[ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem

Mon Jan 30 17:27:56 CST 2012

Previously, on radsafe, the BNL tritium problem was discussed and, as I recall, 
it was shown that in no way was it a public health problem. In fact, there is no 
way that release of tritium to the environment could, in general, cause a 
significant health problem . Given this situation, I am disturbed that so much 
of my tax money has been squandered on a project that is little more than "show 
business". Given the technological ignorance of the news media, couldn't the DOE 
find a much cheaper way to assuage the concerns of a technologically ignorant 
public than shipping water to Oak Ridge? 

________________________________
From: "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection (Health 
Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Mon, January 30, 2012 2:16:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim that Film 
exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

Even worse, Brookhaven is within spitting distance of the sea (OK, maybe
a really high powered spit, but still).  Dumping the "tritium
contaminated ground water" into the ocean has equal risks of noticeably
increasing the tritium concentration and decreasing the ocean's
salinity.  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Stewart Farber
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:47 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim that
Film exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

I have no idea of the total volume,  Bq/L and total activity of H-3
there
was in the water shipped to Oak Ridge for processing and release. Anyone
know, since it would help in making the comparison presented below.

For reference the water flow at the mouth of the Mississippi is 
about 17 million/L/sec. 
http://www.americanrivers.org/library/river-facts/river-facts.html

This volume of water for the Mississippi, at the average H-3 activity of
surface water in US [ or the world for that matter --very roughly 15
Bq/l]
will contain about 260 MBq.

I posit that the water from Brookhaven,  which was sent to Oak Ridge for
processing at a cost of many millions $ without doubt, contained a total
H-3
activity which was dwarfed by the total H-3 activity flowing down the
Mississippi River draining its watershed in only a few seconds. 

Why should the amount of H-3 equal to that present in a few seconds of
water
flowing down the Mississippi not be a concern, when that same total
amount
of H-3 activity in some water from Brookhaven is vaporized and free
released
to the environment? What a farce. 

How does our society justify wasting millions in an airborne release of
H-3
vs. releasing the Brookhaven water at some slow rate into a large river
flowing to the sea? The airborne H-3 release at Oak Ridge will
eventually
come to earth in rainwater, end up as groundwater perhaps, or drain to
some
river in any case.

Sometime in the future someone will write a book "The Decline and Fall
of
the United States". The absurdity of sending H-3 contaminated water to
Oak
Ridge to be released to the air after processing by Duratek vs.
releasing it
to a large river [or simply leaving it in the ground to decay in a few
years] will be one of the minor examples of what contributed to the
death
spiral for the US.

Stewart Farber
SAFarber at optonline.net

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:14 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture?
ofUSA?s NRC

Or pump it out of the ground and ship it to a BWR, to be processed and
used as coolant.  Then challenge anyone to find the difference in the
final H3 levels between the water from Brookhaven and the water from the
regular source.  

(actually, I agree that the low risk option would have been to leave it
in the ground, or if that wasn't acceptable, pump it and dump it into
the ocean.)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:50 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture?
ofUSA?s NRC

Fritz Niehaus at the IAEA suggested the same thing - simply release it.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM, S L Gawarecki
<slgawarecki at gmail.com>wrote:

> Do you know what happened to that tritium-contaminated water from
> Brookhaven?  It was put in tanker trucks and shipped to Oak Ridge,
> Tennessee.  There is was fed into a thermal treatment unit at Duratek
at
> levels below their air permit limit (and within their license limit)
until
> it was gone--up in the air.  What sense did that make?  The risk of
all
> those trucks on the road was probably much greater than the potential
> exposure at either site.  Personally, I think it would have been
smarter to
> have left it in the ground back at Brookhaven to decay in peace.
>
> Susan Gawarecki
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>

-- 
Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu