Keeping Your Water Safe

Radionuclides RULE!

No I don't mean in that old high school connotation where  it is implied that they "awesomely" preside over other non-ruling subjects. Today I am talking about the Radionuclides Final Rule published by the EPA in 2000 that replaced old radionuclide regulation from 1977.

This ruling set revised standards for the levels that radionuclides should be found at in our water. They devised a MCL or Maximum Concentration Level for the radionuclides of Uranium, Combined Ra226/Ra228, beta/photon emitters, and the GAA mentioned in the previous post:

Beta/photon emitters 4 mrem/yr
Gross alpha particle 15 pCi/L
Combined radium- 226/228 5 pCi/L
Uranium 30 µg/L

These standards were set for the aforementioned reasons of keeping down public dose. It also should be noted that Uranium in the water can also have harmful chemical effects on the human kidneys apart from its radiological effects.

Removal of Nuclides

So now we know how nuclides are tested and what the standards for these tests are, but how do we remove them? Reverse Osmosis has been selected by the EPA as what could be the best possible method for removal. How does it work? Osmosis is the movement of water down its concentration gradient from low solute concentration to high concentration. When solute is dissolved in a lot of water it will have low solute concentration because concentration is equal to solute amount divided by solvent amount. A high concentration would thus take place in a relatively low amount of water. Thus during osmosis water moves down its gradient by going from a low solute concentration (high amount of water) to high solute concentration (low amount of water). This is what is thermodynamically favorable and occurs spontaneously. Thus reverse osmosis makes sense to be water moving up it gradient. It moves from a high solute concentration to a low one. This is an unfavorable process and requires the input of energy to sustain it. The water with high solute level (radionuclides) is pressurized and passed against a filter with such small pores that the nuclides cannot pass through. The other side of the filter is the resulting low solute concentration (radionuclide-free) water. This process is not a 100% efficient as the all the contaminated water cannot be passed through the filter. Thus there is waste water. Also, the filter must be strong as to not burst under the pressure. If this happens the process will fail. The filters must also be cycled as the pores will get clogged reducing the ability for the water to pass through.  The result of this process is waste water that can be sent to the sewer or a further processing plant and finished water.

Cited:
(1) http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=30006644.txt

Basically pH Testing...

Protecting Our Water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_UmOwhPIE

It probably won't come as a shock to you that radionuclides can get into and then contaminate our water supply.As you have seen the worst case scenarios, of radionuclides entering almost every other medium, it may seem like common sense that our water should be under watch as well. You would be correct in assuming this after all I have written up to this point. Radionuclides can enter the water supply, and if they exhibit high activity and high in high concentration can pose very high risk upon consumption. That would be upon consumption by anyone: plants, animals, humans. But before you start reaching for the bottled water, over these next few posts, I hope to answer whether on not we are currently in such a situation that could warrant drastic action. Fukushima. Chernobyll. Nuclear Testing. Surely that is reason alone? Actually, the US has been monitoring the radiation levels in our air, precipitation, drinking water, and even our milk. To this point, they have found no cause for alarm as almost all radionuclide levels are undetectable or much lower than any level that would pose a health risk.

To start of this series, for this post I thought I'd ramble a little bit on the how the our water is actually tested. Radionuclides can exist dissolved in the water, bound to solids in the water, or in the rock surrounding the water. They can then contaminate out water, and when one goes to drink from this aquifer they also get a mouth-dose (my new unit) full of radionuclides. These pose the obvious health risks. The nuclides can be man-made or naturally occurring from the rock. So how do we figure out the levels that are present in the water? By sampling. There a few different types of sampling, but today we'll talk about Sampling by Evaporation and by Coprecipitation. 

Sampling by evaporation actually works how it sounds. A sample is taken from the water source and evaporated down to a solid film. These would be the solid nuclides that would have contributed to your high mouth-dose (it'll catch on). Coprecipitation works through the addition of a Barium Sulfate/Ferric Hydroxide Mixture. This mixture binds with the radionuclides and at high concentrations precipitates out of the solution. Remove the water and you are left with a rather similar film of nuclides. The end goal of this is to rate the water source's GAA or Gross Alpha Particle Activity. Alpha Particles are one of the more dangerous types of radiation when it comes to ingestion. A high GAA is thus very bad for a water supply. These films from the samples are held against a detector in order to serve as an average for the water supply as a whole. Chemical anlaysis can also be done in order to figure out actual chemical concentration as opposed to just radioactivity analysis. However, some assumptions must be made and inaccuracies tracked as to why the GAA can vary greatly from the actual GAA of your water source. The source usually exist in equilibrium. New nuclides enter the water at a rate, leave the water at a rate, and change into new elements at a rate. These rates eventually combat against each other and concentrations equilibrate.  Removing a sample from this balance and you subject to disorder again. It may eventually reach another equilibrium but with just a water sample, that equilibrium will definitely be different from what it was originally. The more time  that its removed from the source the further these concentrations will be and the further away your GAA will be from the truth. Another consideration to be made is the source itself can vary, as it could operate on its own yearly cycle. Seasons affect temperature, temperature affects the entry rate of nuclides into the water, the entry rate affects equilibrium and GAA.  The solution to  atleast this is to perform a quaterly sample. A sample is taken 4 times during 4 three month periods. These samples are averaged together and lead to a clearer picture of the average water source activity and its GAA. Using these methods one can diagnose and track the potential health threat that is water dispersion. 

Cited:

(1)http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/3028.pdf

Fallout Survival: Stripping for Life

Saved by Water

So you've been lucky enough to survive the blast and now you're trying to make sure you continue to survive the coming months after the nuclear blast. Of course the common wartime concerns are necessary to contend with: Clean Water,  Shelter, Food and Security (to make sure one can keep these the valuables against any other incoming threats). However, this isn't WWI were talking about. With a nuclear war and nuclear bombs, there are more risks and concerns to think about. Mainly, if you survived the blast your next concern should be the fallout.

Nuclear fallout consists of the radioactive material and dust that was blasted into the sky after a blast. Sudden excessive heat from the blast creates a violent updraft blasting ground particulates high into the air. This dust becomes bound to the residual radioactive particles that were also launched and slowly "falls out" of the air. It can then coat structures, the ground,  and even survivors.  At that point, these survivors wind up with these sources coating their bodies, leading to obvious health risks. Is this a life threatening situation? How should one proceed first?

My goal of this blog is to guide you through some basic decontamination procedure. Well, you should first make sure you are able to get to a nearby location that could shield you from the continuous falling radiation (house). But before actually entering and getting comfy in your shelter, you should tend to the particles that are possibly coating you currently. So without further ado, follow these fallout decontamination procedures.

1) Geiger Checks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter

 If you happen to be carrying around your trusty Geiger counter, you should check to see if you are currently registering a higher radiation activity then normal. What's normal? Not knowing normal can be a problem. If you can get a baseline background radiation level in your "safe" shelter that can then set a baseline that you should try to approach. Check your body, orifices and any wounds. Returning to this step after cycling through the actual decontamination procedures actually can help monitor your progress. Don't have a Geiger counter or any portable radiation detector? It's better to be safe then sorry. This fallout can spread hundreds of miles and persist for months. Proceeding to decontaminate even though you cannot be certain you are contaminated is a safe bet.

2) Strip Show

http://joyce-octobersky.blogspot.com/2011/12/movie-moment-monsters-inc.html

 Secondly, you should strip, it can save your life. The majority of the fallout and dust tends to cling mostly to your clothing. The interesting fact of the day being, The US Department of Health states that removing all clothes after fallout can actually lower contamination and exposure by up to 90% (1).  The correct procedure is to remove all clothing, starting from your head and moving downward. Ex) Hat, Jacket, Shirt, Pants...Etc. By following this guideline, all the loose dust that may be knocked off of higher articles will fall down on to subsequent layers that will too eventually be removed.

3) External Shower

https://www.pinterest.com/madolittle/outdoor-showers/

Any remaining particles can hopefully be removed from a good shower, outside if possible. Doing this allows the remaining radioactive water to remain outside of your shelter. The water should be lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. Cold water can close pores, causing anything trapped in the skin pores to remain that way. Hot water causes vasodilation (opening of the blood vessels). This increases absorption, which could cause an external problem to become a much more deadly internal risk. Use a mild soap. This soap should be soft on the skin, yet helpful to emulsify the dust/fallout leading to its removal. Just as before, washing should be done from top to bottom to make sure that contaminants are fully removed. An even better approach is to wash with strong water jets that can blast the water and dust away from your body allowing it not to run down your body and possibly collect.  Hair should also be washed first with a neutral shampoo and no conditioner. Shampoo emulsifies while conditioner may aid in binding of the radioactive particles to hair follicles. External showering is best done in a way in which the remaining radioactive old shower water leaves the site and that the shower can be cleaned to the point that it doesn't remain radioactive. This is why slick plastic is often used in order for the particles to not stick to the shower, allowing for multiple uses.

4) Final Checks

Return to the Geiger counter step (if available) taking note of problem areas. Wash one more time and focus on these areas. If after checking with a Geiger counter for a third time there are still slightly elevated activity levels, this may be acceptable. Washing too many times can damage the skin, allowing for those external contaminants enter your internal body. Also these contaminants may be concentrated in the outer layers skin. Throughout the day, these external layers of skin will be shed along with the few contaminants left.  For the clothes you removed, it is better to bag and throw these clothes away, along with all contaminants. But what if it's your favorite "I survived the bomb" outfit? In that case, going in with your trusty Geiger counter you can check if this outfit is at a salvageable level. If it is, a few runs through the washes may salvage your clothes. But is it truly worth the possible dose? Surviving the deadly dispersion after a nuclear bomb surely can take a lot of work, but it is manageable. Watch out for signs of Acute Radiation Sickness over the next few days such as nausea, diarrhea, and burns. Try to limit your exposure to the fallout by remaining in your shelter and possibly wearing a mask to keep the external dust, external. Waiting for assistance or possibly evacuating further away from the blast center are also important options.

Cited:

(1)EPA Guidelines

(2)https://www.remm.nlm.gov/ext_contamination.htm

(3)http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/03/17/134627643/decontamination-after-radiation-exposure-simpler-than-you-may-think

(4)http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp

Cloudy with a Chance of Cancer

Fukushima Speculations

Since I mused a little about my openings on the post I've gotta say this one was a lot better. I'm giving myself a pat on the back right now for my creative genius. You know that it was the cool title that lured you in here. It's okay you can admit it. Excuse my randomness. Sometimes I ramble to put a little bit of a break in between all the nuclear talk and blogging. Well getting back to it....

I found an interesting journal today that documents some of the atmospheric changes that have gone on from the more drastic nuclear accidents. Today, I thought it would be a good post to pass some of these facts to you and share at least some of the amazement I had at these facts about Fukushima.

Radionuclides from the reactor accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant were observed in the surface air at stations in Hanoi, Dalat, and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) in Vietnam, about 4500 km southwest of Japan, during the period from March 27 to April 22, 2011. The maximum activity concentrations in the air measured at those three sites were 193, 33, and 37 μBq m⁻³ for ¹³¹I, ¹³⁴Cs, and ¹³⁷Cs, respectively. Peaks of radionuclide concentrations in the air corresponded to arrival of the air mass from Fukushima to Vietnam after traveling for 8 d over the Pacific Ocean. 

These effects of dispersion and overall travel of nuclear releases are effects that I feel are commonly forgotten. I believe that generally we as people tend to live our lives generally in bubbles, not paying attention to occurrences outside of our spheres of influence and things we notice in our daily lives. Yet readings like these definitely remind us that there is not an impassable wall between what happens in what area of the world another. These particulates did travel somewhere around 8 days to get to Vietnam, some 2500 miles away. These are definitely facts and things we should be concerned with as nuclear activists and I am sure many places have published other readings of increased level of nuclides drifting from far-off locations.

However, when critically assessing for that cancer chance in this particular scenario the results seem to be rather negligible. Just using that action level of 4 pCi/L from the radon example we can see that these values are much lower than what we should be worried about. Well, first we have to account for units which to convert micro bequerel to pCi is about a reduction or division by 1x10e5 (1 micoBq=.000027 pCi). Then to convert from 1 cubic meter to 1 liter  reduces this number again by a factor of 1000. This results in readings somewhere around .00000193 pCi/L and less. Taking the EPA action level advice to be true, I would not worry too much about this particular situation. However, this does not change the fact that it is an important consideration on global impact nevertheless. It is impressive that radionuclides from this one even travelled this far.  Also note that the graph above is integrated across a day it seems.

Cited:
(1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X1100292X

Protecting Our Own

Compensation for Radiation

I cannot imagine what it would be like to end my career early after falling victim to the occupational hazards that one has accepted all their life. Life at that point must become a game of questions: Was the job worth it? Was there something you could have done differently? How will you work in the future? How will you pay for all the medical bills? How will you support the life that you have grown accustomed to living? Nuclear standards have received a poor reputation as being stringent, however, they truly seek to avoid putting anyone in this position described above. But yes, they also do seek to protect the employer as well, minimizing the amount of negative situations that occur and result in the paying of large sums of money.

When I first read about how cases in which occupational hazards pose a factor are handled, I was disheartened. It did seem like it would be another time when those in power, protected their power, with their power, resulting in the crushing of those not as fortunate. Most radiation corporations utilize a probability of causation calculation to assess their liability in these cases. As you know from earlier posts, we all have an inherent risk of developing cancer from natural sources. However, when we are exposed to radiation dose there is now a risk for radiation-induced cancer which is indistinguishable from cancer that would be naturally caused. Hearing this, I could just envision how big corporations could  use this to weasel out of providing support for employees that got sick while working for them. They could state that the employee's developing disease probably fell under the employee's natural risk for cancer and that they are thus not liable. However, I know that personally I would feel horrible even if I had only a history of low dosage while working and still got cancer. I would probably beat myself up over how I could have avoided some of the rems and possibly had  a different prognosis. So forced, then would come the lawsuits.... Generally, those with better legal representation have the advantage in court cases, and I imagine, against a large nuclear corporation, that legal battle would go horribly. However, as frightening as this all sounds, I have actually been pleasantly surprised by the information I have found on support provided by nuclear standards and compensation programs.

Using data I found from  UK nuclear operations, I was able to explore more about compensation programs and dissuade my fears. They do use formulas and math to predict their liability, which they call an "Assigned Share". However, there are multiple generous factors worked into the calculation to lean towards favoring the employee. There are factors that consider your health and personal choices before the diagnosis. For example. if you have been a non-smoker that would increase their view on your prior personal health and increase the assigned share leading to a higher chance of payout. Dose records and estimates are calculated conservatively, in favor of the employee and those who's work results in cancer at a young age, under 50, also get a boost to their assigned share.  All this gets factored and a decision can be made on whether there will be a settlement. Thus, the employee can avoid costly legal fees on top of everything else they are dealing. with. Yet litigation is still an option if this formula does not work out favorably for the employee. Probably the best reasoning for this compensation scheme is what they called "Proportional Recovery". Even if  your assigned share is low due to a high chance of your cancer being due to natural risk, a business may pay out 50% or 25% of what they would in normal cases. It definitely is not perfect, but it would be better than nothing. If this occurred in court and the employee could not prove that his disorder was due to the occupational hazards than he would probably be going home with nothing else but the legal bills to pay for.With proportional recovery you have a higher chance of getting something.  Most of the  successful cases that the nuclear system in UK has dealt with has had a probability of causation of less than 50%, which is below the level that they would likely win in court.

All in all, there probably still is room for improvement. But it is good to see that this system is working for many people and supporting our fellow nuclear workers who unluckily succumbed to the occupational hazards. As a future nuclear worker, its very important to know that I have these methods of support available.

(1) http://www.vbdr.org/meetings/2007/Chicago/wakeford.pdf

RADON, The Silent Killer

Radon Be-Gone

Well, if you are still reading after that poorly planned attention-getter of a title and that frightening rhyme, I applaud your persistence and promise that I shall try to improve my rhetoric as we proceed down this post. It also probably comes as no surprise that today I'll be talking about radon and I'll hopefully pose some facts about it that you haven't heard of before.

Radon could be called a silent killer. I guess truthfully with it's method of killing its more dangerous in that it also can be seen or smelled. It is usually found as an elemental gas that is release from the soil into the atmosphere where it usually is at such low concentrations that it's "killing" effects are rather negligible. However, more often than not the Radon gets trapped in buildings, houses, basements, crawlspaces and such where it can collect and pool, growing to concentrations that are no longer negligible. As another side not, it could also be stated that the Radon gas is framed as the killer really. Due to its radioactivity, Radon slowly produces daughter nuclides that should actually be credited as the killers. These daughters are much more active than the Radon and release the particles that are very detrimental to our health. When the mixture of daughters and Radon is inhaled, the noble gas, Radon, is very likely to be easily and naturally exhaled. However, the daughters have a tendency to bind inside of our lungs and irradiate our insides, producing deadly alpha particles. These alpha particles increase our risk of respiratory cancers (such as lung cancer), even despite the fact that you have heeded my earlier post staying away from smoking in hopes of dodging this.

So what can be done to prevent the attack from Radon daughters?? Hopefully, you don't have to do anything. Radon gas naturally is part of our atmosphere in a low concentration. Hopefully, inside your home you have a comparably low concentration inside your home. One can perform radon testing inside one's house to test this against the EPA standard of being less than 4pCi/L. This is the EPA's action level,  due to this exposure having stochastic effects there is no safe dose level. Interestingly this leads to the first big fact for this blog. (2)

After the EPA screened randomly they found that "nearly 1 in 3 homes checked in seven states and on three Indian lands had screening levels over 4 pCi/L, the EPA's recommended action level for radon exposure."(2)

But then what about the danger to these levels? Well the EPA also stated, "Most scientists agree that the risk of death for radon at 4 pCi/l is approximately 1 in 100. At the 4 pCi/l EPA action guideline level, radon carries approximately 1000 times the risk of death as any other EPA carcinogen." To even further put this into perspective a family living in such a house would receive a dose somewhere around 35 times the limit of what a nuclear waste site may release at the fence edge of this site. A nuclear engineer considers this 4pCi to be somewhere around 35 times what he thinks is reasonable to release from this nuclear waste itself. It is thus very important to get your new home tested for radon gas.(2)

If you do have high levels of radon gas there are certain procedures that can be done to lower these levels: Filtration, Ventilation, Pressurization, and Sealing. Filtration is not just simply running your air-purifier, in hopes of it removing both the dust and radioactive isotopes. Actually, for another interesting fact, this can actually increase your risk. Those daughter particles can bind to dust particles (attached state) or be free (unattached) and eventually bind to your lungs. Binding to both the dust particle and the inside of your lungs is harder for the radon daughters to do. If they do bind to your lungs you get localized exposure. Thus particles in the attached state are less dangerous than the unattached state. Running your air-purifier and cleaning up the dust does get rid of the dust and even some dust-daughter bound particles. However, after removing the dust, the unattached particles now will not become attached and are thus more dangerous.

Radon gas in dusty indoor areas is actually safer and has less risk than in clean non-dusty areas.(3)

Filtration actually uses a special carbon filter that traps the radon particles and then is flushed out in the outside air. Due to its relatively low efficiency it is best for low radon levels. Ventilation is rather self-explanatory. One needs to make sure that the radon can't collect in one area. By opening up the area you can have fresh air come in and the radon go out, lowering the concentration. Pressurization is a rather interesting approach. The radon is produced in the soil, under one's house. Normally, the gas pressure there rises and this pressure is relieved by it flowing upward into the home. However, pressurization can either work with this effect or against it. Using a fan, one can install what is essentially a straw of suction in a home that diverts, leading outside. As the pressure rises in the soil, the fan sucks and the gas goes up the straw and outside instead of inside the house. Another pressure option is to pressurize the house. This is sometimes not as effective. As the pressure in the soil rises, it is met by the raised pressure of the home itself. Because the pressure of the home is high the gas cannot flow into the high-pressure home. It must be released elsewhere and come out outside of the house. Finally, sealing is not always effective but is great in conjunction with previous methods. One attempt to seal off the home from the ground beneath it. This is done by caulking all the cracks and sealing the concrete and such. However, it is very hard to prevent a gas from entering an area, as it is near-impossible to make it perfectly air-tight. The gas from the soil would then be unable to enter.(1)

This was a long-winded exploration of radon and actually had more random facts than I was expecting. I guess the recommendation after this one is to definitely invest in a radon test. As always, thanks for reading and I hope I was able to keep your attention until the end. Thought I'd cap it off with a picture of FL and expected possible indoor radon levels from the EPA.(4)

Cited:
(1) http://www.radon.com/radon/radon_EPA.html
(2) http://www.radon.com/radon/radon_facts.html
(3) http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html
(4) http://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-radon-zones-and-radon-program


 

Cancer's Sexual Preference?

Cancer Across Genders

This post will, I guess, work out to be another chip towards determining the superior sex. Women tend to be the winners of this battle based on today's random fact that men are overall, more susceptible to cancer (both radiation-induced and naturally occurring):

In the US, there is a 1 out of  5 lifetime mortality risk for males as compared to the females' risk of 1 out of 6 (1).

All jokes aside, these figures are definitely startling. Regardless of gender, these statistics are frighteningly high and neither gender is truly coming out victorious.  But with this defined statistical significance in cancer prevalence and mortality differing between the sexes, I find it to be very interesting to explore some of the factors leading to this result. 

It's common knowledge that there are differences between males and females, from social, behavioral, and to the physiological. All these factors could lead to occurrences that put one at a higher risk for developing cancer and the increased susceptibility as compared to the other sex. One major and lesser known difference is the female immune superiority. 

Women actually have stronger immune systems. Scientists are studying to see the exact reasons for this, and have already pointed some of this to the X-chromosome. It seems that many immunoregulatory regions are located within the DNA of the X-chromosome. Just from women's increase in their number of this chromosome may benefit their total strength. Also hormonal differences (differing levels of estrogen, testosterone, and more) have defined impact on one's relative immune strength. They can affect the qualities and number of immune cells. Certain immune chemicals can have a negative impact on cancer cells, helping to prevent initiation. This makes it hard for cancer cells to even start growing. This is all besides the normal cell killing that immune cells try to do when they encounter abnormal, cancerous cells. With a strong immune system, these effects are amplified. Males are generally more likely to get cancer but there are a few types of cancer that are significantly more prevalent in females. One major type would be thyroid cancer, where increased estrogen levels may actually promote the cancer's proliferation and cause further progression. There also seem to be genetic differences (replication and repair activity) that are harder to directly correlate to cancer risk but seem to have a definite impact. All this leads to a significantly higher level of cancer in males. (2) (3)

Just to even the playing field and give men a chance in this losing battle of the sexes I will add in one more random fact. This superiority in immune system strength can lead to overactivity and women's higher risk for autoimmune disorders (Celiac Disease, Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis and more). It's definitely a losing scenario in either case. These factors affect one's natural risk cancer and when coupled with high or sustained radiation dose lead to the stochastic cancer risks which was originally posted above. Understanding your natural risk, helps to better understand how that is then modified by radiation dose.

Your Total Risk for cancer= Natural Risk * Dose Factor (Radiation leading to rad-induced cancer)

All in all, these numbers are definitely prompting a donation to a cancer research fund. 

Cited:

(1) Shaw.Fundamentals of Nuclear Engineering.Text

(2) Dorak, M. T., & Karpuzoglu, E. (2012). Gender Differences in Cancer Susceptibility: An Inadequately Addressed Issue. Front. Genetics, 2012(3), 268th ser. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508426/#__ffn_sectitle

(3)Oertelt-Prigione, S. (2012). The influence of sex and gender on the immune response. [Abstract]. Autoimmune Review, 10, 1016th ser. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155201