Showing posts with label radon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radon. Show all posts

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Radioactive Radon in the home, natural gas, and the New York Times

Three years ago, Nuclear Green began a thread based on my father's research on radioactive radon in natural gas. A few months after I posted my father's account of his research on radon in natural gas, I posted a discussion of radiation on Barnett Shale titled, "The Radioactive Texans." I argued,
We know thes things:

There are undoubtedly uranium and thorium associated with Barnett Shale.

Radon is a natural daughter product of Uranium and Thorium decay.

Radon is persent in natural gas.

The half life of radon-222 is 3.8 days.
Fron these facts I concluded,
Thus radon from Barnett shale sources could easily travel up a gas well from its Barnett Shale source, travel through local pipe lines, and get consumed in cooking in heating fires within a few hours. Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Iowa research has shown that "cumulative radon exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in women". "Radon gas is thought to be responsible for 5,000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States". Thus radioactive radon gas, transported to North Texas homes, from Barnett Shale gas wells, almost next door, constitutes a significant ganger to the health of North Texans. Needless to say, this problem is being ignored gas companies, the governments of Texas, and the United States. Interestingly, it is also being ignored by critics of nuclear power who complain about the radiation dangers of nuclear power, but are unconcerned about the radiation associated with natural gas. How much is radon from natural gas effecting the health of Texans? No one knows.
I followed up posts on my father's research on natural radiation exposures associated with the use of fossil fuels, with a post on the anti-nuclear activist, John Gofman. I noted,
Now there are two curious thing about Gofman's anti nuclear crusade. First he based his commitment upon a theory about the effects of radiation on human health, but his focus was on the relatively most insignificent source of man cause radiation in our society, power reactors. Compared to living in a house with a basement, or cooking and heating with natural gas, reactors brought to surounding neighborhoods much less radiation. In the case of useing coal fired power plants, reactors, greatly deminished environmental exposure to radioisotopes, associated with power production. The second curious thing about Gofman's crusade was that Gofman didn't test his theory with data about illnesses in the neighborhood of nuclear facilities. Working in a nuclear facility is associated with with a longer lifespan, and research investigation has not produced evidence that living close to nuclear plant makes it more likely that people to get sick.

Had Gofman been more rational and consistent, he would have included in his anti-radiation campaign, household use of natural gas, and custom of building houses with basements.

But the greatest paradox is that Gofman's anti-nuclear campaign actually contributed to public exposure to radiation, and radioisotopes. Gofman never opposed the use of coal in relation to radiation dangers, despite the presence of radioactive materials in coal fly ash. Fly ash exposed the public to far more radiation that reactors would. Did Gofman, who was by all acounts a brilliant scientist, not see the wider issues? Or was he so caught up in an irrational and Quixotic opposition to nuclear generation to electrity, that he saw, but did not care?
I generally practice a division of labor approach to nuclear blogging. That I note what other bloggers write about, and focus on topics which get less attention in the nuclear blogging community. This is not the case with Energy from Thorium, with which I view Nuclear Green as offering collaboration. Yesterday the New York Times carried quite and extensive story on the presence of radioactive radium in waste water frm the fracking process. And although this was an extensive story, the word "radon" did not occur in the New York Times story even though it has been known for nearly 40 years that natural gas is a source of naturally radioactive radon in the home, and it is known that farcked gas contains radon. The presence of farcked gas wells close to large domestic natural gas markets, means that natural gas with relatively high concentrations of radioactive radon enter homes along with natural gas used for cooking, heating, and water heating. The radon lingers, enters the lungs of home residents including children, and then it produces beta radiation which can cause cancer, If you do not want to read the whole story, Rod Adams offers a summery and comments. This is vintage Rod Adams, and well worth the read. Rod comments,
The health consequences of frequent exposure radium at high enough concentrations are quite different from those of tritium. Here is another question that begs to be asked - if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's charter includes protecting the public from the hazards of radiation emitting materials, why aren't the truckloads of waste water from fracked wells subject to NRC monitoring and reporting?

This is not a new issue for the oil and gas industry. Drillers have known for a very long time that their drill bits and other gear that grinds up natural rock formation on the way to finding pockets of hydrocarbons often becomes contaminated with radioactive materials. They also figured out a long time ago that their profits would be put at risk if they had to meet the stringent requirements imposed by the NRC. Petroleum interests worked carefully to ensure that the NRC has no jurisdiction over what they branded as NORM - naturally occurring radioactive materials - associated with oil and gas drilling operations.

Health physicists understand that living tissue has no way to distinguish alpha, beta and gamma radiation into naturally occurring radiation and radiation produced by a human engineered process like operating a nuclear power plant. Legislators, however, are often motivated by wealth and power, not by science or medicine.
Natural gas pipelines offer a quick and deadly vector for radioactive radon from from fracked Pennsylvania gas wells into millions of homes where natural gas is consumed in the North East. The Michigan State University Extension Service tells us,
Radon gas is thought to be responsible for 5,000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States.

The major sources of radon are: soil that contains radon-releasing material; water and natural gas that has passed through underground areas containing radon; solar-heating systems that use radon-emitting rocks to store heat; granite rock; and uranium or phosphate mine tailings.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Underground compressed air storage, geothermal power and radiation from radon

During the recent Oil Drum debate on Nuclear EROEI, "Cyril R." a frequent commenter on energy related blogs made a case for "Compressed Air Energy Storage" (CAES).

In a response to a comment concerning the low capacity factor for wind, "Cyril R." stated
"the capacity factor you referenced is very low, good locations in the US get 30-40%, which is close to the average capacity factor in the US. Moreover, consider the correlation with the load to be more indicative than capacity factor. Not good for wind, but with CAES this can be cost-effectively dealt with; the CAES equipment is similar to NG turbines, i.e. they have low materials input so this won't fundamentally increase the materials input for wind."

Cyril R proposed compressed air storage in salt domes and saline aquifers which he argued were adjacent to areas of high-quality wind resources.

My initial response was to observe:

"The last time I checked, the expansion of compressed gasses has a cooling effect. If the gases contain humidity the cooling can produce condensation and even freezing. The Grand Solar Scheme recognized the problem and proposed to burn natural gas in the released air stream to reheat it. There are two problems with this approach. First as we all know natural gas is not a sustainable resource, so it is not a sustainable solution. Secondly, burning natural gas produces CO2, and thus a CAES solution would contribute to global warming."

Cyril R. responded:

". . . using biomass derived fuel for heating in combination with hydrogen. In this instance, the use of hydrogen would be interesting because of the higher thermodynamic efficiency. In adittion, there is the AACAES approach which is hardly rocket science. Just add thermal oil storage (proven industrial technology) to store the heat created during the compression stages and use it later to deal with the cooling effect of expansion."

"Cyril R.'s" burning biomass suggestion is problematic from a number of views. The collection and transportation of large amounts of biomass would be energy intensive, the use of a technology involving the extraction of large amounts of heat from compressed air into mineral oil, and then the discharge of that heat into expanding air would be an added expense to a CAES system.

In addition to "Cyril R.'s" CAES scheme, the January Scientific American, published an article on a "A Grand Solar Plan" that proposed a CAES scheme involving caves.

Following the debate an interesting problem with the CAES system occurred to me. Any CAES project involving the release of compressed air from underground storage in salt domes and saline aquifers would probably transport radon to the surface.

Let us examine the problem. Radon is a colorless, chemically inert, radioactive gas produced by the radioactive decay of thorium and uranium in the earths crust, Because it is a gas radon can be drawn into the lungs. There it produces a radioactive multiple whammy. Radon 222, if it decays in the lungs, produces a long and deadly decay chain. (222Rn (3.82 days) → 218Po (3.1 min) → 218At (1.5 s) → 218Rn (35 ms) → 214Pb (26.8 min) → 214Bi (19.7 min) → 214Po (164 µs) → 210Pb (22.3 yr) → 210Bi (5.01 days) → 210Po (138 days) → 206Pb (stable). Each isotope in the chain releases more radiation into the lungs triggering more and more carsenogenic lung tissue damage. Radon is considered to be next to smoking the second leading cause of Lung cancer for Americans. Radon exposure greatly increases the lung cancer danger for smokers.

While salt domes generally contain virtually no radon, surrounding rock does. Critics of nuclear power have long argued that radioisotopes from "nuclear waste" placed in salt domes can be transported out of them through a variety of mechanisms. Similar mechanisms could transported radon from surrounding rocks into salt dome cavities used to store compressed air. The method of creation of salt dome cavities together with the effect of compressed air on the surrounding salt and rock might tend to open up channels for radon transport from radioactive rocks into the compressed air cavity. These would include the use of water to form the original cavity, the heat and humidity of the compressed air, together with the the effects of highly pressured air on the flaws and imperfections in the salt structure surrounding the cavity. All these forces could tend to open up transport channels between surrounding radioactive rocks, and the salt dome cavity. The fluxuating air pressure, caused by compression and decompression could pump the radon from the surrounding rock into the cavity. The release of compressed air from the cavity would force radon to the surface.

The use of saline aquifers for compressed air storage is even more problematic. A recent Geotimes report, "Rooting Out Radioactive Groundwater" focus on the problem of radon in all aquifers. It states:

"Groundwater from deep aquifers is typically oxygen-depleted and has a very slow flow rate, and marginal water typically has high salinity. These alternative water resources may therefore also have high radium concentrations."

Thus it would appear that significant atmospheric radon release associated with CAES energy storage in saline aquifers is very likely, and in the case of salt dome storage is quite possible.

The presence of radon in geothermal hot water and steam used in the generation of geothermal power has also been ignored, although high concentrations of radon could be expected from molten and hot rocks. Geothermal power techniques involved in the insertion of large amounts of water into hot sub surface rocks, would almost certainly lead to the transport of large amounts of radon to the surface with hot water and steam

Sunday, April 20, 2008

The Radioactive Texans


Naturally occurring radioactive material - often referred to as NORM exist everywhere on the earth. Soil itself contains small amounts of slightly radioactive uranium and thorium. As these elements decay naturally, they produce radioactive daughter products including the radioactive gas radon. Not only do radioactive materials exist in the soil, they are also transmitted through the soil ito our bodies. People worry about radiation from nuclear sources, but the truth is that during our life time, people 80% of the radiation we will be exposed to will come from natural sources. Most of the rest of it will come from deliberate human use of radiation, for examples x-rays.

Plants draw radioactive isotopes into their organic structure, ands concentrate them into their tissue. Among vegitable foods know to be exceptionally radioactive are white potatoes, sweet potato, coconuts, spinach, bananas, Brazil nuts, and cocoa powder - a major ingredient in chocolate.

But the radiation danger associated with food does not end in your grocery bag. The natural gas you cook with also contains radioactive radon gas. And this brings me to the topic of the gas from Barnett Shale, that comes from under Fort Worth, Texas.

Shale containes small but significant concentrations of radioactive uranium and thorium. This would most certainly be the case with Barnett Shale. Natural gas is extracted from Barnett shale by hydrolic cracking. As water is injected into natural gas wells a tiny amount of radioactive materials including uranium, and radium get leached into the water. Some of the water inevitably enters the ground water, and the contamination spreads. Sometimes it reaches the surface through water recovery, wells or springs. This is one source of radiation hazard associated with natural gas extraction from Barnett Shale. According to the Denton Record-Chronical, there are 140 radiation cleanup sites in Texas, most involving radioactive materials from natural sources. (see also stories here, here, and here.) Twenty five of those radiation clean up sites are were in Denton, Tarrant, and Wise Counties, areas where gas is extracted from Barnett shale. Radioactive contaminated sites include gas wells and equiptment storage yards. A thousand barrels or radioactive contaminants have been removed from cleanup sites in North Texas, and hundreds of thousands ao barrels of radioactive materials associated with oil and gas radiation cleanup, have been removed from sites in Texas, during the last 20 years.

Gas drilling at D/FW Airport
There is another side to the story which Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe did not touchon in her Denton Record-Chronical stories on Barnett Shale radiation. That is the presence of radon in natural gas. During the 1970's my father, C.J. Baron , Sr., performed an extensive investigation of radon in natural gas. The noted, "since radon has a 3.8-day half-life and several days may be required to move the gas from the wells to the point or use there can be a significant drop in radon concentration during transmission." Thus consumers are partially protected from Radon in their cooking and heating gas, by the gas transmission process.

It was pretty clear from my father's research, that radioactive radon could get into consumer's homes through natural gas, and that the chief barrier that protected consumers was distance. But what if the consumers lived next to the gas wells? It would be clear that given the radiation cleanup problems associated with NORM . Who is in charge of determining the radon content of natural gas in Texas? PEGGY HEINKEL-WOLFE stated, "Texas Railroad Commission rules allow the industry to self-monitor for NORM . . ." How much monitoring do Texas gas suppliers do for radon in natural gas? This cannot be determined by an internet search. Indeed I can find no reference to the topic on the internet.

We know thes things:

There are undoubtedly uranium and thorium associated with Barnett Shale.

Radon is a natural daughter product of Uranium and Thorium decay.

Radon is persent in natural gas.

The half life of radon-222 is 3.8 days.

Thus radon from Barnett shale sources could easily travel up a gas well from its Barnett Shale source, travel through local pipe lines, and get consumed in cooking in heating fires within a few hours. Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Iowa research has shown that "cumulative radon exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in women". "Radon gas is thought to be responsible for 5,000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States". Thus radioactive radon gas, transported to North Texas homes, from Barnett Shale gas wells, almost next door, constitutes a significant ganger to the health of North Texans. Needless to say, this problem is being ignored gas companies, the governments of Texas, and the United States. Interestingly, it is also being ignored by critics of nuclear power who complain about the radiation dangers of nuclear power, but are unconcerned about the radiation associated with natural gas. How much is radon from natural gas effecting the health of Texans? No one knows.

Monday, January 21, 2008

C.J. Barton, Sr. at ORNL: Radon in the Home

It took me along time before I fully realized what a good scientist my father was. I was aware of his career problems. By the time I went i went to work at ORNL in 1970, Oak Ridge gossip had it that my father could no longer cut it in the Lab. This was nonsense, but I did not know it at the time. Many of my fathers problems as a scientist, stemmed from his social, and cultural heritage which was different from that of the ORNL leadership, and from his speech problem. Scientists like George Parker, with whom he shared a common cultural background, and a passion for lab research, held my father in high regard. My father was about to prove that he still was a very capable scientist.

The crises that gripped ORNL in the late 1960's and early 1970's is not fully appreciated now. There were three different issues that were effecting ORNL funding: the war in Vietnam, the space program, which was sucking up research dollars for Werner von Braun's trip to the moon, and the efforst of Congressman Chet Holifield, and AEC big wig Milton Shaw to destroy ORNL, in order to silence ORNL researchers on nuclear safety.

In 1969 the crumbling Reactor Chemistry Division loaned my father to the well funded Health Physics Division. My father was never to be involved in reactor chemistry again, and a couple of years later he was administratively transfered to the new Environmental Studies Devision. He fit right in with his new associates. The Gasbuggy project grew out of the illusion that nuclear explosions could be used for peaceful purposes. When my father went to work on the project, it had already seen better days, but when he took it over, with the assumption that a retiring scientist could close the door behind him as he left ORNL, my father had other ideas. This account demonstrates how he latched on to the problem of environmental radon, and the enterprise he showed in conducting underfunded research. It is perhaps not fair to say that my father discovered the problem of radon in the home, but he clearly recognized the problem to a much greater extent than prior researchers, and he pushed for a more through investigation. He has never been fully credited with this effort.


RADON IN HOMES AND NATURAL GAS

Charles J. Barton, Sr.

Introduction

The great surge or attention to radon in homes that has resulted in numerous studies and articles has been or considerable interest to me because or my involvement in this subject at a time when interest was too low for me to obtain funding for extending the study that I had conducted as part or the Plowshare Project. The following is an account or my involvement in efforts to learn the possible effects or radon and its daughter products in homes, in particular the contribution or radon in natural gas to exposure in homes, and a somewhat larger study or radon in natural gas.

Radon In Natural Gas

In late 1969, the Reactor Chemistry Division at ORNL was experiencing hard times with sharp funding reduction and I was asked to go on loan to the Health Physics Division to work on the Plowshare Program with Don Jacobs. Don left in 1971 for a two-year stint at the IAEA in Vienna, leaving me in charge or the project. At that time the Plowshare program, with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory having the principal responsibility was being cut back. Earlier, a variety or peaceful uses or nuclear explosives had been considered such as excavating harbors and enlarging the Panama Canal. The role or ORNL was limited to estimating doses that people might receive from these peaceful uses or nuclear explosives and. in particular, the use or these explosives to increase production or natural gas in rock formations underlying large areas or several western states such as Colorado and Utah. These formations are known to contain large quantities of natural gas but because of low permeability, the output of gas resulting from use of conventional drilling techniques is too low to be economical. It was expected that use of nuclear explosives would break the rock into small enough pieces to permit gas to flow at a reasonable rate. At the time I joined the project. The first experiment or this type, called Gasbuggy, had been performed, with the co-operation or the El Paso Natural Gas Company, near Farmington, New Mexico.

The Gasbuggy study showed that tritium in the gas produced by use or a nuclear explosive was the isotope of principal concern and that exposure to people in homes using the slightly radioactive natural gas was the exposure mode of principal concern. It was known that all natural gas contains a small amount or natural radioactivity in the form or radon. Don asked me to look into the question or how much radon .is in the natural gas used in homes and also the amount or radon entering homes from other sources. I conducted a fairly extensive review or the literature and round that there was a rather large number or measurements or the level or radon in gas at the wellhead in this country, made principally by Allan Tanner at the U.S. Geological Survey. I visited his Off1ce in Washington and obtained access to all his published data and some that had not previously been published. However, neither he nor anyone else had measured the radon concentration at points or use. Since radon has a 3.8-day half-life and several days may be required to move the gas from the wells to the point or use there can be a significant drop in radon concentration during transmission.

I also round a fair amount or data on radon concentration in homes, principally in the U.S. and Sweden. The New York Health and Safety Laboratory, operated by the AEC had made a few measurements in homes in their area. The only area where the measured level or radon was high enough to be considered a problem at that time was in Grand Junction, Colorado, where contractors had used tailings from a uranium mill as rill material under and around homes.

After considering making my own measurements of the radon concentration at various points or use around the country. I concluded that was impractical and I devised a strategy for getting the job done by others. By judicious enquiry, I learned the name and phone number or the highest placed official in the major gas pipeline companies supplying several metropolitan areas, whom I thought would understand my request for help. I went into this project with the notion that the big gas companies might consider radon in the gas they were selling to be something to be swept under the rug but, instead all the companies 1 contacted proved to be cooperative in meeting my request to supply samples or their gas once per month over a period or one year. This would help to determine whether there was any seasonal variation in the radon concentration in the gas. I also had to rind laboratories willing and able to measure radon. In some cases the gas pipeline company bore the cost or the sampling and analysis but none or the cost was borne by my project. Five big pipeline companies supplied gas samples representing gas supplied to four metropolitan areas once per month over a period or nearly a year and four laboratories measured the radon in the samples.

The next step was to calculate the radon daughter concentrations in homes that would result from using gas-containing radon in a vented home appliance. To do this I enlisted the help or Bob Moore who worked out a computer program to perform the necessary calculations. Paul Rohwer furnished the dose factors for converting the radon daughter concentrations into doses to the bronchial epithelium, which we assumed to be the critical tissue exposed to the radon daughters. We used the average or the radon measurements throughout the country TO calculate doses in homes under a variety or assumed conditions, thus satisfying the needs or the project. A literature survey supplied another bit or data needed in making these calculations: the average concentration of radon in outside air entering the home as ventilation air. All soil contains some uranium, which decays to produce a low level or radon in air.

Radon In Homes

I mentioned earlier that my literature survey completed in the early part or 1970 revealed a comparatively small amount or data on the concentration in homes and other structures in this country. Interest in this subject began to pick up in the early 70s. A team from the New York Health and Safety Laboratory came to Oak Ridge to make some measurements. According to my recollection they limited their choice or homes here-to those in the Woodland area on the theory that Chattanooga shale, which is known to contain a relatively high concentration or uranium, was used in making the concrete blocks in all the Woodland home walls. Their measurements indicated that the radon level in these homes was not high enough to get excited about. From here they went on to Florida where much or the sandy soil is known to contain a rather high concentration or uranium. There also, I think that their data did not cause a great deal or concern, possibly because most Florida homes are well ventilated at the time they were making their study.

Also, in the middle 70s, a team from ORNL equipped with a mobile laboratory started making surveys or abandoned former uranium mining sites in several western states. These were, in general, located in uninhabited areas so there was relatively little danger or human exposure to radon released from the uranium tailings. However, some instances or use or tailings in the vicinity or homes were uncovered by these studies. Before the ORNL team could rind time to prepare reports on their extensive surveys or mining and mill-tailing sites they were drafted for surveys or sites where uranium had been processed to supply uranium to the governments gaseous diffusion plants. These sites are located in general near inhabited areas and exposure of people in the vicinity or the sites to radon and its daughters was of greater concern than in the mining studies. These surveys and the resulting remedial work to clear the sites for other uses (the FUSRAP project) produced data on radon in homes and. probably stimulated other investigations in this area. Incidentally after my retirement from the lab in 1977, I was hired by ORNL through a contract with Science Applications to prepare reports on the surveys or the mining and mill tailing sites and to help with preparation or some or the early FUSRAP reports.

Conclusion

Where are we now in our knowledge or the concentration or radon in U.S. homes and their possible health effects on occupants or the homes? Two excellent reviews on this subject have come to my attention: Science. 29 April. 1988 and ANS News, June 1888. Results or a 1987 survey quoted in the latter source showed 34.070 measurements in the Northeast part or the country, 18.481 in the Northwest, 2.118 in the Mountain States. 1.582 in the Southeast, and 1,486 in the Midwest, The high number of measurements in the Northeast reflects the fact that hot spots n several states in this area. Forty four percent of the measurements in this area were above the 4 picocuries per liter guideline adopted by the EPA for occupied homes. Above this the EPA recommends that remedial action be taken but that he discretion or the homeowner. It is estimated that to 20,000 lung cancers a year may be attributed to radon ion in the United States. These figures, which are based on extrapolation or observed cancer deaths at much higher radon primarily among miners of uranium deposits, should be compared to the annual death rate from lung cancer in the U.S. of approximately 130.000. About 70% of these are attributed to cigarette smoking.

The radon level in homes having high levels lowered usually can be lowered at a comparatively low cost. The Science article indicates that the simplest way or dealing with the problem is to drill through the basement floor to the stone ballast below and continuously pump the air there the house. In this area (Oak Ridge and West Knoxville) a team from the Health and Safety Division, ORNL made measurements for radon and a number of other indoor pollutants in several homes including mine. They reported that the radon level in homes on the ridge, where our house is located, had a higher concentration (6.3 average in the basement. 4.4 in the living areas) as compared to those in the valley (3.3 in the basement, 1.7 in the living area) (Concentrations in picocuries per liter). However, the measured radon levels do not appear enough to warrant remedial action. I was pleased to learn that ORNL did get around to making these measurements in the April1982-February 1983 period, although I could not stir up interest in doing the job in the mid-70s. The technology for doing many or the measurements reported by the Health and Safety group did not exist at the time or my proposal.

Followers

Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High