19,280 Gallons Of Radioactive Water Leaked Into Lake Ontario
Thousands of liters of radioactive water have been released into Lake Ontario as a result of an accident at a Canadian nuclear power plant, according to authorities.
“The event was a low level regulatory event with only negligible effect to the environment and no public health implications,” Ontario Power said in a statement on Wednesday.
Source
Our “authorities” say there is only a negligible effect to the environment and no public health implications. No need to worry people. 20,000 gallons of radioactive water leaking into the already severely polluted lake Ontario is nothing to worry about.
Think of a container or pool that is 10 feet by 10 feet by 27 feet, filled with radioactive water. Now imagine dumping that into your city (and many other cities) water supply. Would that concern you?
The “authorities” also state that there will be no impact to public drinking water. My advice would be do not touch tap water if you live in a city close to lake Ontario! This really shows the level of complacency in our public health departments. 20,000 gallons of radioactive water entering the public water supply, Do not sweat it! It is harmless.
I just mentioned that a few days in the past!!!
Hey friend can i publish some paragraph of your article on my little blog of university.I have to publish a good articles out there and i really think your post Fits best into it.I will be grateful to give you an source link as well.I have two blogs one my own and the other which is my college blog.I will publish some part in the university blog.Hope you do not mind.
If you could e-mail me with a few suggestions on just how you made your blog look this excellent, I would be grateful.
this post is very usefull thx!
I want to post quick hello and want to say appriciate for this good article. kk8hH2FrXERjS9
I want to post quick hello and want to say appriciate for this good article. w1DgRmxAnbGbMN
Perfect site, i like it!
Great work, webmaster, nice design!
^ Chris, firstly it’s really a shame you have the same name as me, especially since your clearly a condescending retard.
Free energy has been suppressed for years, water propulsion systems were invented and suppressed as well. Big oil and big business don’t want free energy, or cheap energy.
There was a paint invented a few years back which was able to convert sunlight into enough electricity to run basic household appliances, unfortunately the technology still hasn’t been used even though it’s a genius idea.
Just look at the works of Nikola Tesla made leaps and bounds towards clean and free energy which was how he wanted his ideas to be used, unfortunately his breakthroughs were used to nuclear bombs and kill rather than to promote and encourage life around the world.
So why don’t YOU do some research into ALL energy sources before spewing your pro-nuclear rhetoric and correcting other peoples grammar.. because the fact is, you come off like a really arrogant asshole so STFU unless you want to get owned again.
The Savage Beast.
P.S has a half-life of 12.3 years so go ahead and drink the water. I’m gonna drink Vancouver Glacier water for now.
Fact
Tritium ( /ˈtrɪtiəm/ or /ˈtrɪʃiəm/; symbol T or 3
H, also known as hydrogen-3) is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The nucleus of tritium (sometimes called a triton) contains one proton and two neutrons, whereas the nucleus of protium (by far the most abundant hydrogen isotope) contains one proton and no neutrons. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth, where trace amounts are formed by the interaction of the atmosphere with cosmic rays. The name of this isotope is formed from the Greek word “tritos” meaning “third.”
The legal limits for tritium in drinking water vary from country-to-country and from continent-to-continent. Some figures are given below.
Canada: 7,000 becquerel per liter (Bq/L).
United States: 740 Bq/L or 20,000 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) (Safe Drinking Water Act)
World Health Organization: 10,000 Bq/L.
European Union: “investigative” limit of 100 Bq/L.
The American limit is calculated to yield a dose of 4.0 millirems (or 40 microsieverts in SI units) per year. This is about 1.3% of the natural background radiation (roughly 3000 microsieverts).
Health risk
Tritium, even in low levels, has been linked to developmental problems, reproductive problems, genetic abnormalities, and other health problems in laboratory animals.(13) Additionally, there is evidence of adverse health effects on populations near facilities which utilize tritium (e.g. the Darlington tritium extraction facility in Ontario, Canada).(14) Tritium most commonly enters the environment in gaseous form (T2) or as a replacement for one of the hydrogen atoms in water (HTO, called “tritiated water,” instead of ordinary, non-radioactive H2O). Tritiated water can replace ordinary water in human cells (approximately 70% of the soft tissue in the human body is water).(15) It can also enter fetuses through the placenta due to its similarities to ordinary water. Once in living cells, tritium can replace hydrogen in the organic molecules in the body. Thus, despite tritium’s low radiotoxicity in gaseous form and its tendency to pass out of the body rather rapidly as water, its health effects are made more severe by its property of being chemically identical to hydrogen.(16)
Tritium contamination exists in the groundwater, surface water, and soil at SRS, among other sites, from both operational releases and accidents.(17) It should be noted that according to the DOE’s analysis, all radiological and hazardous chemical effects from new tritium production will be within federal regulations.
In addition to the potential problems from normal and accidental tritium releases, there are the health and environmental effects that are normally associated with reactor operations. Should the DOE decide to pursue the reactor option, it would generate from 68 to 105 metric tons of heavy metal in spent fuel per year.(18) This would be added to the over 2,600 metric tons of heavy metal in spent fuel currently awaiting disposal by the DOE.(19) Additionally, there would be low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and other wastes produced by a reactor during normal operations.
Although an accelerator would not produce spent fuel, it would produce other waste products, including low-level radioactive waste. The coal or natural gas facility needed to power the accelerator would also create environmental problems, including emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contribute to the problems of acid rain and global warming and have adverse health effects.(20) Still, according to the DOE, the environmental effects of accelerator production of tritium would be less than those from a reactor. This was a factor in their decision to designate the accelerator as one track in their preferred option.
Lee, firstly, educate yourself, please. Do the math and figure out how many solar panels and wind turbines you would need to take the place of one fission plant, let alone the 20 plants in operation across Canada. Then try saying shame on anyone for still using fission power.
Second, read the article and tell me how I’m supposed to take the writer seriously when they don’t quote any real sources(just stating “authorities” instead of giving a name), and why they don’t even understand the English language(substituting “are” for “our”)
What a tragedy..! This is completely unacceptable.! With the technology that we have with solar power, wind power and water turbine there should be no need and use for such a dangerous form of energy production..! Shame on Canada for not waking up..!!
Instead of posting misleading news we can clarify how this water is ‘radioactive’