It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fukushima, tritiated water - good explaination

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
www.rt.com...

This is a short video segment on the subject of continuing nuclear power issues. It is about 13 minutes long and after the first four or so minutes on local US nuclear news they talk about the current and ongoing dangers from the Fukushima plant.

It is Thom Hartman talking to Paul Gunter of, I believe, Beyond Nuclear. Regardless of your politics they offer a very good summary of the state of affairs at the plant relating to the 'ICE Wall" and the dangers of, so called 'weak emiter' tritiated water that they plan to dump into the Pacific (and is soaking the ground water in the area).

The program goes beyond this segment into the idea of the 'corporate death-penalty' and Exxon which is very a intriguing idea in itself, but this post is for the factual information about an ongoing and escalating emergency.

Happy Monday.

www.rt.com...




posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

4:30 in:

--what used to be the 'Peaceful Atom' ,turned out to be a bomb (nuclear weapons), what used to be 'to cheap to meter', is now too expensive to matter.

Failed adventure trying to re image itself...

Commenting on Fuku later.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Here is a good Scientific American article on the subject tritiated water"

www.scientificamerican.com...

Written in 2014:


The Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns let loose plenty of tritium, but so have a seemingly endless series of leaks at aging reactors in the U.S. and elsewhere. Such leaks have prompted the EPA to announce on February 4 plans to revisit standards for tritium that has found its way into water—so-called tritiated water, or HTO—along with risk limits for individual exposure to radiation and nuclear waste storage, among other issues surrounding nuclear power.



Or, as a health physicist who has studied tritium for years observes, in the 1970s, the EPA did not rely on any health studies in setting its original standards. Instead, the EPA back-calculated acceptable levels of tritium in water from the radiation exposure delivered by already extant radionuclides from nuclear weapons testing in surface waters. "It's not a health-based standard, it's based on what was easily achievable," remarks David Kocher of the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, who has evaluated health risks from tritium and spent 30 years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The standard of 20,000 pCi/L of drinking water made compliance easy. "No drinking water anywhere was anywhere close, so it cost nothing to meet."


And here it is folks - they just don't have any clue and are 'making it up':


But there is no definitive epidemiological study to assess the true risk of tritium, and animal studies are also lacking. The cancer rates in Japanese survivors of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can reveal little because they were not exposed to tritium either. "You need huge study populations to have any chance of seeing anything," Kocher notes, and that money is simply unavailable. "There is no compelling need to spend the money required to do th


It's an informative article - I think skewed towards the Nuclear side of things - but it has excellent information.



new topics
 
5

log in

join