5 ms·
Well, this confusion could be solved by disclosing exact details on the leakage, but despite my research I can’t seem to find any other number than 1.5M liters.
by yunohn 4y ago
Well, this confusion could be solved by disclosing exact details on the leakage, but despite my research I can’t seem to find any other number than 1.5M liters. I don’t see any evidence that the reporters made up the number.
Instead, the company and government agencies just reiterate that “it’s safe”.
- cinntaile 4y agoYes it's kind of weird that they leave out this information because this negatively impacts the trust you have in the decision.
- bandyaboot 4y agoI could be wrong as it was a couple days ago that I read this and I didn’t go through and parse out the differences between the two, but I think this local article may have a bit more detail: https://archive.is/p0hTx https://archive.is/p0hTx According to that, the concentration of radiation in the water directly under the plant is at least 50x above EPA limits. But that is where virtually no dilution will have occurred. If plant officials and state regulators are to be believed, the other monitoring locations around the site don’t yet show anything to get super worried about. Edit: Just to note, I live in the general area, but not particularly close to this specific location. Lucky for me I live in the area with water contaminated by 3M PFCs rather than Xcel Energy radiation. /s