PhilFo 

Eventually the paved surface will break down, this will begin within a matter of months, it does with every road. Then you have fine particles of aggregate which become airborne. Feel free to take chances with airborne particles of Uranium and Radium. You don't have to worry about riding on the roads any more than you have to worry about being near the roads and breathing, or being downwind. You may not want to drink the water after a few years. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

livedarklions

Really way too much speculation there to address in a cycling forum. The notion that the trace amounts of radium and uranium in the aggregate would be in such concentration that you'd inhale particles of it while riding or even living close to the road is extremely far-fetched. No idea about the water contamination, although the phosphate remaining in the aggregate appears to be the bigger problem there as you're essentially putting fertilizer into the water, hello algae, etc. The stuff clearly incudes too much radium to be used in building construction, but that's because of the tendency of radon gas to accumulate within structures. That gas would obviously dissipate from roads long before it reached any concerning levels.

A sensible discussion of this is going to require insight into whether the fertilizer of this kind should continue to be produced, and knowledge of how the impact of putting this stuff on roads compares with other methods of disposal/use.

FBinNY 

Nothing here is about bicycling.

I'm not taking a position on the issue, except to say that it's about pollution and the environment, and this isn't the place to argue it.

livedarklions

Even worse, it's about agriculture, pollution and the environment.

I know exactly enough about these subjects to know that no one should care about my opinion on them, and yeah, definitely not cycling-related in any significant way.

PhilFo 

There is no low threshold for safe exposure to Uranium or Radium particulate. Paved surfaces wear down, they literally turn to dust over time. That’s all.

livedarklions

If that's true, never allow yourself to be exposed to sea water. That contains trace uranium and radium, and it tends to get blown into mist that can be inhaled.

The fact that you would make such an absolute statement tells us you really don't know much about this. Having an absolute zero threshold is not possible for pretty much any building material that involves any extraction. Maybe you're getting confused with plutonium which does not form naturally on earth and is one hell of a lot more radioactive?

I think you're making the case that this is not a forum suitable for or competent at discussing this question reasonably.

PhilFo 

Congratulate yourself for finding a little pedantic nugget of information to contradict my statement.
Regardless, Uranium is very toxic even if it emits safe levels of radiation (yes, Plutonium, more so). This is why the military and the VA have a registry for members who have been exposed to DU and the DU aftermath (looking at destroyed vehicles).
Anyway, I’m out. Feel free to continue at your leisure.

livedarklions

I really resent that "pedantic nugget" accusation. I didn't choose for you to post your obvious misinformation, you did. It was trivially easy to refute it, and I could have chosen any number of natural exposures that happen all the time. The point is this is low-level concentrations that are just above background exposure by a little bit and that whatever small amount of uranium and/or radium does get emitted is likely to be so diluted as to pose no real risk.. You're not going to get a toxic exposure by riding a bike on it, it's absurd. The article noted that the environmentalists are centering their claims on the possible effects on construction workers, which seems rather logical as they're the ones who would be scattering the stuff, jackhammering it, etc.

You do understand that blowing up a vehicle partially constructed of depleted uranium armor is spreading a hell of a lot more uranium at much higher concentration than anything that could be done with this material? You're comparing blowing up material that is 100% uranium (the armor) to something that contains trace amounts of the element. You are obviously googling things and interpreting them rather absurdly.

I'm not arguing one way or the other for its use or nonuse. I'm just pointing out that it isn't a slam dunk like you're trying to make it.

zandoval 

Is the future going to show a need for one of these...




amazon

Thing is that by the time it goes off... ITS TOO LATE... Ha

livedarklions

Desperate attempt to make this cycling relevant:

Is there a device to mount it on your handlebars?

PhilFo 

livedarklions

Careful what you put on it!

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pin...alt-an-update/

work4bike

Then why do you keep posting on this thread? Rhetorical


https://www.bikeforums.net/misc.php?...sted&t=1272106



.

jon c. 

From the broader perspective, the safety of road surfaces is certainly of interest to cyclists in Florida who ride on these roads.

It may well be that the opinions expressed here are ill informed. And many are tongue in cheek. It's an internet discussion, that's the nature of the beast. But pointless though it may be, it is related to bicycling.

tungsten

....

Troul 

exactly...

livedarklions

Quote:
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
Seriously, this is definitely not the forum for a big debate on the green revolution.

Because people keep trying to debate things that have virtually nothing to do with cycling. Why do you think that disqualifies me from posting on the thread to note that? Rhetorical, it doesn't.

Nice try, though.

livedarklions

The concerns with this particular material are groundwater contamination and health hazards to the crews working with it. There appears to be no assertion by anyone familiar with this issue that this material puts users of the road (drivers, cyclists, passengers, pedestrians) at risk of anything due to their use of the road.

If this is considered "related to bicycling", pretty much any ecological policy would be as we do ride our bikes in the environment.

I-Like-To-Bike

If the OP's issue is considered "related to bicycling", pretty much any issue or policy (social, financial, environmental, political, religious, etc.) would be "related to bicycling" as we ride our bikes in all these realms.

jon c. 

If it actually poses a health hazard to crews working with it, I'd certainly prefer not to ride or walk on the surface. I'd want to know a good deal more and have input from a variety of sources before discounting any potential for danger. I don't actually know enough about it to have an opinion one way or the other, but the State assuring me it was safe wouldn't actually provide that much assurance.

FBinNY 

There's a world of difference in exposure level between working with a toxic material, and the incidental exposure you'd see as a driver or cyclist.

One specific concern is radon, which is a gas and would blow off the road virtually instantly. The other concern to road users might be dust, but these are heavy metals and the dust unlikely to stay aloft.

So, while there are legitimate concerns in a general environmental sense, there's no specific issues for cyclists.

jon c. 

The OP's subject article certainly doesn't give me that level of assurance. One concern is radon, but it isn't clear that is the sole concern. The State hasn't even concluded it's own study and frankly I have little reason to have faith in their conclusions. The federal EPA hasn't weighed in.

Of course levels of exposure may be vastly different. But based on the information in this thread we don't know what levels of what byproducts might be problematic. If it passes federal EPA muster I would agree there is no concern.

I don't know enough at this point to think that it would pose a danger to cyclists. But I don't know enough to be sure that it would not. With the information currently available I don't see how any conclusion could be reached.

FBinNY 

As I said, as a local drinking the water, od maybe eating local produce, I'd be concerned and want to know lots more. But as a cyclist, even one riding those roads daily, I'd rank any added risk so low as to not matter.

This is another example of worrying about the wrong things. We get worked up about all sorts of identifiable risks like this, yet slowly kill ourselves by diet and lifestyle.

FWIW I live in an older home with a concrete foundation, so I've been breathing radon for 40 plus years. A castly greater exposure than riding on a road like this could ever cause.

diphthong

how smooth and buttery is it cycling on '23's? asking for a friend. it would hafta be the best scenery and pavement ever to bother visiting that underwater (very currently pending) state. considering the high point of said state is in the thereabouts of 342 feet, waay too many hoops to jump/ride through to drunkenly consider. warm during the winter but so is hell. nuff said.

livedarklions

Sorry, but I really think you're in "we should discuss NASA's plans for asteroid defense here because there's a nonzero chance that I could get hit by a meteorite while riding" territory.

No one here is competent to answer the basic questions you raise on this forum and I would suggest it makes a lot of sense to tell people to look elsewhere for answers rather than opening this forum for debates on the entire planet's agricultural system and other big proposals people have been trying to smuggle in here.