3 ms·

This article doesn't even try to quantify the radioactivity of the water, it's completely, utterly, meaningless outrage bait, sprinkled with technically-true ca

This article doesn't even try to quantify the radioactivity of the water, it's completely, utterly, meaningless outrage bait, sprinkled with technically-true cancer risks for high concentrations and the storage high level dry cask waste in the site as enhancements of the scandalisation rather than as comparatives. If the water was just tap water, technically it's still slightly tritiated (tritiated water is made naturally and rains out of that atmosphere in minute amounts). And technically it could also be so radioactive that the Hudson ecosystem ends instantly. I'll bet that it's many, many of orders of magnitude closer to the former then the latter. Possibly Holtec is proposing a technically-legal ecological and health war crime. But you can't tell from this article.

maxerickson 4y ago
It sort of does, it says that the water has to be within the limits that were used during operation, so you can go look up the management plan: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2116/ML21168A062.html https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2116/ML21168A062.html The limit given for tritium in liquid effluent is 0.00001 microcuries per milliliter. That doesn't mean anything more to me than just stating that it has to be inline with the limits they used during operation. They also dilute the effluent as they release it, so the water anything would be exposed to would be well below that.
- shash 4y ago
  The conversion is hard, but here's some information from https://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/ https://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/ "The NRC allows a licensee to release an amount of tritium that could result in a radiation dose to a member of the public of up to 100 millirem (one millisievert) per year — in planned air and water effluents (Title 10, Code of Fedl. Regs., Part20.1301). The NRC translates one million picocuries of tritium per liter as the equivalent of 50 millirem/year (10 CFR Part 20, Introductory Notes to Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2). Please note: Table 2 lists concentrations in “microcuries per millileter.” For example, 1E-3 µCi/ml equals one million picocuries per liter." That's roughly two mammograms per year. Not inconsequential, but not earthshattering either. You're probably absorbing more than that from the Potassium in your body (according to https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/).
wodenokoto 4y ago
> Possibly Holtec is proposing a technically-legal ecological and health war crime. But you can't tell from this article. You pretty much can. The release of the water would be no different from the plants operating practice throughout the last 59 years, as per the article. That indicates that this is pretty benign.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Past standards aren't necessarily an indication though, based on what else was allowed to go on. I do agree that as described, the best option seems to be putting it in the river. And the best way to trade off time for lower concentrations of tritium is to limit the release rate. For example, if one is willing to wait 24 years to reduce the concentration by 75%, one can trickle the water out into the Hudson over that time and reduce the concentration much more. The whole article feels like typical journalism where they hide the numbers and go back and forth on binary options. When here especially, the numbers are most of what matters. edit: Pages 30 and 13 of the engineering report linked elsewhere in this thread says that the routine operating release was less than 1% of what is allowed by federal law, IIUC.

maxerickson 4y ago

It sort of does, it says that the water has to be within the limits that were used during operation, so you can go look up the management plan: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2116/ML21168A062.html https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2116/ML21168A062.html The limit given for tritium in liquid effluent is 0.00001 microcuries per milliliter. That doesn't mean anything more to me than just stating that it has to be inline with the limits they used during operation. They also dilute the effluent as they release it, so the water anything would be exposed to would be well below that.

shash 4y ago
The conversion is hard, but here's some information from https://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/ https://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/ "The NRC allows a licensee to release an amount of tritium that could result in a radiation dose to a member of the public of up to 100 millirem (one millisievert) per year — in planned air and water effluents (Title 10, Code of Fedl. Regs., Part20.1301). The NRC translates one million picocuries of tritium per liter as the equivalent of 50 millirem/year (10 CFR Part 20, Introductory Notes to Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2). Please note: Table 2 lists concentrations in “microcuries per millileter.” For example, 1E-3 µCi/ml equals one million picocuries per liter." That's roughly two mammograms per year. Not inconsequential, but not earthshattering either. You're probably absorbing more than that from the Potassium in your body (according to https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/).

wodenokoto 4y ago

> Possibly Holtec is proposing a technically-legal ecological and health war crime. But you can't tell from this article. You pretty much can. The release of the water would be no different from the plants operating practice throughout the last 59 years, as per the article. That indicates that this is pretty benign.

mindslight 4y ago
Past standards aren't necessarily an indication though, based on what else was allowed to go on. I do agree that as described, the best option seems to be putting it in the river. And the best way to trade off time for lower concentrations of tritium is to limit the release rate. For example, if one is willing to wait 24 years to reduce the concentration by 75%, one can trickle the water out into the Hudson over that time and reduce the concentration much more. The whole article feels like typical journalism where they hide the numbers and go back and forth on binary options. When here especially, the numbers are most of what matters. edit: Pages 30 and 13 of the engineering report linked elsewhere in this thread says that the routine operating release was less than 1% of what is allowed by federal law, IIUC.