You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #3: Hmmm. I consider much of what you say misleading, at best. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Hmmm. I consider much of what you say misleading, at best.
It is true that T can be a useful label in biochemical research. But its sometime use as a tracer in hydrogeological studies is completely unnecessary: stable isotopes provide a satisfactory alternative.

Nobody gets very excited about external beta exposure, but internal exposure is very different story. Because free T is naturally lost with the radiolytic decomposition of labelled compounds, and (being very small) passes easily through gloves and other normal laboratory protective gear, contact with labelled compounds or breathing air in contact with labelled compounds will likely provide an internal radiosource. Similarly, contact with or respiration of a tritiated water (say THO) will provide an internal source.

Mean residence time for absorbed T is believed to be of the order of a month, but this does not distinguish between pools, and any fraction of T incorporated chemically into tissue would not be expected to flush with the extra- or intracellular waters. Because of the low mean residence time, conventional wisdom holds that a small one-time T exposure is of relatively little concern: this reasoning, however, would not remain valid in the case of chronic exposure. Nor would the reasoning remain valid in situations involves substantial cell synthetic activity (such as embryogenesis), when the likelihood of producing T-labelled tissue is increased. Experiments, in fact, have demonstrated genetic damage in animal populations fed with constant low doses of THO and animal models indicate special vulnerability to higher doses earlier in life. Such effects are radiological in nature and occur at doses orders of magnitude below "the 50% saturation by body weight with THO" level needed to observe immediate fatality, which is sometimes attributed to isotope effects.

Much T produced by power plants is simply released into ambient air or
water, largely because nobody knows how to control it easily. It thus becomes a chronic source to specific populations downwind or downstream. Perhaps as an external source, T would be of minor concern; however, as it is prudent to assume contact with free T or THO essentially implies ingestion, some of this released T becomes a source of internal emission. It is not immediately comparable to isotopes dissolved in the deep sea, far from most humans.

And I find your cheery little paean to tritium to be a bizarre response to the news, that the USA is once again making the stuff to keep its apocalyptic fusion bombs functional ...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC