Alpha emitters and Beta/Photon emitters in local water quality report

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Our annual water quality report for 2011 came with the latest utility bill. There is a chart listing "only those contaminants that were detected in the water". I remember looking over the 2010 report pretty thoroughly and do not remember radioactivity listed on he table with the fluoride, turbidity, etc. I tried to find the old report, but could not, and so then called for one to be mailed to me by the very nice lady at the Environmental Services office.

Now with that bit of background: This report seems misleading. First off, the type of particle is not listed. Only "Alpha emitters" and "Beta photon" emitters. Alpha measured in pCi/L and beta in mrem. Under the column MCL (maximum contaminant level) for beta emitters there is the number 50. A footnote in fine print at the bottom of the table reads "The MCL for beta particles is 4 mrem/year." (This is true, according to the EPA.)

Now, the actual amount detected is 4.01. the low-high range is 4.01-4.01. The chart indicates that the MCL is 50, and the footnote tells it like it is. I don't know where 50 comes from. You can't say what does 50 pCi/L convert to in mrem ...what does it convert to with WHAT kind of particle. They are all different. Since they don't list the specific kind of beta emitter, it's possible to kind of fudge things. Right? I mean it's vague and simplistic.

I think I will go to the public meeting.
edit on 7-6-2012 by Pilot because: word




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
An alpha particle is identical to a helium nucleus (2 protons and 2 neutrons) and is known as "ionizing radiation". These are particularly dangerous when inhaled or ingested (in which case they are VERY dangerous), as they have a low penetration depth. Beta particles are high-velocity electrons or positrons emitted by an unstable atom in what is known as beta decay. This type of radiation is more dangerous as the particle CAN penetrate biological systems (high penetration depth), and can cause fundamental changes to molecules. I'll stress that both particles are dangerous to biological systems, as they can alter DNA and molecular structures. As far as the unstable atoms emitting such particles, it is quite irrelevant from the standpoint of the particle. An unstable atom will continue to emit particles in either alpha or beta decay until it reaches a stable form, be it a stable form of the same element or a different element. Caesium-137, a common byproduct of nuclear fission, has a half-life just over 30 years, meaning it will continue to emit beta particles until it has transmuted into barium-130, which is metastable and has a half-life of about 70,000,000,000,000 years.
edit on 6/7/2012 by OblivionGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by OblivionGate
 


Thanks for your reply!

Are you saying it doesn't matter what alpha or beta particle was detected? The table says the alpha emitters were measured at 1.72 pCi/L and beta 4.01 mrem. Any amount is unsafe, I understand that, but the report was lacking in any specifics and I was wondering if that was on purpose, to avoid scaring people.

When I look at the previous years reports, I will add.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I have the water quality reports from the last six years here before me and not one of them measured alpha or beta emitters before 2011. Would I be wrong to suggest that this is due to Fukushima? What good would it do to break the spell of denial that most people are comfortable with regarding the topic? What can be done?

Monday is the public meeting. I have decided to attend and hopefully learn something.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
So I attended the commission meeting tonight. There were several items on the agenda before the floor was opened to public comments. I got up and started my spiel and they made me sit down because I had jumped the gun...anyway-none of the commissioners seemed to have seen the report, the mayor assured me that "our water is safe" and I was referred to Dr Chu for answers to my specific questions. Dr Chu is the administrator for the city environmental services. She invited me to her office and I explained why I was questioning the report. She and the other commissioners swore if there had been any violations, they would have heard about it from the EPA, the EPA is really on top of it, etc. I think I got her to understand about the mrem and pCi/L discrepancy, but she didn't have a quick answer, she sent me to a website that basically confirmed my suspicion...the report does a bait and switch with the measuring units without lying, they muddy the water, so to speak. Incidentally, while I was in her office, I choked violently on a peppermint and had to leave the room for a drink...FROM THE TAP!


Dr Chu said the state only requires testing for radionuclides once every six years, and that is why they did not appear on any of the previous reports I had. " Hm, how convenient, " I said under my breath before the commission. The really funny thing is that in one way or another, all the topics at the meeting were water related, zoning restrictions, flood plain management for new housing developments, etc. It was of course all about how much $$$ was getting spread around-the safety and careful maintenance of this resource was never considered by those pushing the business interests.

If I can get someone on the phone at the state lab to answer some specific questions, I'll be getting somewhere. That is the next item on the agenda. The report pdf from the consumer confidence data does not list dates of samples taken.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
With "Accidents" like in Japan.
It would only be sensible to take more tests.
And with fraqining, ?
(drilling for Gas, using ever bad chemical they can find.)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
So I attended the commission meeting tonight. There were several items on the agenda before the floor was opened to public comments. I got up and started my spiel and they made me sit down because I had jumped the gun...anyway-none of the commissioners seemed to have seen the report, the mayor assured me that "our water is safe" and I was referred to Dr Chu for answers to my specific questions. Dr Chu is the administrator for the city environmental services. She invited me to her office and I explained why I was questioning the report. She and the other commissioners swore if there had been any violations, they would have heard about it from the EPA, the EPA is really on top of it, etc. I think I got her to understand about the mrem and pCi/L discrepancy, but she didn't have a quick answer, she sent me to a website that basically confirmed my suspicion...the report does a bait and switch with the measuring units without lying, they muddy the water, so to speak. Incidentally, while I was in her office, I choked violently on a peppermint and had to leave the room for a drink...FROM THE TAP!


Dr Chu said the state only requires testing for radionuclides once every six years, and that is why they did not appear on any of the previous reports I had. " Hm, how convenient, " I said under my breath before the commission. The really funny thing is that in one way or another, all the topics at the meeting were water related, zoning restrictions, flood plain management for new housing developments, etc. It was of course all about how much $$$ was getting spread around-the safety and careful maintenance of this resource was never considered by those pushing the business interests.

If I can get someone on the phone at the state lab to answer some specific questions, I'll be getting somewhere. That is the next item on the agenda. The report pdf from the consumer confidence data does not list dates of samples taken.


ahhh the old bait and switch,,,K-Mart 1989,,, blue -lite special,,
actually watch for intence flash's of colours,, blue orange,,,

sorry,,bait and switch,,lol,,chumps.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
[more

I held my tongue about the big "F" while I addressed the commission and talked to the good Dr. Speaking out of turn and choking on a piece of candy was all the awkwardness I could handle today. They have kind of a jumbo tron thing displaying a video of you when you go to the podium, it's unnerving. UGH, I think it's played on the cable station live.

I collected a few numbers to call at the state level. I'm going to make a copy of the consumer confidence report & deliver to the Dr.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
BIG JUMBO TRON,,sounds like a JIM KERRY job,,,hey,,,he's a Canadian,,eh,, hoser,,, need a favour,,, lol



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


You know the attitudes I saw on display there made me realize how easy it is for people to ignore what they don't want to hear and keep trying to rake in as much $ as possible.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The lab that conducted the tests for the municipal water supply confirmed that they used pCi/L to measure beta emitters. Why the report published for the public was unclear is still a mystery. One thing that is not so cool is that the sample date for the test was 2/8/11, a full month before Fukushima explodes. Now that the test has been done for 2011, they won't schedule another one for 6 years, because that's what the state requires. If I want to, I can pay $80 and get my own water tested for beta emitters by the same lab.

I'd be willing to shell out for it.





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join