[ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

Tue Jan 31 13:00:41 CST 2012

It should also be noted that tritium  occurs naturally. ~6 Mci annually are 
formed in the atmosphere due to cosmic ray spallation of atmospheric nitrogen.

________________________________
From: "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tue, January 31, 2012 7:34:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim that Film 
exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

All,

Releasing tritium is problematic. Most tritium is chemically combined with 
oxygen. Tritiated water cannot be decontaminated because it is chemically 
identical to water. It is water. So what to do? 

For all of those folks who read RADSAFE and are not health physicists or 
radiation scientists, the regulations and release limits applicable to tritium 
are designed to minimize the risk to the public from the health effects of the 
tritium and or tritiated water. Dilution is the only solution for tritiated 
water. Gaseous tritium will eventually combine with oxygen to form water.

Release of tritiated water to the oceans (i. e. eventually the rivers flow to 
the ocean) is preferable because of the oceans tremendous volume. There is more 
naturally occurring tritium in Earth's oceans than all of the 'artificially" 
produced tritium releases on Earth combined. You will see that if you do the 
math.

Let's not get carried away with this thread on RADSAFE.

Regards,
John E. Dixon, CHP

-----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 5:16 PM
To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection (Health 
Physics) Mailing List
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