[ RadSafe ] Tritium Production in a nuke plant
Bob Cherry
bobcherry at satx.rr.com
Wed Apr 24 22:09:02 CDT 2013
I may have missed the response of someone else to this thread that says the
same thing I will say:
See section 3.3, "Tritium Production in Nuclear Reactors," in NCRP Report
No. 62, "Tritium in the Environment."
Bob C
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of ROMANOWICH
Larry(L) - BRUCE POWER
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 6:10 AM
To: 'radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium Production in a nuke plant
Not sure of the equations he is looking for. In a CANDU the means of
production is neutron activation of the deuterium in heavy water. We have
nearly pure heavy water (99.9+%), cross section 5e-4, 10E15
neutrons/sec/cm^2, and you can see we can easily get to the 10's of curies
per kg of tritium in CANDU moderators.
Exposure to this has to be controlled because at these levels, one can
exceed regulatory limits in minutes, depending on exposure scenario. I have
seen Inhalation hazards as high as 30,000 DAC. Wetting is even more
hazardous because of absorption through the skin in addition to inhalation.
I don't even want to think about a significant ingestion of this, though
this scenario would have to be malicious given the controls that are in
place.
Larry Romanowich
HP Dosimetry
519 361-2673 ext 15556
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Saturday, 20 April, 2013 1:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 1270, Issue 1
Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
Important!
To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the
following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the germane
sentences to which you're responding.
Thanks!_______________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Tritium production in a nuke plant (Jerry Cohen)
2. Re: two shells Tritium production in a nuke plant (Emil)
3. Re: two shells Tritium production in a nuke plant (Scott Davidson)
4. Re: two shells Tritium production in a nuke plant (Scott Davidson)
5. Re: third shell and mortgage Tritium production in a nuke
plant (Emil)
6. Fwd: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium should be in the
leakage! ????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
(Roger Helbig)
7. Re: Fwd: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium should be in
the leakage! ?????????????????????????????
????????????????????????? (Emil)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:12:03 -0700
From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <E70F6218517249EBB3172238EF41EB6E at JerryPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
OK, so ask NRC. Maybe they will tell you why H3 is dangerous---Then you can
share this information with the rest of us. Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
> Jerry :
>
> I agree with you but I have to answer the higher authority, means NRC.
>
> Rahim
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> Just curious as to why you believe tritium production is of any
>> importance. From a public health standpoint, tritium is of little or no
>> consequence.
>> Jerry Cohen
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <
>> rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> List"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:44 PM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>>
>>
>> I am looking for a equation/method/documentation/**publication to
>>> calculate
>>> the Tritium production in a typical nuke plant.
>>>
>>> Feel free to contact me directly.
>>>
>>> Thnx
>>> Rahim
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> 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 <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 <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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Emil <kerrembaev at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] two shells Tritium production in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<1366420148.50813.YahooMailClassic at web125701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
nrc has two shells.
1. 'busy work' regulatory agency. busy part?are regulations, inspections,
enforcements?etc.
2. public opinion monitoring eyes and ears, teeter-totter, wait and see.
?
licensees are?dealing with "busy work" agency, that knows that tritium is
not dangerous nuclide.
but they don't decide nothing (double negative), they are as said just do
'busy work'.
?
decisions are made in the second shell.
where tritium's danger depends on:
a) geographic location.
b) time of the year.
?
obvious disconnect between two shells.
?
In the other words, tritium is the least dangerous from radiological?point
of view.
However, tritium has caused the most damage by its?high mobility and some
surveillance elusiveness, the second?to strontium.
?
Contrary?to nrc, doe is much better...just kidding, something is always
needs to be left for later.
?
Have a nice and safe day to everyone.
?
Emil Murat.
--- On Thu, 4/18/13, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 8:12 PM
OK, so ask NRC. Maybe they will tell you why H3 is dangerous---Then you can
share this information with the rest of us.???Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
> Jerry :
>
> I agree with you but I have to answer the higher authority, means NRC.
>
> Rahim
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> Just curious as to why you believe tritium production is of any
>> importance. From a public health standpoint, tritium is of little or no
>> consequence.
>> Jerry Cohen
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <
>> rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> List"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:44 PM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>>
>>
>>? I am looking for a equation/method/documentation/**publication to
>>> calculate
>>> the Tritium production in a typical nuke plant.
>>>
>>> Feel free to contact me directly.
>>>
>>> Thnx
>>> Rahim
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> 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 <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 <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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:28:21 -0400
From: Scott Davidson <bsdnuke at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] two shells Tritium production in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAOrSJC1vfdQMxyOVo-BA1QfW-WMfQqtVoWH6VTBVDaJorWPOqQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
My 2 cents worth. The issue is not new with tritium. What is new is that
everybody looked but missed calculating the dose from the pathway of
tritium to the environment. Because this was missed when tritium was found
it was not expected and no one knew whether it was a big deal or not.
Also, this pathway was not included in the plant's ODCM which I think
stands for off site dose calculation manual.
All routine release pathways are accounted for in the ODCM or so we
thought. In the 1970s there was a leak from condensate tanks to the
environment at Indian Point. This resulted in a Bulletin which carried the
equivalent of law for the plants to look for a sneak pathway to the
environment. NRC inspectors looked at the pathways too and that ended
that. So this tritium issue is just an unanalyzed pathway for plants
currently operating.
Remember this if your source term or expected release is 10 curies or 1000
you will have the same performance requirements (LLD) in your RETS which is
the radiological environmental technical specifications. This uncertainty
is probably about the same order of magnitude error in the geohydrological
modeling. So if the proponent of the new plant uses a worst case
combination of these you just have to meet the environmental dose
performance objectives in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I. These have the gaseous and
liquid pathways which should be able to capture and model intakes from the
tritium in the aquifer or groundwater providing drinking water, irrigation,
etc.
For an order of magnitude SWAG, I would look at John Till's Radiological
Assessment book which is a NUREG. It may be helpful to eventually writing
the scope of work for the contractor that can help you with this.
Scott
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Emil <kerrembaev at yahoo.com> wrote:
> nrc has two shells.
> 1. 'busy work' regulatory agency. busy part are regulations, inspections,
> enforcements etc.
> 2. public opinion monitoring eyes and ears, teeter-totter, wait and see.
>
> licensees are dealing with "busy work" agency, that knows that tritium is
> not dangerous nuclide.
> but they don't decide nothing (double negative), they are as said just do
> 'busy work'.
>
> decisions are made in the second shell.
> where tritium's danger depends on:
> a) geographic location.
> b) time of the year.
>
> obvious disconnect between two shells.
>
> In the other words, tritium is the least dangerous from radiological point
> of view.
> However, tritium has caused the most damage by its high mobility and some
> surveillance elusiveness, the second to strontium.
>
> Contrary to nrc, doe is much better...just kidding, something is always
> needs to be left for later.
>
> Have a nice and safe day to everyone.
>
> Emil Murat.
>
> --- On Thu, 4/18/13, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<
> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 8:12 PM
>
>
> OK, so ask NRC. Maybe they will tell you why H3 is dangerous---Then you
can
> share this information with the rest of us. Jerry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>
>
> > Jerry :
> >
> > I agree with you but I have to answer the higher authority, means NRC.
> >
> > Rahim
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Just curious as to why you believe tritium production is of any
> >> importance. From a public health standpoint, tritium is of little or no
> >> consequence.
> >> Jerry Cohen
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <
> >> rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
> >> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> >> List"
> >> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:44 PM
> >> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
> >>
> >>
> >> I am looking for a equation/method/documentation/**publication to
> >>> calculate
> >>> the Tritium production in a typical nuke plant.
> >>>
> >>> Feel free to contact me directly.
> >>>
> >>> Thnx
> >>> Rahim
> >>> ______________________________**_________________
> >>> 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 <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 <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
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:29:34 -0400
From: Scott Davidson <bsdnuke at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] two shells Tritium production in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAOrSJC3DEVWa6cxc-h70T3ZHEV1tSS+XpHaZ3G7SYsaiCEoQ-Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Look at I & E Bulletin 80-10
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Scott Davidson <bsdnuke at gmail.com> wrote:
> My 2 cents worth. The issue is not new with tritium. What is new is that
> everybody looked but missed calculating the dose from the pathway of
> tritium to the environment. Because this was missed when tritium was
found
> it was not expected and no one knew whether it was a big deal or not.
> Also, this pathway was not included in the plant's ODCM which I think
> stands for off site dose calculation manual.
>
> All routine release pathways are accounted for in the ODCM or so we
> thought. In the 1970s there was a leak from condensate tanks to the
> environment at Indian Point. This resulted in a Bulletin which carried
the
> equivalent of law for the plants to look for a sneak pathway to the
> environment. NRC inspectors looked at the pathways too and that ended
> that. So this tritium issue is just an unanalyzed pathway for plants
> currently operating.
>
> Remember this if your source term or expected release is 10 curies or 1000
> you will have the same performance requirements (LLD) in your RETS which
is
> the radiological environmental technical specifications. This uncertainty
> is probably about the same order of magnitude error in the geohydrological
> modeling. So if the proponent of the new plant uses a worst case
> combination of these you just have to meet the environmental dose
> performance objectives in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I. These have the gaseous
and
> liquid pathways which should be able to capture and model intakes from the
> tritium in the aquifer or groundwater providing drinking water,
irrigation,
> etc.
>
> For an order of magnitude SWAG, I would look at John Till's Radiological
> Assessment book which is a NUREG. It may be helpful to eventually writing
> the scope of work for the contractor that can help you with this.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Emil <kerrembaev at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> nrc has two shells.
>> 1. 'busy work' regulatory agency. busy part are regulations, inspections,
>> enforcements etc.
>> 2. public opinion monitoring eyes and ears, teeter-totter, wait and see.
>>
>> licensees are dealing with "busy work" agency, that knows that tritium is
>> not dangerous nuclide.
>> but they don't decide nothing (double negative), they are as said just do
>> 'busy work'.
>>
>> decisions are made in the second shell.
>> where tritium's danger depends on:
>> a) geographic location.
>> b) time of the year.
>>
>> obvious disconnect between two shells.
>>
>> In the other words, tritium is the least dangerous from
>> radiological point of view.
>> However, tritium has caused the most damage by its high mobility and some
>> surveillance elusiveness, the second to strontium.
>>
>> Contrary to nrc, doe is much better...just kidding, something is always
>> needs to be left for later.
>>
>> Have a nice and safe day to everyone.
>>
>> Emil Murat.
>>
>> --- On Thu, 4/18/13, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 8:12 PM
>>
>>
>> OK, so ask NRC. Maybe they will tell you why H3 is dangerous---Then you
>> can
>> share this information with the rest of us. Jerry
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>>
>>
>> > Jerry :
>> >
>> > I agree with you but I have to answer the higher authority, means NRC.
>> >
>> > Rahim
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just curious as to why you believe tritium production is of any
>> >> importance. From a public health standpoint, tritium is of little or
no
>> >> consequence.
>> >> Jerry Cohen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <
>> >> rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
>> >> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> >> List"
>> >> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:44 PM
>> >> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am looking for a equation/method/documentation/**publication to
>> >>> calculate
>> >>> the Tritium production in a typical nuke plant.
>> >>>
>> >>> Feel free to contact me directly.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thnx
>> >>> Rahim
>> >>> ______________________________**_________________
>> >>> 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 <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 <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
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Emil <kerrembaev at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] third shell and mortgage Tritium production
in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<1366424239.44097.YahooMailClassic at web125702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
to be fair.
there is an army of radiological specialists who have jobs because
of?nrc?has "busy work". sort of balance.
so we have to be careful here, not to "stir the pot" too much. otherwise
public may learn about?a great tritium secret.
who is gonna pay my mortgage then?
?
Emil Murat.
--- On Thu, 4/18/13, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 8:12 PM
OK, so ask NRC. Maybe they will tell you why H3 is dangerous---Then you can
share this information with the rest of us.???Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
> Jerry :
>
> I agree with you but I have to answer the higher authority, means NRC.
>
> Rahim
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> Just curious as to why you believe tritium production is of any
>> importance. From a public health standpoint, tritium is of little or no
>> consequence.
>> Jerry Cohen
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rahim Ghanooni" <
>> rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> List"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:44 PM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium production in a nuke plant
>>
>>
>>? I am looking for a equation/method/documentation/**publication to
>>> calculate
>>> the Tritium production in a typical nuke plant.
>>>
>>> Feel free to contact me directly.
>>>
>>> Thnx
>>> Rahim
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> 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 <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 <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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:40:02 -0700
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium
should be in the leakage! ?????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CALZ0NqVcDTNq-j6wAkTBDWj7pU-0utbfCAXojcrw1gzMrctYvA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
RADSAFERS - do any of you know how to change messages to plain text using
GMAIL. I used to do that before posting to RADSAFE, which I do not think
does well with HTML. Here is claim by "professor" in Japan about Plutonium
in the water that is leaking from Fukushima. Is this claim valid?
Thanks.
Roger Helbig
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nuclear-news <comment-reply at wordpress.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Subject: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium should be in the leakage!
????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
**
arclight2011 posted: "Op Ed by Mia (JANUK)
http://fukushimaappeal.blogspot.co.uk/ .....The last one was plutonium241,
which had radiation dose about 50 times as much as the total of the other
three(PU238, PU239 & PU240)..... ....The underground tanks were meant to
sto"
New post on *nuclear-news*
<http://nuclear-news.net/author/arclight2011/> Fukushima report: Plutonium
should be in the leakage!
?????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????<http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/20/fukushima-repor
t-plutonium-should-be-in-the-leakage-%e6%b1%9a%e6%9f%93%e6%b0%b4%e5%95%8f%e9
%a1%8c%e3%81%ab%e9%96%a2%e3%81%99%e3%82%8b%e5%b0%8f%e5%87%ba%e5%85%88%e7%94%
9f%e3%81%ae%e3%82%b3%e3%83%a1/>
by
arclight2011 <http://nuclear-news.net/author/arclight2011/>
Op Ed by Mia (JANUK)
http://fukushimaappeal.blogspot.co.uk/
.....The last one was *plutonium241*, which had radiation dose about *50
times as much as *the total of the other three(PU238, PU239 & PU240).....
*....The underground tanks were meant to store low level of radioactive
water after being filtered through ALPS. But they have been using them to
store high level of radioactive water (including ? (beta) emitting nuclide,
Strontium and ? (alpha)**emitting nuclide, Plutonium).....*
<http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenshot-from-2013-04-
20-012703.png>
Thursday, 18 April 2013
A MBS radio interview with Prof. Koide: the repeated leaking problems at
Fukushima Crippled Plant. Additional report: Plutonium should be in the
leakage! ????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
(Source) http://hiroakikoide.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/mbs1179_2013apr12/
(Extract)
The most recent report on the leakage problem said that about 22 liters of
radioactive water had leaked from gaps between the pipes used to transfer
it from underground water storage tank into an another tank, and that the
level of radioactivity in the water was *290,000Bq/m3. *
This is so high that the leakage is unsafe to approach. Prof. Koide
commented that according to Japanese law, the safety level of radioactive
water that can be discharged into the environment is 0.05Bq/m3, or
0./03Bq/m3 if it contains strontium, so it is easy to imagine how high
290,000Bq/m3 actually is!
Dousing it or injecting it with water is the only way of continuing to
cool the molten fuel, and this requires 400tons of water every day. Prof.
Koide also observed that *the leaks will carry on for as long as Tepco
keeps using water to cool the molten fuel, possibly for at least 40 more
years, or as long as it takes to decommission the plant.*
[image: Screenshot from 2013-04-20
01:33:12]<http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenshot-from
-2013-04-20-013312.png>
He also commented that although Tepco keeps making new tanks to combat the
problem, this solution would not work for ever, and urged the company again
to bring a tanker to store the water.
On top of the reported leakage problems, Prof. Koide reckons that there
must have been many cracks in many different places in the trenches and
pits and also in the concrete basements of the reactor and turbine
buildings, which must have been damaged by the M9 earthquake in March 2011.
He has kept on advising right from the beginning that Tepco should have
arranged to bring a tanker to store the contaminated water and should have
built a huge underground dam to stop it leaking into the environment.
However
Tepco has never followed his advice, citing *cost* as one of the reasons.
------------------------------------------
It looks like a never ending problem! One source said that these problems
will mean a greater chance of TEPCO having to dump untreated contaminated
water into the sea.
It looks like leaking has been always happening anyway, and it became an
apparent problem as the tanks and the pipes started to leak.
The underground tanks were meant to store low level of radioactive water
after being filtered through ALPS. But they have been using them to store
high level of radioactive water (including the *? (beta)* emitting
*nuclide*,
Strontium and the *? (alpha)*emitting *nuclide*, Plutonium).
Tepco has been trying to get ALPS to work for some time but it?s still in
its trial stage. ALPS is supposed to filter 62 radioactive nuclides.
However
Tepco seems not wanting to mention the *? (alpha) *emitting
*nuclide*isotopes.
*[Suspicion] Tepco stated they won?t analyze leaking water for the ?
**emitting
nuclide ?by mistake? Posted by Mochizuki* on April 15th, 2013
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/04/suspicion-tepco-stated-they-wont-analyze-
leaking-water-for-%CE%B1-nuclide-by-mistake/
According to Mr. Koichi Oyama, a member of city council of Minami
soma-city, Uranium fuel at Reactor 3 was consisting of 9% of
Plutonium(MOX). He shows a list of ionizing radiations that were
discharged from the crippled plant in the video below.(9m45s)
*An interview with Mr. Koichi Oyama from Minamisoma (Oct.2011) *
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BKA9it2CWE&w=420&h=315>
in the video* at 9m45s* Mr. Oyama shows *four* kinds of plutonium isotopes
that were observed. But in press conference held by Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology on Sep.30th, 2011 just* three* of
them were brought to light.
The last one was *plutonium241*, which had radiation dose about *50 times
as much as *the total of the other three(PU238, PU239 & PU240).
A Plutonium contamination map by MEXT published on 12/8/12.
http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/ja/contents/7000/6030/24/5600_0821.pdf
On Page7-10, is a list of the report on sixty one different locations in
Fukushima, Miyagi, Ibaragi and Tochigi prefectures spanning a radius of
80km of the crippled plant.
Extract...
*[...Prefecture - city/town/village - **?? latitude - ?? longitude -
PU241(lower limit of detection)-...]*
You can see that different lower limit of detection have been applied,
therefore..
*?No Detection? does not mean that there are no isotopes! On page11 only
the places they detected more than the lower limit of detection level were
marked. *
* *
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/gijyutu/017/shiryo/__icsFiles/afi
eldfile/2011/10/05/1311753_3.pdf
by MEXT on 30/9/11
Half life: PU238(88y) decays into PU234(245,000y), PU239(24,100y),
PU240(6,600y), PU241(13.2y) decays into Am241(=silver, 433y)
*Multi-nuclide Removal Equipment (ALPS) *
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/m120625_01-e.pdf
(Reference)
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/tarutaru22/e/a8f8b3e66c246ef3c3df8699b3a2ec45
http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/er/ReneN_P_P1.html
Posted by Mia June <http://www.blogger.com/profile/09253781947393884347>
*arclight2011 <http://nuclear-news.net/author/arclight2011/>* | April 20,
2013 at 1:09 am | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-c4u
Comment<http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/20/fukushima-report-plutonium-should
-be-in-the-leakage-%e6%b1%9a%e6%9f%93%e6%b0%b4%e5%95%8f%e9%a1%8c%e3%81%ab%e9
%96%a2%e3%81%99%e3%82%8b%e5%b0%8f%e5%87%ba%e5%85%88%e7%94%9f%e3%81%ae%e3%82%
b3%e3%83%a1/#respond>
Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/20/fukushima-report-plutonium-should-be-in-t
he-leakage-%e6%b1%9a%e6%9f%93%e6%b0%b4%e5%95%8f%e9%a1%8c%e3%81%ab%e9%96%a2%e
3%81%99%e3%82%8b%e5%b0%8f%e5%87%ba%e5%85%88%e7%94%9f%e3%81%ae%e3%82%b3%e3%83
%a1/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Emil <kerrembaev at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium
should be in the leakage! ?????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<1366427639.82639.YahooMailClassic at web125704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
?
Let's try to dissect it.
is it still below toxicity?
If so Plutonium is Plutonium. 241 or 238.
Never the less, 50 times compare to measurements uncertainties? Probably, is
above uncertanities.
?
?---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
.....The last one was *plutonium241*, which had radiation dose about *50
times as much as *the total of the other three(PU238, PU239 & PU240).....
*....The underground tanks were meant to store low level of radioactive
water after being filtered through ALPS. But they have been using them to
store high level of radioactive water (including ? (beta) emitting nuclide,
Strontium and ? (alpha)**emitting nuclide, Plutonium).....*
--- On Fri, 4/19/13, Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium should be
in the leakage! ????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Date: Friday, April 19, 2013, 9:40 PM
RADSAFERS - do any of you know how to change messages to plain text using
GMAIL.? I used to do that before posting to RADSAFE, which I do not think
does well with HTML.? Here is claim by "professor" in Japan about Plutonium
in the water that is leaking from Fukushima.? Is this claim valid?
Thanks.
Roger Helbig
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nuclear-news <comment-reply at wordpress.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Subject: [New post] Fukushima report: Plutonium should be in the leakage!
????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
**
? arclight2011 posted: "Op Ed by Mia (JANUK)
http://fukushimaappeal.blogspot.co.uk/ .....The last one was plutonium241,
which had radiation dose about 50 times as much as the total of the other
three(PU238, PU239 & PU240)..... ....The underground tanks were meant to
sto"
? ? ? New post on *nuclear-news*
<http://nuclear-news.net/author/arclight2011/>? Fukushima report: Plutonium
should be in the leakage!
?????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????<http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/20/fukushima-repor
t-plutonium-should-be-in-the-leakage-%e6%b1%9a%e6%9f%93%e6%b0%b4%e5%95%8f%e9
%a1%8c%e3%81%ab%e9%96%a2%e3%81%99%e3%82%8b%e5%b0%8f%e5%87%ba%e5%85%88%e7%94%
9f%e3%81%ae%e3%82%b3%e3%83%a1/>
by
arclight2011 <http://nuclear-news.net/author/arclight2011/>
Op Ed by Mia (JANUK)
http://fukushimaappeal.blogspot.co.uk/
.....The last one was *plutonium241*, which had radiation dose about *50
times as much as *the total of the other three(PU238, PU239 & PU240).....
*....The underground tanks were meant to store low level of radioactive
water after being filtered through ALPS.? But they have been using them to
store high level of radioactive water (including ? (beta) emitting nuclide,
Strontium and ? (alpha)**emitting nuclide, Plutonium).....*
<http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenshot-from-2013-04-
20-012703.png>
Thursday, 18 April 2013
A MBS radio interview with Prof. Koide: the repeated leaking problems at
Fukushima Crippled Plant. Additional report: Plutonium should be in the
leakage! ????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
(Source) http://hiroakikoide.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/mbs1179_2013apr12/
(Extract)
The most recent report on the leakage problem said that about 22 liters of
radioactive water had leaked from gaps between the pipes used to transfer
it from underground water storage tank into an another tank, and that the
level of radioactivity in the water was *290,000Bq/m3.? *
This is so high that the leakage is unsafe to approach.? Prof. Koide
commented that according to Japanese law, the safety level of radioactive
water that can be discharged into the environment is 0.05Bq/m3, or
0./03Bq/m3 if it contains strontium, so it is easy to imagine how high
290,000Bq/m3 actually is!
Dousing it or injecting it with water is the only way of continuing to
cool the molten fuel, and this requires 400tons of water every day.? Prof.
Koide also observed that *the leaks will carry on for as long as Tepco
keeps using water to cool the molten fuel, possibly for at least 40 more
years, or as long as it takes to decommission the plant.*
[image: Screenshot from 2013-04-20
01:33:12]<http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenshot-from
-2013-04-20-013312.png>
He also commented that although Tepco keeps making new tanks to combat the
problem, this solution would not work for ever, and urged the company again
to bring a tanker to store the water.
On top of the reported leakage problems, Prof. Koide reckons that there
must have been many cracks in many different places in the trenches and
pits and also in the concrete basements of the reactor and turbine
buildings, which must have been damaged by the M9 earthquake in March 2011.
He has kept on advising right from the beginning that Tepco should have
arranged to bring a tanker to store the contaminated water and should have
built a huge underground dam to stop it leaking into the environment.?
However
Tepco has never followed his advice, citing *cost* as one of the reasons.
------------------------------------------
It looks like a never ending problem!? One source said that these problems
will mean a greater chance of TEPCO having to dump untreated contaminated
water into the sea.
It looks like leaking has been always happening anyway, and it became an
apparent problem as the tanks and the pipes started to leak.
The underground tanks were meant to store low level of radioactive water
after being filtered through ALPS.? But they have been using them to store
high level of radioactive water (including the *? (beta)* emitting
*nuclide*,
Strontium and the *? (alpha)*emitting *nuclide*, Plutonium).
Tepco has been trying to get ALPS to work for some time but it?s still in
its trial stage.? ALPS is supposed to filter 62 radioactive nuclides.?
However
Tepco seems not wanting to mention the *? (alpha) *emitting
*nuclide*isotopes.
*[Suspicion] Tepco stated they won?t analyze leaking water for the ?
**emitting
nuclide ?by mistake? Posted by Mochizuki* on April 15th, 2013
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/04/suspicion-tepco-stated-they-wont-analyze-
leaking-water-for-%CE%B1-nuclide-by-mistake/
According to Mr. Koichi Oyama, a member of city council of Minami
soma-city, Uranium fuel at Reactor 3 was consisting of 9% of
Plutonium(MOX).? He shows a list of ionizing radiations that were
discharged from the crippled plant in the video below.(9m45s)
*An interview with Mr. Koichi Oyama from Minamisoma (Oct.2011) *
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BKA9it2CWE&w=420&h=315>
in the video* at 9m45s* Mr. Oyama shows *four* kinds of plutonium isotopes
that were observed.? But in press conference held by Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology on Sep.30th, 2011 just* three* of
them were brought to light.
The last one was *plutonium241*, which had radiation dose about *50 times
as much as *the total of the other three(PU238, PU239 & PU240).
A Plutonium contamination map by MEXT published on 12/8/12.
http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/ja/contents/7000/6030/24/5600_0821.pdf
On Page7-10, is a list of the report on sixty one different locations in
Fukushima, Miyagi, Ibaragi and Tochigi prefectures spanning a radius of
80km of the crippled plant.
Extract...
*[...Prefecture - city/town/village - **?? latitude - ?? longitude -
PU241(lower limit of detection)-...]*
You can see that different lower limit of detection have been applied,
therefore..
*?No Detection? does not mean that there are no isotopes!? On page11 only
the places they detected more than the lower limit of detection level were
marked. *
* *
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/gijyutu/017/shiryo/__icsFiles/afi
eldfile/2011/10/05/1311753_3.pdf
by MEXT on 30/9/11
Half life: PU238(88y) decays into PU234(245,000y), PU239(24,100y),
PU240(6,600y), PU241(13.2y) decays into Am241(=silver, 433y)
*Multi-nuclide Removal Equipment (ALPS)? *
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/m120625_01-e.pdf
(Reference)
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/tarutaru22/e/a8f8b3e66c246ef3c3df8699b3a2ec45
http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/er/ReneN_P_P1.html
Posted by? Mia June <http://www.blogger.com/profile/09253781947393884347>
? *arclight2011 <http://nuclear-news.net/author/arclight2011/>* | April 20,
2013 at 1:09 am | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-c4u
Comment<http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/20/fukushima-report-plutonium-should
-be-in-the-leakage-%e6%b1%9a%e6%9f%93%e6%b0%b4%e5%95%8f%e9%a1%8c%e3%81%ab%e9
%96%a2%e3%81%99%e3%82%8b%e5%b0%8f%e5%87%ba%e5%85%88%e7%94%9f%e3%81%ae%e3%82%
b3%e3%83%a1/#respond>
Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/20/fukushima-report-plutonium-should-be-in-t
he-leakage-%e6%b1%9a%e6%9f%93%e6%b0%b4%e5%95%8f%e9%a1%8c%e3%81%ab%e9%96%a2%e
3%81%99%e3%82%8b%e5%b0%8f%e5%87%ba%e5%85%88%e7%94%9f%e3%81%ae%e3%82%b3%e3%83
%a1/
? ? ? ???Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1270, Issue 1
****************************************
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list