SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Writing in the August edition of Environmental Science and Technology Letters, Jason Nolan and Karrie A. Weber of the University of Nebraska report unsafe levels of uranium in groundwater from California's San Joaquin Valley and from the Ogallala Aquifer underlying Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming and South Dakota.
In Natural Uranium Contamination in Major U.S. Aquifers Linked to Nitrate they note a correlation between concentrations of uranium and nitrate ions in the groundwater samples they tested. They theorize that the nitrate, a major component of fertilizer, can oxidize uranium from U(IV) to U(VI), making it water-soluble. They found that in the San Joaquin Valley, uranium reached as much as 180 times the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the Environmental Protection Agency, and nitrate was as much as 34 times the MCL. Samples from the Ogallala Aquifer had as much as 89 times the MCL of uranium and 189 times the MCL of nitrate.
Water from these aquifers is used for drinking and for irrigation. Soluble uranium is bioaccumulated by certain food crops; uranium in the human body can result in cancer and kidney damage.
The Associated Press also reported on the story.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:30PM
Is that uranium new or has it always been there? If it has always been there, what is the point of labeling it "unsafe"? Are they suggesting that millions of people must leave Nebraska and/or the farming industry should shut down? Life must be lived outside of laboratory parameters. Oxygen is "unsafe". It is highly toxic and can also enable fires. Water is unsafe. If I drop you alone in the middle of an ocean you will understand why. While it's interesting to use new tools to examine our environment, overthinking causality and trying to suggest the removal every single possible cause of pathology is ridiculous. Remember the Pareto principle. We only need to remove 80% of the danger to live about as long as we possibly can. Striving for that extra 20% will not get you better life, it will get you dystopia.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:49PM
The problem is that uranium always stayed there but recently it started to move into the population kidneys due to the excess use of nitrate fertilizer.
It doesn't even need to be radioactive, U238 is chemically toxic [wikipedia.org] enough.
Just from curiosity: in your mind, using less fertilizer falls into what category - the 80% or the 20% one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday December 09 2015, @01:48PM
Is there a consumer product that can filter the water or is it permafucked?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @01:58PM
> Is there a consumer product that can filter the water or is it permafucked?
Depends on your definition of "consumer."
From the AP article:
The school, which draws on its own wells for its drinking fountains, sinks and cafeteria, is one of about 10 water systems in the farm region that have installed uranium removal facilities in recent years. Prices range from $65,000 for the smallest system to the millions of dollars.
...
The uranium gleaned from the school's well water and other Central California water systems is handled like the nuclear material it is — taken away by workers in masks, gloves and other protective garments.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:01PM
No. The weird thing about all this is the fertilizer manufacturing process itself causes accumulation of trace amounts of Uranium in the gypsum waste that's produced. It's why central Florida is dotted with gypsum stacks, instead of it being used to create something else, like sheet rock.
If there were an easy method to remove Uranium from water I'm sure the fertilizer industry would've figured out how to do it a long time ago.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:34PM
always stayed there but recently it started to move
No evidence of that was presented. Before there was farming, with the application of nitrate fertilizer, there were vast herds of buffalo over most of the study area. Buffalo poop. (Who knew?). Poop gets into ground water.
There is no historical data to suggest anything about "recent".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:56PM
The Uranium wasn't causing any trouble at all when it was locked up in the soil and rock. It only became a problem when fertilisers seeping into the ground caused the Uranium to escape from the rocks and leach into the water table. Now you have water that with uranium content 180 times the legal definition of safe. Pareto principle or not, I'd be buying bottled water if my taps were fed from that aquifer.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:35PM
Everyone buys bottled water anyway. Do people even drink tapwater anymore?
(Score: 3, Touché) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:37PM
I don't know anyone who habitually drinks bottled water.
Most bottled water is just tapwater anyway...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:21PM
Tap water every day. But I have a well and the water tastes awesome. I've even had people bring jugs to fill. Fortunately, I don't draw from this aquifer, but I'm also now interested in how to test my water for this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:18PM
Bottled water is tapwater. Why would anyone go to the extreme expense of filtering for uranium without reason? Bottled water would become as expensive as orange juice if this newly found problem spurs necessary action.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:10PM
Bottled water? That shit's FILTHY. Not as bad as tap water (my tap water measures 136 ppm of contaminants), but at up to 60 ppm of contaminants it isn't clean. I have an expensive filter pitcher called zerowater that leaves less than one part per million contaminents, and came with a gizmo to test the water. If it reads over 6 ppm you're supposed to change the filter.
BUY bottled water?? I'm a nerd, I make my own and it's far better than I can buy.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:00PM
I make my own water too. I don't drink it, but you're welcome to try some if you want to.
(Score: 1) by BrockDockdale on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:30PM
Yes it was nice of God to create bottled water, a new totally separate type of water that doesn't come from the same place all the other water comes from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:06PM
Like that city in Iran that has a really elevated background radiation level yet the residents cancer rate is no higher than anywhere else?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MikeRo on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:36PM
Different animal. I don't think you can compare exposure to elevated background radiation to ingesting food with elevated levels of radiation. Plus part of the problem is this isotope of U is toxic all by itself without counting radiation.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday December 10 2015, @04:02AM
this isotope of U is toxic all by itself without counting radiation.
Why are you even mentioning isotopes? All isotopes have basically the same chemical properties, they only differ in atomic mass.
From Oxford dictionary,
each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element.
(Score: 2, Troll) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:04PM
Why is it that nobody brings up the fact that before WWII there was very little written about cancers, despite the fact that almost everyone smoked and burned coal to heat their houses?
Tons of radioactivity were released into the atmosphere from the 1940s to the 1960s. I remember once when I was a kid we had a thunder snow storm that dropped two feet of snow, and parents were warned not to let their kids play in it because it was radioactive, the storm system having passed through Nevada right after an above ground nuclear bomb test. Later they asked for kids' baby teeth to test for strontium-90.
Radioactivity is all over the US thanks to nuclear testing.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:36AM
Before ~1920 or so they were not even sure what it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation#Discovery [wikipedia.org]
In fact people thought it was 'ok' and used it for everything from clocks to getting your shoe size correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls [wikipedia.org]
Think about this for a bit. If it glowed from 1910 to about 1960. It was probably radioactive.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:52AM
Is that uranium new or has it always been there? If it has always been there, what is the point of labeling it "unsafe"?
I know that there is always a trend to either label something "OMG radiations!" or "Radiation is good for you!", but in this case it's not even about radiation. Uranium is a really cold radionuclide, meaning it doesn't produce much radiation because it has a very long half-life.
So what is the real problem?
The real problem here is that Uranium is like Lead, it's a heavy metal that will kill your kidneys and cause similar problems like lead.
Now, according to EPA (nepis.epa.gov), the MCL is 30 micrograms per liter for Uranium in drinking water with target of 0. For Lead, their "action level" is 15 micrograms per liter for Lead with target of 0. So the levels are comparable on the regulation side. EPA didn't invent these levels out of thin air. So contamination of 180x that is actually very concerning. It means 2.7 mg/liter or 2.7 parts per million. If you drink 4 liters a day (a gallon for metric deficient), you are drinking about 4 grams of pure uranium in a year. If this was lead, you'd be exposed to serious contamination.
High nitrate levels are just as concerning. These can result in birth defects, anemia and other problems.
So both, nitrate and uranium are bad bad bad at these levels. While using that water to feed your plants, nitrates don't matter, but uranium can contaminate and get concentrated in the produce, which is bad for people eating it (think, lead exposure).