a radiation detector to make sure you stay on the road. Win/win!

 

Phosphogypsum for Secondary Road Construction

Did some experimentation with gypsum as an additive to concrete years ago. IMO gyp can be safely used as a concrete additive and can also be compacted to quite hard, much like limestone aggregate in road base applications.

Just google phosphogypsum and road construction. As with everything else these days, things like this get very politicized. EPA had approved its use under Trump, but it was reversed when Biden took office.

BTW I dont see this thread on the main page. Didnt see it until @G8trGr8t tagged me?

 

Have DeSantis create a law that makes it illegal to distribute the contents used in public road construction materials, of course.

 

thread started by wardamngator so if he has you on block maybe it doesn't show for you. if he is blocking people who can respectfully disagree that is his loss.

FDA???

 

EPA. I'm hungry!

 

It sounds like some need to back off and wait. Do a little research before they just automatically say this is terrible. Florida does not know what it is doing. With that said...based on recent history. I hope they keep it up. As Florida has been right on so much recently.

From the article...

"A group called Phosphate Innovative Initiative is looking for ways to use PG. A video on its website is with University of Florida professor, Dr. Tim Townsend. In it, he says "You can take PG for example and it could be used in certain fashions, for example, blending it with certain aggregates, blending it with perhaps cement and sand to create a construction product. This might be good material as a road base."

he noted finding a use for PG would be better than leaving it in piles.

"There are some disadvantages to taking gypsum, putting it in a pile, and leaving it there forever," Townsend said. "If we can figure out a way to make it safely and productively, it makes more sense from a sustainability perspective.""

Dr. Townsend of the University of Florida leads me to believe that Florida is not going to jump and do something that is dangerous to the environment and people. In fact. They are looking for ways to make things better and safer. Piles of this stuff is not a great option either I would suspect. I am still too ignorant to make a stance right now on the best course of action going forward. But something tells me that looking into this as a possibility is exactly what we should do. And if it turns out that the cons outweigh the pros. Then we will not move forward.

 

This is moving forward

Florida lawmakers pass bill allowing radioactive material to be built into Florida roads

 

Looks like many of you here didn’t read the article.

A UF professor is actually looking into this with a company and suggesting using it for road construction.

It can only be used if radioactivity is low enough per the EPA. It’s not 100% banned for use.

With that said, I do think studies should be done before any mass projects using this stuff.

IF it can be safely used for both humans and ecosystems, why wouldn’t any of you be happy?

oh wait I get it, just a thread to dump on gop controlled state lol.

 

They approved this for testing but the testing is only for a 1 year period. Doesn't seem like adequate time.

 

Here is something that most of you did NOT know. I also knew beer was radioactive.



If there were an award for "Most Radioactive Food," it would go to Brazil nuts. Brazil nuts contain high levels of two radioactive elements: radium and potassium. Potassium is good for you, is used in many biochemical reactions, and is one of the reasons why the human body is itself slightly radioactive. Radium occurs in the ground where the trees grow and is absorbed by the plant's root system. Brazil nuts emit over 6,600 pCi/kilogram of radiation. Most of that radiation passes harmlessly through the body. Meanwhile, the high levels of healthful selenium and other minerals make these nuts healthy to eat in moderation.


These 10 Common Foods Are Radioactive

 

Some more informed and les partisan posters have weighed in here that’s not what this is about. Please take a break

 

Wayne Norris
6 patents in nuclear sensing technology; over a decade as a laboratory physicistAuthor has 569 answers and 304.7K answer views6y


Phosphorus as found in nature [Phosphorus-31] is not actually radioactive at all. But, apparently, a lot of people think it is, so an explanation seems in order.

For techies only… Yes, there are many isotopes of Phosphorus, all of them radioactive except Phosphorus-31. The longest, Phosphorus-32, has a half life of about 30 days, and there’s no native way to make it from primordial isotopes, so for all practical purposes, native phosphorus is monoisotopic and non radioactive. But if you have access to a reactor or an accelerator [and research funds - exceedingly hard to come by in 2016], then you can make tiny amounts of other isotopes, including Phosphorus-32, which is used medically.

And, yes, if you look long and hard enough, you MIGHT find an atom or two of some radioactive phosphorus isotope lying around somewhere like a unicorn, that got here who-know-how, and about to decay into something non-Phosphorus. But that’s a scientific curiosity, not a bulk source.



Why is phosphorus considered radioactive? - Quora

 

Phosphate Vs Phosphorus: What Is The Difference?



The difference between these terms is that Phosphorus is a non-metal element of the periodic system, while Phosphate is a chemical obtained from Phosphoric Acid. In the body, Phosphorus "forms" itself into Phosphate when it is combined with Oxygen.


Phosphate Vs Phosphorus: What Is The Difference?

 

Why is this even allowed if Radon gas is toxic to the human body? Doctors and the Government might not agree what id good of bad for you. Who do you trust more?


While radon is commonly known as a hazardous gas removed from basements, people in pain travel to Montana and pay to breathe, drink and bathe in its radioactive particles. The travelers view the radon exposure as low-dose radiation therapy for a long list of health problems.

But the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, among others, blame the gas as the second-leading cause of lung cancer. Although cancer doctors use radiation as a front-line treatment to destroy dangerous cells, its role in the United States in low doses for other ailments is disputed. The pandemic has recharged that debate as clinical trials across the world test whether low doses of radiation can help treat coronavirus patients.

But the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, among others, blame the gas as the second-leading cause of lung cancer. Although cancer doctors use radiation as a front-line treatment to destroy dangerous cells, its role in the United States in low doses for other ailments is disputed. The pandemic has recharged that debate as clinical trials across the world test whether low doses of radiation can help treat coronavirus patients.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...cf9ebc-f08f-11eb-81d2-ffae0f931b8f_story.html

 

I think we should definitely experiment in South America or at least in some poor minority communities in America first, to see if they get increased incidents of toxicity induced cancer - before making this widespread.

That’s what we usually do, isn’t it?

 

I think it’s fairly obvious I oppose pretty much everything the GOP wants to do, but as the saying goes even a stopped clock is right twice.

In this case we need to wait and get more independent answers to questions before we can say who’s right. As it stands those saying constituents aren’t going to go along with it are right, they won’t. But is the amount of radiation present really enough to be harmful to those using the roads anymore than the radiation from the sun? Is it more harmful than fertilizers that are put on our lawns and gardens? Who exactly outside the legislature is pushing this plan? This could be good idea if the answers are acceptable.

I say this because I remember JEB proposing a plan to use deep well injection of waste water to be used when it was needed. People protested claiming the aquifer would be contaminated with harmful bacteria, ignoring the fact that the aquifer wasn’t that deep while the deep well would go down thousands of feet below the aquifer. In the well that deep oxygen isn’t present so the harmful aerobic bacteria would have been killed anyway.

Just my $0.02.