Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: 51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After [View all]idwiyo
(5,113 posts)26. Reversed osmosis is a preferred method for removing radioactive material from drinking water
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/can-we-remove-radiation-drinking-water.2011-05-10
How will radionuclides be removed from my drinking water?
According to the EPA, the following treatment method(s) have proven to be effective in removing radionuclides at levels below their MCLs:
Beta particle and Photon Radiation: ion exchange and reverse osmosis;
(Gross) Alpha Emitters: reverse osmosis;
Radium 226 and Radium 228 (Combined): ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening;
Uranium: Ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening, coagulation/filtration.
Dr. Fenwick has also released this statement:
"Radioactivity (its sources, the decay process, transmission, protection, and disposal) is an unquestionably complex topic. The information provided here is admittedly, and necessarily, very general. The largest concern in drinking water after a meltdown is likely the presence of Uranium, although there are many additional sources (Plutonium, Radium, Cesium, etc.). We do not specifically test for the reduction of these materials, nor are there NSF standards/ protocols. With that said, heavier radionuclides, like those listed above, are likely reduced with our blocks, specifically those blocks that are certified for lead reduction.
"Three important notes: 1. As always, efficacy and lifetime will depend on several factors (compounds unique properties, concentration in the influent water, water chemistry, etc.). 2. In addition to those listed above, several other daughter nuclides/ radionuclides (products of the decay process) of various chemistries/ classes will have various reduction efficacies. Commenting on these is not possible. 3. Unlike other non-radioactive contaminants (Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, VOCs, other organics), removal from the water, and thus concentration in the block, may not be sufficient for the radioactive elements/ compounds. They continue to emit radiation even when removed/ immobilized. Based on these issues, and the EPA testing and endorsement, reverse osmosis is a more bona fide technology in this case.
According to the EPA, the following treatment method(s) have proven to be effective in removing radionuclides at levels below their MCLs:
Beta particle and Photon Radiation: ion exchange and reverse osmosis;
(Gross) Alpha Emitters: reverse osmosis;
Radium 226 and Radium 228 (Combined): ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening;
Uranium: Ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening, coagulation/filtration.
Dr. Fenwick has also released this statement:
"Radioactivity (its sources, the decay process, transmission, protection, and disposal) is an unquestionably complex topic. The information provided here is admittedly, and necessarily, very general. The largest concern in drinking water after a meltdown is likely the presence of Uranium, although there are many additional sources (Plutonium, Radium, Cesium, etc.). We do not specifically test for the reduction of these materials, nor are there NSF standards/ protocols. With that said, heavier radionuclides, like those listed above, are likely reduced with our blocks, specifically those blocks that are certified for lead reduction.
"Three important notes: 1. As always, efficacy and lifetime will depend on several factors (compounds unique properties, concentration in the influent water, water chemistry, etc.). 2. In addition to those listed above, several other daughter nuclides/ radionuclides (products of the decay process) of various chemistries/ classes will have various reduction efficacies. Commenting on these is not possible. 3. Unlike other non-radioactive contaminants (Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, VOCs, other organics), removal from the water, and thus concentration in the block, may not be sufficient for the radioactive elements/ compounds. They continue to emit radiation even when removed/ immobilized. Based on these issues, and the EPA testing and endorsement, reverse osmosis is a more bona fide technology in this case.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After [View all]
diane in sf
Dec 2013
OP
Apparently the USS Ronald Reagan doesn't use distillation, it uses reverse osmosis
bananas
Dec 2013
#25
Reversed osmosis is a preferred method for removing radioactive material from drinking water
idwiyo
Dec 2013
#26
All that is needed now is some idea what level of radioactivity was present in sea water,
idwiyo
Dec 2013
#42
If you re-read this particular thread again, you might notice it does not discuss
idwiyo
Dec 2013
#59
The sailors were told to stop using desalinated water because it was contaminated
bananas
Dec 2013
#89
thanks for this link, I'm a little uneasy about sharing the turner news network with anybody..
Voice for Peace
Dec 2013
#29
New info from Al Jazeera - several sailors don't have their participation in their medical records
bananas
Dec 2013
#72
Wow. And I assume therefore that everyone in Japan has brain tumors, luekemia and...
NNadir
Dec 2013
#54
Please delete the holocaust denying/white nationalist link in the OP and use another
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2013
#50
+2 Thank you. Didn't bother to even look at this link, but after seeing your post I did.
idwiyo
Dec 2013
#60
Please, do elaborate about my efforts to "misdirect readers ". Explanation about efficency of RO
idwiyo
Dec 2013
#66