Fukushima I Nuke Plant: Amount of Strontium in Leaked Water, per TEPCO

[kristopher]

Fukushima I Nuke Plant: Amount of Strontium in Leaked Water, per TEPCO

From TEPCO's December 6 press release page:

150 liters of this radioactive strontium-rich water leaked into the ocean from the evaporative condensation apparatus (part of the contaminated water treatment system), via the regular drains.

Density:
Strontium-89: 74,000 becquerels/cubic centimeter
Strontium-90: 100,000 becquerels/cubic centimeter

Total amount of radioactive materials (including cesium) that leaked into the ocean this time: 26,000,000,000 becquerels, or 26 billion becquerels.

TEPCO says it is 12% of "annual discharge target control of radioactive liquid waste" at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. That's one way of putting it. Another way is that it is only a fraction of what has already been discharged, to the tune of between 4,700 terabecquerels (TEPCO estimate so far, though the company was to recalculate by the end of November; did it?) and 27,100 terabecquerels (France's IRSN estimate), and these numbers do not include strontium.

In the press...

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-amount-of.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

2. (Photos) Initial reports stated that 45 tons of water had leaked...

...now they are saying only 150 liters got into the ocean.

Here are the photos of the structure and the leaks.











http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/tepcos-solution-to-leaking-strontium.html



This is the earlier blog posting of translated headlines.(includes links to all original sources)

Fukushima I Nuke Plant: 45 Tonnes of Treated Water May Have Leaked to the Ocean

While that may not much (45 tonnes), the water may contain extremely high levels of beta-nuclides like strontium; according to TEPCO, the density of strontium could be as high as 100,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter. That's 100 million becquerels per liter.

The leak was found at the post-Kurion/SARRY treatment facility that condenses the treated water (TEPCO calls it "evaporative condensation apparatus).

Here's from Yomiuri Shinbun (12/4/2011; since I'm at the terminal in the public library I cannot quote the original Japanese as it won't allow copying. Stupid. But Yomiuri Shinbun tends to retain the link for a long time):

TEPCO announced on December 4 that about 45 tonnes of contaminated water leaked at the water treatment facility at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and part of the water has leaked outside the facility....
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-45-tonnes-of.html



It appears that 45 tons leaked out but TEPCO claims that only .003% of the leak (from the cracks in their new building) made it into the ocean even though the drain is right at the site of the leak just ahead of where the individual in photo 4 above is walking.

[madokie]

11. Its going to be a long long time before this mess is cleaned up

It shouldn't have happened in the first place and wouldn't have if not for the need of some nations for having nuclear weapons as the USA and Russia were the first to push this technology to begin with and both felt they needed the weapons they could and did build with the waste product. Nuclear has its place and I think that is in the medical field but for boiling water to make steam to power our electrical power plants, not so much. When nuclear energy was foisted upon us it really wasn't ready for the big time as the lack of a safe, sane and viable way to handle the waste hadn't been found and 70 years later still hasn't been. Plus its way to easy to bring one down as what is happening in japan is clear for all to see. By the time the movement from the earthquake got to the plants the earthquake had already lost much of its energy. Evidence has shown that much of the damage was done long before the water engulfed the plant so it wasn't just the Tsunami that caused this nor the earthquake that registered a 9 on the richter scale 90 miles away under a half mile of ocean. Nope, too many chances for failures to be taking them. Plus the trouble is when they go bad they generally or at least have the potential of going really really bad in a worst way right now.

NO to NUCLEAR energy

Rec if I'm not too late

[PamW]

3. How much is 26 Billion Becquerels?

How much is 26 Billion Curies?? In order to make it easy, let's assume it is all Cesium-137.

We can then use Wolfram's Alpha scientific software to answer the question:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+26%2C000%2C000%2C000+Bq+of+Cesium-137

the answer is:

0.00809 gm or

8.09 milligrams

Although 26 Billion Bq "sounds" like a lot; the Bq is a really, really small unit.

PamW

[kristopher]

4. Unless you are a child/pregnant woman ingesting it as strontium in the fish you eat.

[PamW]

5. Food has ALWAYS been radioactive.

Kris ignores the fact that food has always been radioactive.

Many remember their science lesson from grade school about "Carbon-14 Dating".

Food has always been mildly radioactive courtesy of Mother Nature. The ancient
Egyptians were eating radioactive food and by measuring what is left of the
radioactivity, we know the age of the ancient Egyptians.

Yes - it is unfortunate that a power plant accident put more radioactivity into
the environment.

However, the extra radioactivity PALES in comparison to what Mother Nature
has already put in the environment. Try to keep some perspective.

PamW

[kristopher]

6. How much strontium is in your daily diet?

[PamW]

7. actually a couple milligrams

Actually a couple of milligrams. Courtesy of the Office of Radiation Protection of
the State of Washington:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs24sr90.htm

The average person takes in about 1.9 mg of Strontium-90 daily, and has
an average of about 320 mg of Strontium-90 in the body.

Much bigger is the radiation dose due to naturally occurring Potassium-40.

The puny milligram amounts that you are complaining about need to be kept
in perspective compared with what we get from Mother Nature.

Even with nuclear testing, TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, the greatest
source of radioactivity in our diets is still Mother Nature by FAR

With regard to Fukushima, a good perspective is given by the eminent
radiation epidemiologist, Dr. John Boice, in his testimony to Congress on
Fukushima:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens is negligible to nonexistent


PamW

[kristopher]

8. If you seek to inform why do you hide behind the mass instead of using more appropriate metrics?

Please discuss the deposition density of the contaminants around the various coastal marine food sources exploited by the Japanese and the process of bio-accumulation.

Exposure to Strontium-90

How does strontium-90 get into the environment?
Strontium-90 was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 1960s in fall out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It has been slowly decaying since then so that current levels from these tests are very low.

Strontium-90 is also found in waste from nuclear reactors. It is considered one of the more hazardous constituents of nuclear wastes. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant also introduced a large amount of Sr-90 into the environment. A large part of the Sr-90 was deposited in the Soviet Republics. The rest was dispersed as fallout over Northern Europe and worldwide. No significant amount of stronium-90 reached the U.S.


How does strontium-90 change in the environment?
As strontium-90 decays, it releases radiation and forms yttrium-90 (Y-90), which in turn decays to stable zirconium. The half-life of Sr-90 is 29.1 years, and that of Yttrium-90 is 64 hours. Sr-90 emits moderate energy beta particles, and Y-90 emits very strong (energetic) beta particles. Strontium-90 can form many chemical compounds, including halides, oxides, and sulfides, and moves easily through the environment.

How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.

How does strontium-90 get into the body?
People may inhale trace amounts of strontium-90 as a contaminant in dust. But, swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake.

What does strontium-90 do once it gets into the body?
When people ingest Sr-90, about 70-80% of it passes through the body. Virtually all of the remaining 20-30% that is absorbed is deposited in the bone. About 1% is distributed among the blood volume, extracellular fluid, soft tissue, and surface of the bone, where it may stay and decay or be excreted.




Health Effects of Strontium-90

How can strontium-90 affect people's health?
Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia. Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions.

...EPA uses its Safe Drinking Water Act authority to establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for beta emitters, such as strontium-90, in public drinking water. The MCL for beta emitters is 4 millirem per year or 8 picoCuries per liter of water.

http://epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html


http://www.unitconversion.org/radiation-activity/becquerels-to-picocuries-conversion.html

[PamW]

9. Perspective

If you seek to inform why do you hide behind the mass instead of using more appropriate metrics?
======================================

I seek to show the people that we are talking about a very small amount of material.

Once again you don't know the science. The activity in Becquerels is NOT the appropriate unit.

The appropriate quantity would be the dose measured in Sieverts.

However, most people don't have a good feeling or handle on what Becquerels or Sieverts are.
However, they do know mass in grams.

You are presenting these billions of Becquerels as if we are talking about a large amount of material.
The casual reader would think that we are talking about tons of material.

However, we are talking about milligrams. Just want people to know the magnitude of the material
we are discussing in a unit they understand.

PamW

[NickB79]

10. "The activity in Becquerels is NOT the appropriate unit."

This seems to be a pattern as of late here on E/E.

[caraher]

29. It is and it isn't appropriate

If you're interested in human health effects than sure, the best unit would be an exposure unit like rem or Sieverts. But activity in Bq or Curies, coupled with knowing the isotope decaying and something about the biology of expected exposures, provides enough information to estimate exposure (and in any case, that would be the raw data from which internal exposure would be calculated anyway).

Now what's certainly true is that as a raw number, without any information about what is decaying, activity in Bq isn't terribly useful. If someone takes in a few GBq of activity and it's in the form of O-15 (2-minute half life positron emitter) that was just another routine scan when I was doing PET; but if they ingest a few GBq of Cs-137 we now have a very serious health problem!

[kristopher]

12. No Pam, you seek to falsely represent the danger associated with the contaminants from the meltdowns

I asked you "Please discuss the deposition density of the contaminants around the various coastal marine food sources exploited by the Japanese and the process of bio-accumulation.


Here again is the EPA contradicting your assertions.

Exposure to Strontium-90

Strontium-90 is also found in waste from nuclear reactors. It is considered one of the more hazardous constituents of nuclear wastes. ...


How does strontium-90 change in the environment?
...The half-life of Sr-90 is 29.1 years, and that of Yttrium-90 is 64 hours. Sr-90 emits moderate energy beta particles, and Y-90 emits very strong (energetic) beta particles.
Strontium-90 can form many chemical compounds, including halides, oxides, and sulfides, and moves easily through the environment.

How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.

How does strontium-90 get into the body?
People may inhale trace amounts of strontium-90 as a contaminant in dust. But, swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake.

...How can strontium-90 affect people's health?
Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia. Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions.

...EPA uses its Safe Drinking Water Act authority to establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for beta emitters, such as strontium-90, in public drinking water. The MCL for beta emitters is 4 millirem per year or 8 picoCuries per liter of water.

http://epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html

Calculator for converting becquerels to picocuries
http://www.unitconversion.org/radiation-activity/becquerels-to-picocuries-conversion.html

[PamW]

15. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

you seek to falsely represent the danger associated with the contaminants from the meltdowns
========================================================================

WRONG - I am seeking a sound perspective based on good science and not unfouned alarmism.

For a good scientific perspective, read the testimony of Dr. John Boice, an eminent
radiation epidemiologist, one of the tops in the field, in his testimony to Congress:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens is negligible to nonexistent

PamW

[PamW]

16. How come Kris can NEVER get the science correct?

...The half-life of Sr-90 is 29.1 years, and that of Yttrium-90 is 64 hours. Sr-90 emits moderate energy beta particles, and Y-90 emits very strong (energetic) beta particles.
====================================================

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90

Sr-90 undergoes β− decay with decay energy of 0.546 MeV distributed to an electron, an anti-neutrino, and the yttrium isotope Y-90, which in turn undergoes β− decay with half-life of 64 hours and decay energy 2.28 MeV distributed to an electron, an anti-neutrino, and 90Zr (zirconium), which is stable.


Kris exaggerates the Y-90 by saying it is "very strong(energetic)". We see from the above that the energy is only 2.28 MeV which is about a factor of 4 larger
than the primary Sr-90 beta energy of 0.546 MeV.

That 2.28 MeV is NOT "very strong". There are reactions that yield far greater energies that that. Fission gives about 200 MeV.
So your "very strong" is a factor of about one hundred down from fission.

PamW

[kristopher]

17. That information is directly from the EPA page Pam, the link is right there.

[FBaggins]

18. Quoting something doesn't mean that you understand it, Kris.

You prove that on pretty much a daily basis.

[PamW]

23. They know as little as you do.

That just means that they know as little as you do.

Do you ever think to check out the stuff you post or are you just a parrot?

Parrot Poly Kris posts Internet garbage without checking the validity, and then
disavows responsibility by saying someone else wrote it.

If you knew any science, you'd catch some of the "crap" that one finds on web sites.

PamW

[kristopher]

24. Right, we remember what you think of enviromentally oriented people...

PamW wrote to Kris:

...You don't know the science and don't have the mental horsepower to learn the science. I'd have a better chance teaching quantum mechanics to my cat than to attempt to teach you grade school science. The mental horsepower is just not there.

I've taken on the real anti-nuke and renewable powerhouses. We're beating back the ones at DOE. Thanks to the Solyndra scandal we got DOE's chief "greenie" Jonathan Silver to resign. If the Congress keeps the pressure on, then we have a shot at clearing out the "renewables rats" that have infested DOE.

If we can clear them out, we can shutdown the subsidies to the so-called "greenie" "solutions". We won't be wasting any more of the taxpayers money on "greenie" solutions that are going nowhere.

If we can kill their subsidies for a year or two, they'll die on the vine....

Who is "we" in that rant, Pam?

[PamW]

25. Good scientists - that's who!!!

Who is "we" in that rant, Pam?
======================================

The "we" is good scientists; that's who.

For too long, we've had the so-called "greenies" running energy policy in the USA.
They are charlatans that can convince the political leaders to run energy polity their way.

The politicians don't like it when scientists tell them the truth; that there are hard choices to be made,
and that you can't get unlimited free energy, or that energy sources have limits. They don't like that.

However, they buy all the crap that the "greenies" tell them. However, in reality, the "greenie" vision
won't work, and won't supply the demand.

When the scientists told DOE why Solyndra wasn't worth the gamble; the politicians drank the Kool-Aid from
the "greenies". Solyndra failed as the scientists predicted. DOE's chief "greenie" Kool-Aid drinker had
to resign.

The better educated in the sciences the decision makers are; the better. DOE has all these fine scientists
at the national labs, but then ignores their advice in favor of the "greenie" vision.

PamW

[kristopher]

27. There was only one group of people that celebrated Silver's resignation - Republicans.

[jpak]

38. Nice RW rant

:rofl:

[Bob Wallace]

28. Strontium-90, don't blame Mother Nature....

Strontium-90 is not a naturally occurring isotope.

Strontium-90 os a by-product of nuclear fission found in nuclear fallout. And nuclear reactor failures.

If the average person is in-taking 1.9mg of Strontium-90 per day I think it would be hard to argue that it's a good thing. And it certainly isn't a natural thing. Mommy N did not do this to us.

Strontium 90 presents a health problem since it substitutes for calcium in bone, preventing expulsion from the body. Exposure can lead to bone cancer, cancer of nearby tissue and leukemia.

The strontium-90 that we are exposed to today is left over from above ground nuclear tests and Chernobyl. Plus some more from Fukushima.

Nuclear power. The gift that keeps on giving....

[jpak]

36. We would all be dead of bone cancer if we really ingested 1.9 mg of 90-Sr per day

PPam doesn't understand what she is saying

yup

[jpak]

35. Hey Pam - do you know the difference between elemental Sr and 90-Sr?

apparently not

Stable isotopes of naturally occurring Sr exist in infinitely greater quantities in the environment than 90-Sr.

Biogeochemistry FAIL

as in really really stupid FAIL

did I say FAIL????

yup

:rofl:

[jpak]

13. Let's assume one can read - its fucking Sr isotopes we're about - not Cs

and I defy any nuclear advocate to ingest 8 mg of 137-Cs

yup

[PamW]

14. We are concerned with BOTH Sr and Cs

and I defy any nuclear advocate to ingest 8 mg of 137-Cs
========================================================

Courtesy of the Office of Radiation Protection of
the State of Washington:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs24sr90.htm

we see that the average daily intake of Strontium-90 for the average
person is 1.9 mg.

So we ALL injest about 8 mg of Sr-90 every 4 days.

As for Cesium-137, again:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs25cs137.htm

we all have 1.5 mg of Cesium-137 in our bodies on average.

Why don't you learn something about how much radioactivity is
actually in the environment that we live with and evolved in?

PamW

[kristopher]

19. Strontium and cesium are both dangerous

Your citation from washington state is little more than an incomplete copy from the EPA's site.


State of Washington (site of what nuclear weapon's facility?)

Where Does Strontium-90 Come From and Where is It Found?

Stronium-90 is an artificially produced fission by-product resulting from nuclear bombs, above-ground nuclear testing, nuclear reactor operations and nuclear accidents. Strontium-90 is found in the liquid waste stream of nuclear reactors, but is not released to the environment during normal nuclear reactor operations. It is not as likely as cesium-137 to be released as a part of a nuclear reactor accident because it is much less volatile, but it is probably the most dangerous components of the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon.

In addition to the great destructive power of fission bombs, highly radioactive fission byproducts are released into the atmosphere and spread over a wide area. Radioactive fallout in the form of fine particulate matter is particularly dangerous because it can be ingested, bringing beta emitters into the body where they can do much more damage. One of the most serious components of the fallout from weapons testing in the deserts of Arizona and Utah was strontium-90.

As a result of atmospheric nuclear tests, strontium-90 is dispersed in varying concentrations throughout the earth's atmosphere and soil.

Is Strontium-90 Hazardous?

The main pathways of exposure are ingestion and inhalation. The principal ecological pathway is grass→ cow→ milk→ human food chain. The short-lived decay product 90Y, Beta-decays with an average energy of 0.93 MeV (2.28 Mev max.) that contributes to the internal dose of 90Sr.

Because of strontium-90’s chemical similarity to calcium, it is readily taken up in the tissues of plants and animals; it may enter the human food supply, mainly in milk. It is particularly dangerous for growing children as it is easily deposited in the bones and is believed to induce bone cancer and leukemia.

The EPA is more direct:

..How can strontium-90 affect people's health?
Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia. Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions.

...EPA uses its Safe Drinking Water Act authority to establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for beta emitters, such as strontium-90, in public drinking water. The MCL for beta emitters is 4 millirem per year or 8 picoCuries per liter of water.

http://epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html

8 picocuries per liter of water....

Now, for the third time:
"Please discuss the deposition density of the contaminants around the various coastal marine food sources exploited by the Japanese and the process of bio-accumulation."

[FBaggins]

20. Your citation is also incomplete

"Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions."

"Please discuss the deposition density of the contaminants around the various coastal marine food sources exploited by the Japanese and the process of bio-accumulation."

No need to play games with it. Why not discuss the total amount estimated to have leaked out this past week and compare it to a person's normal exposure? There's no need to imagine dillution millions upon millions of times over and then bio-accumulation many times that then-lower amount. Take the ENTIRE release from this leak and make the comparison.

[kristopher]

21. I don't know what you're talking about, that is included in the quote I provided.

So my "citation" is not lacking as you assert.

Second, it isn't a game to consider the actual path that these poisons take as they enter the food supply.

From an NHK (Japan's PBS) ocean survey:

- Radiation on the ship: 0.14 microsievert/hr, in the water 0.025 microsievert/hour. The number increases as it gets deeper. On the rock 1 microsievert/hour. Maximum number at the bottom of the ocean 1.74 microsievert/hour. Fine-grained sands at the bottom. The radiation level at the bottom of the ocean was max 70 times that of the ocean surface. (from this tweet)

- Bioconcentration of radioactive cesium seen 10 to 20 kilometers off the coast of Fukushima. At the bottom of the ocean, 200 to 300 becquerels/kg . The radiation level at the bottom 1 microsievert/hour. The area is an abalone fishery. 40 becquerels/kg in the sea water, 420 becquerels/kg in arame (type of seaweed that abalones eat), 2000 becquerels/kg in abalone. 50-fold concentration .

- Radioactive silver (Ag-110m) in abalone 410 becquerels/kg, in abalone liver 1800 becquerels/kg. (these two points from this tweet)

- Effect of ocean currents is not what you may think. The Kuroshio Current, which comes up from south, may generally prevent the contaminated water from Fukushima from spreading further south. But the coastal current behaves totally different, and radioactive cesium has actually being transported south from Fukushima along the coast. In addition, as rivers reach the Pacific Ocean and discharge water, that creates their own micro-currents. As it turned out, a location off Ibaraki (Kajima) measured lower in radiation of the ocean soil than a location off Chiba (Inubozaki), which is much further south from Fukushima than the Ibaraki location. (from this and this tweets)

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/radioactive-ocean-nhk-survey-shows-174.html


Now, yet again let's look at what the EPA says about strontium:

How does strontium-90 change in the environment?
As strontium-90 decays, it releases radiation and forms yttrium-90 (Y-90), which in turn decays to stable zirconium. The half-life of Sr-90 is 29.1 years, and that of Yttrium-90 is 64 hours. Sr-90 emits moderate energy beta particles, and Y-90 emits very strong (energetic) beta particles. Strontium-90 can form many chemical compounds, including halides, oxides, and sulfides, and moves easily through the environment.

How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.

How does strontium-90 get into the body?
People may inhale trace amounts of strontium-90 as a contaminant in dust. But, swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake.

What does strontium-90 do once it gets into the body?
When people ingest Sr-90, about 70-80% of it passes through the body. Virtually all of the remaining 20-30% that is absorbed is deposited in the bone. About 1% is distributed among the blood volume, extracellular fluid, soft tissue, and surface of the bone, where it may stay and decay or be excreted.

How can strontium-90 affect people's health?
Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia. Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions.

Now I don't want to hear your crap about spam since you are obviously over-eager to accuse me of omitting something.

[FBaggins]

22. Bad grammar in your subject line.

That first comma should be a period. :)

And again... there's a difference between posting something and understanding it. They're clearly telling you that the amount matters... and you keep citing it as if it demonstrates something that it, in fact, refutes.

[PamW]

26. Do you think the State of Washington is biased??

State of Washington (site of what nuclear weapon's facility?)
===============================================================

Do you think the State of Washington is biased?

That link is to the website of an agency of the Washington State government.

Yes, Washington is the host of the former nuclear weapons facility, Hanford.

As you know, or I guess probably don't; the USA no longer makes nuclear weapons material
at Hanford. It also doesn't make nuclear weapons material at the other production complex,
Savannah River.

In fact, the USA no longer produces highly enriched uranium for weapons, and it no longer
produces "weapon grade" plutonium for nuclear weapons either. The USA has all the plutonium
that is needed for the USA strategic weaponry.

The only material still produced is Tritium, because it's radioactive and goes away by itself
if you don't keep replenishing it.

So Hanford is no longer essential to the nuclear weapons enterprise, and there's no reason for
anyone to bias any studies to support Hanford.

As far as your request; I agree with FBaggins. We don't need to discuss the bio-accumulation,
because natural radioisotopes also bio-accumulate.

For perspective, we can compare natural and man-made contributions to one's radiation exposure.
Since both natural and man-made bio-accumulate; we can deal directly with the source term.

However, there are only a few "generations" of predator-prey combinations that lead to bio-accumulation.
In contrast, the dilution of Fukushima effluent by the great expanse of ocean is much more powerful
than the relatively limited bio-accumulation factors.

PamW

[caraher]

31. Here's where a little math literacy on all sides goes a long way

"Your citation from washington state is little more than an incomplete copy from the EPA's site.

State of Washington (site of what nuclear weapon's facility?)"

In this case, PamW's estimates of how much Sr-90 and Cs-137 we have in our bodies (thanks exclusively to nuclear testing and reactor accidents) were off by many, many orders of magnitude because she grabbed a number off those fact sheets that was for the element, not the isotope. What's sad is that such a blunder isn't that hard to catch if you focus more on the numbers than on accusations of bias, hidden agendas, etc.

The tragedy is that we face a genuine climate crisis that everyone flinging poo at one another here (I assume) agrees is the result of burning fossil fuels. And we spend so much energy on religious wars over whose low-carbon energy source is unacceptable. Now don't get me wrong - it's important to look closely at the safety, economic and environmental pros and cons of all the alternatives to fossil fuels. But to me, this thread is Exhibit A of how those debates seem to be driven less by the facts than by the desire to score cheap debating points.

Personally, I think the way forward in the *near term* necessarily involves accepting that some low/zero-carbon energy sources that are less desirable will have to be in play over the next few decades if only because we don't have much time. I'm far less worried that we'll waste some money and effort on a sub-optimal solution than I am that the total investment in all efforts to "de-carbonize" our economies are lilliputian compared to the need to get off fossil fuels quickly.

[Bob Wallace]

32. I agree with you. In general....

But I think it important we get fossil fuels off our grid as quickly as possible. Nuclear is not the quick route.

And nuclear is not the cheap route. We may be largely dependent on the charity of large business to get us off fossil fuels. And, let's remember, large business doesn't do charity very well. So what we are really dependent on is utility companies opting for the lowest cost sources of power as they are forced to give up coal.

[kristopher]

33. You were doing so well and then you had to go for the fallacy of false equivalence.

It wasn't a blunder! It was a deliberate misrepresentation on PamW's part. It is a consistent pattern of behavior where she routinely makes claims sourced to authoritative sources that are not supported by the content of the references. By the sheer volume it is a tactic designed to cause those she doesn't like to either spend a huge amount of time proving her wrong while enduring her her equally prolific personal attacks, or, simply assuming she is misrepresenting the facts and pushing back on the point of her overall credibility - which is totally lacking.

Exapmles:
She repeatedly claims the National Academy of Sciences says "renewables should be only about 15% to 20% of our electrical capacity. For the remaining 80% to 85%, we need energy sources that are dependable and not dependent on the whims of Mother Nature."

Their report says no such thing. Here is the actual statement, This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percent or more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.
-Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments - NAS

As I said, she repeats her assertion in spite of knowing what the actual report says.

Here is another, particularly egregious, example where she blatantly misrepresents the conclusion of the California Energy Commission by taking a sentence out of context, claiming they "released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x296568


How about misrepresenting Carter's actions?
1a. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=282854&mesg_id=283671
1b. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x287995


Her endless stream of falsehoods would keep 2 people employed full time fact-checking her, and then it would still be a wasted effort since she refuses to acknowledge the correction and simply continues to make the same claims.

Take this thread and fact check her claims. If you quit before you're done I'll understand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x282854#283143

I really was proud of you when you corrected her but given her method of argumentation you are way off target trying to make the descent into the gutter an equal opportunity initiative - it is a deliberate strategy on the part of a couple of pronuclear posters trying to obstruct discussion. Maybe the changes in DU3 will help diminish the effectiveness of the practice.

BTW your source for the information on strontium, while somewhat more comprehensive, was very similar to what was available at the EPA site I provided.

[PamW]

44. NOT THAT REPORT!!!

She repeatedly claims the National Academy of Sciences says "renewables should be only about 15% to 20% of our electrical capacity. For the remaining 80% to 85%, we need energy sources that are dependable and not dependent on the whims of Mother Nature."

Their report says no such thing. Here is the actual statement,
=============================================================

For the readers, the National Academy of Sciences has conducted MANY, MANY studies of the USA's energy generation proposals.
Kris is quoting from a study that he has. I've told him repeatedly which report I am citing. However, for some reason, he can't seem
to find that report. So he presents above that I'm misquoting the report he likes. Then states I don't know what the report says.

Kris - why do make up crap like this? Why can't you tell the good readers that you can't find the report I'm quoting instead of fabricating that I'm misquoting?

Kris is also misrepresenting the discussion of the California Energy Commission report. I clearly stated that renewables due to their intermittent nature
have to be "firmed" with "dispatchable" energy sources such as fossil, nuclear, hydro, as well as energy storage such as pumped hydro.
The California Energy Commission Study authors concluded the same; and I quoted the line that the authors highlighted in the report, and gave the link to the full report.

One of Kris's "tricks" is that even when you give the link for the reader to read the full text, if you don't quote the part that Kris likes, then Kris accuses you
of taking things out of context, or trying to hide something. For Heaven's sake, Kris; I gave the LINK. How can I be hiding something if I give the link?

I don't think I'm misrepresenting Carter at all. The quote from PBS Frontline clearly states that Carter's vision was the there would be a worldwide cessation of
spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. I merely added that Carter's vision did not come to pass. The rest of the world continued to reprocess, and still do today -
namely France, Great Britain, Japan have their own reprocessing facilities, and other countries like Sweden buy reprocessing services from the countries that have
the facilities. Where is the mis characterization there?

The next "complaint" is about my saying the use of the term "neutron bomb" is a misnomer. It is a misnomer - because they weren't bombs. In fact the DOE numbers
bombs with a "B" like the B-83 or the B-61. There have been 3 variants of "neutron bomb"; the W66, the W-70, and the W-79. (See they all have "W" numbers, not "B")
The W66 completely predated Carter. It went into the stockpile in 1975, and was removed in 1976:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

The W66 warhead, for the anti-ICBM Sprint missile system, was deployed in 1975 and retired the next year, along with the missile system


The inventor of the "neutron bomb", LLNL's Sam Cohen says that the W-70 was NOT a neutron bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W70

The inventor of the neutron bomb, Samuel Cohen, has criticized the description of the W70 as a "neutron bomb":

the W-70 ... is not even remotely a "neutron bomb." Instead of being the type of weapon that, in the popular mind, "kills people and spares buildings" it is one that both kills and physically destroys on a massive scale. The W-70 is not a discriminate weapon, like the neutron bomb — which, incidentally, should be considered a weapon that "kills enemy personnel while sparing the physical fabric of the attacked populace, and even the populace too.


So that leaves the W-79 which I posted a picture of, and anyone can see it is an artillery shell, and not a bomb.

So what the HELL is Kris's beef with that post???

The last one I guess Kris is upset about is because he didn't know that granite was radioactive and the radioactivity comes from uranium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite

Granite is a natural source of radiation, like most natural stones. However, some granites have been reported to have higher radioactivity thereby raising some concerns about their safety.

Some granites contain around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium....


My "errors" were from hastily typing a post as I was rushing out. I didn't proofread and substituted Curies for Becquerels, etc.

However, Kris is attempting to portray this as some large propaganda campaign.

NO - it's a campaign to have real science in the discussion.

What changes are there in DU3? Does it impose some type of "censorship"?

Please inform us what you mean.

PamW

[jpak]

45. The NEI sucks

yup

[PamW]

40. Mea Culpa

In this case, PamW's estimates of how much Sr-90 and Cs-137 we have in our bodies (thanks exclusively to nuclear testing and reactor accidents) were off by many, many orders of magnitude because she grabbed a number off those fact sheets that was for the element, not the isotope. What's sad is that such a blunder isn't that hard to catch if you focus more on the numbers than on accusations of bias, hidden agendas, etc.
=============================================

Yes - I did post that one rather hurriedly as I was about to go out the door.

The page was supposed to be about Sr-90; but they did give the elemental injestion number, and I didn't
check it as I would normally do.

PamW

[caraher]

30. Not true

The 1.9 mg number on your Sr fact sheet refers to *all* isotopes of strontium, not just Sr-90. Ditto for the cesium number.

You can tell this by working backwards from the specific activity of each isotope. You should find that 2 mg Sr-90 would have an activity of about 10 GBq. Similarly, using your previous figures for Cs-137, 1.5 mg of that isotope works out to about (1.5/8) * 26 GBq = 5 GBq. I'm sure you know we aren't all walking around that "hot!"

Personally, I like using http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evs.anl.gov%2Fpub%2Fdoc%2FANL_ContaminantFactSheets_All_070418.pdf&ei=oYDhTvOGNoSzgwfUxKiGBg&usg=AFQjCNGI1TNLe9W2agZ5DQ9RdigEjhlomg">Argonne National Lab's fact sheets for doing these sorts of calculations, though Wolfram Alpha worked pretty well too. ANL's sheets also give good cancer mortality risk factors for internal exposure.

[jpak]

34. WRONG that's 1.9 mg of elemental Sr - not 90-Sr

WRRRROOONNGGGGGG!!!!!!!111

unbelievable ignorance

yup

[jpak]

37. WRONG WRONG WRONG PPAm - Curies and Becquerels are not the same units

A Bq is 1 disintegration per second

A Ci is 3.7 x 10^10 disintegrations per second or 37 GB

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

the technical acumen of the pro-nuclear argument is at its nadir

yup

[PamW]

39. Never said they were

I never said they were the same units. I said they are units for the same quantity.

Feet and inches are not the same units. However, feet and inches are units of the same quantity - length.

PamW

[jpak]

41. technical acumen = fail

yup

[jpak]

42. Yes you did - I can ((((((****READ****)))))))

fuck the NEI

yup

[PamW]

43. Yes - you can read - but you can't interpret

Yes you did - I can ((((((****READ****)))))))
================================================

Again - this is an OBVIOUS typographical error.

I meant Becquerels of course, and I typed Curies.

I've used Curies for decades and old habits die hard.

But the OBVIOUS typo doesn't mean I'm saying Becquerels and Curies are the same unit.

GEESH - anything to make a point - no matter how trite.

PamW

[jpak]

46. Yeah - Every time I type Curie it comes ot Becquerels

The lameness

it burns

:rofl: