Does LBNL tritium pose a significant risk to workers and the community?
To answer this question, let us first have a look at the comparison of people’s estimated dose from NTLF tritium with those regulatory limits in Table 1-3 Table 1-3 Comparison of Estimated Does from NTLF with Regulatory Limits Tritium Exposure Does (mSv/year) from NTLF Federal & State Limits ICRP Limits Zone 1 0.024 (a) 0.1 (b) 1 (c) Zone 2 Workers 0.0013 0.1 (b) 1 (c) Zone 2 Residents 0.0014 0.1 (b) 1 (c) Zone 3 0.0002 0.1 (b) 1 (c) Notes to Table 1-3: (a) The dose based on the 1995 urine analysis is about 10 times less than this estimated value. (b) For inhalation only. (c) For all pathways We may find that the exposures to tritium from the NTLF are generally several orders of magnitude lower than the regulatory limits. Using this table and the following comparison with risks due to background radiation, one may figure out how insignificant the added risk from NTLF is. The estimated added lifetime cancer risk of 60 chances per million resulting from NTLF tritium for workers near the
Related Questions
- Doesn placing the tang directly into the tank (after a bath/dip) still pose a (significant?) risk of introducing parasites into the tank which may then infect other fish?
- Do Ozone Action Days pose any significant health risk on the general population?
- Does Tecsem Process pose a health risk to workers or to neighbors?
