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

Tue Jan 31 08:25:47 CST 2012

Ahmad said it better than I could.

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
 On Jan 31, 2012 12:19 AM, "Jerry Cohen" <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bill
> OK, so  distrust is the problem, rather than a genuine health threat. Now
> that
> Long Island groundwater has been shipped to Tennessee. Does the public now
> have
> confidence in BNL, DOE, or nuclear energy in general. Just what did we get
> for
> the tax money spent?  Jerry
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
> To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The International Radiation
> Protection
> (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, January 30, 2012 7:58:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
>
> I am more disturbed by the fact that BNL management allowed the fuel pool
> of the High Flux Beam Reactor to leak into the aquifer for as long as 12
> years before discovery.   Despite promising to install monitoring wells in
> 1994, Brookhaven management delayed the installations.  Later monitoring
> showed tritium levels up to 32 times federal drinking water standards.
>
> As the GAO
> Report<
> http://www.powerreactorrp.com/References/Groundwater/GAO_Brookhaven.pdf
> >states:
>
> "Brookhaven's delay in installing the monitoring wells raised serious
> concerns in the Long Island community about
> (1) the laboratory's abiity to take seriously its responsibilities for the
> environment and for human health and safety and (2) DOE's competence as an
> overseer of the laboratory's activities."
>
> While shipment of the water for disposal was not technically necessary, I
> don't blame the population and elected officials for their distrust of this
> explanation, since previous DOE assurances of adequate monitoring were
> wrong.
>
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>