Uranium and lanthanum in Norwegian drinking water – Is there cause for concern?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to natural conditions such as geology, topography, and climate, and historical features such as resource utilization, land use, and settlement patterns, the drinking water supply in Norway is separated into many public and private water supply systems. This survey sheds light on whether the Drinking Water Regulation's limit values provide a sufficient basis for ensuring safe drinking water for the Norwegian population. Participating waterworks, both private and public, were spread throughout the country, in 21 municipalities with different geological conditions. The median value for the number of persons supplied by the participating waterworks was 155. The two largest waterworks, both of which supply >10,000 people, have water sources from unconsolidated surficial sediments of latest Quaternary age. Fourteen waterworks have water sources from bedrock aquifers. Raw and treated water were analysed for 64 elements and selected anions. The concentration of manganese, iron, arsenic, aluminium, uranium, and fluoride exceeded the respective drinking water regulations' parametric value given in Directive (EU) 2020/2184. Regarding the rare earth elements, neither WHO, EU, USA nor Canada have established any limit values. However, concentration of lanthanum in groundwater from a sedimentary well exceeded the health-based guideline value that applies in Australia. Results from this study raise the question of whether increased precipitation can have an impact on the mobility and concentration of uranium in groundwater from bedrock aquifers. Furthermore, findings of high levels of lanthanum in groundwater create uncertainty as to whether the current quality control of Norwegian drinking water is sufficient.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".