Here you go. The story is discussing Tritium and here is some studies that you can go an examine yourself. I've copied the post for you to read.

These scientific studies are on the effects of tritium on living beings.

Some of them show that Triated water's effect is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter and it's characteristics 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.

These studies are around 30 years old!

That's correct, and has anything changed? Do brains now grow to normal size when exposed to H3?

How do you respond to:

Smith, Geoffrey Battle; Grof, Yair; Navarrette, Adrianne; Guilmette, Raymond A. (2011). "Exploring Biological Effects of Low Level Radiation from the Other Side of Background". Health Physics 100 (3): 263Ãff"5. doi:10.1097/HP.0b013e318208cd44. PMID 21595063.

Looks like it could be interesting when it is complete. It is studying the effect of radiation on a bacteria.

Capece, D.; Fratini, E. (2012). "The use of pKZ1 mouse chromosomal inversion assay to study biological effects of environmental background radiation". The European Physical Journal Plus 127 (4): 37. Bibcode:2012EPJP..127...37C. doi:10.1140/epjp/i2012-12037-7.

which show an opposite effect?

Again, interesting. I will buy a full copy and go through it, so thanks. However, reading the part that is available says that it is studying the effect of cosmic (and lack of) on cells. I'm curios about the in-vivo model, so I will certainly set some time aside to examine and absorb it.

How do you respond to:

These studies study "emitted" radiation on cells not the effect of a radioisotope, like Tritium, as an "emitter" in the body. The changes being discussed are considering allowing more radioactive isoptopes, as effluent, into the environment, so if you are asking if these papers are relevant, not really. Certainly interesting though, and thank you for pointing them out Mr AC.

The main thrust of relaxing is for Japan.

Then you have the sites in the USA that have got new paper work to run for decades more.

The "unusual event" reports on early warning alarm shuts downs at sites makes the US news over the past few years.

Then you have the US storage site clean ups.

A plethora of effluents.

Best to change national standards, stop funding quality US epidemiology, stop the tiny gov grants for books and books chapters on cancer clusters.

If you can't fix the problem, fiddle the figures.

Then over time the next generations of top medical staff will be very tame :) Great in the ER but none of that messy long term pathology study work that finds 'facts' over decades.

Coupled with things like the IAEA can exert publishing interdictions against the WHO when they study or publish something about nuclear effluents effect on humans it makes for a very tightly controlled flow of information.

Another trick is to only talk of basic external exposure issues. Never ever mention ingestion, lungs. That's a great talking point and can really fool the wider public.

Exactly.

So there is huge effort to get the talking points out about safe new numbers and lessen the mention of what is in the air.

It's disturbing that you refer to that as I have heard numerous reports of radioactive garbage exposed at Fukushima province being burnt all around Japan. It seems that distributing the materials affects that ability to get a control when doing a study as a basis for legal action. It seems some of the lessons learned at Chernobyl are being used in quit sinister ways to deny potential litigants access to legal remedies.

These scientific studies are on the effects of tritium on living beings.

Some of them show that Triated water's effect is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter and it's characteristics 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.

All this "NIMBY" greenpeace anti nuke fags really just don't know what they are taking about, anyone who knows about nuclear reactors will tell you that they are really great, super reliable and that the only reason that we have to pay for electricity is because it's waaay too cheap to meter it from a nuclear reactor and the utilities had to pay for meters.

I've often thought, "I would like some strontium 90 on my breakfast cereal" because it is tasty and good for you, plus you will win every fart contest. Recently it was conclusively *proven* that not only can you get a great suntan from the core of a reactor, but that radioisotopes have Vitamin C in it, so my advice to people would be if you are feeling a bit of a sniffle coming on, get yourself to a local nuclear reactor and ask to cuddle up to a couple of fuel rods and get toasty.

Chernobyl and Fukushima proved how safe Nuclear power is and we should all want one near us. Whilst evacuations of these areas have occurred Bruce Willis proved that you won't die at all from fallout from a nuclear reactor in "A good day to die hard". He lived and was stronger so we should move people back there so they grow up to be just like Bruce Willis.

Nuclear is perfectly safe and we can all have a nuclear future, in our back yards, today!

Absolutely! Sacking everyone and hiring foreign workers is the path to full employment and prosperity for all people. When everyone is un-employed and grateful to work for a bowl of food, the country will be a much better place and everyone will be happier.

I see your supporting your adgenda as a Nuclear apologist again.

At least, I don't go bug-eyed and rant four times about the shills modding down a single post

Of course you don't, you never present any facts of value.

And, as usual, your "argument" is easily demolished so the only thing you have left is your predictable ad-hominem attack, to which you readily resort.

(and the modding in question is as flamebait and off-topic, looks like appropriate modding to me).

Well you would say that because the science and reality of the situation doesn't fit into the agenda you promote.

It's worth noting that the magnitude 9 earthquake didn't come close to threatening the stability of the cooling ponds.

The damage to the foundations mean the entire building leaning over. TEPCO's status page for the reactor reveals they are building a support structure to stop the spent fuel pool from falling.

So you're looking for a much bigger earthquake in a region that already released most of its geologically built up energy in a magnitude 9 earthquake.

I see your supporting your adgenda as a Nuclear apologist again.

Because obviously, Japan will forgot how to pump water. A few diesel generators and some hose means that your scenario doesn't happen - even if you somehow came up with the huge earthquake and the structural failure.

A plutonium fire splits the hydrogen and oxygen and the water ceases to exist, so that simply won't work

• I do not like this Abbott twit,
• I do not like him just one bit,
• I do not like his marriage stance,
• Leaving gays without a chance.
• I do not like his 50s views,
• About a womans right to choose.
• I do not like that he thinks strange,
• Science facts on climate change.
• I do not like the way he speaks,
• And fumbles talking on his feets.
• I do not like his lies and tricks.
• I do not like his head of bricks.
• I think we need to vote again.
• I do not want him as PM

Fuck yeah, I didn't vote for the cunt either. One gigantic step backwards.

A storage facility near it contains another 6000 spent mox fuel rods. The smoke of the fire is plutonium oxide and chloride which is fatal to humans at doses of 1-10 micrograms.

There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.

How many tons is that 6000 spent rods?

Roughly 850 tons on site.

Then remember exactly how big the Pacific Ocean is and how large, comparatively, a microgram is. A microgram is only 10^-12 of a ton, area crossed is a square fall off rate.

8.5^14 fatal doses. More than enough to go around and around.

Could it immediately pollute the ocean and cause problems? Sure! Would the fall-out in the ocean cause a long term problem?

Absolutely. I described the effects which would last as long as the decay period, which is 25,000 years as it is cycled through the food chain over that time through bio-accumulation - assuming it lasts that long.

you are worried about the toxins that humans failed to plan for when a volcano that's been dormant for a long history suddenly might be a little closer to eruption?

I would characterize it as concerned enough to agitate for action. Though another poster pointed out that the fuel rods are being removed at a pace that indicates that this threat is actually understood. The revised figure is 400 in the spent fuel pool, still quite a large threat however, great news there and hopefully a threat that is resolved soon!

Be worried about the loss of life from the volcano going off, and the loss of life from the climate change that a large eruption would cause (famine, loss of utilities, etc).

On a purely vicarious level an eruption of Mt Fuji wouldn't affect me, a pu fire would.

Or, if you must be scared of nuclear stuff, be scared of the fall out from all the nuke warheads and fuel stored close enough to Yellowstone that would be vaporized in the expected eruption.

I am not aware that Yucca mountain is operational and the DOE characterized it as unsuitable, let me know if you have a link indicating otherwise. If it were operational and fully stocked it would present an ongoing threat that would dwarf this one (which is one of my chief objections to the facility) however both scenarios pose a threat so serious that it would be like comparing being crushed by a 850 ton rock to a 70,000 ton rock, you are equally dead.

On reflection its a possible solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Hmm, a quick bit of research finds that MOX fuel rods are basically PuO2, which doesn't do the pyrophoric thing - it's stable in dry air, heats up slowly in the presence of water vapor.

And what do you expect happens when you put a bunch of them in close proximity and take the moderator away. An outdoor nuclear reeactor without control rods. This is what you do in a nuclear reactor, there is no magic that will change a FUEL ROD's behaviour or properties when it's outside a reactor. On their own, fine. Bunch them together, take away the moderator, criticallity.

Which at least suggests that the panic at the thought of a Pu fire is a bit exaggerated.....

Or actually a real risk that you wern't aware of until you saw my post otherwise why would there be such a effort to extract the fuel rods at all. Maybe, the people who do know also have enough influence and understanding of the situation to excert that kind of pressure on the Japanese Diet.

Note also that spent fuel rods have rather less Pu in them than you might think, since most of it has been burned in the nuclear reactor before it became "spent".

.

Fuel rods are more toxic when they come out compared to when they go in and much more radioactive. The burn-up rate for a PWR is 0.3%, yes point zero three of a percent. So I think there is more pu239 there than you expect.

Well, you run off and get some. Pick up a clue while you're at it.

C'mon you slimey chickenshit mod troll, even my corrected facts trump your pathetic fanboi crap.