|
||||||
|
Title: puzzled Post by burnt-toast on Mar 16th, 2006, 7:01pm The following are a few paragraphs from a news story I just read. I have some questions for folks who know a little more about this type of pollution. My questions are below the information I have bolded. ???????? "CHICAGO - Illinois filed suit Thursday against Exelon Corp. for repeated leaks of radioactive waste-water contaminated with tritium into groundwater around its Braidwood nuclear plant, with prosecutors accusing the company of putting profits ahead of safety." “Faulty maintenance led to this situation and to this lawsuit,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan." "Braidwood has been plagued since 1996 by spills of millions of gallons of water laced with tritium — a byproduct of nuclear power generation — from an underground pipeline that normally carries effluent to a nearby river." OK, so the pipeline leaks and contaminates groundwater with Tritium. But if the pipeline isn't leaking it contaminates the river with Tritium? Ground or surface water contamination, what's the difference? A lot of muncipal water systems intake water from our rivers. I may just not understand something here but aren't the downstream waterway and water supplies also being contaminated by normal operations? "On Monday, a private lawsuit was filed seeking class-action status on behalf of 14,000 people who live in the vicinity of the plant, located about 60 miles southwest of Chicago." "Exelon has also denied breaking the law, and has said it is cleaning up the problem and working on compensating affected residents." Cleaning Tritium from the contiminated groundwater? Is this even possible? What's the compensation for residents who have been drinking Tritium laced water? I'm puzzled. Anyone able to help? Tom |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by mynm156 on Mar 16th, 2006, 7:08pm Dont know much about the subject but you raise some good questions. I didnt think that you could dispose of any nuclear waste anywhere but in designated nuclear waste sites. Its that way too for medical waste (which is usually burned) Unbelievable! |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Kevin_M on Mar 16th, 2006, 7:51pm I wouldn't know the guidelines on it but the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline is: 800 426-4791 1H3 (called triton or tritium) and 2He3 are isotopes of hydrogen and helium. First found in disintegration experiments at the Cavendish Laboratory (Cambridge), although minutely around since protons first fused with protons and with neutons for nucleus formation, theoretically two minutes after the big bang and about 300,000 years before the first atoms formed. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Ueli on Mar 16th, 2006, 8:11pm IMHO, they are making an elephant out of a midget, and some ghoulish lawyers try to make a lot of money out of everybody's pocket (not directly, but the billions of $$ will finally end up on your electricity bill). Tritium is a super heavy isotope of hydrogen, consisting of 3 protons in its nucleus instead of one. Tritium decays (with a half life of 12.3 years to a stable Helium isotope and an electron. The electron has a rather low energy, on the average of 6.5 keV. This energy is too low to penetrate the skin. But even if Tritium enters the lung the low energy electron can not get trough the cell membrane and do damage to the cell nucleus. For comparison: in your old-fashioned CRT monitor the electrons hit the screen with an energy of about 25 keV. BTW, the "millions of gallons of water" are not a problem, quite the contrary, the higher the dilution the better. It's the amount of Tritium that counts, and which should have been mentioned. ;) Ueli [smiley=smokin.gif] |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Kevin_M on Mar 16th, 2006, 8:15pm You're fuking AMAZING Ueli! 8) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Jonny on Mar 16th, 2006, 8:27pm For those that dont know Ueli........take what he says to the bank! The brother was studying nuclear shit way before three mile island. Nuff said! |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Kirk on Mar 16th, 2006, 8:49pm Ya beat me to it again Ueli ;;D YAWN [smiley=smokin.gif] |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Jonny on Mar 16th, 2006, 9:02pm on 03/16/06 at 20:49:22, Kirk wrote:
LMAO...Kirk |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Barry_T_Coles on Mar 16th, 2006, 9:14pm I agree with Ueli. BTW, the "millions of gallons of water" are not a problem, quite the contrary, the higher the dilution the better. It's the amount of Tritium that counts, and which should have been mentioned. I work in the water providing industry here and we are guided by and stricktly adhere to the limits set out by the World Health Org. Statements should never be made without backing up with fact unless of course you can see some easy money coming your way. ;;D Regards Barry |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by burnt-toast on Mar 18th, 2006, 9:43pm I wasn't making statements. I was quoting an article and asking questions. The article did not reference the levels of Tritium or the volume of water recommended to dilute the Tritium pollution. Let's assume that's all been worked out and the releases into the river are within guidelines. Tritium occurs naturally, however man-made waste far exceeds naturally occurring Tritium levels and is highly concentrated - geographically. Is it possible to remove Tritium for the surface or groundwater? What is the risk to residents who used/are using the groundwater and downstream water systems on the river? Tritium cannot be filtered or otherwise removed from drinking water by any standard water-treatment processes. The weak beta radiation emissions of Tritium make it relatively safe until ingested, (like in drinking water) where it becomes highly damaging to cells and can remain in the body for years. I'm not sure the affected residents are viewing this as easy money. Here's what I found. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen and an essential ingredient in all modern day thermonuclear warheads. It acts as a trigger that boosts the yield of a weapon and turns it from an ‘A’ bomb into an ‘H’ bomb. It is one of the least serious of the radioactive materials, as it emits beta particles which are very weak and will not penetrate unbroken skin, also it has a short half life of just 12.2 years. However tritium is very reactive. It combines easily with other substances (such as air, water and many metals) releasing a great deal of heat. When it combines with metals the surface of the metal becomes radioactive. Tritium is most dangerous when combined with water or water vapor. Radioactive "irradiated water" is easily absorbed by the body via inhalation or absorption through the skin and is then mistaken for ordinary water and quickly distributed throughout the body. As a weak beta emitter, when absorbed, ingested or inhaled, tritium deposits all of its energy into the chromosomes in cell nuclei and can result in severe damage to a persons DNA macromolecule, the critical site for the effects of radiation. While researchers differ about the relative dangers of exposure to high levels of tritium, several studies have linked high tritium discharges to cancers and birth deformities including Down’s syndrome. http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_2.html http://www.igs.net/~cmichener/ccrc/CCRChtml/HTOtests.html http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2004/TritiumComments%2020041223.htm http://www.francenuc.org/en_mat/tritium_e.htm http://www.tritium.org.uk/information.html http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/tritiumnews.htm Based on what I’m finding “Safe Exposure” levels of Tritium are established more for economic benefit of companies who need to dispose of this hazardous waste than the health safety of folks who drink the water or are otherwise exposed to abnormally high levels. Maybe that’s why the plant covered up their spills to 8 years. Tom |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by jimmers on Mar 18th, 2006, 10:33pm I already knew all of this information, thats why I stick to straight whiskey! ;;D Jimmers |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Kevin_M on Mar 18th, 2006, 10:34pm on 03/18/06 at 21:43:53, burnt-toast wrote:
As you mentioned, it seems Tom, determining the amount released and concentration levels at sources of human consumption is the unmentioned or undetermined part yet, but it sounds like there would be controversy on that. from one of your links: Quote:
There was talk about wanting to raise to 60,000 pCi/L. on 03/18/06 at 21:43:53, burnt-toast wrote:
|
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Ueli on Mar 18th, 2006, 11:22pm Tom, I'm sorry to say, what you "found" and the links you're giving are scare mongering exaggerations from the antinuclear tree-huggers. Just one example from http://www.tritium.org.uk/information.html: Tritium gives off a weak beta particle, but the resulting nucleus recoils violently and can damage human cells if it happens inside us. So, if the 6.5 kev electron is rather harmless a "violent recoil" is construed. However, anybody with the most basic knowledge in physics, conservation of momentum) can calculate: The Tritium nucleus being 3000 times heavier than the electron gets a recoil energy of 1/3000 of the electron, that is about 2.2 ev, something in the range of a quantum of visible light. Calling that "violent" and "damaging" can only seep out of a head filled with green mud instead of a brain. It's a hard enough job to fight all the snakeoil salesmen here. I have no desire to counter all the bullshit of green eco-freaks, so I'm leaving to go celebrate my birthday. [smiley=smokin.gif] |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by burnt-toast on Mar 19th, 2006, 3:59am First - Happy Birthday! Second - I'm not sure that a little scare mongering is bad thing here. I only need to think back to all the crap/practices once considered “Safe” by the EPA only to come back as major health disasters for generations to come. Put aside enviro-babble and techno-babble. Is a high level of Tritium in drinking water a health hazard? What is the effect of drinking Tritium contaminated water over a period of time? What thorough testing was conducted to determine "Safe levels" of Tritium in regards to drinking water and health hazards to humans? Well, everyone has an opinion but few solid answers. On this topic the EPA references the problems with conflicting opinions within the scientific community making it difficult set standards. So at best the EPA “Safe Levels” of Tritium exposure, were determined by defaulting to the winner of the best semi-educated guess contest? Natural Tritium is rare so it is not a good basis from which to judge the health risk of high/concentrated volumes. Despite knowledge of much higher than normal levels of Tritium in the drinking water (wells and municipal water systems), power plant officials allowed residents to continue drinking the water. At least they could have notified residents that there were potential health hazards. For the record, I would not want my water contaminated with high levels of Tritium (Be the test subject) and I don't believe anyone who insists Tritium is environmentally friendly would risk their children drinking water with high concentrations of Tritium either. Once again this appears way too reckless and without consideration of the long-term consequences. The plant stopped dumping Tritium laced water into the river last November and is seeking alternative methods of disposal. Why? I keep thinking that we will learn for past mistakes but… Oh well I'm thru' wit' me learnin' for a while. Thanks for the input. Tom |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by floridian on Mar 19th, 2006, 5:22am on 03/16/06 at 20:27:20, Jonny wrote:
Yeah, but the nuclear experts also repeatedly said that an accident like Three Mile Island could never happen. All the kinetics and energy equations sound very certain, but they ignore the fact that water is absorbed into cells - the particle doesn't just hit the skin, or the mucous of the lungs. Tritium in water goes everywhere in the body. The breakdown of tritiated water is also different than the breakdown of pure tritium, as it breaks apart an H20 and creates a free radical (which causes other damage to a cell). And Ueli is wrong about another thing - this lawsuit was not initiated by a lawyer trying to line his own pockets - it is the State of Illinois suing the nuclear power company because they broke the law. Maybe the nuclear companies should be above the law?? Quote:
|
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Jonny on Mar 19th, 2006, 5:54am on 03/19/06 at 05:22:28, floridian wrote:
And I guess you can tell the future, Flo? Is anything certain 100% Ill take Uelis word about shit like this before I even think of your name.....sorry ;) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by Kevin_M on Mar 19th, 2006, 7:33am A couple paragraphs but just a company spokesman's assessment of the level of leakage. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article3/nyt_logo_sm.gif Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/17/national/17nuke1.583.jpg llinois officials stood Thursday by a map that showed an underground pipeline believed to be leaking at the Braidwood Generating Station. By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: March 17, 2006 ... Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells. In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents. ... A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003. No well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards, he said. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by floridian on Mar 19th, 2006, 12:03pm on 03/19/06 at 05:54:56, Jonny wrote:
Its not a question of predicting the future with 100% accuracy - its a question of not making obviously wrong statements about the future. The nuclear industry made all kinds of ridiculous statements, like there was zero chance of a 3-mile type accident occuring. Ueli is trotting out equations that are great physics but irrelevant to the biological effects of tritium. I agree with him that the amount of tritium in the water is important ... nobody here is saying that the many leaks are going to lead to 3-eyed children, but why do you think that industrial companies should be able to do the crime and not do the time, not even pay a fine?? Suit yourself on who to believe. By the way, how's that war in Iraq going? |
||||||
|
Title: Re: puzzled Post by BobG on Mar 19th, 2006, 12:46pm on 03/19/06 at 12:03:31, floridian wrote:
I say round them all up and toss them in Joe Arpaio’s jail. |
||||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |