You do realize that 1/3 of the major nuclear disasters was from a government controlled nuclear plant? If you go below 'catastrophic' and look at the behavior of government controlled plants, you'll find that their record is actually much worse than the commercial plants. That includes the USA and USSR.
This is your argument for nuclear power?
There's plenty of incentives to be safe.
Well perhaps you think we should repeal the Price-Anderson act then?
Also, I've worked on military installations. 'Safety Culture'? We're not really any better than private industry.
I'm refering to Admiral Rickover's Naval Reactor program, which ironically I found out about when I was reading the Columbia Accident Investigation. They are the types of minds we need running the nuclear industry. To put into some perspective, they put 5000 people onto studying the Columbia shuttle accident to improve *their* safety standards. So I am refering to something specific and it was Rickover's creation.
Also, consider that the USA hasn't had a major disaster since TMI, which is when we went through and drastically increased safety requirements, instituting drastically altered safety protocols. Defense in depth, automatic safety systems, etc...
And let's hope that continues. I must tell you I am exceptionally pleased that SONGS has closed down.
I think you need to lay off the oil-nuclear conspiracy theories. And yes, that's what I'd relate them as.
2005 Energy Act Sec 600 onward. You will need to read the entire section on Nuclear law and funding to understand the interrelationships. It is quite a fascinating read.
Also the repelation of Public Utilities Companies Holding Act, 1929 in the same bill.
The companies proposing them is on the public record.
Nuclear has historically been a baseload electrical
Baseload is a grid function.
I was seriously off-put by your allegations.
Why? It's just business. It might be immoral but it isn't illegal and that's a lot of money up for grabs. That is the epitome of capitalism. Personally, I think it's genius. Power plants are just machines, after all.
It's very strange that the funding allocations for producing hydrogen from reactors hasn't been utilized, I'd imagine that would be quite a profitable business.
I love Star Trek, Star Wars and especially Sci Fi. I say this because they are only kinda the same. I like the original Trek ideas and I want to be entertained however the caretaker of those ideas in the commercial space is now gone and whoever is making this thing certainly doesn't care about those values, it's time to put the franchise to work. Gotta make a profit - cause that's what Trek is all about.
People loved Trek because it was genuine, interesting and it challenged them a bit, but not to much. And it didn't take itself too seriously. If you try to do that now people say it's lame, which by saying makes them lame, because it's obvious it's lame because the lameness makes us remember not to get our heads to far up our asses. It's not supposed to be that serious, it's a TV show.
Personally, I think the future of Trek is with the fans who love the show, it's ideas and the belief, that maybe, if we are reeeeeeaaaaaallllllyy lucky, and we work *real fucking hard* our society could actually be that way. If the fans aren't writing the stories, then there is little point in doing it because it is not sincere anymore.
But if they do make it then can we please stop whining about what they do that you don't like and let the rest of us geeks enjoy the show. If you don't like it, then write something better yourself instead of wasting bandwidth on complaining. Personally I'd be ok with no more Trek and let's see some new stories, perhaps, Bears Darwin's Radio or even an Enders Game (Bear wrote some of the hardest sci fi versions of Star Trek that I've read - btw!), otherwise do as Shatner suggests and 'get a life'.
Sometimes it will be good and sometimes it will be crap, but if you smother it with expectations then it will never be brilliant.
Mr D hasn't presented anything to back his claims other than his own diatribe and some quick google searches, so neither does he.
You however have said something very specific:
You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either
Ok, help me out then. Are you referring me to more recent works on Tritium?
What are your specific criticisms of these studies, have they been dis-proven?
Are you telling me there is a reason why I should change my mind about the consequences of Tritium in the body, and where it is deposited when it gets there?
Are you suggesting that their is no damage caused by beta emissions on the DNA in the reproductive organs as these studies suggest?
Are you suggesting that radionuclides absorbed into and remaining in the body will not do damage to the cells or DNA relative to the amouint of radiation they emit?
MrD claims that the information about the magnitude of radionuclide products released at Fukushima is in the IAEA report but is yet to say where in the 1200 pages I will need to look to find exactly how much and of which radionuclide effluents have been released. It is the fist link he has posted to back his claims and I doubt he has read it at all. I've been meaning to read it anyway.
Apart from having some doubts about the veracity of information from an organization by whose own charter states it is dedicated to the expansion of Nuclear Power, I think he is confused about external and internal radiation exposure, the potential for radionuclides to accumulated inside the body and, the damage it can cause once it is there.
I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here.
Neither am I, directly. Specifically I am discussing the radionuclide products released by the Fukushima disasters. I don't think it is possible to do a proper statistical analysis without this information, otherwise how would you know what to look for, the effects will take so long. WHO reports it took about 6 years for the most direct exposures to manifest into Thyroid difficulties from the Chernobyl disaster before their funding was cut.
Also I think it's too early to start talking about cancers from the Fukushima disasters - so don't think that is what I am saying.
As Japan eats seafood I expect they probably have more iodine in their diet so it's reasonable to presume there will be other differences. I don't think the Japanese government is helping by suppressing information. I hope for the best because we wish good will to people.
Perhaps you have specific expertise to offer so if you have anything to say about the works I referenced. I'm open to changing my mind on things if people can provide the evidence of why it should be done. This is a pretty complex subject and the biology is only one aspect.
I will welcome a conversation with you based on fact in a civil discourse.
Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.
However the way you used it, it was.
ad hominem:
adjective
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Had you decided not to include my argument in your statement(2), then it would not be. Since you did, it is.
my position is that you're being a jackass.
Welcome to slashdot Mr Ward. My position is you're coming off as a bit of a smart ass instead of the adult Mr Rogers want's you to be.
Some of use have Karma to burn which means we can be a jackass if we feel it is appropriate. It was appropriate to flame because MrD is the first definition and he has been a troll sockpuppet since long before you were posting here. I'm guessing for you that's probably about a year so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're new here. If you have a problem with me excercising my freedom of speech then I suggest that you are in the wrong place. I am certainly glad you are exercising yours.
It's a bit of a confrontational way to introduce yourself. You're probably right I should hold myself to a higher moral authority however I haven't roasted a troll for years and I really enjoyed it so I am completely unapologetic.
I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.
While Mr D has not provided evidence,
(FTFY) to back up his claims, I did.
at least he was polite.
A polite troll is still a troll and MrD is pretty crafty polite troll who appeals to groupthink. I reject the inference that I wasn't being polite about it though, I think I was pretty good humoured.
How tolerant should I be? I am only human and my tolerance is limited. I don't accept bullshit on this matter. Trivializing it the way MrD does shows he is not prepared to argue sincerely.
For some reason, I typo'd his name
It's no way to treat a role model, he seems like such a nice man. How ironic that he is a puppeteer and my reply unknowingly frames you as a sockpuppet, my sincerest apologies. Is there a specific lesson about niceness you want me to see?
Perhaps Mr Rogers wouldn't tell you 'you are being a hypocrite', maybe he'd just say "Why don't you just try being nice".
Perhaps this quote from Voltaire is worth considering:
What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature
I got into technology to learn new stuff as much as possible, why is someone telling me I don't like to learn new stuff when I am learning new stuff.
Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole thing is a way to create a young vs old mindset in technologists so that they can work the young guys like slaves and coerce the older guys into taking smaller salaries? This 'vs' mindset produces the double whammy of reducing the career earnings of every technology person no matter what they do, no matter what their age is.
Anyone, young or old, in IT who has a 'commercial' mind set when evaluating whether a technology is worth learning and how long it will take, will have a rough idea if they can yield a return on the effort spent learning it, or if they just like that technology and want to for fun. Brainfuck is an interesting piece of technology however I doubt there is much return in learning it. Young and old have one thing in common, we all want to make money doing something we like and are good at.
The great thing about IT is if I teach a younger guy how to negotiate a higher salary, it pushes my salary up too. I actually want you to be a better negotiator and I want to teach and learn from you because I know increasing the popularity of a certain tech pushes all our salaries up as more companies adopt it. Knowledge isn't scarce however the talent to utilize it is. Talent *is* the scarcity in the technology economy that makes your age irrelevant.
Knowing how callous the management in IT organizations can be, I've got a feeling there was a conversation somewhere that went along the lines of 'how do we drive down the costs of acquiring the talent we need',,,, 'I know let's pit old and young against each other'.
What better way to yield a return on a technology person's career after working them like a slave for the duration of it. The only winners in this younger vs older thing are the companies that either have to pay the same for more hours out of a young person or pay less for the experience of the older people. I've got a sense that this will backfire big time as young people deciding on an IT career go 'Fuck that, its not worth the effort' and older people decide it's not worth dealing with assholes anymore resulting in lethargy and a stagnation of ideas.
Every time I see these stories I get an increased sense that this entire younger vs older thing is about making technology peoples *talent*, no matter what their age, irrelevant so that the ensuing divide drives down salary expenses for all technology people.
We need to stay focused on driving IT in the direction where all our salaries go up.
For those who don't need a third party to read something for them this is a link to the actual bill. The bill itself is a lot less reading than all of the articles on it.
I just gisted the bill, it looks like one of these fait accomplis that follow this disturbing pattern we see of aligning the laws of Echelon (5 eyes, sigint or whatever other names it is know by) countries within the bounds of their beleaguered constitutions. Almost a year ago to the day laws with the same intent were passed in Australia under the NSL 2014.
If I may share my interpretation the bill, the main purpose appears to be to align the legal structures for government agencies to share information. Its up for interpretation and the more eyes reading this the better. I'll need a good read to really get it.
Of specific interest was that the law is beating a pretty fast drum for the Federal agencies to comply with a 60-180 day time frame for them to develop policy. I'm going to guess that they want to allocate budget spending to implement the policy withing the next 12 months. Of particular concern in the US version the bill allows for Federal agencies to spy on state, local and individuals (sec 2.8).
If the pattern is followed we can expect the UK and Canada to be next as these legal frameworks have already been passed in Australia and NZ - both political parties supported it there as well.
Why the governments of our countries are so intent on harassing their population is anyone's guess. What would be really great is if these bills were posted to/. *before* they passed. At least then the outrage could be channeled into constructive action.
Coal produces far more radiation than nuclear [...]
This myth got debunked on/. already a 1000 times.
They just keep going on with it though. What comes out of coal is a natural element, hasn't been enriched and is no where near as dangerous as what comes out of a reactor.
Here is the finger pointing I see:
blame coal, blame the greenies, blame the environmentalists, it's all the NIMBYs fault, it's my fault, it's your fault - just hopeless finger pointing because they never point at the nuclear industry and say, yeah - it's those motherfuckers fault. The nuclear industries way of dealing with problems is to either say 'it's not a problem' or 'it's not *my* problem' and they never take responsibility for what they do.
As if that hippy in the combi van demanded safety procedures be wound back a fukushima so tepco could make an extra $100M, it's so ridiculous.
I've never found then scary when under the water. But when you are in the surf and all you can see is a fin I have found it down right terrifying. I think it is because you can't see the whole animal. So your mind turns it into something bigger than Jaws.
I'm a confident swimmer so when I'm out there I duck under and have a look at the sandbars so I can pick the where the best waves are for a body bash, which is usually an advantage over the board riders who can't tell what is under them - which is what I think you mean.
You can't help looking for that dark shadow.
Once when I was out there I saw a seal, in a hurry, he swam right at me and I knew when I saw the paniced look in its eyes it was trying to escape. I got the fuck out of there immediately - swam at right angles to the seal. I was still panting from swimming hard and as I got out the 'shit!, shark' warnings started. That was a bit too close - lesson earned.
My mate told me his experience while he was on a board, they don't always attack first, sometimes they bump up against you to see how tough you are - what you might taste like. It did, he crapped his dacs and got the fuck out of there because he was not that tough. He said the shark skin was like coarse sandpaper and would easily graze skin - he had a wet suit on.
It's pretty clear when they are hunting so avoid the times when the sun is coming up or down to be in the water because that is when the shadows are longest and the sharks are hungriest.
It leaves me wondering though, if all those factory ships are out there getting all the fish, why wouldn't the sharks are coming closer to shore to find food?
Breeder reactors *create* more plutonium because they transmute the additional two fuel elements placed in them (palladium and lithium IIRC) into plutonium.
Don't forget the red-backs in the toilets. And the huntsmen that roam the bedrooms carrying necrotizing fasciitis.
Holy hell. Is Australia the result of some lab accident gone wrong, or what?
The Maralinga tests outback resulted in some strange interactions with the DNA of the animals that were out there. In the cities we just dismissed some of the stories as kooky country folk, but then strange things happened in the outer suburbs. When it finally got to the cities, we knew we were in trouble and we had to desperately find somewhere these strange toxic migrants would go willingly.
Mel Gibson and Russel Crowe have been in the US for a while now and we are forever indebted to you for it.
So basically capitalism fucks things like nuclear power up with is emphasis on short term profits over everything else.
There is a reason it took governments to put us into space. I think that government has a role in innovation doing risky stuff that has to be done right. You wouldn't expect a profit from running a Nuclear submarine because it has a very specific role.
From what I've learned about Admiral Rickover he was the kind of guy that had little tolerance for stupid people which probably why the naval reactor program hasn't had any accidents.
There is absolutely no reason why such a culture couldn't exist for nuclear programs, because that is the discipline they require. Nuclear power is a risky business like no other industry, if it wasn't it wouldn't require it's own legislation (the Price Anderson Act) to cover it's liability.
The pro-nuke crowd never gets this. If nuclear power is done right it's fine. On an engineering level they knew this but they constantly rage against 'environmentalists' and 'liberals' who are also quite right in that the people we allow to handle this stuff are not to be trusted.
I think they just transpose their idea of an 'ideal nuclear industry' onto reality and that is what they believe the nuclear industry is, which is totally unconnected to reality. Confront that belief system and they believe it even more strongly, classic social proof. Then point at some poor hippy in his combi van as if has some magical powerful influence of the entire nuclear industry. It's just ridiculous to believe they have *any* influence at all. The evidence of which is in the law itself.
Science tells us there are consequences to our DNA, and reactors are just machine with parameters and limits. It's just finger pointing, not problem solving.
Of course, nobody's allowed to notice, let alone mention, that there can be situations where the for profit publicly traded megacorp model could possibly be less than ideal for everything.
There is no reason a publicly owner Nuclear power industry could be created with stewardship of the industry and development of the technology that ran counter to economic cycles. For example, In times of economic hardship a publicly owner power infrastructure could drop the price of bulk electricity purchases as an economic stimulus to industry.
Unfortunately it looks like we'll be saddled with cheap AP-1000's and a dependence on coal for decades to come with incompetence and greed leading the industry to another accident and that will be the end of it forever along with any hope of building something that works or handling the radio-isotopes left behind.
Well, if Mr.Kaos reads the thousand page regulations that way, I guess it's so.
I am a voracious reader, so have a read of the law yourself and share what you find if you disagree. It's not fun and it's only 500 odd pages, which isn't huge, mostly boring with some interesting moments.
The oil and coal industry lobby politicians to safeguard their interests because business is brutal, you're hopelessly naive if you don't think that the coal industry celebrates a market win over nuclear via a legislative construct. If you are uncomfortable about the legislative hold that the oil and coal industry has over the nuclear industry why don't you do something about it instead of claiming it's all the fault of environmentalists and NIMBYs and me.
Burying your head in the sand, pointing fingers and yelling 'FUD, FUD' isn't going to solve these problems and criticizing me for sharing information just shows you're not really serious about anything other than creating conflict.
Did you do while on break from WoW?
My life is more interesting. When I am not involved in designing something I make a habit of using my time to read proposed or actual laws to defend the democracy and freedom for you to anonymously illustrate the kind of dogmatically skeptical, social proof based attack that I get subjected to when I challenge ignorance with reason and fact.
You leave very little room to be civil so I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings but I do not suffer fools gladly.
It just confirmed what has been obvious for decades. Part of the long chain of fuckups at Fukushima was having stuff "temporarily" on-site that should have had something better than the ridiculous adhoc storage that was used implemented a couple of decades ago.
Precisely. I'm not against the idea of developing nuclear power but any rational person looking at the facts will uncover that it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed. It has the potential to solve problems, if it is done right however all to often we see a fixation on reactor technology instead of looking at the entire industry as a whole and the challenges it poses.
Geologically sound containment facilities should be one of those 'no-brainer' issues solved decades ago.
Also reprocessing is a method to avoid a shortage of fuel, it's not a waste management solution - in fact it results in an increase in low level waste.
An illustration of that is that France, the only nation to do extensive reprocessing, this month shipped a few tons of radioactive waste to Australia.
It is waste that is much easier to deal with and store than spent fuel rods but it still needs attention. Reprocessing is not a case of waving a magic wand and making the waste go away, it has an entirely different purpose which is very useful but not the same thing as waste management.
The Nuclear industry is in a mess and it is in the commercial interests of the oil and coal industry to stifle any evolution of that would allow it to compete in the energy market. I think that they are very happy with the current state of affairs. Storing spent fuel rods in a proper containment facility would mean that the industry would reduce the impact of any potential accidents and create a threat to coal's electricity business.
[sic]This is what the stupid scaremongering of the media, some politicians and many environmentalists ends up causing: instead of building Gen III or even Gen IV plants, we're finishing ancient Gen II plants because that's all that's been approved, decades ago.
The 2005 Energy act prevents entities like that and local governments from interfering with the placement and approval of Nuclear facilities, including Reactors. Compliance for building a nuclear reactor was established by the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission so it has very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
They are quite literally the cause for nuclear energy's relative safety concerns.
I'd suggest that it is more the operator of the facilities not complying with the manufacturers recommended operating conditions for the reactors. Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents all came about due to problem with the operator's procedures and had very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
If the government could make its mind up and stop wasting time, the US could rapidly diminish and even eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels without even having to suffer through energy shortages. Allow breeder reactors on top and you'd also eliminate the whole nuclear waste scare while being that much more efficient and cost-effective.
The Act mentioned above allows budget for those programs. Breeder reactors *create* more plutonium because they transmute the additional two fuel elements placed in them (palladium and lithium IIRC) into plutonium.
It is not a scare though, it is a valid concern as Fukushima has really shown us that storing the spent fuel at reactor sites is a really bad idea when things go wrong.
Burner reactors are a much better idea and EBR tested the reactor component of an Integral Fast Reactor facility (known as IFR) that actually *burns* plutonium at around 15-20% of the fuel load (compared to the 0.3% of existing BWR/PWR). Such technology answered pro and anti nuclear concerns by addressing issues of (spent) fuel storage (now fuel for this technology), reprocessing and reactors into a single facility. Additionally the reactor could consume depleted uranium.
Personally, I think the solution for the Nuclear industry is to start with some sites around the US capable of containing the waste products and design it so that it can also contain reprocessing *AND* reactor facilities in the belly of a granite mountain. That way you save on the energy inputs required to demolish the IFR reactor safely by disposing of it "in-situ". By my calculations such a reactor facility would have a roughly 1.5Tw hour advantage, per reactor, over a Gen III designs, over the lifetime of the reactor.
Unfortunately Clinton halted development on this revolutionary reactor design and W.Bush funded it's demolition, clearly showing apolitical motivations for preventing anything that could destabilize the oil and coal industries hold on the energy industry. I imagine a technology that answered infrastructure issues by producing electricity (coal) and hydrogen (vehicle fuel) would not be popular with established energy producers.
My reading of the act suggests that oil and coal companies are using approvals for more modern reactors as a way to access taxpayer funded financial incentives as those companies receive substantial funding from tax payers even if they just propose to build a reactor and then don't do it. It's all contained in that act for anyone to read.
There is nothing in the act that I could see that would prevent such infrastructure being planned and developed. Funding exists in the act and is available until 2025. The current 4-8 year political structure precludes any such visions manifesting as few politicians have an appetite for things that exceed their term in office coupled with educating the populous about why certain issues have to be solved.
It would seem you are adept at the ad-hom yourself using it in an attempt to discredit the evidence presented, whilst presenting none yourself.
Unless you have read the history of dealing with this troll you wouldn't really understand how exceptionally patient I've been. He has never provided any links or evidence to support his claims until the most recent posts and ad hom attacks have been his dominant characteristic among a number of other tactics. My patience is limited.
You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either.
Yet you haven't shown me where this work on tritium has been superseded with anything more recent leaving the onus on me to waste my time proving your argument. It's so interesting that you comment here instead of the original post and omit the reference from the nineties. If you've got some citations to share, I'd welcome them.
Nothing I've posted required subsequent correction as my troll friend has needed to do.
Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.
Yet here you are doing exactly the same thing as my troll friend. Instead of explaining your position you choose to attack me and my argument with nothing to contribute except a sentence and an air of moral superiority and arrogance. I don't really know who Mr Rodgers is so perhaps he would tell you that by taking the approach you have you come off as a hypocrite.
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Produce the evidence, the exact pages in the IAEA report.
I'll let you into a little secret: I've already done it. That's how I KNOW you are a bullshit artist'e. Now I'm quite tired of your word twisting, mouth mangling bullshit for now, so I'm going to go and stop wasting time on you for a while I do something more interesting.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.
I'm sure I will get modded into oblivion, but I don't care because that absolutely made my week. I want you to know, I am still laughing at you, right now.
I'll go one step further since you pointed it out in the other discussion. Here is a list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium, with references, in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
References;
Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.
Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.
Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.
Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6):657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]
Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.
Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.
Slashdot Mirror
This is your argument for nuclear power?
Well perhaps you think we should repeal the Price-Anderson act then?
I'm refering to Admiral Rickover's Naval Reactor program, which ironically I found out about when I was reading the Columbia Accident Investigation. They are the types of minds we need running the nuclear industry. To put into some perspective, they put 5000 people onto studying the Columbia shuttle accident to improve *their* safety standards. So I am refering to something specific and it was Rickover's creation.
And let's hope that continues. I must tell you I am exceptionally pleased that SONGS has closed down.
2005 Energy Act Sec 600 onward. You will need to read the entire section on Nuclear law and funding to understand the interrelationships. It is quite a fascinating read.
Also the repelation of Public Utilities Companies Holding Act, 1929 in the same bill.
The companies proposing them is on the public record.
Baseload is a grid function.
Why? It's just business. It might be immoral but it isn't illegal and that's a lot of money up for grabs. That is the epitome of capitalism. Personally, I think it's genius. Power plants are just machines, after all.
It's very strange that the funding allocations for producing hydrogen from reactors hasn't been utilized, I'd imagine that would be quite a profitable business.
41.948333, -87.655556 .
Go Cubs!
I love Star Trek, Star Wars and especially Sci Fi. I say this because they are only kinda the same. I like the original Trek ideas and I want to be entertained however the caretaker of those ideas in the commercial space is now gone and whoever is making this thing certainly doesn't care about those values, it's time to put the franchise to work. Gotta make a profit - cause that's what Trek is all about.
People loved Trek because it was genuine, interesting and it challenged them a bit, but not to much. And it didn't take itself too seriously. If you try to do that now people say it's lame, which by saying makes them lame, because it's obvious it's lame because the lameness makes us remember not to get our heads to far up our asses. It's not supposed to be that serious, it's a TV show.
Personally, I think the future of Trek is with the fans who love the show, it's ideas and the belief, that maybe, if we are reeeeeeaaaaaallllllyy lucky, and we work *real fucking hard* our society could actually be that way. If the fans aren't writing the stories, then there is little point in doing it because it is not sincere anymore.
But if they do make it then can we please stop whining about what they do that you don't like and let the rest of us geeks enjoy the show. If you don't like it, then write something better yourself instead of wasting bandwidth on complaining. Personally I'd be ok with no more Trek and let's see some new stories, perhaps, Bears Darwin's Radio or even an Enders Game (Bear wrote some of the hardest sci fi versions of Star Trek that I've read - btw!), otherwise do as Shatner suggests and 'get a life'.
Sometimes it will be good and sometimes it will be crap, but if you smother it with expectations then it will never be brilliant.
I don't have a dog in this fight;
Mr D hasn't presented anything to back his claims other than his own diatribe and some quick google searches, so neither does he.
You however have said something very specific:
You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either
Ok, help me out then. Are you referring me to more recent works on Tritium?
What are your specific criticisms of these studies, have they been dis-proven?
Are you telling me there is a reason why I should change my mind about the consequences of Tritium in the body, and where it is deposited when it gets there?
Are you suggesting that their is no damage caused by beta emissions on the DNA in the reproductive organs as these studies suggest?
Are you suggesting that radionuclides absorbed into and remaining in the body will not do damage to the cells or DNA relative to the amouint of radiation they emit?
MrD claims that the information about the magnitude of radionuclide products released at Fukushima is in the IAEA report but is yet to say where in the 1200 pages I will need to look to find exactly how much and of which radionuclide effluents have been released. It is the fist link he has posted to back his claims and I doubt he has read it at all. I've been meaning to read it anyway. Apart from having some doubts about the veracity of information from an organization by whose own charter states it is dedicated to the expansion of Nuclear Power, I think he is confused about external and internal radiation exposure, the potential for radionuclides to accumulated inside the body and, the damage it can cause once it is there.
I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here.
Neither am I, directly. Specifically I am discussing the radionuclide products released by the Fukushima disasters. I don't think it is possible to do a proper statistical analysis without this information, otherwise how would you know what to look for, the effects will take so long. WHO reports it took about 6 years for the most direct exposures to manifest into Thyroid difficulties from the Chernobyl disaster before their funding was cut.
Also I think it's too early to start talking about cancers from the Fukushima disasters - so don't think that is what I am saying.
As Japan eats seafood I expect they probably have more iodine in their diet so it's reasonable to presume there will be other differences. I don't think the Japanese government is helping by suppressing information. I hope for the best because we wish good will to people.
Perhaps you have specific expertise to offer so if you have anything to say about the works I referenced. I'm open to changing my mind on things if people can provide the evidence of why it should be done. This is a pretty complex subject and the biology is only one aspect. I will welcome a conversation with you based on fact in a civil discourse.
Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.
However the way you used it, it was.
ad hominem:
adjective
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Had you decided not to include my argument in your statement(2), then it would not be. Since you did, it is.
my position is that you're being a jackass.
Welcome to slashdot Mr Ward. My position is you're coming off as a bit of a smart ass instead of the adult Mr Rogers want's you to be.
Some of use have Karma to burn which means we can be a jackass if we feel it is appropriate. It was appropriate to flame because MrD is the first definition and he has been a troll sockpuppet since long before you were posting here. I'm guessing for you that's probably about a year so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're new here. If you have a problem with me excercising my freedom of speech then I suggest that you are in the wrong place. I am certainly glad you are exercising yours.
It's a bit of a confrontational way to introduce yourself. You're probably right I should hold myself to a higher moral authority however I haven't roasted a troll for years and I really enjoyed it so I am completely unapologetic.
I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.
While Mr D has not provided evidence,
(FTFY) to back up his claims, I did.
at least he was polite.
A polite troll is still a troll and MrD is pretty crafty polite troll who appeals to groupthink. I reject the inference that I wasn't being polite about it though, I think I was pretty good humoured.
How tolerant should I be? I am only human and my tolerance is limited. I don't accept bullshit on this matter. Trivializing it the way MrD does shows he is not prepared to argue sincerely.
For some reason, I typo'd his name
It's no way to treat a role model, he seems like such a nice man. How ironic that he is a puppeteer and my reply unknowingly frames you as a sockpuppet, my sincerest apologies. Is there a specific lesson about niceness you want me to see?
Perhaps Mr Rogers wouldn't tell you 'you are being a hypocrite', maybe he'd just say "Why don't you just try being nice".
Perhaps this quote from Voltaire is worth considering:
What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature
I'm certain Mr Rogers would wholeheartedly agree.
I got into technology to learn new stuff as much as possible, why is someone telling me I don't like to learn new stuff when I am learning new stuff.
Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole thing is a way to create a young vs old mindset in technologists so that they can work the young guys like slaves and coerce the older guys into taking smaller salaries? This 'vs' mindset produces the double whammy of reducing the career earnings of every technology person no matter what they do, no matter what their age is.
Anyone, young or old, in IT who has a 'commercial' mind set when evaluating whether a technology is worth learning and how long it will take, will have a rough idea if they can yield a return on the effort spent learning it, or if they just like that technology and want to for fun. Brainfuck is an interesting piece of technology however I doubt there is much return in learning it. Young and old have one thing in common, we all want to make money doing something we like and are good at.
The great thing about IT is if I teach a younger guy how to negotiate a higher salary, it pushes my salary up too. I actually want you to be a better negotiator and I want to teach and learn from you because I know increasing the popularity of a certain tech pushes all our salaries up as more companies adopt it. Knowledge isn't scarce however the talent to utilize it is. Talent *is* the scarcity in the technology economy that makes your age irrelevant.
Knowing how callous the management in IT organizations can be, I've got a feeling there was a conversation somewhere that went along the lines of 'how do we drive down the costs of acquiring the talent we need',,,, 'I know let's pit old and young against each other'.
What better way to yield a return on a technology person's career after working them like a slave for the duration of it. The only winners in this younger vs older thing are the companies that either have to pay the same for more hours out of a young person or pay less for the experience of the older people. I've got a sense that this will backfire big time as young people deciding on an IT career go 'Fuck that, its not worth the effort' and older people decide it's not worth dealing with assholes anymore resulting in lethargy and a stagnation of ideas.
Every time I see these stories I get an increased sense that this entire younger vs older thing is about making technology peoples *talent*, no matter what their age, irrelevant so that the ensuing divide drives down salary expenses for all technology people.
We need to stay focused on driving IT in the direction where all our salaries go up.
For Sony there is little doubt the object lessons were "Now how do we do this and not get caught?"
Your lack of an "r" disturbs me.
I'm saving them for talk like a pi_ate day.
For those who don't need a third party to read something for them this is a link to the actual bill. The bill itself is a lot less reading than all of the articles on it.
I just gisted the bill, it looks like one of these fait accomplis that follow this disturbing pattern we see of aligning the laws of Echelon (5 eyes, sigint or whatever other names it is know by) countries within the bounds of their beleaguered constitutions. Almost a year ago to the day laws with the same intent were passed in Australia under the NSL 2014.
If I may share my interpretation the bill, the main purpose appears to be to align the legal structures for government agencies to share information. Its up for interpretation and the more eyes reading this the better. I'll need a good read to really get it.
Of specific interest was that the law is beating a pretty fast drum for the Federal agencies to comply with a 60-180 day time frame for them to develop policy. I'm going to guess that they want to allocate budget spending to implement the policy withing the next 12 months. Of particular concern in the US version the bill allows for Federal agencies to spy on state, local and individuals (sec 2.8).
If the pattern is followed we can expect the UK and Canada to be next as these legal frameworks have already been passed in Australia and NZ - both political parties supported it there as well.
Why the governments of our countries are so intent on harassing their population is anyone's guess. What would be really great is if these bills were posted to /. *before* they passed. At least then the outrage could be channeled into constructive action.
The Space Age itself looks primitive today, but some Space Nutters cling to the ancient ideas like a religion.
You lack of faith disturbs me.
Coal produces far more radiation than nuclear [...] This myth got debunked on /. already a 1000 times.
They just keep going on with it though. What comes out of coal is a natural element, hasn't been enriched and is no where near as dangerous as what comes out of a reactor.
Here is the finger pointing I see:
blame coal, blame the greenies, blame the environmentalists, it's all the NIMBYs fault, it's my fault, it's your fault - just hopeless finger pointing because they never point at the nuclear industry and say, yeah - it's those motherfuckers fault. The nuclear industries way of dealing with problems is to either say 'it's not a problem' or 'it's not *my* problem' and they never take responsibility for what they do.
As if that hippy in the combi van demanded safety procedures be wound back a fukushima so tepco could make an extra $100M, it's so ridiculous.
I've never found then scary when under the water. But when you are in the surf and all you can see is a fin I have found it down right terrifying. I think it is because you can't see the whole animal. So your mind turns it into something bigger than Jaws.
I'm a confident swimmer so when I'm out there I duck under and have a look at the sandbars so I can pick the where the best waves are for a body bash, which is usually an advantage over the board riders who can't tell what is under them - which is what I think you mean.
You can't help looking for that dark shadow.
Once when I was out there I saw a seal, in a hurry, he swam right at me and I knew when I saw the paniced look in its eyes it was trying to escape. I got the fuck out of there immediately - swam at right angles to the seal. I was still panting from swimming hard and as I got out the 'shit!, shark' warnings started. That was a bit too close - lesson earned.
My mate told me his experience while he was on a board, they don't always attack first, sometimes they bump up against you to see how tough you are - what you might taste like. It did, he crapped his dacs and got the fuck out of there because he was not that tough. He said the shark skin was like coarse sandpaper and would easily graze skin - he had a wet suit on.
It's pretty clear when they are hunting so avoid the times when the sun is coming up or down to be in the water because that is when the shadows are longest and the sharks are hungriest.
It leaves me wondering though, if all those factory ships are out there getting all the fish, why wouldn't the sharks are coming closer to shore to find food?
Breeder reactors *create* more plutonium because they transmute the additional two fuel elements placed in them (palladium and lithium IIRC) into plutonium.
Source?
obviously I didn't recall correctly.
Holy hell. Is Australia the result of some lab accident gone wrong, or what?
The Maralinga tests outback resulted in some strange interactions with the DNA of the animals that were out there. In the cities we just dismissed some of the stories as kooky country folk, but then strange things happened in the outer suburbs. When it finally got to the cities, we knew we were in trouble and we had to desperately find somewhere these strange toxic migrants would go willingly.
Mel Gibson and Russel Crowe have been in the US for a while now and we are forever indebted to you for it.
So basically capitalism fucks things like nuclear power up with is emphasis on short term profits over everything else.
There is a reason it took governments to put us into space. I think that government has a role in innovation doing risky stuff that has to be done right. You wouldn't expect a profit from running a Nuclear submarine because it has a very specific role.
From what I've learned about Admiral Rickover he was the kind of guy that had little tolerance for stupid people which probably why the naval reactor program hasn't had any accidents.
There is absolutely no reason why such a culture couldn't exist for nuclear programs, because that is the discipline they require. Nuclear power is a risky business like no other industry, if it wasn't it wouldn't require it's own legislation (the Price Anderson Act) to cover it's liability.
The pro-nuke crowd never gets this. If nuclear power is done right it's fine. On an engineering level they knew this but they constantly rage against 'environmentalists' and 'liberals' who are also quite right in that the people we allow to handle this stuff are not to be trusted.
I think they just transpose their idea of an 'ideal nuclear industry' onto reality and that is what they believe the nuclear industry is, which is totally unconnected to reality. Confront that belief system and they believe it even more strongly, classic social proof. Then point at some poor hippy in his combi van as if has some magical powerful influence of the entire nuclear industry. It's just ridiculous to believe they have *any* influence at all. The evidence of which is in the law itself.
Science tells us there are consequences to our DNA, and reactors are just machine with parameters and limits. It's just finger pointing, not problem solving.
Of course, nobody's allowed to notice, let alone mention, that there can be situations where the for profit publicly traded megacorp model could possibly be less than ideal for everything.
There is no reason a publicly owner Nuclear power industry could be created with stewardship of the industry and development of the technology that ran counter to economic cycles. For example, In times of economic hardship a publicly owner power infrastructure could drop the price of bulk electricity purchases as an economic stimulus to industry.
Unfortunately it looks like we'll be saddled with cheap AP-1000's and a dependence on coal for decades to come with incompetence and greed leading the industry to another accident and that will be the end of it forever along with any hope of building something that works or handling the radio-isotopes left behind.
Well, if Mr.Kaos reads the thousand page regulations that way, I guess it's so.
I am a voracious reader, so have a read of the law yourself and share what you find if you disagree. It's not fun and it's only 500 odd pages, which isn't huge, mostly boring with some interesting moments.
The oil and coal industry lobby politicians to safeguard their interests because business is brutal, you're hopelessly naive if you don't think that the coal industry celebrates a market win over nuclear via a legislative construct. If you are uncomfortable about the legislative hold that the oil and coal industry has over the nuclear industry why don't you do something about it instead of claiming it's all the fault of environmentalists and NIMBYs and me.
Burying your head in the sand, pointing fingers and yelling 'FUD, FUD' isn't going to solve these problems and criticizing me for sharing information just shows you're not really serious about anything other than creating conflict.
Did you do while on break from WoW?
My life is more interesting. When I am not involved in designing something I make a habit of using my time to read proposed or actual laws to defend the democracy and freedom for you to anonymously illustrate the kind of dogmatically skeptical, social proof based attack that I get subjected to when I challenge ignorance with reason and fact.
You leave very little room to be civil so I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings but I do not suffer fools gladly.
Precisely. I'm not against the idea of developing nuclear power but any rational person looking at the facts will uncover that it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed. It has the potential to solve problems, if it is done right however all to often we see a fixation on reactor technology instead of looking at the entire industry as a whole and the challenges it poses.
Geologically sound containment facilities should be one of those 'no-brainer' issues solved decades ago.
I missed that one, thank you.
The Nuclear industry is in a mess and it is in the commercial interests of the oil and coal industry to stifle any evolution of that would allow it to compete in the energy market. I think that they are very happy with the current state of affairs. Storing spent fuel rods in a proper containment facility would mean that the industry would reduce the impact of any potential accidents and create a threat to coal's electricity business.
[sic]This is what the stupid scaremongering of the media, some politicians and many environmentalists ends up causing: instead of building Gen III or even Gen IV plants, we're finishing ancient Gen II plants because that's all that's been approved, decades ago.
The 2005 Energy act prevents entities like that and local governments from interfering with the placement and approval of Nuclear facilities, including Reactors. Compliance for building a nuclear reactor was established by the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission so it has very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
They are quite literally the cause for nuclear energy's relative safety concerns.
I'd suggest that it is more the operator of the facilities not complying with the manufacturers recommended operating conditions for the reactors. Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents all came about due to problem with the operator's procedures and had very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
If the government could make its mind up and stop wasting time, the US could rapidly diminish and even eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels without even having to suffer through energy shortages. Allow breeder reactors on top and you'd also eliminate the whole nuclear waste scare while being that much more efficient and cost-effective.
The Act mentioned above allows budget for those programs. Breeder reactors *create* more plutonium because they transmute the additional two fuel elements placed in them (palladium and lithium IIRC) into plutonium.
It is not a scare though, it is a valid concern as Fukushima has really shown us that storing the spent fuel at reactor sites is a really bad idea when things go wrong.
Burner reactors are a much better idea and EBR tested the reactor component of an Integral Fast Reactor facility (known as IFR) that actually *burns* plutonium at around 15-20% of the fuel load (compared to the 0.3% of existing BWR/PWR). Such technology answered pro and anti nuclear concerns by addressing issues of (spent) fuel storage (now fuel for this technology), reprocessing and reactors into a single facility. Additionally the reactor could consume depleted uranium.
Personally, I think the solution for the Nuclear industry is to start with some sites around the US capable of containing the waste products and design it so that it can also contain reprocessing *AND* reactor facilities in the belly of a granite mountain. That way you save on the energy inputs required to demolish the IFR reactor safely by disposing of it "in-situ". By my calculations such a reactor facility would have a roughly 1.5Tw hour advantage, per reactor, over a Gen III designs, over the lifetime of the reactor.
Unfortunately Clinton halted development on this revolutionary reactor design and W.Bush funded it's demolition, clearly showing apolitical motivations for preventing anything that could destabilize the oil and coal industries hold on the energy industry. I imagine a technology that answered infrastructure issues by producing electricity (coal) and hydrogen (vehicle fuel) would not be popular with established energy producers.
My reading of the act suggests that oil and coal companies are using approvals for more modern reactors as a way to access taxpayer funded financial incentives as those companies receive substantial funding from tax payers even if they just propose to build a reactor and then don't do it. It's all contained in that act for anyone to read.
There is nothing in the act that I could see that would prevent such infrastructure being planned and developed. Funding exists in the act and is available until 2025. The current 4-8 year political structure precludes any such visions manifesting as few politicians have an appetite for things that exceed their term in office coupled with educating the populous about why certain issues have to be solved.
lol, sand, moron.
Nice ad hominem, dude.
It would seem you are adept at the ad-hom yourself using it in an attempt to discredit the evidence presented, whilst presenting none yourself.
Unless you have read the history of dealing with this troll you wouldn't really understand how exceptionally patient I've been. He has never provided any links or evidence to support his claims until the most recent posts and ad hom attacks have been his dominant characteristic among a number of other tactics. My patience is limited.
You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either.
Yet you haven't shown me where this work on tritium has been superseded with anything more recent leaving the onus on me to waste my time proving your argument. It's so interesting that you comment here instead of the original post and omit the reference from the nineties. If you've got some citations to share, I'd welcome them.
Nothing I've posted required subsequent correction as my troll friend has needed to do.
Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.
Yet here you are doing exactly the same thing as my troll friend. Instead of explaining your position you choose to attack me and my argument with nothing to contribute except a sentence and an air of moral superiority and arrogance. I don't really know who Mr Rodgers is so perhaps he would tell you that by taking the approach you have you come off as a hypocrite.
Please someone throw some mod points at this man.
Show me your research, I've shown you mine.
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Produce the evidence, the exact pages in the IAEA report.
I'll let you into a little secret: I've already done it. That's how I KNOW you are a bullshit artist'e. Now I'm quite tired of your word twisting, mouth mangling bullshit for now, so I'm going to go and stop wasting time on you for a while I do something more interesting.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
MrDfrom63's research: "quickly google: low+dose+radiation"
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,bwaaahahahhahahahabwaaahahahahahahAHAHAhahahAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
Nice try but as usual you have nothing.
You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.
I'm sure I will get modded into oblivion, but I don't care because that absolutely made my week. I want you to know, I am still laughing at you, right now.
I'll go one step further since you pointed it out in the other discussion. Here is a list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium, with references, in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
References;