Published: February 2nd, 2012 at 1:42 pm ET
|
Title: NRC estimates tritium release at Illinois reactor
Source: AP
Date: Feb 2, 2012 at 12:00pm ET
[...] Agency spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng (MIT’-ling) says preliminary calculations indicate that the radiation dose from Monday’s release at the Byron Generating Station was less than 0.001 (one one-thousandth) percent of the NRC’s annual limit [100 mrem, see below] . That amount is thought to be safe to workers and the public. [...]
Final data will be available to the public after the Commission conducts a special investigation.
Read the report here
A release of 1/1000 the size of the NRC’s limit of 100 mrem annual limit is equal to 1 microsievert.
Title: Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards
Source: NRC
100 mrem per year limit – 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1)
[...] a dose limit of 100 mrem per year to individual members of the public. This limit applies to everyone, including academic, university, industrial, and medical facilities that use radioactive material.
The NRC adopted the 100 mrem per year dose limit from the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The ICRP is an organization of international radiation scientists who provide recommendations regarding radiation protection related activities, including dose limits. These dose limits are often implemented by governments worldwide as legally enforceable regulations. The basis of the ICRP recommendation of 100 mrem per year is that a lifetime of exposure at this limit would result in a very small health risk and is roughly equivalent to background radiation from natural sources (excluding radon) (ICRP, 1991). Thus, the ICRP equated 100 mrem per year to the risk of riding public transportation – a risk the public generally accepts (ICRP, 1977). The U.S. National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP) also recommends the dose limit of 100 mrem per year (NCRP, 1993).
Read the report here
Title: 10 CFR 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public.
Source: NRC
(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that -
(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee’s disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and
(2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.
Read the report here
The maximum limit is just one guideline. The NRC’s ALARA objective is about 33 times more protective than the maximum limit, allowing for 30 microsieverts a year to be released. The NRC’s estimated release from Byron of 1 microsievert is 3% of the ALARA.
Title: Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards
Source: NRC
Layer 1: 3 mrem per year ALARA objective — Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50
The NRC requires that nuclear plant operators must keep radiation doses from gas and liquid effluents as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) to people offsite. For liquid effluent releases, such as diluted tritium, the ALARA annual offsite dose objective is 3 mrem to the whole body and 10 mrem to any organ of a maximally exposed individual who lives in close proximity to the plant boundary. This ALARA objective is 3% of the annual public radiation dose limit of 100 mrem.
Read the report here
Published: February 2nd, 2012 at 1:42 pm ET
|
sending...
Oh beautiful.
97% wiggle room.
Report Comment
really.
Report Comment
I wonder why the BEIR report isn’t used for a source…
Does one microsievert even make sense? Why not in bequerels? Is it “1 uSv” for an area around the plant, down wind, or what? You can’t use a dose unit without time. Perhaps, 1 uSv for an entire year was released?
If 1uSv/hr:(24hrs X 7 Days X 52 weeks = 8736hrs/yr = 8.7mSv)
If 1uSv/yr:(.001 mSv / 8736hrs = 0.00000011 uSv/hr) I learned nothing from the first article. This reads like just another press release masquerading as journalism.
What about contamination from other plants, is it cumulative to population centers or each plant can add 1mSv to public dosage? How are they measuring public dose rates? I know I’m an idiot so maybe these questions have been answered or are just dumb questions.
Report Comment
Oops, I believe the 1 uSv/yr should be .00011 uSv/hr. I forgot to convert back from milli.
Report Comment
Bones, you are the smart one in the room… Those hicks down in the engine room have had their brains addled from the time warp generator..
KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS. We will get the Romulans to tell the truth eventually. Right now, they are lying through their teeth, eyes, scales and horns.
Report Comment
Here is what happened when someone did a FOIR and what they got as far as a bafflegab.
http://neis.org/?p=281#more-281
Report Comment
Howdy hey all.
Govt says?
[REMOVED: Off -topic]
Report Comment
I didn’t watch the whole thing. The guy being interviewed is clueless.
First, he doesn’t understand a cutaway drawing, because his arrows pointing to where the top of the reactor should be in the rubble is completely wrong.
It’s like that video that shows pictures and keeps saying “where is the reactor”.
Then he says the pools are gone – which they are not in his pictures – he just doesn’t have a clue where things are.
This gives a bad name to those who are trying to hold their feet to the fire. I also believe the reactor blew – but I know where the evidence is and this guy doesn’t.
Report Comment
oops, admin made it disappear while I was typing. Anyway James, you can take that feedback.
Report Comment
Finnish STUK sayed before the Fukushima exploded that “no reactor can explore nowadays. It has been secured with physics laws.” They just removed that statement, when Fuku exploded..
Well, the authorities sayed before Tshernobyl. That nuclear disaster can not happen. They just changed that to “no reactor can explode” after Cherno.
Interesting was also, that STUK closed its webpages for several weeks when the Fukushima happened. And they claimed it was server problem. Which is not true, that kind of problem can be fixed within hours.
So I would not take anything seriously, that is anything related to governments authorities. I think bellydance is the best thing they can do..
Report Comment
p.s. stuk is the radiation authority in Finland.
Report Comment
Hi Henri, thanks for that input – I didn’t know the Finnish authorities did the same as all the others….is there a large anti-nuke community in Finland? Ompelukkone! Only word I know in Finnish
Report Comment
Howdy, yes we have our movements here also. Last summer when they shutted the road to the nuclear monster, police put about 50 people in jail. And there were police filming people. So guess we people, who want to change things better, are “terrorist”.
btw, its ompelukone with one k.
another word in Finnish: ydinvoima. it means nuclear power.
Report Comment
ydinvoima no thanks! Thank you – stay strong up there, spring is coming soon – and we will win! No nukes!
Report Comment
We have a clear problem with units in this press release.
is it .001 times 100 mrem per year which is one amount or is it .001% of 100 mrem – which is a much smaller amount.
1severt = 100 rem so 100mrem/year = 1 millisevert per year.
.001 times 1 millisevert per year = 1 microsevert per year – a negligible dose
.001% of 1 millisevert per year = .01microsievert – almost undetectable.
there’s also something wrong with their comparables – they say an x-ray is .5 mrem and I think it’s many times that.
Somebody needs to pin her down to explain how they came up with those numbers.
Report Comment
It’s called “New Math” where 2 + 2 = 5. Personally, I think they knew they had to report something, so they looked at the numbers from the 2010 “steam release” and shaved off a few 0′s to downplay the significance of the release. We saw this in the GOM disaster. The government had no problem covering up the incident for BP. TEPCO has no problem lying about three meltdowns and the US media doesn’t even touch it. Is there any reason to believe anything that comes from the people who said initially that the steam did not contain radioactive materials?
We must assume that it was worse that the government admits, but how much worse we may never know.
I do not believe the anyone even bothered testing for fear a lab technician might feel compelled to leak the results or that someday in the future the results will be subpoenaed.
Report Comment
2 + 2 = 5
Orwell called it Newspeak. I call it Nuke-speak.
Report Comment
Pin er down and rassle that number out of er… Any cowboys in the house? Rope em up and tie em down, like with calves coming out during a rodeo.
Those wily coyotes just do not want to put out any numbers…
They would rather die than read a radiation meter..
Maybe they do not know how to read numbers on a meter?
Maybe they went to coyote or fox school? Maybe all they know is;
how to raid chicken coops without getting caught…
Part of that is never admitting how many chickens you got away with..
Report Comment
Of course, any of us who were exposed to this stuff, likely breathed it in. Looks like the EPA has a more stringent limit for what the public should be allowed to breath in from the air. It’s still below that limit, but its a bigger percentage of it than of the 100 mrem exposure rate, which I believe refers to whole body, primarily external exposure:
Annual Radiation Dose Limits Agency
Radiation Worker – 5,000 mrem (NRC, “occupationally” exposed)
General Public – 100 mrem (NRC, member of the public)
General Public – 25 mrem (NRC, D&D all pathways)
General Public – 10 mrem (EPA, air pathway)
General Public – 4 mrem (EPA, drinking water pathway)
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/regdoselimits.html
Report Comment
Fukushima and Health: What to Expect
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of the European Committee on Radiation Risk
May 5th/6th 2009, Lesvos, Greece
Edited by Chris Busby, Joseph Busby, Ditta Rietuma and Mireille de Messieres.
“Twenty five years of studies of people living on the Chernobyl contaminated territories has been enough to quantify in detail the cancers, the heart disease, the loss of lifespan, the congenital illnesses, even the changes in sex ratio, in childhood intelligence and in mental health that follow the exposures to radioactive contamination from fission products, activation products and uranium fuel particles.
All of these are described in this volume in great detail, by the eminent scientists who have studied them. As Edmund Burke famously said, Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it ; but the true history of the health effects of exposure to the radioactive substances released by both the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes have been covered up by the power of the nuclear lobby”
“Public debate between ECRR’s Scientific Secretary Prof. Chris Busby and ICRP Scientific Secretary Emeritus Dr. Jack Valentin, who admits that ICRP recommendations cannot be applied to post-accident situations and that it is a mistake not to address studies which falsify ICRP’s model”
transcript here
http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvostranscript.htm
shows you what the pronuke scientists from the ICRP really think!!
“In summary, the IRSN report is a pretty complete validation of the things members of the Committee have been saying for many years about internal irradiation. Its only divergence is in its disagreement with the way the Committee has dealt with the issue, which IRSN sees as rather ad hoc and insecure. …”
Report Comment
wonder if bellydancer lady has read the jack valentine interview??
1 microsievert around my kids…??
no thank you!
no nukes!!
Report Comment
Also, this article says that tritium is “relatively short-lived.” In fact, tritium has a radiological half-life of 12.32 years, so multiply that by 10 to know how long it will be radioactive.
Tritium’s biological half-lfe is said to be 7 to 14 days …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
But someone posted something yesterday that suggested that tritium bound in biological tissue (i.e., if ingested with food) can remain in the body longer:
“Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more. While tritiated water may be cleared from the human body in about 10 days”
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/tritiumbasicinfo.pdf
But if tritium can bind to the tissue of plant/animals that human beings eat, why wouldn’t it be able to bind to the tissue of human beings directly when it enters through inhalation (of air or water vapor) or absorption of rainwater through the pores?
Once again, they are providing little bits of info packaged in a way designed to defuse people’s concerns, but simultaneously withholding a good bit of information.
Report Comment
Relative to eternity, they mean. lol I thought the half-life of tritium was ~12 years.
Report Comment
Wish I could edit this, I of course scrolled up after I wrote that and saw you state its half-life. Sorry.
Report Comment
Well, “relative” is a relative term. Compared to plutonium…
This sort of report is so pointless, as it provides no useful information. We are not told the extent of the contamination at this level, nor are we given the requisite time qualifier that tells us the dose rate. Per hour? That’s the ‘standard’ designation, should it be a given here? We are not informed of the concentration (in becquerels or curies) of tritium was in the vented steam.
Useless.
Report Comment
The article says .001 or even .001% of the 100 millirem per year dose.
so I assume that means the dose rate – however it seems miniscule to me
Report Comment
Pretty amazing, isn’t it. haha There are words, but no meaning. You can’t call them stupid for they have fooled alot of people this way.
I am pretty sure this is straight, word for word, from a press release masquerading as journalism.
Report Comment
How Safe Is Radioactive Tritium?
Did You Know That 75% Of US Nuclear Plants Are Leaking Toxic Tritium Radiation Into Drinking Water Supply? Paul Gunter ~ Beyond Nuclear
CLICK>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1Kqez3fUU
Are Your State’s Nuclear Power Plants Leaking Radiation? Some Say It’s A Problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO49lK65VDo
“A typical reactor is only allowed to release about a thirtieth of a teaspoon of tritium in a whole year! A bad year is maybe a whole teaspoon of tritium. That’s how deadly this stuff is! And if that teaspoon of tritium evaporates, do you think it gets measured accurately, and properly reported? What it does get is a special dispensation from the NRC to release the extra tritium that year. If they leak tritium, which is almost always bound up as HTO, chances are pretty good it will evaporate, and never make it into the ground. We will breath it as water vapor. It will be in doses too low to measure accurately, thanks to all the tritium everyone is already dumping into our environment. (There is very little ‘natural’ tritium on earth at any one time.)”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/13/san-onofre/
“The Perils of Tritium
Tritium decays to helium-3 through beta minus decay and the release of an antineutrino particle” http://www.texasradiation.org/decay.html
In theory, a free antineutron should decay into anantiproton, a positron and a neutrino in a process analogous to the beta decay of free neutrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-neutron
Report Comment
so if the exposure really is .01 microsieverts or even 1 microsievert – then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
However I have a hard time believing that, given the average person receives a dose of about 4,000 times that amount or 4 millisieverts annually.
furthermore, I highly doubt they have any instrumentation that can measure that amount, given the average background is about 3,000 to 300,000 times the amounts they quote.
Report Comment
So what are they using for comparison?
Is this a yearly dose for everyone in a 1,000 square mile area, with everyone exposed to that dose, 100 miles out, or maybe 1,000 miles outwards from the plant?
How do they come up with these empty numbers, devoid of ANY meaning whatsoever?
What was released FROM THE PLANT? What was the READING AT THE PLANT, in the vented steam?
Seems to me to be rather simple, elementary even… but these ‘experts’ cannot even do what a five year old could accomplish, which is to read a radiation meter stuck into the steam.
NOOOOOOO, Not a Radiation METER READING… ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!
Report Comment
I reckon they did this … guessed a number for total number of people exposed, then divided the released amount by that number, giving a dose per person within, say, 100 miles. Hey presto, small dose per person. For sure it is not just one milliseivert dose for only one person. Whatever they say is sure to be a lie anyhow, we are just speculating on how they formulated the lie.
Report Comment
Exactly. there are something like 10 million people within 100 miles of that place,
Report Comment
“preliminary calculations indicate”, rather than “measurements indicate” suggests this is fiction also.
Do we know their standard detailed methodology in these situations? Their numbers are all conveniently rounded for media use – lots of zeros. I would guess they have standard talking point estimates that they trot out, analogous to their verbal talking points like “bananas”.
Do the sharp-eyed among you detect any standard formula being used? Kelly Ann Thomas and James2 seemed to be hot on the trail earlier in this thread.
Report Comment
We were reassured early on that what was going out was “less than or no more than” annual limits. Who’s annual limits? Theirs to release or ours to absorb?
So while that was also pointless hash, it at least informed me that they were looking at an ‘accident’ release that was probably less than their annual release allowances. Because the truth is that there are no limits to how much radiation/contamination can be released in an accident situation. There are only limits to how much exposure the surrounding public can get from it before you’re required to evacuate them.
To say 1 µSv (.1 mr) without the necessary qualifiers is equivalent to spouting gibberish.
Report Comment
Agreed, JoyB. I was hoping we’d be able to notice what script they are using though, other than their general default bafflegab.
Speaking of bafflegab: “(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that – (1) The total effective dose… does not exceed…” – or else what, exactly? What is the penalty? Will they face a memo of reprimand, or (gasp) something even more severe? If/when they break their contract, no penalty to them will put the genie back in the bottle. It’s a fools’ game.
Similarly, the phrase “before you’re required to evacuate them” gives me cold comfort, knowing that a government might withhold evacuation orders “for fear of causing unnecessary panic”, and knowing that, sooner or later, there will be no place to evacuate to in any case.
I’m not disputing your comments, just itching to get to the endgame.
SHUT THEM ALL DOWN
Report Comment
+++++
I like it. Cut to the chase, quitcher bafflegabbing.
Report Comment
Bad News Turns Worse @ San Onofre – tube defects found in all four of those ‘new’ Mitsubishi SGs installed last fall at a cost of more than $670 million.
Report Comment
Shut er down!
Report Comment
Unless Mitsubishi’s willing to replace for free, I’m not convinced SONGS can afford to keep this up. By the time you’re talking a billion and a quarter just to keep your rustbuckets going (at Zero-Net actual contribution), it’d be cheaper to install massive offshore wind. They’d get more net power out of it and not have to ‘handle’ the public every time a turbine goes down and needs new bearings or something…
Report Comment
How much wind or solar capacity could that have bought? Now they are going to spend another BILLION in cleanup and repair costs, OR MORE…
So we are talking close to 2 BILLION that could have bought and replaced probably all of the nuclear energy being produced, at NO RISK of meltdown, meltthrough, blowing up, radiating the surrounding 1500 square miles of city, with millions of people exposed to dangerous radiation..
By the way, did anyone MEASURE ANYTHING? My bet is.. NOPE, sorry… lost all of the meters
Report Comment
Right on! Nuclear is a Zero-Net [meaning: Zero-Sum] game. This is beyond ridiculous, the people in Southern California can do much, much better. This money can go to offshore wind, a bunch of it to retrofit buildings throughout the area to solar, even some grants to homeowners and property owners to install solar and/or wind and feed-back to the grid. Why a place as sunny-perfect as SoCal needs nukes has always escaped me…
As for measuring, sure they did. Plant HPs sample air and water several times a day routine. But we don’t know if this “1 µSv” (per whatever) is at the plant gate, 3 miles or 5 miles or 10 miles away. Nada. Which way is the wind blowing, and what’s the dose rate THERE?
For normal residents of the area out there measuring once or twice a day since Fukushima, a single microsievert divided by the number of hours per year won’t jump the meter enough to notice. Hell, the nukes themselves don’t have meters that read that little radiation, ‘normal’ background would drown it out every time. That’s why I don’t believe it’s “per year.” More likely “per hour,” which is a whole other beastie…
Report Comment
The Byron waslow…yet> I’m 1-2 days down-wind here, and we had our beta count jump from 50 up to 160 m/Sv/hr HERE in MA! Then the site goes down!?
that’s just BS!
Report Comment
Millis and not micros?
Report Comment
Do you mean (beta) counts per minute (CPM)? The EPA site displays beta counts and also separate gamma counts (that is, when it is actually working).
Report Comment
Do you have any pictures of meter readings? I am looking and cannot find any elevated readings on any of the radiation meter networks…
Report Comment
them folks in Chicago got totaly HOSED!
Report Comment
That is the price that the chickens in the henhouse have to pay, because the fox is in charge of it.
The wily fox will steal all of the eggs, and blame it on the coon. When a chicken disappears, the fox will blame lightning, tree snakes or the farmer, but it is NEVER the fox, oh no… The fox just eats grubs, worms and dirt and such.
Report Comment
So approximately how far does this stuff travel in the air per hour? Does it hang over a given place for a while, or does it just continue moving along? Would it go up high enough for the jet stream to push it along, or would it mainly be moved by surface winds?
Report Comment
“The amount released Monday was estimated to be less than escaped in a 2010 steam release at the Braidwood nuclear plant about 50 miles southwest of Chicago, Mitlyng said.”
I never even heard of the Braidwood release (despite being in nearby Indiana at the time). Does anyone know how much was released then?
I’m glad we now have this site to keep us informed about such things (in as timely a manner as is possible given the plant operators’ tendency to not announce anything until they are forced to).
Report Comment
The EPA has wiped the central data server of all recordings… clear back to 2009! That’s why site went down!
Report Comment
@PattieB FOIA EPA, destruction or loss of data is not allowable. Also, just hearing PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS–everyone needs to get a yearly radiation badge–and have them read after each release. Wonder what THAT would show. The emergency responder badges are cheap at 30 bucks. Yes, I harp on the RADTriage Badges..but they work! Get them on AmaZon. Cheap at three times the price. Easy and pretty foolproof..which they have to be.
Report Comment
So this is a step up from the RADSticker I have? I haven’t used it yet.
Report Comment
Cancer Radiation Patients-they need the EXACT releases. My daughter has thyroid cancer–called me today concerned she has swollen lymph nodes in her throat and chest, burning eyes–. Should she need more treatments..all the external radiation is important for her doctor to factor in. And..she was exposed to both Hanford (birth to teens) and then, JOY to Chernobyl. So she has had enuf radiation from nuclear accidents. Please please, this is killing our children.
Report Comment
the data was there on tue. now, newest file on server has date of 2009… you tell me ?
Report Comment
:O Oh my! Smoking gun?
Who in the world has saved all the information? Does anyone have it downloaded?
Report Comment
all the dates that readings were taken remains… but all the readings are gone! all 0.0
Report Comment
We have to save that, it shows the data exists and has been hidden (unless it mysterious re-appears later, though if it’s altered that’s bad too).
I’m behind today so I don’t know if you’re talking about one page or more pages.
Report Comment
I did it for both RI & MA.. empty tables
Report Comment
it’s back up from dif server… but edited somewhat, and many beta are just blank now!
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/12/realtime-epa-radnet-japan-nuclear-radiation-monitoring-every-us-city-single-page-16511/
Report Comment
Hmmmm…..
Report Comment