View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:01 pm



Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Radiation is here! So what can we do?? 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:28 pm
Posts: 42
EB702D3F wrote:
Here's a great video for Canada radiation water limit increases...


The health Canada guidelines Dana shows in the video were published May 2009. I looked on-line and found this report published in April 1999 which shows the same levels (in table 3 on the last page) as the numbers in Dana's video: http://www.nucfilm.com/canada_standards.pdf

According to this review, for tritium in drinking water, the guidelines are based on ICEP 60 (1991) recommendation that the public dose be REDUCED from 5mSv/y to 1mSv/y, so after 1993 it was changed from 40,000 Bq/L to 7,000 Bq/L: http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/standards_re ... iation.pdf

Actual measurements are well below this <20Bq/L. The guideline really only matters if your downstream from a npp that has major leak of tritium into the environment.


Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:14 pm
Posts: 426
Really? I don't know Dana but...

What's this? A doubting Thomas, Another one?

---------------
ammdb Said:

REDUCED from 5mSv/y to 1mSv/y ????
---------------


Even 1mSv/y is far too much! usv maybe?


Pretty scary...

...what's in the ol' bek is what realllllllllly worries me!

Is it a banana? a lead stick? A bearded lady? Really (micro/nano) small fuel fragments? Naaaaaa...

+
- =
- +
+ + -
- +
- =

+

...chemical reactions (in the body and environment) from heavy and light metals are a factor for years to come (even after undetectable)...



===================



What? Another one? Come on man you gotta say this one again...


---------------
ammdb Said:

"20Bq/L. The guideline really only matters if your downstream from a npp that has major leak of tritium"

https://www.netc.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f ... t=10#p7023
-------------------


Really?

Tell that to a child that's dying from Leukemia...


===============



...so you think his (Dana) data is wrong? All these things are disappearing for another reason?

The guy seems to be a real fisherman/ecologist. Doesn't have to be a scientist for his eyes to work.


As grandma used to say "The proof's in the puddin".

_________________
LP / http://lamarsworldmall.com/weather

View my other posts here:
https://www.netc.com/bb/search.php?keyw ... mit=Search


netc.com (donate will ya?)...


Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:28 pm
Posts: 42
I stand corrected. If you scroll down to section 2.2 of the 'Standards and Guidelines for Tritium in Drinking Water ' you'll find the WHO calculations for deriving the guidelines.

http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resource ... -water.cfm

GL = (1x10^-4 Sv per year)/(730 L/year * 1.8x10^-11 Sv/Bq) = 7,610 Bq/L

The section also states "guidelines for radionuclides in drinking water have been derived based on a reference dose level (RDL) or effective dose of 0.1 mSv from one year’s consumption of drinking water. This represents 10 percent of the dose limit for members of the public, as recommended by the ICRP [ICRP, 1991a] and as adopted in the Basic Safety Standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA, 1996] and the CNSC’s Radiation Protection Regulations."

So the calculated dose is based on 0.1mSv/y, not 1mSv/y as I stated earlier.

Section 3.3.2 shows Variation in RDL (or committed effective dose):

Australia:1 mSv per year=76,103 Bq/L [NHMRC, 2004]
Finland:0.5 mSv per year=30,000 Bq/L [STUK, 1993]
United States:0.04 mSv per year = 740 Bq/L (or 2,253 Bq/L, see variation 3.3.4)

I'm not justifying the numbers that faceless bureaucrats came up with all in the name of pubic safety, or attempting to defend nuclear power, I'm showing they haven't been increased.


Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:28 pm
Posts: 42
EB702D3F wrote:
ammdb Said:

"20Bq/L. The guideline really only matters if your downstream from a npp that has major leak of tritium"


I stated <20Bq/L. The less then sign is important. I'm not saying there 's 20Bq/L is in everyones water, in almost all cases it's much less than this. If you read the tritium wiki page it says how some is created naturally by cosmic rays, and we still have some from the weapons test legacy, so tritium is already in drinking water w/o living in the same water shed as a nuclear power plant. Also it has a very short biological half life of 7 to 14 days, and is a weak beta emitter, which is why the drinking water guideline is so much higher for tritium than other radio isotopes in water, based on dose.


Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:14 pm
Posts: 426
Thanks for the correction and the quick reply!

My point is simply this (not defending or coming down on anyone).

If you get a dose from say potassium 40 your'e fine.

If the same dose came from radioactive lead "your'e dead fred..." due not only to the radiation but also the chemical reactions in your body from the toxic substances. We use GM's and other tools/methods to find these substances but a banana versus a radioactive lead (nano) fragment are in no way comparable. Simply using the same method of detection says little (to nothing) about the toxicity of the substances involved.

So there are many ways to "fudge the actual readings".

I fully understand some of this due to economic and overall safety concerns. In times of riot, a stray bullet will give you lead poisoning way faster than your water supply...

...however the levels were increased for substances that will cause you harm. The overall numbers may not reflect this fact if we actively reduce other less problematic (easier to filter and treat) substances in our water and air.

So I will have to say that the levels of dangerous substances (like tritium that can't be removed with any of today's technology) have increased while other substances were removed to decrease the overall numbers when testing.

If you remove the potassium 40 (and other naturally radioactive substances) the increased numbers won't show as much...


By the way a shorter halflife is WAYYY more dangerous if ingested...

_________________
LP / http://lamarsworldmall.com/weather

View my other posts here:
https://www.netc.com/bb/search.php?keyw ... mit=Search


netc.com (donate will ya?)...


Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:17 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:28 pm
Posts: 42
This link was posted in the comments section under Dana's video.

ONTARIO DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/0 ... cation=ufi

Scroll down and there's a long list of radiological standards. There's also a formula on the bottom for calculating when more than radionuclide is detected, so combinations of all of them can't exceed the standard, even if one alone dose not.

There's historical versions available as well, so you can see which standards have changed over the years.


Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:14 pm
Posts: 426
Another Great link!!!

I think I'm starting to get what Dana Was actually trying to say (my opinion only). May have been a slip of the tongue from him...

So if they have limits for these things we have to assume they are expecting them to some degree right?

OK so these limits are in litre right?

Tritium
7000

Cesium-134
7.0

Cesium-137
10.0

Iodine-131
6.0

Americium-241
0.2

Plutonium-238
0.3 (239 and 240 are 0.2)

And many more...

If you lived in water "full time", using cubic meter multiplication would maybe explain the ELE going on in the Pacific for marine life. And the shorter lifespan for most everything else that uses that water to some degree.

Simply terrifying...

We all drank out of the tap (and mountain streams too) for over a half a century and never gave it a second thought until recently. We even used to hike/climb with iodine tabs in case we ran low on water in the summertime.

Drank from many a waterfall and dove in the pond without hesitation.

Pollution from transportation, power generation or pesticides were not on our minds then.

Now we have new burdens on our systems to consider...

... and places like http://netc.com to bat them around in!!! Let's butt heads and get to the truth!

_________________
LP / http://lamarsworldmall.com/weather

View my other posts here:
https://www.netc.com/bb/search.php?keyw ... mit=Search


netc.com (donate will ya?)...


Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:13 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:14 pm
Posts: 426
http://netc.com is paid for by a VERY few (very smart and willing to help) people...

WE NEED YOU to step up and help fund this endeavor!!!


Attachment:
we_need_you.jpg
we_need_you.jpg [ 36.47 KiB | Viewed 10037 times ]



...Please donate today!

For our children, grandchildren and beyond...

_________________
LP / http://lamarsworldmall.com/weather

View my other posts here:
https://www.netc.com/bb/search.php?keyw ... mit=Search


netc.com (donate will ya?)...


Thu May 28, 2015 11:51 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.