# Japan Will Release Radioactive Fukushima Water Into The Ocean, And Why That’s O.K.



## qubit (Apr 12, 2021)

I had no idea about tritium. Turns out it's so safe that it's just not possible to get poisoned by it.









						Japan Will Release Radioactive Fukushima Water Into The Ocean, And Why That’s O.K.
					

And that’s exactly what they should do. And the International Atomic Energy Agency agrees. Only a small amount of tritium is left, so trivial that it could not harm humans or anything in the environment.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## milewski1015 (Apr 12, 2021)

And here I thought Tritium was just the fuel source for Doc Ock's fusion reactor in Spiderman 2. Guess you do learn something new every day...


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 12, 2021)

> The radiation dose from one quart of this water is equal to four bananas or a family-sized bag of potato chips.



I think the potato chips are more dangerous to your health.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Apr 12, 2021)

Should send Japanese Del Boy and Rodney down there. They'll open up a new _Peckham spring_ in no time.


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 12, 2021)

qubit said:


> I had no idea about tritium. Turns out it's so safe that it's just not possible to get poisoned by it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cue the alarmist users that didn't actually read the article in 3, 2, 1... 

Seems the only thing that makes any of this alarming is the scary Fukushima name itself.

As for the critics, it's best to have someone playing devil's advocate but some groups like Greenpeace took the role a little too to heart. Burn coal and they rake you over those same coals. Switch to nuclear and they protest spent fuel storage. Then they'll burn you at the stake for not magically containing 100% of the incident instantly after the accident. Devise a plan for controlled release that makes the best of a bad situation, and they'll lambast you for not "just" expanding the storage tanks, and if you do that they'll just protest the impact to the surrounding land area. May as well just don grass skirts and go live in the forest, except then GP would raise hell about the damage caused to the forest floor-level habitat.

As for tritium I'd imagine they wouldn't be using it for night sights on guns and whatnot if it behaved like radium. If you broke open a vial of tritium and licked it you might be in trouble, but don't see the problem here.


----------



## Solaris17 (Apr 12, 2021)

qubit said:


> I had no idea about tritium.



fun fact, as a watch guy Tritium is used a lot for the lume, its what gives it "glow" at night.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 12, 2021)

go go Godzilla


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 12, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> whatnot if it behaved like radium


Tritium emits beta radiation, which basically cannot penetrate your skin, or a piece of cardboard, or a few feet of water. The problem like with all beta emitters is if they get inside your body, they can do damage to cells and organs (= chance of cancer)

Given how much it will be diluted it'll be a complete non-issue, that's the most important point, which the article at Forbes seems to miss


----------



## TheEndIsNear (Apr 12, 2021)

I'll tell you why it doesn't matter.  The ocean is so polluted it isn't going to make a difference anyways.  They just found a half a million barrels of toxic Pcb infused waste in leaking barrels off the coast of California.  Mexico and a lot of other countries put raw sewage out in the ocean, Sunken russian subs with reactors rotting, Millions of tons of diesel fuel spilled in the arctic circle earlier this year.  Our drinking water all has shit in it.  At least the U.S. does.  I could go on and on and that is the stuff we know about.  This is nothing.


----------



## tabascosauz (Apr 12, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Tritium emits beta radiation, which basically cannot penetrate your skin, or a piece of cardboard, or a few feet of water. The problem like with all beta emitters is if they get inside your body, they can do damage to cells and organs (= chance of cancer)
> 
> Given how much it will be diluted it'll be a complete non-issue, that's the most important point, which the article at Forbes seems to miss



To be fair I think he mentioned that drinking 1 metric ton is equivalent to the max annual allowable dose, although a lot of other things also don't exceed that limit. He is a proponent of and insider in nuclear energy though, usually such experts are naturally optimistic. But it is that it's supposedly in line with international nuclear safety standards, so.

The only ones that I can see making a huge deal about it is Global Times and other Chinese outlets threatening to sue Japan (and claiming that the Koreans are of the same mindset, whether Korea actually is I can't tell). I can see why local fisheries would be concerned, but I wonder how many people are aware that Global Times is pretty much the English version of People's Daily.


----------



## Wirko (Apr 12, 2021)

Quick, someone start making computer chips out of tritium!


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Apr 12, 2021)

Solaris17 said:


> fun fact, as a watch guy Tritium is used a lot for the lume, its what gives it "glow" at night.
> 
> View attachment 196460




Fun Fact #2

Tritium is also used to make night sights on guns.


----------



## HTC (Apr 12, 2021)

milewski1015 said:


> *And here I thought Tritium was just the fuel source for Doc Ock's fusion reactor in Spiderman 2.* Guess you do learn something new every day...



You're wrong dude: tritium is obviously the material of which Stargate SG1's iris is made of.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 13, 2021)

I suppose my only question would be how do you separate tritium from the other types of radiation (I know nuclear disasters have to emit more than one type otherwise they would not be dangerous at all)... so how do they know it's all tritium as they begin releasing it in mass, are they testing 1 square foot sample sizes before releasing it into the water? or just assuming its all tritium because of the area its found in... but again how do they know small parts of that aren't contaminated... meh I suppose it doesn't matter either way honestly. with climate change we are all doomed within 30 years easy anyway lol


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 13, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> I can see why local fisheries would be concerned


And that explains China's concern, their ghost fleets might also be affected. 
Not that they will admit they are raping the seas globally.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 15, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I suppose my only question would be how do you separate tritium from the other types of radiation (I know nuclear disasters have to emit more than one type otherwise they would not be dangerous at all)... so how do they know it's all tritium as they begin releasing it in mass, are they testing 1 square foot sample sizes before releasing it into the water? or just assuming its all tritium because of the area its found in... but again how do they know small parts of that aren't contaminated... meh I suppose it doesn't matter either way honestly. with climate change we are all doomed within 30 years easy anyway lol


They are assuming it's Tritium because it's underwent treatment that removes pretty much everything else.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 16, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Given how much it will be diluted it'll be a complete non-issue, that's the most important point, which the article at Forbes seems to miss


Quite correct. Additionally, Tritium is nearly completely neutralized by the salt in ocean water as the salts provide a natural barrier to any beta emissions coming from the Tritium. The ocean is a perfect place for disposal of such a material. No risk to life of any kind, even ocean life.


----------



## KLiKzg (Apr 18, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Quite correct. Additionally, Tritium is nearly completely neutralized by the salt in ocean water as the salts provide a natural barrier to any beta emissions coming from the Tritium. The ocean is a perfect place for disposal of such a material. No risk to life of any kind, even ocean life.


WoW. Just wondering, from this text - what is your degree you mastered?


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 18, 2021)

This is why science gets a bad rap. A pro-nuclear guy rubbishes concerns about Tritiumn because he's a 'nuclear guy'.

Here'a another 'nuclear guy's take.






						The Hazards of Tritium - Dr Ian Fairlie
					

Summary Nuclear facilities emit very large amounts of tritium, 3H, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen.  Much evidence from cell/animal studies and radiation biology theory indicates that tritium is more hazardous than gamma rays and most X-rays. However the International Commission on...




					www.ianfairlie.org
				




Of note:



> Tritium binds with organic matter to form organically bound tritium (OBT) with long residence times in tissues and organs making it more radiotoxic than tritiated water (HTO). Epidemiology studies indicate increases in cancers and congenital malformations near nuclear facilities. It is recommended that nuclear operators and scientists should be properly informed about tritium’s hazards; that tritium’s safety factors should be strengthened; and that a hazard scheme for common radionuclides be established.



EDIT: I'm also pro-nuclear.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

milewski1015 said:


> And here I thought Tritium was just the fuel source for Doc Ock's fusion reactor in Spiderman 2. Guess you do learn something new every day...











						Tritium Abundance in Spider-Man 2
					

In Spider-Man 2, Dr. Otto Octavius builds a fusion reactor that runs on tritium fuel, hoping to provide a source of renewable energy.  The tritium in the reactor can only be handled with artificial…




					scienceonblog.wordpress.com


----------



## freeagent (Apr 18, 2021)

I honestly thought they have been doing this slow release for years now. They pumped salt water on those cores for a long time.. pretty much until the fuel escaped did they not? I haven't followed for a few years now.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> WoW. Just wondering, from this text - what is your degree you mastered?


I respect anyone who presupposes they understand positron emission since it takes just the right mind set to miss it entirely.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 18, 2021)

KLiKzg said:


> WoW. Just wondering, from this text - what is your degree you mastered?


The older you get the more knowledge you can collect. and FYI, I have a PHD in BS, and a BS in TRL.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> The older you get the more knowledge you can collect. and FYI, I have a PHD in BS, and a BS in TRL.


Is that tritium research laboratory or telecommunications research laboratory?

You know, these cartoons actually depict quite a real perspective with respect to medical sciences the things these agents can do. My grandfather had a chronic disease. These agents on the other hand are so powerful, they can wipe clean stage 4 diseases. That is almost going back in time level science fiction...

I know you have heard, or might have heard, "gamma-knife" since some of you are from the US. These agents can go and say, "F. gamma knife" and stand correct about it. That is how powerful they are, no exaggeration. Superhero comics level even.

It is sad that we Turks are having such radionuclide shortages. If only the Japanese would be so kind to send it to us, really... all your radionuclides are belong to us.

Uncle Ben was right all along,

_"With great power, comes a lot of Tritium!"_


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 18, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> This is why science gets a bad rap. A pro-nuclear guy rubbishes concerns about Tritiumn because he's a 'nuclear guy'.
> 
> Here'a another 'nuclear guy's take.
> 
> ...


It's the dillution rate here that makes the difference really.  Tritium can be dangerous in the right ppm quantity I'm sure.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 18, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It's the dillution rate here that makes the difference really.  Tritium can be dangerous in the right ppm quantity I'm sure.


Having a re-read of the article the level of contamination is being described as 1500 becquerels per litre. I checked an article from nrc.gov which states a safe level of 20,000 picocuries.

1 becquerel = 27 picocuries.

So the stated dilution is 1500 x 27 picocuries = 40,500 picocuries.

The nrc.gov site says:


> The EPA's dose-based drinking water standard of 4 mrem per year is based on a maximum contaminant level of *20,000 picocuries per liter* for tritium. If other similar radioactive materials are also present in the drinking water, the annual dose from all the materials combined shall not exceed 4 mrem per year. This standard was expected to be exceeded only in extraordinary circumstances (EPA, 1975; EPA, 1976b).



 (I know, drinking water standards are not marine standards)

Although this also appears:



> In 1991, EPA used improved calculations to conclude a tritium concentration of *60,900 pCi/L* would yield a 4 mrem per year dose. However, EPA kept the 20,000 pCi/L value for tritium in its latest regulations.



So, it really depends on which level you use and whose regulations. _My main point here isn't actually about the safety_, it's more to do with people reading one article and drawing opinion. It's how social media works at its worst. It's always better to maintain a more solid position by sourcing a vast array of data points to make a proper consensus. Though, that takes time and people want easy answers.

But really, what everyone here is mising is that Japan is actually trying to tip the scales and create Godzilla as it had been long prophesised they will. j/k


----------



## AsRock (Apr 18, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Tritium emits beta radiation, which basically cannot penetrate your skin, or a piece of cardboard, or a few feet of water. The problem like with all beta emitters is if they get inside your body, they can do damage to cells and organs (= chance of cancer)
> 
> Given how much it will be diluted it'll be a complete non-issue, that's the most important point, which the article at Forbes seems to miss



Last time i checked fish and all things live in the water and do not have skin.  So what about what actually lives there ?.


----------



## Shrek (Apr 18, 2021)

One has to be careful with dilution levels; as I recall some powdered milk was over level in Europe (from Chernobyl) and one suggestion was to dilute it with uncontaminated powder.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 18, 2021)

AsRock said:


> Last time i checked fish and all things live in the water and do not have skin.  So what about what actually lives there ?.


Dillution should render it a nonissue, I would think.



Andy Shiekh said:


> One has to be careful with dilution levels; as I recall some powdered milk was over level in Europe (from Chernobyl) and one suggestion was to dilute it with uncontaminated powder.


Tritium exposure and what happened at Chernobyl are whole different balls of wax.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Yes, and no, it is not like a poison which sufficiently diluted is not a threat. With radiation, a certain amount poses the same risk, no matter how dilute.


You are oversimplifying this massively.

You aren't going to ingest the entire sea to get the whole dose.

Dillution matters here.


----------



## Shrek (Apr 18, 2021)

As I recall they were not allowed to dilute the milk powder as that would not have reduced the potential number of cancers, just spread it across a larger population.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

Dilution, yes, wise words from medical doctors I would say. I'm sure nuclear products dilute in no time...


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 18, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Dilution, yes, wise words from medical doctors I would say. I'm sure nuclear products dilute in no time...


They dillute as well as anything.  The question is whether that's an appropriate response to avoid excess exposure.  With this level of Tritium, it is.

You don't need to be a doctor or even understand nuclear elements to understand dillution and individual biologic dosing like this.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> They dillute as well as anything.  The question is whether that's an appropriate response to avoid excess exposure.  With this level of Tritium, it is.


As well as what - table sugar? Do inform me how you metabolize positrons...


----------



## Shrek (Apr 18, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> They dillute as well as anything



I'm not sure...

Lets say a certain dose is taken up by 100 individuals and one gets cancer, a 1% chance.

Diluting it over 100,000,000 individuals reduces the chance of an individual getting cancer to one millionth of a percent; but still one cancer results.

It's not like diluting poison, at some small dose all individuals survive.


To confuse the issue, I believe the DNA has a certain potential for self repair if the damage is low; so there might be a case for the virtues of dilution.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> To confuse the issue, I believe the DNA has a certain potential for self repair if the damage is low; so there might be a case for the virtues of dilution.


Wow, I didn't know dna intercalations could be repaired...


----------



## Shrek (Apr 18, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Wow, I didn't know dna intercalations could be repaired...



I'm WAY out of my depth here









						DNA repair - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I'm WAY out of my league here, and it is a recollection, so needs checking.


Don't say that, or you will miss the chance to reinvent nuclear physics.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Diluting it over 100,000,000 individuals reduces the chance of an individual getting cancer to one millionth of a percent; but still one cancer results.


How kind of you to simplify stochastic effects, although one cancer doesn't result deterministically - it 'might' result.


----------



## Shrek (Apr 18, 2021)

Not at all sure it needs reinventing.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Not at all sure it needs reinventing.


Depends on your reference point. I'm sure nuclear physics need to foray into the dairy industry more often, so that we administer the treatment before its disease process. The banner of medicine is a serpent because its milk must be so rejuvenating...



R-T-B said:


> You don't need to be a doctor or even understand nuclear elements to understand dillution and individual biologic dosing like this.


Yes, because everyone knows this how stupid of me...

That is not individual dosing, but pharmacodynamics. Oh, me!

Has no one watched Spiderman 2 in a tech forum? Am I the only science literate comic fan here?

You guys are making me cry. I'm the 1st for once...


----------



## Solaris17 (Apr 18, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Depends on your reference point. I'm sure nuclear physics need to foray into the dairy industry more often, so that we administer the treatment before its disease process. The banner of medicine is a serpent because its milk must be so rejuvenating...
> 
> 
> Yes, because everyone knows this how stupid of me...
> ...



lol be nice.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2021)

Solaris17 said:


> lol be nice.


I failed enough times to be making fun of myself for once. Let me feel the moment astroturf a little bit.


----------



## qubit (Apr 18, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> I failed enough times to be making fun of myself for once. Let me feel the moment astroturf a little bit.


Please don't get my thread shut down. Thanks.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 19, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> This is why science gets a bad rap. A pro-nuclear guy rubbishes concerns about Tritiumn because he's a 'nuclear guy'.
> 
> Here'a another 'nuclear guy's take.
> 
> ...


That article fails to elaborate on two very critically important points, 1. level of exposure and 2. type of exposure. For Tritium to be toxic to life(in any form) direct physical exposure must take place and this requires a large volume/concentration. This would be true of any beta particle source. However, disposing the tritium in the oceans the beta particle blocking effect of water alone would be enough to neutralize ANY direct exposure to say nothing of the salts and other minerals dissolved in ocean water which have a FAR greater neutralizing effect.

There is no factual science that can show any risk such a dilute disposal would have to life anywhere in or around the oceans. Such a disposal is perfectly safe.



R-T-B said:


> Tritium can be dangerous in the right ppm quantity I'm sure.


Quite correct. The concentration has to be very high for any real harm to occur.



mtcn77 said:


> As well as what - table sugar? Do inform me how you metabolize positrons...


Beta emissions from Tritium atoms are not positrons.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Has no one watched Spiderman 2 in a tech forum? Am I the only science literate comic fan here?


No, but this is a science forum, not a comic/movie forum, so most of us try to stay on topic.


----------



## damric (Apr 19, 2021)

Dumping tritium into the ocean isn't that big of a deal. The problem with wastewater from nuclear reactors isn't the water molecules, it's all of the dissolved crud, particularly Cobalt-60. The U.S. navy is allowed to make very tiny dumps and has to report every milliliter.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 19, 2021)

TheEndIsNear said:


> I'll tell you why it doesn't matter.  The ocean is so polluted it isn't going to make a difference anyways.  They just found a half a million barrels of toxic Pcb infused waste in leaking barrels off the coast of California.  Mexico and a lot of other countries put raw sewage out in the ocean, Sunken russian subs with reactors rotting, Millions of tons of diesel fuel spilled in the arctic circle earlier this year.  Our drinking water all has shit in it.  At least the U.S. does.  I could go on and on and that is the stuff we know about.  This is nothing.



Whatever you are smoking is bad brah, get something new.


The US has standards in place for contamination and pollution, China, India, and 80 percent of the rest of the world that has no EPA.

If anything we need offshore breeder reactors that purify water, make electricity, and being underwater they are safe from attacks, safe from meltdowns and the self contained aspect means we could reprocess fuel on site.


----------



## qubit (Apr 19, 2021)

TheEndIsNear said:


> I'll tell you why it doesn't matter.  The ocean is so polluted it isn't going to make a difference anyways.  They just found a half a million barrels of toxic Pcb infused waste in leaking barrels off the coast of California.  Mexico and a lot of other countries put raw sewage out in the ocean, Sunken russian subs with reactors rotting, Millions of tons of diesel fuel spilled in the arctic circle earlier this year.  Our drinking water all has shit in it.  At least the U.S. does.  I could go on and on and that is the stuff we know about.  This is nothing.


So, your logic is that because the ocean is badly contaminated anyway, then we can just contaminate it some more? Seriously? There's so much fail here that I don't know where to begin. Mankind is trying to improve the environment, not make it worse.

No, the real reason why it's safe to put tritium into the sea is because tritium is safe, as has been explained in this thread several times over, so I'm not gonna repeat it here.


----------



## OneMoar (Apr 19, 2021)

my fleshlight may or may not be glow in the dark and may or may not be powered by trinium


----------



## oobymach (Apr 19, 2021)

Tritium is ok, but Fukushima plant has been spilling worse since they first tried to cap it, a good chunk of the pacific ocean is radioactive and Canada turned off our west coast radiation detectors under Harper when they started going off so people aren't told how bad it really is.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I'm not sure...
> 
> Lets say a certain dose is taken up by 100 individuals and one gets cancer, a 1% chance.
> 
> ...


So you're saying if i eat 100KG of sugar, i'll get obese - but if we split that up to a thousand people who get 100 grams each, one randomly will just get obese?

Thats now how math works. In my example none of them will get obese, and in the terms of radiation that needs to actually penetrate all barriers and then cells to do damage, it's not a linear curve - the greater the dilution, the far greater reduction in harm it can do.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

oobymach said:


> Tritium is ok, but Fukushima plant has been spilling worse since they first tried to cap it, a good chunk of the pacific ocean is radioactive and Canada turned off our west coast radiation detectors under Harper when they started going off so people aren't told how bad it really is.


It's certainly not good but it's also being monitored by far more than just Canada.

The general advice right now in west coast beach towns is if you see something metal on the beach, "leave it"



Mussels said:


> So you're saying if i eat 100KG of sugar, i'll get obese - but if we split that up to a thousand people who get 100 grams each, one randomly will just get obese?
> 
> Thats now how math works. In my example none of them will get obese, and in the terms of radiation that needs to actually penetrate all barriers and then cells to do damage, it's not a linear curve - the greater the dilution, the far greater reduction in harm it can do.


Indeed.  Radiation works along the same principal.  It's literally everywhere, but absorbed quantity matters, not just "it's there or not."

Slightly OT, but this is also why we moved from roetgens to rads as a unit of measure.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 19, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It's the dillution rate here that makes the difference really.  Tritium can be dangerous in the right ppm quantity I'm sure.



time to get a tds meter before you drink your water / eat your sushi HEHEHEHEHE

(before people get triggered, its sarcasm...) lol


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> time to get a tds meter before you drink your water / eat your sushi HEHEHEHEHE
> 
> (before people get triggered, its sarcasm...) lol


I'm just triggered by sushi.  No way I'm going near that.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I'm just triggered by sushi.  No way I'm going near that.


too similar to eating frogs?


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

Mussels said:


> too similar to eating frogs?


I prefer to chemically alter the flesh of things I eat with extreme heat.
Coincidentally, so does the frog god.
This is the way.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 19, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I prefer to chemically alter the flesh of things I eat with extreme heat.
> Coincidentally, so does the frog god.
> This is the way.



See new profile picture.

This is the way.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

Baby yoda would probably taste fine, but I've been more fond of pulled pork lately.

Yes mods, I will stop threatening to cook and eat forum members now.  *sighs*


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Beta emissions from Tritium atoms are not positrons.


I bet you know there exists nuclear reactions that produce tritium and positrons. The point being, not because one product is safe, doesn't clear the others.



R-T-B said:


> No, but this is a science forum, not a comic/movie forum, so most of us try to stay on topic.


You missed the irony then.



R-T-B said:


> Radiation works along the same principal. It's literally everywhere, but absorbed quantity matters, not just "*it's there or not.*"


Wait, so there are safe levels of radiation now! Thanks for the update.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Wait, so there are safe levels of radiation now! Thanks for the update.


You should hope there are, since it's pretty much everywhere, yeah.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> You should hope there are, since it's pretty much everywhere, yeah.


I'm not a lunatic, sorry.

I don't want to entangle guys, you put me into this.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> I'm not a lunatic, sorry.


You also aren't much of a scientist if you think where you are sitting wouldn't register something mrad wise.  There's radiation everywhere.  Friggin bannas have a relatively high amount of it. Amount is the only thing that matters.  You aren't sitting on enough to matter.






						Is radiation safe? - World Nuclear Association
					

Radiation occurs naturally and comes from sources all around us, including our own bodies. Radiation is often misunderstood, but it helps to both combat climate change and cure disease.




					www.world-nuclear.org
				




This is a nuclear endorsement site but the science is actually solid.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Wait, so there are safe levels of radiation now! Thanks for the update.


wait, is that sarcasm? i hope thats sarcasm


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> I bet you know there exists nuclear reactions that produce tritium and positrons


But the Tritium does not emit those positrons. That was the error of your earlier statement and the science point I was trying to help you understand. Meant no offense, just wanted to help you understand that little bit of nuclear science. Tritium emits high energy electron particles. Because of the physics involved, Tritium can never be a source of positron emission. It's not physically possible.

The following can provide some basic info if you are curious.








						Tritium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Beta particle - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






R-T-B said:


> You also aren't much of a scientist if you think where you are sitting wouldn't register something mrad wise.


Lets' be nice. Not everyone is a science buff and that's ok.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> You also aren't much of a scientist if you think where you are sitting wouldn't register something mrad wise.  There's radiation everywhere.  Friggin bannas have a relatively high amount of it. Amount is the only thing that matters.  You aren't sitting on enough to matter.


No, radiation matters because it is dangerous. If you think it is safe, Chernobyl and Fukushima is no different as a residence.
Stupid dosimetry talk doesn't make you bruce banner. You get pretty beat up.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Lets' be nice. Not everyone is a science buff and that's ok.


I'm trying very hard to be nice, but this is the same guy who told me several times outright he's just here to "troll and astroturf" so...



mtcn77 said:


> No, radiation matters because it is dangerous. If you think it is safe, Chernobyl and Fukushima is no different as a residence.


Never eat a banana.  It is dangerous, by your logic.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

Mussels said:


> wait, is that sarcasm? i hope thats sarcasm


No, stochastic effects are not 'no effects' involved. This isn't a void correlation where the confidence interval crosses the midsection(1). You get radiation, you get effects. No questions asked. Whether it be lifethreatening is not making it deemed safe.



R-T-B said:


> I'm trying very hard to be nice, but this is the same guy who told me several times outright he's just here to "troll and astroturf" so...
> 
> 
> Never eat a banana.


Trolls do act like they don't care. Not me.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

I gurantee you he's dead serious mussels.  This guy has a record that would make excellent /r/confidentlyincorrect material if I wanted to be an ass.


----------



## qubit (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> No, stochastic effects are not 'no effects' involved. This isn't a void correlation where the confidence interval crosses the midsection(1). You get radiation, you get effects. No questions asked. Whether it be lifethreatening is not making it deemed safe.
> 
> 
> Trolls do act like they don't care. Not me.


Seriously, you're still arguing this? So you know better than the scientists who say it's safe? Well, good to know, we'll come to you for such advice in future!


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Whether it be lifethreatening is not making it deemed safe.


Don't eat food.  It contains radiation, and is thus unsafe.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It is dangerous, by your logic.


But you are holding yourself as the arbiter of right and wrong. It is an oversimplification.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> But you are holding yourself as the arbiter of right and wrong. It is an oversimplification.


I'm glad you think so much of me but no.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> No, radiation matters because it is dangerous. If you think it is safe, Chernobyl and Fukushima is no different as a residence.
> Stupid dosimetry talk doesn't make you bruce banner. You get pretty beat up.



what? no, the dosage matters. Everything is radiactive, EVERYTHING. Sunlight is radiation. wifi is radiation. sound light and heat are all radiation.

It's a blanket word people misunderstand thanks to bad movies and TV shojws.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

qubit said:


> Seriously, you're still arguing this? So you know better than the scientists who say it's safe? Well, good to know, we'll come to you for such advice in future!


Don't hold a grudge. Nuclear is not chemical waste. I'm sure I can gain a reception there.



Mussels said:


> what? no, the dosage matters. Everything is radiactive, EVERYTHING. Sunlight is radiation. wifi is radiation. sound light and heat are all radiation.
> 
> It's a blanket word people misunderstand thanks to bad movies and TV shojws.


There are no radiation coming from the sun apart from uvc, uvb and uva. I'm sure we are attune to the term "ionizing radiation".

If you want to talk movies, I don't do popular culture, sorry.

I still don't get it: what qualifications are you counting on?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Don't hold a grudge. Nuclear is not chemical waste. I'm sure I can gain a reception there.
> 
> 
> There are no radiation coming from the sun apart from uvc, uvb and uva. I'm sure we are attune to the term "ionizing radiation".
> ...


sunlight is radiation. you're looking at a screen right now giving out electromagnetic radiation.
You're mixing and matching terminologies and using them wrong, and thats what's throwing you off.

Most types of radiation are totally harmless to humans, or we'd have died off centuries ago.
Some are dangerous... and as with everythinig what matters there is the dosage. Kinda like how sunlight causes skin cancer, but not every human has died of skin cancer yet? cause... we go to the shade?


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 19, 2021)

all this fuss about a little Tritium 

Meanwhile have you checked your battery's for your Radon gas dector









						Find Information about Local Radon Zones and State Contact Information | US EPA
					

Find local information related to radon, including your state radon program, with contact information, EPA Regional contacts and a state-specific map.




					www.epa.gov
				






mtcn77 said:


> There are no radiation coming from the sun apart from uvc, uvb and uva.


you forgot to mention IR and Gamma and others


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2021)

Like no joke, you've got the scary side down but made a mistake with one of the essentials - and this is what fuels everyones fear of scary scary radiation

Light, sound, gravity... all radiation. How you doing avoiding those three?


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

Mussels said:


> sunlight is radiation. you're looking at a screen right now giving out electromagnetic radiation.
> You're mixing and matching terminologies and using them wrong, and thats what's throwing you off.
> 
> Most types of radiation are totally harmless to humans, or we'd have died off centuries ago.
> Some are dangerous... and as with everythinig what matters there is the dosage. Kinda like how sunlight causes skin cancer, but not every human has died of skin cancer yet? cause... we go to the shade?


Then, you are saying you are not attune to the term 'ionizing radiation'? Don't go on wild tangents and assume you are better of. Slow down...


mtcn77 said:


> I'm sure we are attune to the term "ionizing radiation".





Mussels said:


> Light, sound, gravity... all radiation. How you doing avoiding those three?


They are not ionizing radiation. School couldn't end sooner...



Mussels said:


> Some are dangerous... and as with everythinig what matters there is the dosage. Kinda like how sunlight causes skin cancer, but not every human has died of skin cancer yet?


That is a play on words. Survivorship bias. You cannot build your theory on some inconclusive observation. It won't fit the narrative you are trying to build, but who am I kidding, we know your mind is set...


----------



## qubit (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Don't hold a grudge. Nuclear is not chemical waste. I'm sure I can gain a reception there.


I'm not holding a grudge. You get the point I'm making. Don't deflect from it.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 19, 2021)

qubit said:


> I'm not holding a grudge. You get the point I'm making. Don't deflect from it.


I'm not the one changing definitions...


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 19, 2021)

Please read this:






						Ionizing radiation
					






					www.nrc.gov
				





And this:



> Ionizing Radiation​
> Radiation can be either ionizing or non-ionizing, depending on how it affects matter. Non-ionizing radiation includes visible light, heat, radar, microwaves, and radio waves. This type of radiation deposits energy in the materials through which it passes, but it does not have sufficient energy to break molecular bonds or remove electrons from atoms.
> 
> 
> ...



Folks are arguing about the same thing.


----------



## qubit (Apr 19, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> I'm not the one changing definitions...


You're still making up strawman arguments and disrupting my thread. I did ask you not to do this as you threaten to shut it down.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 19, 2021)

I think a few of you need to understand the different types of radiation and what they do. I've already posted this elsewhere, but it applies well here;









This will help you understand how things work and very likely why releasing Tritium into the oceans is perfectly harmless.

(PS.. Don't eat the radioactive cookies...)


----------



## MentalAcetylide (May 1, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Tritium emits beta radiation, which basically cannot penetrate your skin, or a piece of cardboard, or a few feet of water. The problem like with all beta emitters is if they get inside your body, they can do damage to cells and organs (= chance of cancer)
> 
> Given how much it will be diluted it'll be a complete non-issue, that's the most important point, which the article at Forbes seems to miss


Not sure if this was mentioned already, but I think you might be confusing alpha particles with beta particles. Depending on their energy, they can penetrate the skin, unlike alpha particles, which pose more of a contact/ingestion hazard.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 1, 2021)

MentalAcetylide said:


> Not sure if this was mentioned already, but I think you might be confusing alpha particles with beta particles. Depending on their energy, they can penetrate the skin, unlike alpha particles, which pose more of a contact/ingestion hazard.


No, he had it right, for the most part.


----------

