Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's Radioactive Tritium: Tennessee Valley Authority Finds Elevated Levels In Groundwater Sample

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. -- The Tennessee Valley Authority has reported finding elevated levels of radioactive tritium in a groundwater sample from a new onsite monitoring well at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga.

TVA said in an email Tuesday that the elevated levels pose no threat to public health and safety.

Sequoyah plant manager Paul Simmons said new groundwater monitoring wells were placed in an area known to have contained tritium that was previously reported.

The highest level found in the sampling on Friday was about 23,000 picocuries per liter. A "curie" is the standard measure for the intensity of radioactivity contained in a sample. A picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie.

TVA said there were no detectable levels of tritium in any sampling of the Tennessee River where the plant discharges water.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Terry Floyd]

06:34 PM on 12/24/2011

2011:12:24:PEACE YALL

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/04/alvin-m-weinberg-bell-and-bomb.html

Alvin M. Weinberg :The Bell and The Bomb

[outnow]

09:28 PM on 12/24/2011

Beautifully written!

[Terry Floyd]

10:22 PM on 12/24/2011

Dr. Alvin Weinberg is truly one of the great spirits of science and truth.

World War II had two giants Alan Turing and Dr. Weinberg, both were and are not well
known due to their involvement with the most top secret projects of WWII. I lived and grew up in a small town in Georgia that literally is across the road from one of the three proposed sites for permanent storage of nuclear waste in compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Chernobyl ended that with NIMBY Gang of 49 States mandate of just one of the sites, Yucca Mountain. My strategy at the time in opposing any proposal I found disagreeable is to seek a better alternative. So I studied the ins and outs of nuclear storage design. My father worked at Oak Ridge during WWII, so nuclear never intimated me. I have flip flopped through the years on use of the bomb during WWII. Fast forward to our present time. I had a HARD resolve without a rational nuclear storage plan nuclear anything was a no go. Until I stumbled across some stories on Thorium nuclear fuel about four years ago. The osmosis began two years ago Dr Alvin Weinberg’s credentials were verified and his saga is inspiring. Kirk Sorenson/s
http://energyfromthorium.com/ web site filled in the rest. TA DAA the world is a marvelous place. Merry Christmas, I wish the Best WHENEVER.

[outnow]

04:07 PM on 12/24/2011

I'll be checking in with my friends, both pro- and anti-nuclear.

Wishing all a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

(That goes for the moderators and staff at HuffPo, too.).

[outnow]

04:05 PM on 12/24/2011

The DOE Berkeley Lab using time-lapse imaging of DNA damage response to radiation shows low dose radiation is NOT LNT.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-impacts-dose.html

Even double breaks can be repaired after clumping some thirty minutes after exposures. These clumps are termed DNA repair centers.

This adaptive response is something that I have predicted since humans must have had some way of dealing with low doses. Physics would predict a LNT response but evolutionary biologists would predict some adaptive response since humans evolved in a low dose radiation environment. Therefore, humans would have some way of adapting to lower doses of radiation from cosmic rays and natural sources.

[Silken17]

04:47 PM on 12/24/2011

Very interesting study!

Yes, humans evolved at a time when background levels of radiation were significantly higher than today. In addition to this inherited adaptation to low level radiation I think there is also another mechanism that accounts for some of this nonlinear dose response.

Normal oxidative metabolism causes small amounts of damage to DNA. This limited damage accumulates over a lifetime and results in a higher risk of cancer as we get older. This limited amount of DNA damage, which occurs continuously, isn't normally great enough to stimulate these DNA repair mechanisms. Exposure to low level radiation can create enough additional damage to trigger the repair mechanisms. When the radiation induced damage is repaired so is the accumulated damage from oxidative metabolism.

[maslin]

04:54 PM on 12/24/2011

Interesting. Thanks.

[SLS11]

02:57 PM on 12/24/2011

Merry Christmas to all nukers, anti and pro alike.

[Silken17]

03:18 PM on 12/24/2011

Merry Christmas to you, SLS!!

[outnow]

04:14 PM on 12/24/2011

I know bunnies don't like red meat but I threw you a bone with the DOE Berkeley Lab study which you will see above when it posts. No LND! Yippie! Now when you dig carrots you won't have to worry about radiation corrupting your DNA because it might be repaired.

I use red raspberries for the elagic acid in the seeds that help repair damaged DNA. The Meeker variety of raspberry seeds stimulate P53 gene activity in promoting apoptosis of abnormal cells.

[Michael Mann]

03:26 PM on 12/24/2011

Yes,Thank you SLS, Merry Christmas to All!

[outnow]

04:14 PM on 12/24/2011

Same to you, Mike!

[outnow]

12:09 PM on 12/24/2011

Trisomy disorders such as Down's are usually a result of older women reproducing. These are chromosomal in nature rather than genetic, as such. The correlation with tritium is rather weak, if my understanding is correct.

[Michael Mann]

12:09 PM on 12/24/2011

From the NRC backgrounder on tritium
The NRC’s dose limits for radiation workers and the general public are significantly lower than the levels of radiation exposure that cause health effects in humans – including a developing embryo or fetus. Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans and genetic abnormalities in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the occurrence of these health risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates – below about 10,000 millirem (mrem).

For comparison, the NRC calculated a maximum annual dose of less than 0.1 mrem to a member of the public from the unintended tritium releases at the Braidwood Station nuclear power plant in Illinois. This is a very low dose, which is not considered a risk to public health and safety because it is well below the NRC’s 500 mrem dose limit for declared pregnant workers at nuclear facilities and the 100 mrem annual dose limit for members of the general public.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

[Gitta]

02:15 PM on 12/25/2011

Does this cover the rise in thyroid disease because of damage from airborn radioactive particles?

[Michael Mann]

03:26 PM on 12/25/2011

Your information is incorrect. No there isn't any increase in thyroid disease from airborne radioactive particles. I-131 from damaged fuel can cause an increase in thyroid cancer. (which my girlfriend had and is now healthy) I-131 is not a particulate.

[Michael Mann]

12:06 PM on 12/24/2011

Humans receive approximately 50% of their annual radiation dose from natural background radiation, 48% from medical procedures (e.g., x-rays), and 2% from consumer products. Doses from tritium and nuclear power plant effluents are a negligible contribution to the background radiation to which people are normally exposed, and they account for less than 0.1% of the total background dose (NCRP, 2009) As an example, assume that a residential drinking water well sample contains tritium at the level of 1,600 picocuries per liter (a comparable tritium level was identified in a drinking water well near the Braidwood Station nuclear facility). The radiation dose from drinking water at this level for a full year (using EPA assumptions) is 0.3 millirem (mrem), which is:

-at least two thousand to five thousand times lower than the dose from a medical procedure involving a full-body computed tomography (CT) scan (e.g., 500 to 1,500 mrem from a CT scan)
-one thousand times lower than the approximate 300 mrem dose from natural background radiation
-ffifty times lower than the dose from natural radioactivity (potassium) in your body (e.g., 15 mrem from potassium)
- twelve times lower than the dose from a round-trip cross-country airplane flight (e.g., 4 mrem from Washington, DC to Los Angeles and back)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

[Terry Floyd]

11:29 AM on 12/24/2011

Childish name calling and unreferenced accusations should be strictly forbidden!
Any claims of how solar and wind $/KW might better nuclear $/KW is off message concerning this article. To advocate closure of all of the Nuclear reactors requires dealing
with the Nuclear “Faustian Bargain” Legacy. EYES WIDE SHUT is no waiver. The price of solar or wind has no impact on this unavoidable burden.

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's Radioactive Tritium: Tennessee Valley Authority Finds Elevated Levels In Groundwater Sample

The subject concerns how some LWR nuclear power plants leak radioactive isotopes
and if these pose a threat to the public health. Coal burners release 100 more times radiation than any nuclear plant. Mercury and CO2 only recently are considered health dangers.

http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/hvistendahl/

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

“The consumption of fish is by far the most significant source of ingestion-related mercury exposure in humans a….”

“Human-generated sources such as coal plants emit approximately half of atmospheric mercury, …..”

[chinadoll1]

10:16 AM on 12/24/2011

gee, how many plutonium $$$ do you think these trolls roll in for supporting nuke energy and weaponry? it's counterintuitive to human nature of survival.

[Michael Mann]

11:24 AM on 12/24/2011

@chinadoll1 The production of safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy is the key to human survival and prosperity. Every revolution in energy supply has resulted in a higher standard of living for humanity. Nuclear power is the only answer, thorium power seems to be the best answer for a much better future! Merry Christmas!
http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
http://energyfromthorium.com/category/media/

[Michael Mann]

11:32 AM on 12/24/2011

PS It's very rude and immature to call people with different points of view names and accusations of being paid, while fairly common does nothing for your credibility and actually both are a form of "trollism" In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

[professor]

11:35 PM on 12/23/2011

Tritium is just the canary in the coal mine.

ALL nuclear power plants leak. And not just tritium.

[Silken17]

11:46 PM on 12/23/2011

Actually, your metaphor is faulty. Tritium would be the unseen methane in the coal mine into which the canary is taken. You need to represent the canary with something else, preferably something living.....volunteers?

[Silken17]

08:59 PM on 12/23/2011

--------------------------------------
alvdh1
296 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
4 hours ago( 4:41 PM)

You don't have to believe a single thing I say Maslin. Read the link in full and I will be glad to discuss it with you. None of the the other nuclear trolls have the audacity comment on the link because they don't have the skill set to do it. Well will see if you another nuclear hack full inuendo or ready to debate the evidence.

http://iic­ph.org/hea­lth-effect­s-of-triti­um-appendi­x-1
-----------------------------------

Alvdh1 has pasted this link all over this thread and challenged several people to read it and respond to it. I've read it and posed a couple of questions about the article to alvdh1 but he refuses to discuss it with me. Perhaps he has no response. He says he has the expertise but I think he is just chicken and doesn't have the 'nads for it.

[ShamsT]

11:38 AM on 12/24/2011

I saw where he just ignored your questions and continued his rant. Alvin would rather stand on his soapbox and pontificate rather than have a meaningful discussion.

I also read it and found his link and found the conclusions offered by Dr. Bertell at best misleading. For example, Dr. Bertell doesn't tell the reader that the actual study indicates that the correlation between Down's Syndrome and airborne tritium releases in Pickering was not statistically significant (p=0.468) and there was no correlation at all with ground tritium concentrations. Also, if tritium is causing birth defects then why didn't 23 other birth defect endpoints also show such an excess? Dr. Bertell also did not mention that there were no such excess birth defect risks in Ajax township since there was again not a statistically significant (p=0.282) correlation with ground tritium concentrations.

Based on Alvin's unwillingness to discuss Dr. Bertell's so-called "evidence", I'd have to conclude that he doesn't have the background or basic understanding on the subject to be capable of a meaningful discussion. So all he can do is continue his irrational rant hoping that fear alone will convince the readers.

[Silken17]

11:58 AM on 12/24/2011

Excellent analysis! I too noticed that only Down's was cited while all other birth defects were left out.

If he won't engage me in a civil debate, he certainly won't engage you. He did respond to me regarding my C-14 question. He claims that C-14 is a significant cause of cancer, especially for pregnant women and fetuses. He offers no links to support this ridiculous assertion. I assume that he denies the fact that DNA continually repairs itself and that most damage to DNA comes from normal metabolic processes.

If he is a biologist, as he claims, then he has spent too much time thinking like his hamsters and nematodes.

[Michael Mann]

12:35 PM on 12/23/2011

The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years. The beta particle that is emitted by tritium is considered to be very weak, having an average kinetic energy of 6 keV. As a result, these particular beta particles can only travel about 6 mm in air before they lose their ability to cause ionizations. In tissue, tritium’s beta particle is so weak that it cannot penetrate the typical thickness of the dead layer of skin that exists on the outside of the human body. For this reason, the beta particle emitted by tritium is generally only considered to be hazardous if a significant quantity of tritium is, or has the potential to be, taken into the body.
More detailed information about tritium from the Health Physics Society
http://hps.org/documents/tritium_fact_sheet.pdf

[Michael Mann]

12:29 PM on 12/23/2011

Tritium is almost always found as water, or "tritiated" water. Once tritium enters the body, it disperses quickly and is uniformly distributed throughout the body. Tritium is excreted through the urine within a month or so after ingestion. Organically bound tritium (tritium that is incorporated in organic compounds) can remain in the body for a longer period.

Tritium atoms can exchange with any hydrogen atoms. If the hydrogen atom is part of an organic molecule, the tritium becomes 'organically bound' and is transported with the molecule rather than moving freely like water. As with all ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer. However, because it emits very low energy radiation and leaves the body relatively quickly, for a given amount of activity ingested, tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides. Since tritium is almost always found as water, it goes directly into soft tissues and organs. The associated dose to these tissues are generally uniform and dependent on the tissues' water content.
At the levels described in this article the stress from worrying about the tritium in the water is much more likely to have adverse health effects than the tritium itself.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.html

[Callme Ish]

02:35 PM on 12/23/2011

I love that....another false argument.

Don't even think about this danger, because thinking about it can cause you harm.

Only a pro-nuke-pimp PNP could resort to this Orwellian strangulation of truth.

These are not the Droids you want.

[Silken17]

03:11 PM on 12/23/2011

Speaking of falsehoods......every time you type a comment or link to one of your outrageous propaganda sites.....

Worrying about a nonexistent danger can be hazardous to your health. It is a fact.

You and your buddies spend all of your time trying to scare people who don't understand nuclear technology or don't have access to the truth regarding nuclear matters. It is disgusting that your agenda is more important than the truth.

[Michael Mann]

12:18 PM on 12/23/2011

It would be a mistake for the USA to turn its back on nuclear energy. At present, America's 104 operating nuclear reactors produce about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear is an efficient and environmentally friendly way to generate power that doesn't emit greenhouse gases or particulates. In addition, production costs don't fluctuate as they do with fossil fuel plants.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, and despite Fukushima, a solid majority of Americans still view nuclear energy favorably. According to a survey conducted in late September by Bisconti Research and GfK Roper, 62% of respondents say they approve the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States.

Those strongly favoring nuclear energy outnumber those strongly opposed by a 2-1 ratio. Eighty-five percent of respondents believe that current operating licenses should be renewed when they expire, as long as the plants meet federal safety standards.
http://news.investors.com/Article/595498/201112211804/nuclear-power-remains-viable-for-us.htm

[CH M]

09:21 PM on 12/23/2011

Problem is, as the plants are deteriorating, so are these "federal safety standards" of which you speak. Like everything else in America, I'm guessing the committee overseeing nuclear technology in the US is a broken one, and also very nervous at this point, now that this story is running. You say "despite Fukushima" as if something that freak and bizarre won't ever ever happen again, and you're wrong in that regard. So wrong, that it renders your technology, websites, and Roper percentages foolish. We are human, and there is a lot of frailty contained therein, not to mention the power our Universe has to throw curveballs at us. Constantly. With potential for 104 accidents in the US, more or less horrible as Fukushima, I worry.

[Michael Mann]

11:37 PM on 12/23/2011

Nuclear power plants are running better and are safer now than when they were constructed. There are continuous upgrades and improvements which have resulted in increased capacity and safety factors.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/

[Gitta]

02:33 PM on 12/25/2011

"Friendly" you call it. Risky, I call it. The Science is all there, as you have so eloquently corresponded. It's the human factor that inevitably causes the problems, and those problems are awful! Fukushima is a great example, why did they put the the emergency generator underneath the plant to be destroyed by the tsunami? We're better off putting our attention on conservation, and reducing the need for electricity.

[alvdh1]

12:14 PM on 12/23/2011

More on radioactive tritium releases and the health consequences. When the government, the nuclear industry and the paid nuclear shills tell us that everything is just fine, then you should be worried.

The commission did not order Exelon to clean up the spill at Oyster Creek, an example, some scientists claim, of the agency's failure to fully protect the public.

"The NRC's almost acting like they're waiting till somebody dies till they enforce the regulation. Tombstone regulation -- that's too high a price to pay by Americans," said David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project of the Union of Concerned Scientists. CNN.US



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43475479/ns/us_news-environment/t/radioactive-tritium-leaks-found-us-nuke-sites/

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/us/nuclear.plant.regulation_1_tritium-oyster-creek-generating-station-nuclear-power?_s=PM:US

http://iicph.org/health-effects-of-tritium-appendix-1