TO End Water Fluoridation…

Media Blackout: The Federal Court Case To End Water Fluoridation!

By Spiro Skouras

As we are inundated with headlines about violent riots and looting being passed off as mostly peaceful protests, or how the dreaded virus continues to spread in communities around the world, there is another story taking place which directly affects hundreds of millions of people globally that is being blacked out by the mainstream corporate media.

Unlike the aforementioned crises which are being cited as the justification for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, this public health crisis actually has a rather simple solution: to end water fluoridation by no longer adding the toxic substance to the nation’s water supply.

You would think this would be a straightforward process, considering the mountains of studies which conclude fluoride is a harmful neurotoxin attributed to lower IQs and ADHD. Unfortunately, government regulatory agencies have been not only defending this practice for generations, they champion the forced medication as a great achievement in medical history.

Right now, in perhaps one of the most important trials of our time, the Fluoride Action Network is taking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head on in an unprecedented court case that could lead to the end of water fluoridation in the US and possibly worldwide as other nations would likely follow suit.

In this interview, Spiro is joined by Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network to discuss the current court case against the EPA and water fluoridation as the first week of the trial has come to an end and the second, possibly final week is about to begin.

Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org

Link & Times To Watch The Trial Live
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/

Spiro’s Interview with Dr. Paul Connett & his Son, Attorney Michael Connett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQAjWu0hBnw&feature=emb_logo

Follow Spiro on BitChute bitchute.com/channel/spiro/ Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/o_rips

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2020/06/media-blackout-the-federal-court-case-to-end-water-fluoridation.html

Who Knew???

EPA suspends enforcement of environmental laws amid coronavirus

The temporary policy, for which the EPA has set no end date, would allow any number of industries to skirt environmental laws, with the agency saying it will not “seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting obligations.”

Cynthia Giles, who headed the EPA’s Office of Enforcement during the Obama administration, called it a moratorium on enforcing the nation’s environmental laws and an abdication of the agency’s duty.

“This EPA statement is essentially a nationwide waiver of environmental rules for the indefinite future. It tells companies across the country that they will not face enforcement even if they emit unlawful air and water pollution in violation of environmental laws, so long as they claim that those failures are in some way ’caused’ by the virus pandemic. And it allows them an out on monitoring too, so we may never know how bad the violating pollution was,” she wrote in a statement to The Hill.

The EPA has been under pressure from a number of industries, including the oil industry, to suspend enforcement of a number of environmental regulations due to the pandemic.

“EPA is committed to protecting human health and the environment, but recognizes challenges resulting from efforts to protect workers and the public from COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. 

In a 10-page letter to the EPA earlier this week, the American Petroleum Institute (API) asked for a suspension of rules that require repairing leaky equipment as well as monitoring to make sure pollution doesn’t seep into nearby water.

Other industries had also asked to ignite the “force majeure” clauses of any legal settlements they had signed with the EPA, allowing for an extension on deadlines to meet various environmental goals in the face of unforeseen circumstances.

But Giles and others say the memo signed Thursday goes beyond that request, giving industries board authority to pollute with little oversight from the agency.

“Incredibly, the EPA statement does not even reserve EPA’s right to act in the event of an imminent threat to public health,” Giles said.

“Instead, EPA says it will defer to states, and ‘work with the facility’ to minimize or prevent the threat. EPA should never relinquish its right and its obligation to act immediately and decisively when there is threat to public health, no matter what the reason is. I am not aware of any instance when EPA ever relinquished this fundamental authority as it does in this memo.”

The memo says companies should try to minimize “the effects and duration of any noncompliance” with environmental laws and should also keep records of their own noncompliance, along with identifying how the coronavirus was a factor.

The EPA on Friday pushed back against characterization of the memo as a waiver of environmental rules.
“During this extraordinary time, EPA believes that it is more important for facilities to ensure that their pollution control equipment remains up and running and the facilities are operating safely, than to carry out routine sampling and reporting,” agency spokeswoman Andrea Woods told The Hill by email.
“If a facility has exceedances of limits on pollution the policy does not offer any no action assurance. We retain all our authorities and will exercise them appropriately. It is a temporary policy and will be terminated when this crisis is past.”

Critics say it’s not unreasonable to refrain from environmental enforcement on a case-by-case basis when companies are unable to comply with the letter of the law, but many were alarmed by the breadth of Thursdays memo.

“It is not clear why refineries, chemical plants, and other facilities that continue to operate and keep their employees on the production line will no longer have the staff or time they need to comply with environmental laws,” Eric Schaeffer, a former director of civil enforcement at the EPA who is now with the Environmental Integrity Project, wrote in a letter signed by a number of environmental groups in anticipation of the memo.

The letter writers also criticized the requests from the API, arguing nearby communities would face prolonged exposure to a number of air and water pollutants that might be expelled through oil production — something they say would have “a very specific impact on public health and safety.”

The diminished compliance requirements for industry comes at a time when the EPA has refused to budge on deadlines for comments as they proceed with a number of deregulatory actions.

Environmental and public health groups had argued that those with science and health backgrounds who would normally weigh in on such regulations have been pulled into the coronavirus fight, leaving them unable to divert their attention.

“The Environmental Protection Agency has not shown the same concern for the impact the coronavirus has had on the ability of community and public interest groups to respond to various proposals to weaken environmental standards,” Schaeffer wrote in the letter.But the EPA has argued exceptions were not needed.

“We’re open and continuing our regulatory work business as usual,” an EPA spokesperson told The Hill in a statement. “As regulations.gov is fully functioning, there is no barrier to the public providing comment during the established periods.”

from:   https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-suspends-enforcement-of-environmental-laws-amid-coronavirus

Glyphosate – Safe?? Really???

Benicia man dying of cancer testifies in weed-killer suit against Monsanto

Photo of Bob Egelko

Dewayne Johnson (center), former groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District, leaves Department 504 with his wife Araceli Johnson (right) behind attorney Brent Wisner (left) at Superior Court of California during the Monsanto trial on Monday, July 23, 2018 in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

A former school groundskeeper, diagnosed with terminal cancer, told a San Francisco jury Monday that he called a Monsanto Co. hotline twice — once before his diagnosis, once after — and asked whether the herbicide he was spraying on the job, the most widely used weed killer in the world, could cause harm to humans.

Both times, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson said, the person at the other end of the line listened to his account of being accidentally doused with the herbicide glyphosate, and said someone would call him back. No one ever did.

“I would never have sprayed the product around school grounds or around people if I thought it would cause them harm,” Johnson told a Superior Court jury hearing his suit against Monsanto. “They deserve better.”

Johnson, 46, of Vallejo, was a groundskeeper and pest-control manager for the Benicia Unified School District from 2012 until May 2016. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in October 2014 and with what his lawyers described as a more aggressive form of the cancer in March 2015.

Even after the latter diagnosis, Johnson said he continued to spray Monsanto’s product, a high-concentration brand of glyphosate called Ranger Pro, until he became convinced that it was dangerous and refused to use it in his final months on the job.

His damage suit, now into its third week, is the first of about 4,000 nationwide to go to trial against Monsanto, now a subsidiary of Bayer. The company markets glyphosate, the world’s leading herbicide, as Roundup, and in higher concentrations, as Ranger Pro. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

Monsanto disputes the assessment, noting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never classified glyphosate as a carcinogen or restricted its use. The company’s lawyers also said Johnson’s primary treating physicians have not determined the cause of his cancer.

Earlier Monday, his wife and a physician described Johnson’s deteriorating condition, although he did not appear frail on the witness stand, speaking calmly in a deep, resonant voice. But jurors saw photos of the painful welts and lesions — on his legs, arms, face, and even his eyelids — that have arisen while he undergoes radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Johnson is scheduled for another round of chemotherapy next month and said he would next turn to a bone-marrow transplant.

He has self-published two books and is working on a third — “about people and how they’re judged by their faces” — and hopes he’ll get to finish it. He tries to shield the couple’s two sons, aged 13 and 10, from his bouts of depression and tears, and said that despite a grim prognosis, “I’ll keep fighting till my last breath.”

Araceli Johnson, his wife of 13 years and a nurse practitioner, said she now works 14 hours a day at two jobs to support them. “My world shut down” when her husband told her he had cancer, she told the jury.

Attorney Brent Wisner answers questions from the media at Superior Court of California on Monday, July 23, 2018, in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

Johnson started working for the Benicia schools as a delivery driver but then applied to become the district’s first pest-control manager and passed a licensing exam. “I liked the job a lot,” he said, recalling how some students gave him a poster for ridding their school of a skunk.

He said the district told him to use the Ranger Pro form of glyphosate because Roundup wasn’t strong enough to remove all the weeds from hillsides on district-owned property. A supervisor told him the product was safe as long as he wore long-sleeved shirts, pants, shoes and socks.

In addition, Johnson said, he wore a sturdy jacket, rubber gloves, goggles and a face mask while he mixed the herbicide with water in 50-gallon drums and sprayed it 20 to 30 times a year for two to three hours a day, mostly during summer months. But he said he couldn’t fully protect his face from wind-blown spray. And twice, he said, he got drenched with herbicide, once when a spray hose became detached from a truck that was hauling it, and another time when the chemical somehow leaked onto his back. He said he had no access to a shower until much later in the day.

It was after the first exposure, Johnson said, that he started noticing rashes on his skin and called the company hotline.

“I had this uncontrollable situation on my skin, which used to be as perfect as this table,” he said, pointing to the brown witness stand. “It was a very scary, confusing time.”

During cross-examination, Monsanto lawyer Sandra Edwards asked Johnson about his past statement to his doctors that he had first developed a skin rash in the autumn of 2013, before he was accidentally doused with glyphosate. The company has contended that the sequence of events suggests other causes for Johnson’s illness.

“It’s hard to remember all that way back,” said Johnson, whose wife testified that her husband has sometimes suffered memory lapses since his diagnosis. That appeared to be on display early in his testimony Monday, when he said he had stopped working for the school district about five years ago, then was shown a document noting that he had worked there until May 2016.

Jurors also heard from Dr. Ope Ofodile, a dermatologist who coordinated Johnson’s medical treatment at Kaiser Health Care in Vallejo from 2014 through mid-2016. She said she saw him more than 25 times, removed one of his lesions, administered radiation, and wrote a letter in 2015 asking the school board not to expose Johnson to airborne chemicals.

“He was not responding (to treatment). He was heading in the wrong direction,” she said. But “he was very much motivated to get better.”

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com

from:    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Benicia-man-dying-of-cancer-testifies-in-Roundup-13098953.php

On Food Irradiation

Food Irradiation: Why It is Harmful to Your Health and Energy

food irradiation-1Pao L. Chang, Guest
Waking Times

Food irradiation, also known as “cold pasteurization” or “irradiation pasteurization,” is a food sterilization technology that has been around for nearly a century. Food irradiation is done by exposing food to ionizing radiation, which according to the EPA, “kills bacteria and other pathogens, that could otherwise result in spoilage or food poisoning.”

How is Food Irradiated?

According to the EPA, the process of irradiating food involves exposing the food to radioactive materials by passing it through a radiation beam, and therefore the food does not come in direct contact with radioactive materials.

As described at EPA.gov.

Bulk or packaged food passes through a radiation chamber on a conveyor belt. The food does not come into contact with radioactive materials, but instead passes through a radiation beam, like a large flashlight.

The type of food and the specific purpose of the irradiation determine the amount of radiation, or dose, necessary to process a particular product. The speed of the belt helps control the radiation dose delivered to the food by controlling the exposure time. The actual dose is measured by dosimeters within the food containers.

Cobalt-60 is the most commonly used radionuclide for food irradiation. However, there are also large cesium-137 irradiators and the Army has also used spent fuel rods for irradiation.

Does irradiated food sound like something you would want to eat? Even though the food does not come in direct contact with radioactive materials, it does not mean that the food is not contaminated with harmful levels of radiation.

Pros and Cons and Health Effects of Food Irradiation

The good things about using ionizing radiation to sterilize food are that it may increase the shelf life of the food, and can destroy most harmful microorganisms and insects. The bad things are that it can change the natural structures of the food and destroy many of its nutrients, making it unhealthy and even harmful to eat. As a result, your health will suffer which often leads to a lack of energy and even chronic fatigue.

As mentioned at PreventDisease.com.

Irradiated foods are exposed to high level radiation for the purpose of sterilizing it. There is an abundance of convincing evidence in the refereed scientific literature that the condensation products of the free radicals formed during irradiation produce statistically significant increases in carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and cardiovascular disease in animals and man. This is in addition to the destruction of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.

Food irradiation is not as effective as they claim, because it does not guarantee that all microorganisms and insects are eliminated from the food. Many supporters of food irradiation claim that it is needed to prevent world hunger. This is nothing more than a big fat lie.

One of the main reasons why there is a lack of food in certain parts of the world is because of corporate farming. Corporate farming’s bad agricultural practices have destroyed many farmland due to their heavy use of toxic agrochemicals. Companies that support corporate farming do not really care about the environment. What they care about is profit.

Why You Should Not Always Rely on the FDA for Food Safety

Many people think that because the FDA has approved the use of food irradiation, food that has been irradiated should be safe enough to eat. This is not always true. The FDA is highly influenced by food companies and their lobbyists. They are the reason why the FDA is still in business.

I suggest avoiding irradiated food as much as possible because ionizing radiation can negatively affect the natural chemical structures of the food and its nutrients. If the radiation is strong enough to kill bacteria and insects, it is strong enough to cause permanent damage to the organic structures of the food.

How to Avoid Irradiated Food

  • Do not purchase food products with the Radura symbol on it.
  • If the food product has the content “treated with radiation” or “treated by irradiation,” do not buy or consume it.
  • Look for misleading labels, such as “electronically pasteurized,” “cold pasteurization,” and “irradiation pasteurization” on food products. Food products that have these labels are often treated with radiation, so avoid eating them.
  • Buy organic food at stores that specialize in whole food.
  • Buy fruits and vegetables at your local farmer’s market.

According to NaturalNews.com, the FDA’s regulations on food irradiation are not very strict. “For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.” This means that most American consumers are already eating irradiated food without even knowing it.

Sources:

About the Author

Pao L. Chang is the author and founder of EnergyFanatics.com and OmniThought.org, two comprehensive blogs dedicated to exploring topics about energy, health, conscious living, spiritual science, and exotic “free energy” technology. He loves to explore the mystery of alternative medicine, the science of consciousness, quantum mechanics, sacred geometry, and how energy affects the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual body.

EPA Raises Levels of Glyphosate in Food

EPA to American People: ‘Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’

EPA30th July 2013

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

The EPA, whose mission is to “to protect human health and the environment,” has approved Monsanto’s request to allow levels of glyphosate (Roundup) contamination in your food up to a million times higher than have been found carcinogenic.

If you haven’t already heard, it’s now official. Monsanto’s request to have the EPA raise allowable levels of its herbicide glyphosate in food you may soon be eating has been approved [see Final Rule]. Public commenting is also now closed, not that it was anything but a formality to begin with.

Here is the original registration application, lest detractors claim it was not Monsanto behind this bold move to legalize what an increasingly educated public considers a form of institutionalized mass poisoning:

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 524-421, 524-475, and 524-537. Docket ID Number:EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient: Glyphosate. Product Type:Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato, add preharvest use to oilseed crop group 20, add the use Teff (forage and hay), and conversion of the following old crop groups to the following new crop groups: Vegetable, bulb, group 3 to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; fruit, citrus, group 10 to fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11 to fruit, pome, group 11-10; and berry group 13 to berry and small fruit, group 13-07. Contact: Erik Kraft, (703) 308-9358, email address: kraft.erik@epa.gov. [emphasis added]

Notice above, the proposal includes “Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato,” revealing that one reason why Monsanto wants tolerances on glyphosate raised is because this chemical will be applied directly not just to Roundup Ready plants but to non-GMO crops as well, virtually guaranteeing that unless you eat 100% USDA organic concentrations of grave concern will end up in your food and body.

How grave? The Food Poisoning Bulletin describes the new tolerances as follows:

Under the new regulation, forage and hay teff can contain up to 100 ppm (100,000 ppb) glyphosate; oilseed crops can contain up to 40 ppm (40,000 ppb) glyphosate, and root crops such as potatoes and beets can contain 6000 ppb glyphosate. Fruits can have concentrations from 200 ppb to 500 ppb glyphosate. These numbers are magnitudes higher than the levels some scientists believe are carcinogenic.[emphasis added]

Indeed, only last month, a new study found that glyphosate has ‘xenoestrogen‘ properties and stimulated breast cancer proliferation in the parts per trillion range – that would be six orders of magnitude lower levels than presently receiving the EPA’s Monsanto-friendly stamp of approval. So how does the EPA address the potential for carcinogenicity in section 3 of their Exposure Assessment? They state their position as follows:

EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

According to this ruthless logic, since the EPA designates itself a higher authority than the independent scientific evidence clearly signaling glyphosate’s carcinogenicity (view the toxicological data yourself here), it requires no safety testing. Let the exposed populations eat Roundup Ready cake and fester in an epidemic of cancers, as it turns a self-blinded eye to the problem.

The EPA has just made such a mockery of its own mission statement, which is “to protect human health and the environment,” that one wonders why they have not already declared themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

The obvious reason why Monsanto and its ‘EPA cheerleading division’ successfully raised the tolerances of glyphosate in your food, is because the contamination is getting so bad they had no other choice. Either limits are raised, or Monsanto breaks the law (by contaminating our food and poisoning us beyond the “acceptable level of harm” already determined by the EPA) and the EPA is shown to be completely impotent to enforce anything resembling its mission statement.

But despite Monsanto’s latest apparent success, a growing grassroots movement comprised of millions of concerned citizens is defiantly expressing their own form of “glyphosate-resistance,” armed with a growing body of published toxicological data linking the glyphosate herbicide to over 30 health problems. This movement is mirrored poetically by the “super weeds” emerging throughout the Roundup Ready monocultured farmland of the world. In both cases, the center of real power is shifting away from Monsanto back to the people who are realizing that unless they retake back control over their food, they will be coerced and poisoned into a form of biological slavery the likes of which this world has never seen before, and if it manifests fully, will likely never recover from.

Learn more at our research page on GMOs: Health Guide: GMO Research

from:     http://wakeup-world.com/2013/07/30/epa-to-american-people-let-them-eat-monsantos-roundup-ready-cake/

Power Plant Pollution & States

Toxic Power:Report Ranks States With Worst Air Pollution From Power Plants

August 10, 2012
Image Credit: Jarous / Shutterstock

April Flowers for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

According to a report released Thursday by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Texas is the 10th worst state in the nation when it comes to exposing residents to toxic air pollution from coal-fired plants.

Unfortunately, that’s not all the report had to say about the Lone Star State.

Texas also ranked 10th in toxic air pollution from the electric sector, emitting nearly 10.5 million pounds of harmful chemicals. This accounts for 25 percent of the state’s pollution and 3 percent of toxic pollution from all power plants in the U.S.

Texas ranked 1st among all states in industrial mercury air pollution from power plants with nearly 12,740 pounds emitted in 2010. This accounts for 78 percent of the state’s mercury air pollution and 19 percent of the overall U.S. mercury air pollution.

The report did have some good news. On the national level, there was a 19 percent drop in all air toxins emitted from power plants in 2010, the most recent data available, compared to 2009 levels. The drop, which also includes a 4 percent decrease in mercury emissions, results from two key factors. One is the increasing use by power companies of natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than coal; the other is the installation of state-of-the-art pollution controls by many plants. These new controls are put into place in anticipation of new health protections issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“Toxic pollution is already being reduced as a result of EPA’s health-protecting standards,” said John Walke, NRDC’s clean air director. “Thanks to the agency’s latest safeguards, millions of children and their families in the states hardest hit by toxic air pollution from power plants will be able to breathe easier. But these protections are threatened,” Walke said, “because polluters are intent on persuading future Congresses or presidential administrations to repeal them.”

EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will cut mercury air pollution by 79 percent from 2010 levels, beginning in 2015.

The EPA standard has come under fire, however. Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla, attempted to repeal the standard, assisted by both Senators Cornyn and Hutchison from Texas.

In the study, “Toxic Power: How Power Plants Contaminate Our Air and States,” NRDC also found that coal- and oil-fired power plants still contribute nearly half (44 percent) of all the toxic air pollution reported to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The report also ranks the states by the amount of their toxic air pollution levels.

How did other states fair in this analysis?

NDRC started releasing its “Toxic 20″ list in 2011. The list is created using publicly available data in the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), a national database of toxic emissions self-reported by industrial sources to rank states by air pollution levels from 2009.

Despite the overall reductions in total emissions, 18 of the Toxic 20 from 2009 remain in the 2010 list released this week, although several states have made significant improvements highlighted in the report.

The states on the “Toxic 20″ list (from worst to best) are:

1. Kentucky
2. Ohio
3. Pennsylvania
4. Indiana
5. West Virginia
6. Florida
7. Michigan
8. North Carolina
9. Georgia
10. Texas
11. Tennessee
12. Virginia
13. South Carolina
14. Alabama
15. Missouri
16. Illinois
17. Mississippi
18. Wisconsin
19. Maryland
20. Delaware

Source: April Flowers for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112673464/toxic-power-air-pollution-report-nrdc-081012/
redOrbit (http://s.tt/1kuf2)

Tritum Particles Released near Chicago

1/30/2012 — Nuclear plant vents RADIOACTIVE steam onto DOWNTOWN CHICAGO

Posted on January 31, 2012

Watch the video update here:

———————————————–

ALERT!

If you were outside today in Downtown Chicago — Any time after about 1030am CST — 1/30/2012 — chances are , you may have been exposed to NUCLEAR RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT from the steam that was vented by the  Byron Illinois / Exelon Nuclear power plant.

More specifically, aerosolized particulates of Tritium were in the clouds of steam released—- those clouds then blew down into Chicago area proper.  As to whether people inhaled these particles — only time will tell now.

(links below):

Here is the full story:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/300465/3/Illinois-nuclear-reactor-loses-power-venting-steam-

Here is a screenshot of the current prevailing winds:

————————————————

Overlay the two maps above and you’ll see that ANYTHING vented from that Nuclear plant DID INDEED blow into Chicago proper.

————————————————-

More about Tritium here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tritium&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Tritium (play/ˈtrɪtiəm/ or /ˈtrɪʃiəm/; symbol T or 3
H
, also known as hydrogen-3) is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Thenucleus of tritium (sometimes called a triton) contains one proton and twoneutrons, whereas the nucleus of protium (by far the most abundant hydrogen isotope) contains one proton and no neutrons. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth, where trace amounts are formed by the interaction of the atmosphere with cosmic rays. The name of this isotope is formed from the Greek word “tritos” meaning “third.”

Health risks

Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which allows it to readily bind tohydroxyl radicals, forming tritiated water (HTO), and to carbon atoms. Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin.[14][15][16][17] HTO has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment[16].

Tritium has leaked from 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States, detected in groundwater at levels exceeding the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standards by up to 375 times.      

 

for more, go to:    http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/