Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

girlfreddyf t1_jdhwjrd wrote

It f'ing reached the groundwater???? Jayzuz, RIP any people tapping that reservoir for their drinking water.

1

hanzzz123 t1_jdj64xz wrote

The radiation is less than background level radiation

21

stonewall384 t1_jdjis6k wrote

Yes it is less than background, if background is x and you add y, it is not x+y. Which is more than background

−13

throwleboomerang t1_jdjmg0x wrote

That kinda shows that you don’t understand how nuclear stuff works, quite frankly.

7

stonewall384 t1_jdkwcca wrote

I understand it is a harmless amount of radiation, but it is dishonest to say it is less than background. Anything added to background is more than background. This is an example of some company trying to skirt regulations. If they distort the truth, they distort the truth they deserve the fines

2

throwleboomerang t1_jdkxg80 wrote

You are just plain wrong. Let's say we've got a sample of that tritium and it reads 3 counts per second (CPS) on a lead-encased geiger counter (i.e. not exposed to background level). If I then take a non-lead encased counter outside, it now reads 10 CPS from normal atmospheric/environmental radiation. If I then take the tritium outside of the lead and measure it with the unshielded meter I will likely still get 10 CPS, i.e. no increase in background. The tritium in this case has less than the background radioactivity and therefore does not cause an increase, which means your dose does not increase.

Edit- this is an example, the CPS are made up to illustrate the point, lest you think I am stating exactly what will happen.

0

stonewall384 t1_jdl7kma wrote

“Let’s say” you Ben Shapiro or something.

No supposing, just facts. The environment already had an amount of tritium, they added more to it. A Geiger counter is an inappropriate instrument for the energy level of beta given off by tritium b y the way

4

stonewall384 t1_jdjpy9l wrote

Nuclear stuff? Is that what the scientists use to discuss things in Dexter’s laboratory

−1

throwleboomerang t1_jdkxnny wrote

That appears to be where you have received all of your education on nuclear material.

−3

stonewall384 t1_jdl7t5k wrote

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am pro nuclear power, but I am anti capitalist pigs misrepresenting their mistakes. It is possible to explain to the public’s how harmless this is, but saying it is nothing or less than nothing is a lie

0

tacos_for_algernon t1_jdi5cxy wrote

Don't worry, the rich folks who poisoned the water are perfectly fine. They have decided remediation will consist of the poors receiving a lead-lined drinking cup, to block the radiation from the poisoned water. Now get back to work, plebes.

11

rnr_ t1_jdp5c2x wrote

Ground water in that it is water in the ground. It did not reach any aquifers used for drinking water.

0

girlfreddyf t1_jdp7c6s wrote

The US Geological Survey would like to have a word.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-groundwater

0

rnr_ t1_jdp8ah0 wrote

I'm not a geologist so I'm not trying to define geological terms. My point was that the leak did not reach any aquifers (or other underground water reservoir) that is used for drinking water.

0