Does Fukushima Have Anything to Do With My Extra Warm Tap Water?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Just NO on so many levels.

Sheesh.

Hundred of QUINTILLIONS of gallons of water in this world, and people are thinking the addition of a minute amount of radiation, in comparison to the natural radiation already in existence in the oceans, air, and land, will magically make their water noticeably heat up.

In another thread in this forum, Which Is Safer: Dumping a Barrel of Plutonium into the Ocean or Dumping A Single Molecule of it?, while nothing was conclusive, there seemed to be at least some agreement that heavy isotopes like plutonium would be kept afloat at or near the ocean's surface by currents and churning at least for a time during which it would adversely affect aquatic life.

The rest of the plutonium along with other heavy isotopes would eventually sink to the bottom of the sea, but would these isotopes remain there harmlessly as a certain source defensive of Japan would have you believe?

Consider this possible scenario: the plutonium at the bottom of the ocean with a half-life of tens of thousands of years, would continue emitting neutrons which would bombard neighboring H2O molecules resulting in radioactive hydrogen, or tritium. (Please correct me if this assertion is wrong.)

Then, because of the high pressure of the water at that very low depth, some water and tritium is forced through the floor of the ocean. From there, that mixture is forced horizontally toward a land mass. Then, when that stream, which had been under the floor of the ocean, is under the land mass and not under so much pressure, it starts to percolate upward to a groundwater aquifer which it contaminates from the aquifer's bottom.

According to Wikipedia, tritium has a half-life of about 12-and-one-third years, so, I suppose, this is plenty of time to make its journey. Why, we may be suffering from tritium from Chernobyl in our water supplies. Then, again, maybe the problems associated with tens of thousands of barrels of nuclear waste that were dumped in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are finally coming home to roost. Who knows?

The oceanographic experts are probably, themselves, unqualified to confirm or deny this because we know less about our oceans than about outer space.

I'd like to add that I was in my prior two places of residence during winters, and you could run the water in those places from now until doomsday, and it would not get cold.

Also, a radiation expert on the Net claims that tritium will not simply pass through your system as a certain someone would have you believe. To the contrary, tritium, once in your system, can take a form that sticks and which adversely affects the reproductive mechanism thus resulting in birth defects.

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Here we go again. First you need to post a source on this claim

To the contrary, tritium, once in your system, can take a form that sticks and which adversely affects the reproductive mechanism thus resulting in birth defects.

and explain what you mean by a form that sticks ( dose it bind? does it create an adhesive? does it become spiky? Which form of tritium are you speaking about atomic? bound?(what molecule)

Next this is not true:

The oceanographic experts are probably, themselves, unqualified to confirm or deny this because we know less about our oceans than about outer space.

Please explain the mechanism by which this happens and provide a source for your explanation:

Then, because of the high pressure of the water at that very low depth, some water and tritium is forced through the floor of the ocean. From there, that mixture is forced horizontally toward a land mass.

the plutonium at the bottom of the ocean with a half-life of tens of thousands of years, would continue emitting neutrons which would bombard neighboring H2O molecules resulting in radioactive hydrogen, or tritium. (Please correct me if this assertion is wrong.)

Sense you are referring to an isotope of Pu that has a half life of tens of thousands of years I'm going to guess you are speaking of Pu 239 because it has a half-life of 24,100 years. Mind you all isotopes of Pu have different half lives. Now Plutonium 239 is an alpha emitter which is two protons and two neutrons. Tritium is produced buy multiple different processes but H2O absorbing a neutron is not one of them. Nor is it produce with alpha particles.
www.webelements.com...

Now lets say excluding all that has mentioned above Tritium, which is usually bonded with hydroxyl molecules to form something called Super heavy water (a water molecule with one oxygen one hydrogen and one tritium atom) does seep into the ocean floor and how fast does this ground water travel?

Groundwater moves extremely slowly---usually inches per day

www.co.portage.wi.us...

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Just NO on so many levels.

Sheesh.

Hundred of QUINTILLIONS of gallons of water in this world, and people are thinking the addition of a minute amount of radiation, in comparison to the natural radiation already in existence in the oceans, air, and land, will magically make their water noticeably heat up.

Also, a radiation expert on the Net claims that tritium will not simply pass through your system as a certain someone would have you believe. To the contrary, tritium, once in your system, can take a form that sticks and which adversely affects the reproductive mechanism thus resulting in birth defects.

The radiation expert to whom I alluded is Kevin Kamps.

For those of you who desire more information on tritium, I refer you to the following webpage: Kamps on video: NRC, nuclear industry have leak-first-fix-later philosophy .

This reference is not the Youtube video-interview with Kevin Kamps that I had in mind, but it should suffice.

P.M.

Maybe it's the WI-FI microwaving the water.
Check out "The cooking of humanity" on Youtube.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Just NO on so many levels.

Sheesh.

Hundred of QUINTILLIONS of gallons of water in this world, and people are thinking the addition of a minute amount of radiation, in comparison to the natural radiation already in existence in the oceans, air, and land, will magically make their water noticeably heat up.

In another thread in this forum, Which Is Safer: Dumping a Barrel of Plutonium into the Ocean or Dumping A Single Molecule of it?, while nothing was conclusive, there seemed to be at least some agreement that heavy isotopes like plutonium would be kept afloat at or near the ocean's surface by currents and churning at least for a time during which it would adversely affect aquatic life.

The rest of the plutonium along with other heavy isotopes would eventually sink to the bottom of the sea, but would these isotopes remain there harmlessly as a certain source defensive of Japan would have you believe?

Consider this possible scenario: the plutonium at the bottom of the ocean with a half-life of tens of thousands of years, would continue emitting neutrons which would bombard neighboring H2O molecules resulting in radioactive hydrogen, or tritium. (Please correct me if this assertion is wrong.)

Then, because of the high pressure of the water at that very low depth, some water and tritium is forced through the floor of the ocean. From there, that mixture is forced horizontally toward a land mass. Then, when that stream, which had been under the floor of the ocean, is under the land mass and not under so much pressure, it starts to percolate upward to a groundwater aquifer which it contaminates from the aquifer's bottom.

According to Wikipedia, tritium has a half-life of about 12-and-one-third years, so, I suppose, this is plenty of time to make its journey. Why, we may be suffering from tritium from Chernobyl in our water supplies. Then, again, maybe the problems associated with tens of thousands of barrels of nuclear waste that were dumped in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are finally coming home to roost. Who knows?

You know, the proposition of water being forced down through and under the floor of the ocean is not such a stretch when you consider a couple of things.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, British Petroleum sympathizers were trying to downplay the situation by saying that there are plenty of naturally occurring oil leaks at the floor of the Gulf (on the order of up to 4,000 barrels of oil per day.)

Also, there have been cases of massive amounts of carbon dioxide rising from the floors of lakes, and once having broken the surface of the water, that carbon dioxide would spread horizontally over the land killing scores of people and animals.

So, if oil or carbon dioxide can rise from the floor of a body of water, why can't water go down through the floor? Maybe the water seeps down into caverns like the ones tourists like to visit where it drips and drips forming salty stalactites and stalagmites, thus leaving the water "fresh," and, from the caverns, that water travels who-knows-where.

Question: in attempting to determine how plutonium and other radioactive isotopes react with water at the bottom of the ocean, as in the creation of tritium, would it not be wise to factor-in the very great water pressure there into the analysis... with the tritium traveling who-knows-where?

To repeat: more is known about outer space than about our own oceans.

P.M.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

So, if oil or carbon dioxide can rise from the floor of a body of water, why can't water go down through the floor? Maybe the water seeps down into caverns like the ones tourists like to visit where it drips and drips forming salty stalactites and stalagmites, thus leaving the water "fresh," and, from the caverns, that water travels who-knows-where.

Well considering that the oil and carbon dioxide are moving from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure and what you are referring to is something moving from an area of lower pressure to an area of higher pressure. Now it could be possible if there is some mechanism causing this but until you provide and prove what this mechanism is we can assume that the law of hydrodynamics

A liquid or gas flows from regions of high pressure to regions of low pressure.

science.howstuffworks.com...
If the only mechanism in action.

Also this:

more is known about outer space than about our own oceans.

Is simply not true I think you are referring to this statement:

We know what the surface of the moon is better than we know what the surface of the sea floor is.

oceanexplorer.noaa.gov...

But your statement is simply untrue. I mean there are oceans on Europa that are bigger and probably more complicated than our oceans and we know next to nothing about them. Europa is in outer space is it not? I think you see where I'm going with this and hopefully it makes sense to you. You are trying to solve a scientific question with a bunch of assumptions and inaccurate facts. which can not be done.

As for this:

Question: in attempting to determine how plutonium and other radioactive isotopes react with water at the bottom of the ocean, as in the creation of tritium, would it not be wise to factor-in the very great water pressure there into the analysis... with the tritium traveling who-knows-where?

I have already showed you how you are wrong when it comes to plutonium making tritium, can you please show which radio-isotopes produce tritium from sea water? Pressure has nothing to do with this besides having more water molecules in a given amount of space. But you still have to prove that it is possible to begin with.

Well, well, well.

Guess what?

Lake mysteriously shows in drought-torn Tunisia (August 1, 2014).

You know what I think?

I think that an ocean of water somewhere got a little too heavy, and the weight of its water squooshed some of the water below the ocean, and from there it went to a land mass and then went up to the lands' surface thus creating a lake "out of the blue."

You know what else?

"Hundreds enjoy new lake despite warnings that the water might be radioactive."

Radioactive, huh? Now, from where would that radioactivity come?

Perhaps from tritium that was created at the bottom of the ocean?

BTW, what the L is in our drinking water, and why is my cold tap water so darn warm?

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Again all assumptions. Please define the word squooshed and how it relates to hydrodynamics. And then explain how the ocean water was heavier than itself plus the rock below it.

Also the article state that it might be radioactive not that it is. And your wild assumption that it is and the radioactivity came

from tritium that was created at the bottom of the ocean

is totally inaccurate.

this is from the source that you posted:

This region is overflowing with large deposits of phosphate, which can leave behind radioactive residue

did you even read the whole article or did you just pick and choose the information that fits your assumptions?

I touched base with a relative who draws his water from a well.

He tested the temperature of his cold water with a thermometer for me.

His water was at 65 degrees.

I remember when I was a kid and my parents took me to cabins in the woods for vacations. The well water at the time at those cabins was frigid.

Just letting you know.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Howdy,

Temperature may be dependent upon the depth of the well. There is no standard depth one must drill to hit an aquifer, and an aquifer has a vague description (a rock unit providing sufficient water) that suggests that not all rock units with water are sufficient for all purposes. Likewise, not all groundwater is sourced from the same water. For instance, you can have a relatively shallow unconfined aquifer which could get recharge directly from rain, or you could have a confined aquifer (usually a sandstone/conglomeratic unit between shale/clayier units or very tight limestone...) where the water has been in the ground for a while, sometimes multiple decades as indicated by isotopic concentrations. Most aquifers used for drinking water are confined aquifers, as there are problems with microbes in oxygenated unconfined aquifers...

Now, city water that comes from pipes is usually much nearer to the surface... in pipes. Solar heating could be an issue in near surface water pipes. Traditional soil is usually quite porous, with air (and alternatively water when it rains) filling those pores. This air makes the soil a decent insulator for deeper things, and as such deeper pipes would be more characteristic of the background temperature of that soil (usually 65 degrees Fahrenheit around here, but it varies). So thermal heating of shallow pipes could explain your issues.

That said, 65 degrees Fahrenheit seems quite chilly to me. If you would, would you get a small bowl of 65 degree (F) water and stick your hand in it? I'm sure you'll feel it frigid. That's because water has a high specific heat capacity and will hold more (thermal) energy than one might think. It will feel cold, and it will evaporate once your hand is out of the bowl, making it feel cold as well. If the outside temperature is colder or windier, then the water may be cooled/evaporated faster than average, resulting in a colder sensation.

Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
I touched base with a relative who draws his water from a well.

He tested the temperature of his cold water with a thermometer for me.

His water was at 65 degrees.

I remember when I was a kid and my parents took me to cabins in the woods for vacations. The well water at the time at those cabins was frigid.

Just letting you know.

Awesome some qualitative data. Now how far away is your relative from you is there any way you can get the temperature of your water befor it passes threw any systems? Another good thing you could do is find the source of your tap water and take the temperature there and then after it comes out of your tap that way you can rule out something in the system changing the temp. But remember take multiple readings with diffrent thermometers to rule out any malfunctions. Or you can get diffrent temps from diffrent places and plot then on a map to see if there is any correlations. Just a couple ideas. See I'm not being mean. Really just trying to help you out. I'm not your enemy.

Oh, did someone query about where my relative lives?

Well, I can tell you that my relative does not live anywhere near a uranium mine, abandoned or otherwise, like the guy in the Youtube video who reported that his tap water is HOT and whose relatives have been dying.

I can tell you further that my relative resides in a region that has been characterized as the "most radioactive" in the country... and that his well water comes out of his tap at 65 degrees.

It is unbeknownst to me why his region has been characterized as such.

BTW, I think that his tap water should come in at a temperature more like 50 degrees.

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Howdy,

I think these sources (although not very scientific) are probably useful for answering your questions.

www.epa.gov...

www.nps.gov...

As for radiation, you don't need to live near a radioactive material (uranium) mine to be in a region with a lot of radioactive minerals. Uranium is common in many black shales in low, sub-economic to mine concentrations. Of course, there are many other common rocks with uranium.

en.wikipedia.org...

In general, groundwater (shallow) is highly dependent upon average surficial heating, but certainly, these radioactive minerals decay in the crust creating heat, which may not be accounted for in my first source's groundwater temperature map (which shows only the average shallow groundwater temperatures in the areas). In essence, it's a useful tool, but use it more as a general average than an absolute.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Is it not interesting that no one chimed in saying that his drinking water is currently chilly, refreshingly cold as it always has been... right out of the tap?

Now, I am sure that they will.

I guess it comes as no surprise that upscale refrigerators with chilled water dispensers have been very popular for some time now.

The answer is no. Even if it was slightly true it would've hade less impact then CO2 emission Greenland has in one day...

Well, it certainly seems that the purity of the drinking water supplies of this country have been called into question. Lord knows that it's been established that there is significant chemical and bacterial contamination in a lot of spots.

With all of this being the case, would it not behoove citizens to get their drinking water tested for radioactivity, as well, especially since 90 percent of nuclear reactors in the United States are reputed to be leaking radioactive waste? Better yet, wouldn't it be better if a government agency like the Environmental Protection Agency would do this for us in the interest of protecting the general welfare? Then again, such governmental agencies are reputed to be suppressing this kind of data, especially radiation readings on the West Coast related to Fukushima.

Why, according to one Youtube activist, a whistleblower has come forth claiming that radioactive water had been leaking through a hole about the size of a quarter from the Indian Point nuclear power plant into the drinking water of New York City for one year, and the government knew this, yet did nothing about it.

I know that, in the past, there was virtually no treatment of water between the NYC reservoirs and NYC taps. However, a huge new water processing facility had been under construction well below ground in the Bronx, and this project should have been completed by now, so I don't know to what extent NYC water is now being treated and/or purified before it reaches taps.

So this now begs the question: should the drinking water of Tokyo be tested for radiation?

Now, hypothetically speaking, strictly hypothetically, of course, if I were to visit Tokyo, enter cocktail lounges of various hotels, purchase drinks, slip off to the men's room stalls, flush the toilets a few times, test the toilet water with a thermometer and a Geiger counter, record the readings, return to America and publicize the results, would I be in violation of Japan's news state's secrets law? Would I be liable for extradition to Japan? Would such readings be considered state's secrets in the first place? Are the authorities in Japan seizing Geiger counters at the airports?

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Howdy,

I don't mean to offend, but I must ask, why does the Fukushima incident seem to bother you so much? Why are you so certain that it is a problem? And why was it your first thought when/if you got warmer than usual tap water? Have you even considered the evidence to the contrary?

I ask because I am uncertain as to your willingness to discuss. As it is, you are merely asserting that the information you have and provide is true and factual. Am I wasting my time discussing hydro-geological links?

Regardless of that, I would certainly recommend well water testing for heavy metals and fecal coliform for all wells. As for tap water, I know my Borough sends water quality reports (which are paid for by taxes) to all the citizens of the Burough. I'm not sure other places do this, but you could certainly look into that. Unless you don't trust those reports, in which case you might find the water testing a rather expensive thing to do, but you could certainly ask universities in you area. I know I've done a few water analyses on tap water and stream waters and I'm not even focused on water studies.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

lets end this nonsensical thread once and for all.

IF there was enough radiation coming out of Fukushima to raise the temperature of your tap water,,,, you would have been DEAD from radiation poisoning long before you could have made this silly post.

That's the bottom line

originally posted by: RickinVa
lets end this nonsensical thread once and for all.

IF there was enough radiation coming out of Fukushima to raise the temperature of your tap water,,,, you would have been DEAD from radiation poisoning long before you could have made this silly post.

That's the bottom line

Why, don't you make yourself useful and go to Tokyo and delve into men's rooms' toilet bowls...

and get back to us.


P.M.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
I touched base with a relative who draws his water from a well.

He tested the temperature of his cold water with a thermometer for me.

His water was at 65 degrees.

I remember when I was a kid and my parents took me to cabins in the woods for vacations. The well water at the time at those cabins was frigid.

Just letting you know.

65°F is pretty chilly for water, do you expect the tap to dispense near freezing water? I'm not sure what I'm missing here...I also don't think this is a valid comparison unless you know the previous temp of the water from the cabin back when you were a kid visiting.

I live in Florida, near the East coast of the state, I am on a well, my water is still just as cold as it's ever been, even through long hot summers.

My opinion? Youre putting too much faith in these YouTube dingbats. Anyone with a camera and something to say can post a video on YouTube about anything they want. Lay off the Alex Jones and YouTube 'whistleblowers' for a while and you'll figure it out