UK Environment Agency Aims to Increase Tritium Limit in Irish Seaside Landfill from 200 Thousand Bq/Kg to 40 Million Bq/Kg; Impact Studies (2006, 2017) Assume 37 Thousand Bq/Kg; A Bq is a Radioactive Shot Per Second: Comment Deadline Tonight

KUDOS – this is Epic work you’re doing here guys I can’t say that enough. I’ll be re-posting this minutes from now in the interest of distribution and broad publication. One thing I’ll include in the re-post is this ‘interactive isotopic periodic table’ that shows – INCLUSIVELY – each and EVERY isotope that travels with each other and their Daughters and Actinides. Tritium travels with almost 2K+ other isotopes as an inseparable ‘group’ (they’re GangBangers) and they CANNOT be isolated or separated easily, if at all, from each other – not today anyway! I think people will get a much better idea of the “CARNAGE” being caused by the Nuclear Crime Syndicate worldwide but using this simple chart.. https://periodictable.com/Isotopes/096.247/index.full.html

Posted by  in Uncategorized — Dec. 1, 2019

Comment herehttps://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/cumbria-and-lancashire/sellafield-radioactive-substances-activities-rsa-p/ See too: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2019/11/29/uk-environment-agency-allowing-for-increasing-radioactive-discharges-to-the-irish-sea-by-sellafield-in-violation-of-ospar-comment-deadline-1st-december-2019/

The 2006 impact assessment for the landfill, before opening, assumed that the activity limit for radioactive waste in the Calder Floodplain Landfill Segregated Area (CLESA) would be 37,000 Bq/kg, i.e. 37 thousand random shot radioactive discharges per second per kilogram (Bq/kg).

The December 2017 CLESA PCRSA based its assumptions on the 2006 amount: “The remaining ~70,000 m3 was assumed to be filled with waste corresponding to the original PCRSA fingerprint (i.e. 37 Bq/g, i.e. Table 1).” (CLESA PCRSA, 2017, p. 26). In the CLESA PCRSA they assume that “For future disposals the in-situ density was taken to be the same as the existing disposals, i.e. 2,030 kg/m3“. The current Environment Agency proposal states on p. 42 that “Units for liquid waste equivalent to LLW/ILW amended from GBq/m3 to GBq/t“. If adhered to, this means half the radiation for liquids. A GBq, Gigabecquerel, is a billion becquerels. A TBq, which appears in Sellafield documents, is a trillion becquerels. For regular pure water cubic meters (m3) is approximately one metric tonne.

Currently the amount that Sellafield (2018) gives for CLESA is 200 thousand Bq/kg – more than five times the original assumption used in the pre-opening impact study. The new proposed limit of 40 Million Bq/kg is more than one thousand times the assumption made for the 2006 impact study. If this includes radioactive materials other than tritium, then the proposed increase is even higher. According to CLESA PCRSA, 2017, Table 2, p. 19, approximately 23.4% is H3 (tritium). Thus the proposal may well be 200,000 Bq/kg of other radioactive materials plus 40,000,000 Bq/kg for tritium. This appears more likely the case, though it’s unclear. This tritium will remain radioactive for around 200 years. It is, of course, not the only radioactive material in this seaside and riverside landfill. The CLESA PCRSA Report (2017), based on Nexia (2006) and Halcrow (2006), notes that “in the absence of coastal defences, erosion of CLESA could begin in approximately 100 years’ time” (CLESA PCRSA, 2017, p.7) While the Environment Agency assume that someone will keep nature at bay for 200 years, there are other radioactive materials in this landfill, which remain radioactive far longer.

Note that for regular water, a kilogram is approximately one liter.

UK Environment Agency Aims to Increase Tritium Limit in Irish Seaside Landfill from 200 Thousand Bq/Kg to 40 Million Bq/Kg; Impact Studies (2006, 2017) Assume 37 Thousand Bq/Kg; A Bq is a Radioactive Shot Per Second: Comment Deadline Tonight

4 comments

  1. Thanks for your expertise – please know that I don’t portend to be an expert on radioisotopic studies. I only know what I read – and that is no guarantee it is valid either – so thanks for sharing your advanced expertise. I need to obtain knowledge wherever I can find it.. 😊

    IMO – once TEPCO stopped processing waste through that enormously expensive ALPS machine they built I presumed they began dumping the tanks – which they keep disseminating that ridiculous BS that they ONLY hold Tritium – into the Pacific directly which is when the entire Pacific started dying extremely quickly. Marine mammal beaching’s around the entire Pacific ALL AT ONCE. The collapse of the Columbia, Copper, Salmon, Willamette, Missoula, Yakima, Natches, John Day and ALL the other river systems in the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Tide Pools, Starfish wasting disease, seal starvation’s, Myrrh bird die-offs by the thousands. THAT was the real beginning of the TOTAL death of the Great Pacific Ocean!!

  2. You are right. But the filters become the “problem” and not the solution. If they run the ALPS machines for too long the filters are emanating SIEVERT’s of radiation and run the risk of ‘failure’ which often backs up into the whole system requiring a complete shutdown and maintenance cycle – then they can’t get anyone in there to change them – and after they DO change them they have to transport deadly levels of waste materials somewhere ELSE to bury, burn, dissolve or otherwise dispose of them. Radiation just passes from ONE material to the NEXT material in a more concentrated form – you can never REALLY clean it up you can only make the bulk smaller and more deadly.. it’s ALL STILL THERE IN THE END!
    For you and the readers here is the link to the Interactive Periodic Table of Radioactive Isotopes and their Daughters and Actinides.. it’s the best one on the internet because it ONLY covers the radioisotopes NOT the rest of the elements.

    https://periodictable.com/Isotopes/096.247/index.full.html

  3. They actually can be separated. They are just too cheap to do so or do so thoroughly. Cesium would bind as a salt so could be separated as a salt. Tritium is the toughest because it actually binds as water. However, its behavior as water is different so it can be separated. Even a basic carbon filter catches a lot and now there are more sophisticated filters. Algae also captures most of them. It’s very important to know that they can filter and are refusing to do so because of profits. This is not to justify making it, because the filters also make waste.

    • Thanks for the reblog. There is a list of the radionuclides discharged at Sellafield in the documents linked. To clarify it is easier to filter most of the other radionuclides. Also, this has to do with how they count what’s in the waste. The waste is what is left after they have “treated”, filtered somewhat, etc. They have never claimed they can’t filter radionuclides apart from tritium. They just want to run the filtration fast or not do multiple runs. It is tritium that they claim not to be able to do. But, they can filter it because tritiated water is heavier than regular water. Because it is very tedious work I chose Cesium as examples while linking to the others. There was an additional question regarding tritium and their attempts to up the amount stored. Where things would be tricky is once a material is comprised of radioactive carbon and hydrogen, for instance, but even then I am sure there is a solution. Can you filter salt (sodium chloride (NaCl, potasium chloride (KCl))? Yes, so you can filter Cesium (CsCl). On the periodic chart Na, K, and Cs are close together and have similar behavior. Can you filter iron? Yes, so you can filter plutonium, which is a very similar iron mimic. To get rid of all iron you may need something more than a carbon filter, but it can be done. Ditto for plutonium. I did all of my organic and inorganic chemistry classes at university and genetics and physiology and biochemistry and built upon that with additional research. I say that because these things are perhaps more obvious to me for that reason. Remember that this is a 148 page document and related to a few other documents as long and I had only a few days notification.

      MUCH OF MY EARLIER RESEARCH WAS DONE FROM THE VANTAGE OF STOPPING FUKUSHIMA FROM POLLUTING THE PACIFIC OR CLEANING IT UP. AS A RESULT A NEW FILTER WAS DEVELOPED BUT IT WASN’T ACCEPTED FOR FUKUSHIMA, I AM TOLD.

      THERE ARE SOLUTIONS, THEY JUST DON’T WANT TO USE THEM IF THEIR BUDDIES CAN’T MAKE MONEY OFF THE TECH. For solids there is also the “solution” of packaging and repackaging until the stuff is safe, even if it takes thousands of years or more.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.