Can patient excretion/medical waste in Philadelphia contribute substantially to iodine 131 in rainwater?
Philadelphia has had levels over 2 picoCuries/L of iodine in the drinking water at the Queen Lane facility and elevations of iodine 131 at other facilities. They also mentioned (only recently) that this cannot be attributable to the situation in Japan because in August 2010, levels in the drinking water at Queen Lane in Philadelphia (predating Japan) exceeded 4 picoCuries/L. One hypothesis put forth is that this elevation in iodine 131 is due to patient excretion/discharge from a medical facility in the area.
I would also love to have a professional opinion on whether it is plausible that patients excreting iodine 131 (as proposed by officials as a possible source) at such a level that RAINwater in PA at Limerick and TMI had some of the highest levels in the nation (90-100 picoCuries/L)? (as reported by reuters and many other sources) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-nuclear-japan-south-idUSTRE...
Can the concentration from medical facilities or patient excretion in the area be at such a level that RAINwater in PA is being impacted to that degree? Not only are the drinking water levels of iodine 131 some of the highest in the country, but the RAINwater results for iodine 131 have been some of the highest in the nation.
The drinking water elevations in Philadelphia (Queen Lane facility) don't just date back to Aug 2010 as officials have recently stated. There were peaks exceeding 3 picoCuries/L in Jan 09 and October 07! This is an issue someone has clearly been aware of for years, not just months. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query
If officials were interested in identifying the source, I would think they would want to test a large number of other isotopes? They have not tested for cesium at Queen Lane since 2007, nor any isotope of radium (a concern with Fracking, which I don't think uses iodine 131 but if there is elevated radium in the water in combination with the iodine 131 levels, I think we should know!). Instead officials continue to state that it would take "drinking X liters of water" before it would be an issue...yet we don't know what other isotopes are lingering in there. I'm concerned about fracking related discharge (radium isotopes?) on top of the current iodine 131 levels and what the impact of that would be for children, etc.
How plausible is it that there is such a concentration of iodine 131 being excreted by patients (or discharged from a medical facility) that *RAIN* water in Philadelphia has had some of the highest levels in the country (90-100 picoCuries/L)? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-nuclear-japan-south-idUSTRE...
I am trying to get someone to do some investigative journalism on this topic (Philly Inquirer, etc.) but haven't heard or read any followup. No one is asking the questions that I think would reveal more info. Why no carbon filtering until recently, when iodine 131 levels have exceeded 3 picoCuries/L repeatedly since 2007 (not just 2010)? Why did testing of several isotopes cease around 2007? Would testing for some of those other isotopes help pinpoint whether this is attributable to patients vs. another source of iodine 131 (Limerick nuclear plant?)? If we aren't testing for other isotopes, how can one say that "X liters" of water per day is "safe" when there may be other isotopes (radium, cesium, etc.) going undetected since testing those ceased in 2007?
Lim(e)rick nuclear station
"There once was a nuclear station
that sat in the midst of our nation
till one day, no one knows why
it blew sky high
And buried us all in radiation"
:)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It came to me from the name!!!
Love it! Limerick... good
Love it!
Limerick... good one.
(gallows humor, I suppose)
August 10, 2011
"The Pennsylvania Department of Health is offering free pills to protect against nuclear radiation for people who live near one of the state’s five nuclear power plants."
"Anyone who lives within 10 miles of the Beaver Valley, Limerick, Peach Bottom, Susquehanna or Three Mile Island plants is eligible for free pills."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/health_department_off...
Nuclear power plants have
Nuclear power plants have incinerators too, waste oil used for lubricating is often burned at night in a waste oil incinerator.
You may want to consider
You may want to consider Millstone's story, " The Millstone Around Katie's Neck " here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=28&ved=0CEcQFjAHOBQ&url=htt...
"In 1988, Millstone's operator, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, pleaded guilty to the felony charge of falsifying enviornmental records. Millstone whistleblower Jim Plumb testified that operators simply "turned off" enviornmental monitors while releasing deadly chemicals in violation of the company's clean water act permit."
Katies milk contained concentrations of 55.5 pico curies of strontium 90, more than twice the amount in Connecticut milk during the height of nuclear weapons testing in 1963...
nuclear iron curtain maybe
I wonder why nobody was suspicious of Limrick nuclear station as they were replacing their residual heat removal heat exchanger at that very time, a worker was hurt in a fall or something during that outage if I recall.
Could the veil of nuclear secrecy be so broad that some would speculate cancer patients over a troubled nuclear plant performing major surgery to it's very radioactive innards?
I would say that it is
I would say that it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for PATRIENT EXCETION (pee, poo, etc.) to increase levels in RAIN water. I DO think it is possible that patients treated with I131 can contribute to ground/surface water contamination if the patient is using the public sewer system.
Many waste water systems filter only sludge and large objects from waste water. The "filtered" water is then discharged into streams/rivers/lakes, etc.
Where I-131 COULD get into RAIN water is from medical incinerators if they are burning items contaminated with I-131.
We have two medical physicists who work at our office. We make dosimeters, radiographic phantoms, etc. I asked one of them about this very issue. She said that she used to be a radiological safety officer for a medical facility for a few years before getting her PhD. She said that it was a BIG pain to cleanup the hospital room after a patients is treated with I-131.
She said all sheets, towels, etc., anything the patient touched or came in contact with, needed to be collected and stored for 4 months before being disposed of. She said that sometimes cleaning crews would go through the room BEFORE she did and they would take items to the incinerator. That means I-131 up into the air.
She also said that ALL patients were NOT restricted as to where they were allowed to pee and poo even ONE day after treatment. She said that this concerned her the hospital was in a small community and waste water was dumped into a river after going through the treatment plant. She brought up a holding tank for I-131 patients where effluent would be held until I-131 decay was to the point of being negligable. This was deemed unpractical and too expensive.
So...... The almighty dollar is more important that human health in many places. I would not doubt that there are other sources that Fukushima contributing I-131 to the local environment. My GUESS if this is in rainwater I would be looking for local hospitals that incinearte waste, dumps that do the same, etc.
I have been trying to
I have been trying to determine if Limerick and TMI (the locations in PA that had rainwater levels of iodine 131 of 90-100 pCi/L) have historical testing data going back for months/years. I have been unable to find this data as of yet. I'm curious if the peaks in rain water would have any correlation with the peaks in the drinking water.
The other thing that puzzles me is that the drinking water levels have "peaks' and not a constant level. I am wondering if there would be a logical reason for that. The peaks do not appear to match up with seasons (drought impacting them for example with less "dilution"). The peaks were October 07, Jan 09, Aug 2010 and now the recent peak (march/april). If drinking water elevations of iodine 131 were elevated from patient excretion, I would think the levels would be more consistent rather than coming in peaks? Is there a reason there would be such marked peaks at various intervals vs. a more consistent level of iodine 131? The amount of rain?
I would like to find the data on rainwater for Limerick and TMI (for iodine 131) to see when/if there were elevations of iodine 131 previously. If it is due to incineration, I wonder if a more consistent level would be expected or if the rainwater also saw big peaks (is it burned at a relatively constant level or periodically)?
I'd also be curious to match up the peaks of iodine 131 in *drinking* water and see if there is any correlation with weather (extra rain resulting in increases. Incineration contributing extra rainwater contamination in addition to the iodine 131 from patients in drinking water).
Why would Philadelphia have such elevated rain water results and drinking water results? There are a lot of hospitals, but I'm curious why it stands out as compared to other large cities (Boston, etc.)? Is there a Philly facility incinerating 131 waste whereas this is not common practice in other large cities w/ several hospitals?
Just thinking out loud with my questions.
I had another thought today
I had another thought today on this idea of patient excretion (which I believe does contribute some iodine 131 to the water but not enough to explain the situation in Philadelphia.).
If it is due to patient excretion, why can't I find any peaks for iodine 131 in Philadelphia dating back before say 2005-2007? Iodine 131 has been used as a treatment for quite some time. Not only has the iodine 131 in drinking water come in intermittent peaks, but the peaks I saw were 2005, then oct 2007, jan 09, aug 2010 and the recent elevation. Why wouldn't it have impacted the drinking water before 2005-2007? I'm quite sure the top notch research hospitals, etc. were using iodine 131 as a treatment for a good while before that time.
I posted on another thread
I posted on another thread about data showing regular releases of various radioisotopes into the environment on a yearly basis. These releases have been going on for years and we the public did not know about it.
Here is the effluent release report for 2009 for Limerick 1&2 nuclear reactors. These are long reports but if you search for specific radioisotopes such as Iodine, Cesium, Strontium etc. you will find the levels that are being released into the environment (into the air, water etc.) on a quarterly basis. You can also see if there were any problems with the reactors such as accidental releases.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1012/ML101250324.pdf
Have a look at the chart on page 30 showing the radiological impact on man from the Limerick reactor alone. You will not believe your eyes!
Here is a list of all nuclear reactors and their annual reports showing effluent releases. If you look at the Radioactive Effluent Summary Report by Calendar Year for 2008 and then search for specific radioisotopes (ex. iodine) you will see a chart that compares the releases of iodine per reactors throughout the US.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info....
I have read that there is some waste in the US coming from medical facilities but I feel that the levels we are seeing can be at least partially atributed to the releases from the local reactors in the US.
It should be also noted that these reactors are releasing Ci(curies) of isotopes into the environment!
I've been unable to find
I've been unable to find historical data for iodine 131 in rainwater for Limerick or Philadelphia.
This EPA site allows you to search precipitation numbers for Philadelphia, but it has most of the other isotopes...iodine 131 seems to be absent from the list?
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query
Has anyone been able to find the historical data on Limerick or Philadelphia for iodine 131 in rainwater?
Limerick's rainwater tested at 100 piC/L for iodine 131 recently, but I'd like to compare to the historical data or see if there's any correlation between past peaks of iodine 131 in precipitation with the peaks in iodine 131 in drinking water in Philadelphia .(You can find peaks in "Philadelphia"-just Philadelphia on the EPA site above-in 2005, [over 4 piC/L], and then peaks at the Queen Lane facility in Philadelphia in Oct 07, Jan 09, Aug 2010, and again recently.
Thank you for the reports.
Thank you for the reports. I will have to take my time wading through them. I'm certain there are some helpful gems of info in the above.
Philly iodine 131
Good afternoon- (former Thomas Jefferson Univ. grad student here)
I'm curious whether anyone has considered whether iodine 131 could be excreted into municipal sewer systems, and released by evaporation resulting from the repeated agitation and aeration of the water which occurs at municipal sewer plants?
Given the common use of chlorination, perhaps oxidized iodine would evaporate faster or be more reactive with pollen or dusts that later nucleates rain?
Pennsylva
Post Script
(snip)
If drinking water elevations of iodine 131 were elevated from patient excretion, I would think the levels would be more consistent rather than coming in peaks? Is there a reason there would be such marked peaks at various intervals vs. a more consistent level of iodine 131? The amount of rain?
(snip)
Could the peaks coincide with land application of biosolid fertilizer?
Normally, it would be stockpiled, likely covered and simply decay in place, however, if applied on land, followed by rain, you would get a peak.
Hal
Hmmm...I missed the biosolid
Hmmm...I missed the biosolid part, I was just thinking typical chemical fertilizer.
But again, at such a level that rainwater west of the city is coming back high? Or was the reading of 100 piC/L out at Limerick an isolated incident post Japan? THat's why I wish we had the historical data for rainwater for iodine 131 from there. Or even Philadelphia, but I can't seem to search it.
I also thought about whether there could be a connection to Willow Grove?
Also, the peaks are pretty
Also, the peaks are pretty far apart overall. The significant ones I saw were one in 2005 (just searching generic Philadelphia, not location of Belmont, Queen, etc.), and then there were peaks at Queen Ln for example that were:
Oct 07
Jan 09
Aug 2010
and then the recent peak.
So those are pretty spread apart and not really seasonal or anything.
I have been wondering about
I have been wondering about this, esp. because it's in PA. PA is being poisoned by Fracking and part of this poisoning is using the Fracking waste as FERTILIZER on PA farms! Also, the salty brine waste has been used to salt the streets before snow storms AND the waste water was sent to drinking water treatment plants that were not in any way, shape or form able to deconaminate that waste water. NY Times basically busted this wide open with an amazing investigative report by Ian Urbina. Now, I don't know if iodine 131 would ever be part of Fracking waste. However, I do know that strontium has been detected in Fracking waste water (don't know if it -89 or -90 or what tho). Also, PA has nuke plants so why couldn't it be from those plants? I am not familiar as of yet of the locations of those plants so don't know if where they took these readings are anywhere near them. I just don't know...it seems possible that PA (and many other states) have their own "homegrown" radioactive poisons already flowing, before Fukushima. Um, maybe Americans should wake up to this sh*t goin' on literally in their own backyards??
I thought about that but
I thought about that but haven't seen any data that iodine 131 is related to fracking. Strontium and radium (although the Queen Ln facility in Philadelphia testing with elevated iodine 131 levels hasn't tested for any isotope of radium since 2007, so who knows how much exposure people are getting if there is radium related to fracking in there *on top of* the iodine 131 levels).
I found data a few days ago that they had a peak back in 2005 exceeding 4 piC/L. If you search the epa site listed above for historical data and just search Philadelphia (not Queen Lane, Belmont, etc. Just plain old Philadelphia) there was a peak over 4 piC/L for iodine 131 in 05. And peaks over 3 piC/L in Oct 07, Jan 09, Aug 2010. And then levels over 2 piC/L recently (and only then did they mention the August 2010 data but they have yet to discuss that there were other peaks dating back 3-6 years). And only now have they started using carbon filtering as a "cautionary" measure.
I also haven't seen any evidence fertilizer would contain iodine 131.
I am concerned it could be from a nuclear plant (which is why I'm curious on the historical data on *rainwater* out at Limerick to compare it to the recently 100 piC/L level). Interestingly, they haven't tested for a bunch of isotopes at Queen Lane in Phila since 2006-2007 (no testing for cesium 137 since that time for example). I would think if they saw those peaks for iodine 131 and really wanted to find the source (since the peaks go back 3-6 years) they would be testing for other isotopes, since that could potentially narrow down the source??
I just don't understand how patients could be excreting to that level, and we just coincidentally have some of the highest rainwater levels in the nation out at Limerick. so my question keeps coming back to what is the historical data out at the Limerick plant for iodine 131 in rainwater normally? was the 100 piC/L level after the events in Japan started unraveling an outlier related to Japan (and separate from the elevated iodine 131 in drinking water at Queen Lane, etc. in Philadelphia) or is it usually elevated in the rainwater around Limerick nuclear plant?
I've been unable to find the answer. It just seems odd that not only is the drinking water getting some of the highest peaks in the country for iodine 131 (and those peaks date back 3-6 years!), but the rain water at Limerick (nuclear plant about an hour outside of Philadelphia) also just happens to have recently tested with some of the highest levels of iodine 131 in *rain water* in the nation. Are those two things related? I would tend to think so, and I would tend to think patients are not excreting to such a magnitude that they could impact the rainwater west of the city (vs. the drinking water, which may be somewhat understandable). Even then, the peaks seem odd vs. a more steady state, but perhaps I'm missing something there (levels of precipitation impacting levels in drinking water, etc?).
I keep pressing for more followup on this story because at the very least, someone sat on the data that Phila has had peaks over 3 piC/L several times in the last 3-6 years, and some of those peaks were actually in excess of 4 piC/L. And only now are they mentioning maybe they should find the source, and oh, maybe it is patient excretion, oh, and we just started using a carbon filter. THey haven't mentioned any of the peaks other than the one from Aug 2010 that was "nearly twice as high" as the current level of 2+ piC/L.
Here are the annual
Here are the annual radioactive effluent release reports for Hope Creek and Peach Bottom Reactors. The reports are really long but you can enter the search term you are looking for at the top of the page and then scroll through the document to find what you are looking for (ex. iodine-131). The releases are measured in curies.
Hope Creek 1 Reactor 2009
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1013/ML101300369.pdf
Peach Bottom 2&3 2008
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0912/ML091250436.pdf
Here are all of the effluent release reports for the reactors in the US by year.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info....
I also posted a thread on this issue here:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3589
I looked at the effluent
I looked at the effluent releases but Limerick didn't seem out of the ordinary. Not my area of expertise but looking at their liquid effluents it seemed pretty typical.
I'm still trying to find the historical data for *rain* water for Limerick to compare the recent finding of 100 piC/L of iodine 131 in rainwater on site. Was this peak only seen with the situation in Japan, or is the rainwater in the area generally high. And I'm curious if any peaks in rainwater levels of iodine 131 in the past would correlate/coincide with the peaks in Philly drinking water.
I am not sure what you mean
I am not sure what you mean by "typical".
At the Limerick Nuclear Plant in 2009 in Quarter 1 7.85E-05 curies of I-131 were released into the air in gaseous form.
7.85E-05 = .0000785 curies which converts to 78500000 picocuries. This is only in one quarter.
Any amount of radioisotope release is too much. This is only for one quarter of the year, only one radioisotope and in only one area of the US. There are many nuclear reactors releasing effluents, with many of the radioisotopes contaminating the environment for hundreds of years.
Thank you for bringing that
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. That's a mighty large amount of iodine 131. The public is really astoundingly unaware (I include myself in this) of what is happening around nuclear power plants here under normal operating conditions, let alone a situation surrounding an "event" of some type.
If only I could get the media to start asking why the high rainwater levels at Limerick (and could determine if they are always some of the highest in the nation) as well as forcing officials to go on record with their statements as to whether patients excrete to such a degree that our rainwater is impacted. So frustrating...I haven't seen a single followup to the original articles about Philly since mid April. No one pressing them on the other peaks, and the fact they've been sitting on this for 6 years. I've contacted some environmental groups, etc. but haven't heard anything from anyone about any followup.
e
The value i think of 7.85 e -05 C. would be 7.85 x 2.71-05 x 1,000,000,000,000 = 212,735,000 pico Curies.
The value of the constant E is 2.71. It is still a lot!
Thanks for that as well. It
Thanks for that as well. It is still a lot. And I doubt most people in America realize what is being discharged. My husband is a PhD chemist, and neither of us can believe the #s. We feel like we are pretty aware with respect to environmental and health issues, and yet, we had no idea what the effluent releases were like.
I can't help but believe it has some connection to the iodine 131 in drinking and rain water in the Philadelphia area (since the Limerick nuclear plant uses the Schuylkill for cooling and the Schuylkill feeds the water supply in Philadelphia. And the Schuylkill itself has tested with elevated iodine 131). Yet Limerick just received an extension and permission to up their generating capacity by another 1.6%.