At least 25% of U.S. nuclear power plants leaking radioactive material, says AP

According to this Associated Press article, 27 of the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States are leaking radioactive chemicals.

Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants.

The leaks — many from deteriorating underground pipes — come as the nuclear industry is seeking and obtaining federal license renewals, casting itself as a clean-green alternative to power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fission, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.

I am a huge fan of nuclear power, and I hate alarmist threads so I am going to balance this out a bit:

So is it as bad as it sounds? That's up for debate.

Information on the Tritium page of Idaho State University's physics department, there is no risk via skin contact because it can't get past the outer layer of dead skin cells--which is why Tritium is used in so many products. But, as the webpage states:

"...the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion. In addition, due to the relatively long half life and short biological half life, an intake of tritium must be in large amounts to pose a significant health risk. Although, in keeping with the philosophy of ALARA [As Low As Reasonably Achievable], internal exposure should be kept as low as practical."

...[R]adiation biologist Jacqueline Williams, who works at University of Rochester Medical Center, told the AP the risk is minimal:

"Somebody would have to be drinking a lot of water and it would have to be really concentrated in there for it to do any harm at all."

Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes also told the AP there may be little cause for concern:

These are industrial facilities, and any industrial facility from time to time is going to have equipment problems or challenges. Not every operational issue rises to the level of being a safety issue.

Source

Although, it should be noted that the National Academy of Sciences says that any ionizing radiation at all increases the risk of cancer.

So, lay off the tap water if you live near a nuclear power plant I guess. If this was really dangerous a higher incident rate of cancer would be evident in the areas around the nuclear plants. If there really is no detectable harm, these leaks are not harmful - by definition. But, we don't know how they are effecting the environment. When dealing with something as powerful as radiation, it is import to keep a close eye on all potential hazards, to demand the strictest possible operating standards, and to keep the public informed by proliferating scientific, unbiased information.

There is a lot of good that can come from nuclear power, and we have to work very hard to maximize that while minimizing the risks.

Thoughts?

[edit on 4-2-2010 by OnceReturned]

[edit on 4-2-2010 by OnceReturned]

This comes as no surprise to me.

I say we scrap them all and extract from the "Dark" Energy. I know someone who has a design (based on a crop circle) but no money to build the prototype.

The "Dark" Energy is negentropic, infinite, and runs "cold."

Seriously. Let's get rid of these death trap dinosaurs.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Hmm... Dark energy has never been directly detected and is not well understood. There are no known means of harnessing it. No legitimate scientist has ever suggested that it is infinite, and it doesn't "run" in any way, least of all cold. No novel machines have been built based on crop circle designs.

If someone tells you they have a design for something, especially something that would revolutionize the world, it is worth looking into. Unfortunately, as soon as one looks into the idea that your aquatntance has proposed it becomes obvious that such a device is totally unrealistic at this time.

I do appreciate your input, and if you know more about this proposed device, I would like to hear it. I'm not being argumentitive for argument's sake, but based on everything I believe about the world I have to reject your proposition. What makes you believe your aquaintance? It must be more than that they just claimed to have such a design.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by OnceReturned]

[edit on 4-2-2010 by OnceReturned]

Nuclear power is a great alternative to fossil fuel usage in my oppinion. But harnessing Dark Energy would require a substantial sum of time and money to develop. I am not saying this shouldn't be pursued but at this current time, we need energy and nuclear power can provide that.

Whose is the idiot that designed a nuclear power plant with underground pipes.

Underground pipes would not be allowed these days because you can not inspect them without digging them up.

Last I heard, it was 70,000 "picocuries", per liter. Of course, they don't point out that a picocurie is 1*10^-12 curies meaning the amount in the water was 0.00000007 curies per liter. And the "safe" limit is a completely arbitrary number. By my math, your body is about twice as radioactive as 1 liter of this water (1.3706e-7/7.0000e-8=2) in terms of disintegrations per second, and furthermore tritiated water passes out of the body relatively quickly if you drink a fair amount of water.

The reactors are hardly aging either. The longer operating them the more experience is gained, and the safer they become. Most have perhaps another 25 years in them.

Whose is the idiot that designed a nuclear power plant with underground pipes.

My understanding is that the plants were originally built with underground pipes, that can be difficult to access. Many of these pipes have since been replaced in function by above-ground pipes, but leaving some parts of underground pipes unaccessible. Water can also leak through some concrete buildings. Obviously any leaks should be stopped ASAP, but is a relatively small amount of tritiated water a health risk? No, unless people are drinking it in concentrated amounts all the time. Last I heard it had not reached any water supplies, and even if it did it would become even more diluted. Also, it's great that new designs do not have any pipes set in concrete.

Very stupid if the utility misled the public though, even if it was an honest mistake! It gives themselves a bad reputation, no matter how small the problem is in reality. I can understand why he was fired. I think it's unlikely the license will be extended, but then again, closing the plant would be a very bad mistake for Vermont, IMO. Let's for forget that is has passed inspections with "high marks", and supplies a huge portion of Vermont's generating capacity. What will replace it? GAS I presume?

Thanks.

[edit on 5/2/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Post a vid or it didn't happen

OP, I am with you on the alarmist movement. Even if there are a few leaks, it's still cleaner than fossil fuels.

3MI & Chern. are still a very strong memory with most....

heres a question ,

name one that isnt leaking


answer

you cant

reply to post by zerbot565


Well, that's a bit deceptive. Only 27 have been shown to be leaking. There is no reason to believe that any of the other 77 are.

Ok. I did the math. "Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) in soft tissue is 64 mrem per millicurie (mCi) ingested." If we assume the person solely drinks (182.5 gallons) this slightly "radioactive" water for a year, then they will be exposed to about 3.11 millirem of radiation. About one-third the radiation from a Chest CT scan, and almost half the of one coast-to-coast flight. Of course, in reality, nobody is drinking the "radioactive" water, and steps are being taken to find and prevent the leak from continuing into the future. "The average person in the United States receives about 360 mrem every year whole body equivalent dose".


Source.

Slow news day? You decide.

(And note that tritiated water is chemically exactly the same as water, so it's not toxic or anything.)

3MI & Chern. are still a very strong memory with most....

Given TMI never hurt anyone, and the nuclear energy industry has never killed a single member of the public in the US in over 40 years, it's somewhat baffling, in my opinion.

[edit on 5/2/2010 by C0bzz]

Coal being a lot more radioactive. along with coals mercury and other toxics makes this sound like BS.
Hell i have more Tritium on the Firearms night sights on my guns then you would get drinking water from around one of these nuke plants in a life time.
www.opticsplanet.net...

www.scientificamerican.com...

This story sound like propaganda by the anti nuclear people.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Hmm... Dark energy has never been directly detected and is not well understood. There are no known means of harnessing it. No legitimate scientist has ever suggested that it is infinite, and it doesn't "run" in any way, least of all cold. No novel machines have been built based on crop circle designs.

If someone tells you they have a design for something, especially something that would revolutionize the world, it is worth looking into. Unfortunately, as soon as one looks into the idea that your aquatntance has proposed it becomes obvious that such a device is totally unrealistic at this time.

I do appreciate your input, and if you know more about this proposed device, I would like to hear it. I'm not being argumentitive for argument's sake, but based on everything I believe about the world I have to reject your proposition. What makes you believe your aquaintance? It must be more than that they just claimed to have such a design.

In fact, scientists like Tesla and Reich have detected and used such energy. But we cannot show this directly because it has been suppressed.

And it turns out that a very close friend has designed a device - in part based on the "Tesla Crop Glyph," that he will build when he has money. It will draw the energy from the plenum (Zero Point Energy - which HAS been detected, and is one manifestation of "Dark" Energy) and will be able to do so from any point in the Universe.

As to "legitimate" scientists... Check out www.calphysics.org... (I think I got the addy correct...)

Just because the MSM does not discuss efforts to draw the energy does not mean there are none who think we can. Nor that there are none who are trying to do so.

I mean... Since when has a source of energy been found that we have NOT tried to extract it?

Originally posted by Blood Eagle
Nuclear power is a great alternative to fossil fuel usage in my oppinion. But harnessing Dark Energy would require a substantial sum of time and money to develop. I am not saying this shouldn't be pursued but at this current time, we need energy and nuclear power can provide that.

"Nuclear" energy is, like all the types of energy we have been using so far, entropic. That is, it contributes to the enrtopy of the Universe.

"Dark" Energy is negentropic, and available evergywhere. The cost to build a prototype of the device my friend has would be about $10,000. Not at all "a substantial sum of time and money to develop."

Once the money is in hand, about six months to develop.

Anyway, nuclear has the issue of deadly waste - that STILL isn't solved. And aging reactors seem to leak. Lovely, eh?

So... No. Nuclear is a very BAD choice given much better alternatives.

But we cannot show this directly because it has been suppressed.

You're blaming the failure of zero-point energy on other people.

"Dark" Energy is negentropic, and available evergywhere. The cost to build a prototype of the device my friend has would be about $10,000. Not at all "a substantial sum of time and money to develop."

So the reason that zero-point energy has not yet been implemented is because no-body, like your friend, has been given $10,000 to develop perhaps the most revolutionary technology in human history?

Anyway, nuclear has the issue of deadly waste - that STILL isn't solved.

There are plenty of solutions. They just have not been implemented due to politics.

And aging reactors seem to leak. Lovely, eh?

Apparently, a liter of the leaked water is less radioactive a liter of liquid natural gas. And apparently you did not read the thread.

So... No. Nuclear is a very BAD choice given much better alternatives.

Which are things that do not exist (unless we give your friend $10,000 of course). Good luck to your friend....

[edit on 12/2/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by Amaterasu


I would like to call your attention to this thread in response to this notion of yours that energy technologies are being suppressed.