NRC: Tritium leak no danger to public...

NRC: Tritium leak no danger to public health

There are 96 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Apr 17, 2010, titled NRC: Tritium leak no danger to public health. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

The potential radiation dose to a member of the public due to the migration of tritiated water into the Connecticut River is less than .01 millirems a year, according to a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Michael Colomb, site vice president at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Harold

Newfane, VT

#1 Apr 17, 2010
If it really is that low perhaps they should just pump more into the Connecticut, it is harmless isn't it? I am sure it, along with the higher water temperatures, do nothing to affect the river species and habitat.
The Brattleboro Informer

Trumbull, CT

#2 Apr 17, 2010
Harold wrote:
If it really is that low perhaps they should just pump more into the Connecticut, it is harmless isn't it? I am sure it, along with the higher water temperatures, do nothing to affect the river species and habitat.
Harold you should be concerned with what the City of Brattleboro is dumping into the Connecticut River on a daily basis.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#3 Apr 17, 2010
The Brattleboro Informer wrote:
<quoted text>
Harold you should be concerned with what the City of Brattleboro is dumping into the Connecticut River on a daily basis.
What are they dumping. Can you prove this?
Cynic

Peterborough, NH

#4 Apr 17, 2010
Harold and The Brattleboro Informer are both correct.

Big Business, corporate interests and profit, and greed will win.

It really matters not at all whether something or anything adversely affects people or the environment - corporate and individual corruption and greed will win in the short run - everyone will lose in the long run.

Harold

Newfane, VT

#5 Apr 17, 2010
The Brattleboro Informer wrote:
<quoted text>
Harold you should be concerned with what the City of Brattleboro is dumping into the Connecticut River on a daily basis.
OK, so if the Town of Brattleboro is actually dumping into the Connecticut (which I doubt) that gives Vermont Yankee the right to also? How much of the waste Brattleboro allegedly is dumping is radioactive?
John

Little Rock, AR

#6 Apr 17, 2010
Harold wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so if the Town of Brattleboro is actually dumping into the Connecticut (which I doubt) that gives Vermont Yankee the right to also? How much of the waste Brattleboro allegedly is dumping is radioactive?
.01mR a year is hardly radioactive. Throwing some granite rocks in the river, or bits of pavement and concrete eroding into the rivers put more radioactive waste into the environment. Now look at the river around the paper mill on the river. In the winter that water is NASTY! Look at the banks behind the building from the bridge. Trash and junk all over. People in the town cry over how VY is "harming" the river, and wont even pick up the truckloads of trash all over the place. At least VY is now fixing the problem, and spending serious dough to siphon out the tritiated water and clean it up.
jan 20 2013

Port Huron, MI

#7 Apr 17, 2010
Harold wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so if the Town of Brattleboro is actually dumping into the Connecticut (which I doubt) that gives Vermont Yankee the right to also? How much of the waste Brattleboro allegedly is dumping is radioactive?
Maybe you should ask the hospital how much radioactive effluent leaves there and heads to the water treatment center,unmonitored i might add.
The more you know

Concord, NH

#8 Apr 17, 2010
Harold wrote:
OK, so if the Town of Brattleboro is actually dumping into the Connecticut (which I doubt) that gives Vermont Yankee the right to also? How much of the waste Brattleboro allegedly is dumping is radioactive?
It doesn't make it right and I haven't seen anyone on this board or from Entergy claim it was was acceptable to have a leak reaching the environment. Strawman argument.

You'd be surprised at what low levels we can detect radioactivity. I'm sure if we went through your trash, we could find something with a detectable level of radiation in it. Radiation is not some unknown boogey man, drop the phobia.

The point is, if you are worried about getting 0.01 millirem/year, then you should be a hell of a lot more scared by just about every other thing out there since the risk from them is much much greater.
Common Sense

Hudson, NH

#9 Apr 17, 2010
Well said. It's something I wish more people would understand - there are literally sources of (low) radiation everywhere.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#10 Apr 17, 2010
Classic reactionary response, a voluntary initiative, a flaccid regulator...the only thing left is to write a report after the horse is out of the barn. The NRC are great at writing a report.

The only relief valve left is to go state. Thus no relicencing. The NRC set us up to lose the VY plant.

Remember we are teaching the nation, the NRC doesn’t work, they won’t do their job, you got go state in order to make the nuclear dog to heel.

What a horrible national policy.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#11 Apr 17, 2010
The proper question isn’t how damaging tritium is...is what does reactor water grade tritium mean to the planet and us.
What-Me-Worry

Arlington, VT

#12 Apr 17, 2010
Great news from the NRC; the wholly owned subsidiary of the nuclear industry. The same NRC that allows this plant to spew tritium out of the stacks every single day.

Can't see it from my house!
What-Me-Worry

Arlington, VT

#13 Apr 17, 2010
I guess for some of you here 3 wrongs make a right.
The more you know

Concord, NH

#14 Apr 17, 2010
What-Me-Worry wrote:
The same NRC that allows this plant to spew tritium out of the stacks every single day.
I am glad you live your life without any impact on the planet, oh wait...

Idiot.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#15 Apr 17, 2010
The more you know wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you live your life without any impact on the planet, oh wait...
Idiot.
Another drive-by. Nothing new here, just more of your customary namecalling, insult hurling and trollish bevavior.
frankie

Little Rock, AR

#16 Apr 17, 2010
northstardust wrote:
<quoted text>
Another drive-by. Nothing new here, just more of your customary namecalling, insult hurling and trollish bevavior.
From reading threads on different topics, you seem to be just as bad with the name calling...sockpuppet
The more you know

Concord, NH

#17 Apr 17, 2010
northstardust wrote:
Another drive-by.
You are right for once because the post below was indeed a worthless drive-by:

"Great news from the NRC; the wholly owned subsidiary of the nuclear industry. The same NRC that allows this plant to spew tritium out of the stacks every single day.

Can't see it from my house! "

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#18 Apr 17, 2010
frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
From reading threads on different topics, you seem to be just as bad with the name calling...sockpuppet
Opinions all depend which side you're on and nothing more.
Gotta love those Little Rocks who just care so much about our state and join the dogpile whenever one of there own gets called for trollish behavior.
You do Entergy/Yankee propaganda machine proud. Keep up the good work.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#19 Apr 17, 2010
What-Me-Worry wrote:
I guess for some of you here 3 wrongs make a right.
But three rights make a left ;D
frankie

Little Rock, AR

#20 Apr 17, 2010
Well as the old saying goes, opinions are like a-holes, eveyone has one. Seems like the cropduster has two.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Supreme Court Takes Up Global Warming (Nov '06) 23 min IB DaMann 38
News Environmental Protesters Fight Defamation Lawsu... Jun 23 Maria Gifford 1
News Cut crime, boost growth by getting rid ... Jun 19 Bipo 1
News Time for conservatives to lead on clean energy ... Jun 15 Solarman 1
News Grand Lake St. Marys polluted again with toxic ... Jun 6 Kevin McGraw 1
News Decades later, Taft's "navigable waterway" disa... (May '08) Jun 4 Brown Skillington 3
News U.S. insecticide release halted May 31 2 Bee or Not 2 Bee 1
More from around the web