Mar 22, 2006

High Levels of Radioactive Material Found in Groundwater North of NYC

Share

(White Plains, NY) Dangerous levels of a radioactive isotope were found in groundwater near the Hudson River beneath a nuclear plant, according to Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

The groundwater is not believed to intersect drinking supplies, said a spokesman for the company. The strontium-90 from the Indian Point Energy Center is believed to have reached the Hudson River.

The carcinogenic strontium - 90 - measured at three times the amount permitted in drinking water - was found in a well dug in a search for the source of a leak of radioactive water from the Indian Point complex. The facility is located approximately 30 miles north of New York City.

The well samples also contained tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen and another potential carcinogen. The NRC announced Monday that it would investigate releases of tritium at Indian Point and other plants.

"When we first got these findings we were scratching our heads because it does raise questions about what the source (of the leak) really is," said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. "It's still all speculation. This is just one data point in a long process."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't be afraid - the government says it's OK.

--Petrograde

Calico Jack said...

This story won't make much news, and it should be the story of the year.

The NRC will probably get to the source of the contamination. That's what they are paid for, and the NRC knows that if it doesn't find any problems funding will be cut.

The results will probably never find their way to the national news, but I'd keep a watch on NYC. If the city water suddenly gets shut off, there may be some connection.

I can't remember how fast groundwater travels, but I'm thinking it's somewhere around 5 feet per year. Anyone know?

historymike said...

I agree, Jack. This story will likely get buried (pun only slightly intended).

JS_VP said...

Is that Hysteria Mike? or History Mike?

Now about "burying" the facts.

Now a word about the level of deception allowed to the so-called "activist community" in their day-to-day dealings with you, the public. It has been claimed that the EPA standard for SR90-induced radioctivity in water is 8 picocuries per litre, but that is an extrapolation, not formulated in the spirit of the agency's ruling.

The EPA focuses on a person, not a number, and sets the level of allowable yearly exposure, due to habitual daily consumption of a particular source of drinking water contaminated with SR90, as 4 millirems exposure, per drinker, per year.

That is the ruling.

If a drinker were to consume water containing 8 pc of SR90 activity, each day, for a year, he or she would approach the allowable yearly exposure limit of 4 millirems, due entirely to the SR90 contamination.

Logically, if that same drinker were to drink the water for only 6 months out of the year, it would require 16 picocuries of activity in the water , to cause 4 mr yearly exposure from the SR90 contamination.

If a person were to drink that same water for only one day, it would require 2920 picocuries per litre of SR90 activity, for them to approach the EPA limit, which is, in actuality, 4 mr exposure, per person , per year.

If the water were not consumed, the allowable EPA limit would not be approached, even if the water contained a trillion quintillion quadrillion septillion curies of SR90 activity.

So ingenuously exerpting a figure of "8 picocuries per litre", and citing it as an absolute, is neither in the spirit, nor the letter, of the EPA ruling, which refers only to a yearly exposure cap, for a habitual consumer, drinking from a water source on a constant basis (unable to obtain other drinking water).

Using a "personal exposure limit from habitually consumed drinking water" ruling , and its single day extrapolated figure (8pc/L), meaningful only to a 365-day consumption limit, in the case of water which is not consumed, is pure deception, and misrepresents the actual law.

So many instances of such loose use of "fact" exist in the activist literature, that the average listener has too much of a research burden placed upon him to discover the fallacies, and few ever make the effort.

Let me just caution listeners that from my experience, nearly every single utterance ever to issue forth from so-called "activist sources" has contained such intentional deception as its main technique, blatantly, without shame, done intentionally, in furtherance of "the cause",
whatever that "cause" might be.

Anonymous said...

i am suffering from glowing balls from drinking water in the Hudson river near indian point, fuck the nyc goverment they didn't even bother looking at my balls to comfirm my problem...cookie