Wastewater From Ruined Fukushima Nuclear Plant To Be Released From Thursday, Japan Says (theguardian.com) 86
Japan is to begin releasing wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant from Thursday, in defiance of opposition from fishing communities, China and some scientists. From a report: The prime minister, Fumio Kishida, said on Tuesday he had asked the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), "to swiftly prepare for the water discharge" in accordance with plans approved by nuclear regulators, adding that the release would begin on Thursday, "weather and ocean conditions permitting." Kishida has said that disposing of more than 1m tonnes of water being stored at the site was an essential part of the long and complex process to decommission the plant.
The plan has caused controversy because the water contains tritium, a radioactive substance that can't be removed by the facility's water filtration technology. Hong Kong, an important market for Japanese seafood exports, has threatened restrictions. Leader John Lee said on Tuesday he strongly opposed the water plan, adding that he had instructed the city's government to "immediately activate" import controls on Japanese seafood. South Korea and China banned seafood imports from some areas of Japan after Fukushima Daiichi suffered a triple meltdown in the March 2011 triple disaster along the country's north-east coast. China remains strongly opposed, accusing Japan of treating the ocean like a "sewer." The South Korean government recently dropped its objections to the discharge, but opposition parties and many South Koreans are concerned about the impact the discharge will have on food safety.
The plan has caused controversy because the water contains tritium, a radioactive substance that can't be removed by the facility's water filtration technology. Hong Kong, an important market for Japanese seafood exports, has threatened restrictions. Leader John Lee said on Tuesday he strongly opposed the water plan, adding that he had instructed the city's government to "immediately activate" import controls on Japanese seafood. South Korea and China banned seafood imports from some areas of Japan after Fukushima Daiichi suffered a triple meltdown in the March 2011 triple disaster along the country's north-east coast. China remains strongly opposed, accusing Japan of treating the ocean like a "sewer." The South Korean government recently dropped its objections to the discharge, but opposition parties and many South Koreans are concerned about the impact the discharge will have on food safety.
Demagoguery is fun (Score:2)
Hope everyone is proud of themselves.
Is there an alternative? (Score:3)
It doesn't seem like there's anything else they can really do. The goal is to decommission the plant. Getting rid of the contents of the plant (including water) is part of that process. You either release it in a controlled way or you just wait for another accident.
Re: Is there an alternative? (Score:1)
Re: Is there an alternative? (Score:4, Interesting)
A million tonnes, transported to some imaginary 'deep mine' somewhere in China and save it for what, exactly?
That's an estimated 264 million gallons of water in 1 million (metric) tons. That's 5 million 55 gallon drums.
How do you propose they transport it? Tanker trucks? Rail cars?
It's going to go back into the sea, the only issue is when - the plant can't be decommissioned until it is drained/emptied.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
at this volume, the salinity decrease is important to the fish. pouring fresh water into the ocean at scale has consequences.
they should just pour it out on land. that area is in drought. this whole thing is dumb and pointless.
Re: Is there an alternative? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no reason to believe Japan will dump all 1 million tons at once - from the linked-to article:
The water will be diluted to one 40th of the concentration permitted under Japanese safety standards before being pumped into the ocean over the next 30 to 40 years via an underwater tunnel 1km from the coast.
Let's see, 1 million tons, divided by 30 years, divided by 365 days/year, so the discharge rate will be 91 tons/day, and at 270 gallons/ton, they 'll be pumping about 25,000 gallons/day - I think the pacific ocean can handle that rate of water disposal
Re: Is there an alternative? (Score:2)
"at this volume, the salinity decrease is important to the fish. pouring fresh water into the ocean at scale has consequences"
Quick! Stop all rivers. Those damn rivers keep pouring fresh water at scale into the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They could tanker it out into the middle of the ocean instead of dumping it on their neighbors back lawn.
To what benefit? It's like complaining that when you water your own yard your neighbours plants get a tiny bit of added moisture.
Re: (Score:1)
To what benefit?
A good faith gesture?
It's like complaining that when you water your own yard your neighbours plants get a tiny bit of added moisture.
Except in your example the water you're applying to your grass that's migrating to your neighbor's plants doesn't have Tritium in it. I completely understand that this isn't a really a hazard, but that's not really the point. The neighbors have expressed that they don't want it in their shared resource.
It's like my neighbor that refuses to rake their leaves in the fall and dispose of them properly. They just blow them into the park that our back yards abut. Is it directly harming me? N
Re: (Score:2)
It does, actually.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. You have no idea how much tritium there is in the water the Japanese are discharging. You have no idea there's any tritium at all in the water that comes out of your tap. Your silly analogy manages (accidentally I'm sure) to demonstrate that the mere fact that "X contains Y" is pretty much meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
A good faith gesture?
Goof faith gestures are given for good faith arguments. Japan's neighbours (except North Korea) are members of the IAEA who all agreed to the standards that govern the waste water discharge which was approved by the IAEA. The governments are doing nothing but making noise for political purposes. You don't give good faith gestures to noisy strongmen without getting something in return. I'm not even talking about Japan's cultural pride here, it makes no sense for any politician in any country to agree to this
Re: Is there an alternative? (Score:4, Informative)
dude it's low-radiation distilled water
the sensible thing to do would have been to just dump the barrels weekly. onto the ground. right on site.
there's no reason to bother carting it to the ocean, let alone some mine or outer space or the center of the earth or whatever other dumb plan you guys have
just fucking pour it out. it's clean water. the plants will drink it.
"but it's radioactive"
IT'S LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN THE EXISTING GROUNDWATER, CALM DOWN
Re: (Score:2)
The plant is right next to the ocean. Hint: It was hit by a tsunami.
There is no "carting" and injecting it into the ground right next to the ocean is the same as dumping it into the ocean. It's not like there's a freshwater aquifer.
What "problem" are you trying to avoid?
The radioactive stuff is tritium, which occurs naturally and does not bioaccumulate. There is no danger.
It does accumulate. (Score:2)
>> tritium, which occurs naturally and does not bioaccumulate. There is no danger.
Wrong. It does accumulate.
Re: (Score:1)
Tritiated water cannot bio-accumulate in the environment. However, it is not clear whether or not this is the case for OBT. Even though OBT can be detected in terrestrial biological materials, aquatic biological materials and soil samples, its behaviour is still in question.
... are you saying this tritium is organically bound?
Re: (Score:2)
if it is not, it will be as soon as absorbed by fish, algae, etc...
Re: (Score:1)
It would be an issue if it was concentrated, e.g. by being dumped on the ground. Fortunately the plant is right next to the sea, so it's easy to dump it there and let the current dilute it.
The problem is that given how the disaster was mishandled and how the government/TEPCO has repeatedly failed with both the clean-up and compensating victims, there is very little faith in any of the measurements being made. There will be an economic impact, even with independent testing, on farmers and fishing businesses
Re: (Score:2)
> It's going to go back into the sea, the only issue is when
Indeed - and later is better than sooner. The longer it's neatly stored away, the longer the half life can decay all the bad stuff, so it'll have less and less effect when it is finally released (or spilled).
When that time should be... well, I can't say, but I'm fairly sure a politician (even a Japanese one) will make that time sooner than is really a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
...syphon it into deep underground into lava.
Would be a great idea, with the minor caveat that the deepest humanity has ever managed to bore is roughly 12 kms, and lava (by which you really mean magma) starts at an average of 35 kms below the surface.
Unless you're suggesting they drill through the deep ocean crust which is thinner but is also at the bottom of the ocean.
Or maybe you mean pump it all into an active volcano? That also sounds like a bad idea too.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you haul it somewhere else for storage at great expense instead of dumping it. I suspect the "at great expense" part is the hold up.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the issue is that they are running out of places to store it:
About 1.3m tonnes of treated water – enough to fill 500 Olympic swimming pools – is being held in more than 1,000 steel tanks on the site, but Tepco has warned that storage space is running out
It's safe, and it will be even safer than it is now before being disposed of in the pacific ocean..
Re: (Score:2)
They likely should have created a lined lake somewhere for it to decay another half-life or two and pipelined it over. Let it evaporate and dilute with rainwater. It would have been more politically responsible, although technically I doubt their plan will cause any problems as long as we are just talking about tritium.
Re: (Score:2)
Let it evaporate and dilute with rainwater.
That would be idiotic.
Dumping it into the ocean means it is diluted with 200 trillion cubic meters of seawater and very little of it will enter the human food chain before it decays.
Building evaporation ponds would be a huge expense, and put the tritium into the atmosphere where it is far more likely to fall as rain on crops and into watersheds used for drinking water.
Also, good luck with your evaporation ponds in northern Japan, one of the rainiest places on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to dump on average 25,000 gallons a day for the next 30-40 years...
I can't wait to see the creature features. (Score:1)
Fear mongering. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is TREATED waste water. As in, this is just water. It has none of the really bad radioactive particles in it that sit in your bones or thyroid. The Tritium (radioactive Hydrogen) will be not detectable above background levels shortly after release. It also does not collect in animal tissues.
Areas around Japan have more to worry about normal industrial pollution and Mercury in their seafood than whatever is in this water.
Re:Excellent! lets bottle it and sell to you (Score:5, Informative)
Give me a dose that will be equivalent to in-ocean concentrations shortly after release and I will happily do so.
Literally, naturally-occurring Mercury and Mercury from Chinese coal plants is far more of a concern with local sea food than what they're releasing. Unless you're drinking pure heavy water it's not a concern at all (even then the treatment is literally vodka so you piss it out.)
The real danger with stuff like this is radioactive Cesium, Iodine and Strontium isotopes because they collect in your tissues and cause cancer. Those have all been removed.
Re: (Score:1)
it's less radioactive than seawater, you panic-locked goon
there is no cesium, iodine, or strontium here. stop pretending to know things. those aren't in these decay chains at all.
you're like an anti-vaxxer talking about the mercury. it just isn't true.
Re:Excellent! lets bottle it and sell to you (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm impressed at how violently you are agreeing with the parent, probably because you didn't put any effort into reading his post.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't but not because of the radioactivity.
Simply, it is not drinking water, who knows what kind of bacteria or whatever lives inside of it. It has been staying stagnant for years. I obviously won't drink seawater either. Some times ago, order to show off how nuclear storage pool water is not safe, some higher-up of the power plant operator company took a glass of it and drunk it, it has been called stupid for the same reason. It may be safe from a radiation standpoint, but it is not safe drinking wate
Re: (Score:2)
If it is safe, drink it yourself!
If you distill a glass, so the only issue is the tritium, I'll drink it.
As others have said, it is less radioactive than seawater.
Re: (Score:2)
It only contains 1500Bq per liter. Health Canada puts the limit at Bqs from tritium at 7000Bq per liter for drinking water.
Re: (Score:2)
I have not seen that statement backed by anyone who does not have a vested financial interest in saying it. It might be true, but I'd like to see it vetted by a neutral third party before trusting it.
Re:Fear mongering. (Score:5, Insightful)
All I did was look up the wikipedia article for tritium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and it seems that given the short half-life (so that it will not persist in the environment and remain a problem for centuries, like cesium-137), the lack of accumulation in biological tissues (so that it does not become concentrated in the food chain, unlike mercury), the rapid dilution of volume into the ocean, and the apparent release by other countries (most notably, France) of tritium into bodies of water at least an order of magnitude higher and on an annual basis (see the table under Fission), the Fukushima wastewater release really does not seem to pose a threat to the environment or to public health.
That last point is something I think needs emphasis: I do not claim to be an expert, but if my understanding of that table is correct, and the amount of tritium being stored from Fukushima is correct, I would like someone with more subject matter expertise to explain why there is so much controversy over this decision when France dumps 10x more tritium into the English Channel from their nuclear plants every year. I suspect the objections (domestically and from neighboring Asian nations such as China) are either based in ignorance or they are a political ploy to gain some kind of leverage.
Re:Fear mongering. (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the objections (domestically and from neighboring Asian nations such as China) are either based in ignorance or they are a political ploy to gain some kind of leverage.
Political ploy to exploit ignorance, but you nailed it otherwise. The Chinese have lots of nuclear experts, so they know they're lying.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese have lots of nuclear experts, so they know they're lying.
The Chinese are members of the IAEA and have their experts in that organisation. By proxy they approved this waste water release. Yes this is 100% political posturing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ignorance, it's the commercial reality that if someone has a choice between a fish caught in Fukushima province and one caught in Mie, a percentage of them will choose the latter. Maybe the consumer is ignorant, maybe they just don't trust TEPCO's measurements, maybe they know it's safe but why take the risk?
In fact a lot of the damage is done before it gets to consumers, because the buyers for the grocers and restaurants are favouring fish from elsewhere, just in case their customers care.
There's
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess if less fishing is done near Fukushima due to this, there will be an increase in the fish stock in the area.
I understand there are huge increases in fish stock at places like bikini atoll where nuke tests have been done at sea and fishing has been banned after that.
Considering this is a hell of alot lesser then an actual nuke test, I guess the fishes and other sea critters in that area will do very well.
Re: (Score:2)
there's controversy because stupid people think it's wise when they complain about inherited fears
no amount of asking for evidence or reason will ever shut them up
Re: Fear mongering. (Score:2)
Superstitions aren't inherited. They're a parasitic entity that rides along through the generations.
UK government avoiding hypocrisy (Score:2)
Given its releases from Windscale into the Irish Sea, there's no way it could get away with complaining about France's behaviour.
But yes, of course China is using this to indulge in point scoring. Though Japan might have been wiser to wait until September rather than start the releases in the same month that the nuclear bombs were dropped on the country.
You mean it's Tuesday, again? (Score:2)
If they didn't half report things (to make them seem scary), they'd report nothing at all.
Ignorance is bliss (Score:2)
Straight from the wikipedia page about tritium :
"it can be a radiation hazard if inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin"
Re: (Score:2)
Concentrations matter. If you are afraid of tritium don't ever go swim in the sea or ever drink water, or breath while in the sauna.
By the way keep reading that wikipedia entry. Two paragraphs further down, how do you get tritium out of the body? Sweating and dehydrating (if no clean water is available), with this really awesome bit of context: "the health consequences of those things (particularly in the short term) can be more severe than those of tritium exposure"
This may be more severe for Slashdot base
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. And the real problem with this release is entirely psychological.
The problem is that most people opposed to nuclear power are just as clueless about the actual facts as most people in favor of nuclear power. A crap-show of non-understanding all around.
Yes, nuclear power is bad, but it is due to excessive cost, bad flexibility, bad reliability and exceptionally high accident cost which is put on society and not the operators (by insurance) effectively making it even more expensive. It is not bad d
Seems fine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Dilution _is_ the solution
New environmental standard of China (Score:4, Funny)
China remains strongly opposed, accusing Japan of treating the ocean like a "sewer."
Well I for one applaud China's new stance and standard that the ocean should not be treated like a "sewer".
I fully expect that we'll see China do all it can within its 7-dash line to prevent ANY new ocean pollution.
Re: New environmental standard of China (Score:3)
I heard tgat 90%+ of the plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean was traceable to four rivers that flow from China into the ocean, perhaps China could clean that up first, as a sign of seriousness to protecting the ocean?
Re: (Score:2)
hahahaha... good one.
next you will be asking them to stop building and using new coal fired power plants. and the CCP to convert into a democracy and stop putting its own citizens in concentration camps.
ahh....the delusion is strong with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
hahahaha... good one.
next you will be asking them to stop building and using new coal fired power plants.
Let's press for more obtainable goals, like starting with stopping INCENTIVIZING coal. (yes for real, China has been doing incentives for using local resources, aka coal) Also as I understand it their steel industries are doing less productive (ie, more expensive) methods that pollute the air more.
When people are willing to accept a lower paycheck to pollute more, you know there's something really really wrong.
But yes, cutting down on plastic into the ocean from china would be a good second step.
Re: (Score:2)
When people are willing to accept a lower paycheck to pollute more, you know there's something really really wrong.
Let me fix that for you: when people are only willing to buy cheap good (which pollute more), you know there's something really really wrong.
Western countries (US, Europe) were happy to outsource their manufacturing to China because it was cheap, and look the other way. They are the one at fault here, for not willing to pay up for those negative externalities.
Re: (Score:2)
When people are willing to accept a lower paycheck to pollute more, you know there's something really really wrong.
Let me fix that for you: when people are only willing to buy cheap good (which pollute more), you know there's something really really wrong.
Western countries (US, Europe) were happy to outsource their manufacturing to China because it was cheap, and look the other way. They are the one at fault here, for not willing to pay up for those negative externalities.
No, paying less money for something that causes more harm is a natural human reaction (most simply refer to it as greed). You don't seem to have realized what I said. Chinese steel manufacturers are intentionally earning less money rather than switching to a process that pollutes less AND earns more money, because they can't be bothered to switch. My memory is that it's something to do with exposure to oxygen, producing less nitrogen oxide or something like that. I think I first saw it in a PBS piece that p
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry my sarcasm was sooo subtle.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard tgat 90%+ of the plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean was traceable to four rivers that flow from China into the ocean, perhaps China could clean that up first, as a sign of seriousness to protecting the ocean?
You heard wrong. Goddamn the media should be shot for their writing of shock headlines. The actual study was. "90% of river-born plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean is tracable to just 10 rivers." And yeah 4 of them are in China. But that is not 90% of total plastic waste. Just 90% of the waste that comes from rivers.
But that was 2017. In 2021 we learnt more with followup studies showing the majority of the waste is distributed across 1000 small rivers: https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair China has been making huge efforts to clean up its waterways, and reintroduce wildlife. There is still a long way to go, but when you compare it to how long we were polluting our water during the industrial revolution, and how long it took us to clean up...
Actually the UK is currently dumping large amounts of untreated sewage into its rivers and seas, so people in glass houses...
Dilluion (Score:3)
They are going to dilute a lot, water screens radioactive materials, and tritium does not bio-accumulate.
The plan sounds reasonable, but what is not is the example. I fear that another country use this precedent to dump more dangerous stuff without care.
Re: (Score:1)
As scary as it sounds, the health risks of coal powered plants is still greater. Asthma and other breathing ailments are agitated by such. And there's the green-house gas problem.
Re: (Score:3)
I fear that another country use this precedent to dump more dangerous stuff without care.
The dumping is internationally regulated. You can expect an actual shitstorm if one country starts dumping something into the ocean without the blessing of the IAEA. The most seriously stupid thing here is the countries which are complaining literally had their own scientists and representatives on the IAEA agree with the plan.
and Godzilla in X days? (Score:2)
and Godzilla in X days?
Re: (Score:1)
Now it's gonna be giant fish. Gupzilla?
After a few years they will also have grown legs (Score:2)
Godzilla will wreck havoc on Japan on day.
Tip: (Score:1)
...Never name a nuclear power plant after a cuss word.
I'm not really superstitious, by why take the risk? There's a small chance demons and Murphy's Law really do run the show. (Sorry, Carl Sagan, the probability is NOT zero.)
It’s too late (Score:2)
Did everyone forget we basically conducted a nuclear war in the Pacific Ocean from the late 40s to the 60s? The US alone denoted hundreds of bombs not to mention the Soviets and the French. I’m willing to bet the tritium from the Hydrogen bombs far exceeds what will come from Fukushima.
China's record (Score:2)
Shows that it did 23 atmospheric nuclear tests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The US alone denoted hundreds of bombs not to mention the Soviets and the French.
America detonated 105 in the Pacific. France detonated 190 in their Pacific territory. The Soviets detonated none in the Pacific.
America and the USSR stopped atmospheric and underwater detonations in 1963. France continued until 1974.
I’m willing to bet the tritium from the Hydrogen bombs far exceeds what will come from Fukushima.
Maybe. But reactors usually produce more tritium than bombs, and the bombs were 60 years ago. That's five tritium half-lives, so only 1/32 or 3% would be left.
Release the tritinated kraken (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta love the Chinese whose nuclear reactors release more tritium into the oceans and at much higher concentrations wage a PR blitz banning seafood imports and crying about how irresponsible Japan is being.
Re: (Score:2)
It's political posturing nothing more. The Chinese is an IAEA member nation with their scientists in the organisation. They approved the waste water release.
Re: (Score:2)
Sssh! We don't say anything bad about China's reactors because a nominally communist country is the only proof that nuclear power is economically viable!
They're releasing 1.8g of tritium .. over 30 years (Score:2)
It's a rather tiny amount, released over 30 years. It's entirely fine.
Re: (Score:1)
What are the chances the ocean will blow up in a chain reaction?? RADIATION!!
How do you release water from a thursday? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"From Thursday" is a perfectly common way of meaning "starting Thursday".
"I will be on vacation from Thursday to Monday".