Page 2 of 2

Re: tritium

Posted: 19 May 2017, 03:31
by sschrammel
we've purchased a plot of land with a confined aquifer below. We will be drilling 1000 ft to tap into its radium contaminated water.
it contains such high levels of it that drinking a glass of it will expose us to the equivalent of consuming an 1/4 of a BRAZIL NUT.
But since it is 10000 years old it will not contain the 9 out of 18 isotope combinations that are responsible for nearly all cancers.

Re: tritium

Posted: 03 Jun 2017, 01:30
by sschrammel
Another tidbit from our childhood can be found in Disneys Our friend the atom They had to change the ending to the story of the Fisherman and the lamp. In the original, the fisherman didn't believe the genie and tossed him back into the sea.

XX XY Is this Adam's rib?

Re: tritium

Posted: 03 Jun 2017, 10:57
by Steven Sesselmann
Too much nonsense here, Im closing this thread.


Re: tritium

Posted: 04 Jun 2017, 01:34
by sgt_bear
We all know that leaking substances into the enviroment isn't right or good.

But i like to mention one thing about the "drop or tritium". Yes, one of these drops could kill you, but the i guess the tritium is leaking in very big amounts of water- merging with much more water.

Imagine you have a drop of hydrochloric acid and it will drop on your tongue, most likely it will burn your skin very badly. Put the same drop into a liter of water, and take a drop from the mixture, you'll maybe not even notice the salt.

I found the on wikipedia about tritium leaking the following sentence
In one case, leaking water contained 7.5 microcuries (280 kBq) of tritium per litre, which is 375 times the EPA limit for drinking water.[
For this rare care, you would have to drink 1.3 Million liters of that water to actually reach that 10 Ci that would be lethal. Since no one usually drinks the water coming out of a nuclear plant, the water will mix with other bodies of water and the concentration will be much lower.

Personal Opinion: I worry way more about toxic chemicals in food and other consumer products than tritium or fukushima cs-137 in water.

Re: tritium

Posted: 04 Jun 2017, 05:09
by WillemG
Thanks sgt_bear for your comment on this issue. We could try to get more serious and scientifically based from now on.
The radiological toxicity of T (3H) (in the form of tritiated water: HTO) can indeed regarded as relatively low, as compared to isotopes as 32P, 90Sr or beta emitters as 131I and 137Cs. The beta emission of T is max ca 18keV (average ca 6 keV) and penetration depth for (outside)bio-tissues is 1-6 micrometer.
Moreover the biological halftime of HTO is 10 days, so it is removed again by the relatively large amount of water we are exchanging every day.
On the other hand, HTO easily transfers through cell membranes and can chemically incorporate by H-T exchange in e.g. aminoacids and/or DNA. In my earlier note I considered the difference in chemical kinetics by the isotope effect of T compared to H, which can lead to 6x slower chemical kinetics of T-bonds as compared to-H bonds. How this difference works out on biomechanisms is unclear, but chemical bond-strengths in bio-molecules are very different too.
The beta energy could be still so high that ionisation and excitation of chemical bonds in body tissues can occur (referring to UV damage). But bio-organisms have been exposed since ages to T and have so many repair mechanisms and mechanisms for destroying of cells and removal of dead tissues. (to be continued)
A very interesting report was issued in 2008 by the Directorate General of EU, Directorate H, Nuclear energy, H4, Radiation Protection.
Based on a Scientific Seminar 2007, Luxemburg: "Emerging Issues on Tritium and low Beta emitters", Radiation Protection Report No. 152