In the Pacific, Outcry Over Japan's Plan To Release Fukushima Wastewater (nytimes.com) 141
The proposal has angered many of Japan's neighbors, particularly those with the most direct experience of unexpected exposure to dangerous levels of radiation. From a report: Every day at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, officials flush over a hundred tons of water through its corroded reactors to keep them cool after the calamitous meltdown of 2011. Then the highly radioactive water is pumped into hundreds of white and blue storage tanks that form a mazelike array around the plant. For the last decade, that's where the water has stayed. But with more than 1.3 million tons in the tanks, Japan is running out of room. So next year in spring, it plans to begin releasing the water into the Pacific after treatment for most radioactive particles, as has been done elsewhere. The Japanese government, saying there is no feasible alternative, has pledged to carry out the release with close attention to safety standards. The plan has been endorsed by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.
But the approach is increasingly alarming Japan's neighbors. Those in the South Pacific, who have suffered for decades from the fallout of a U.S. nuclear test in the Marshall Islands, are particularly skeptical of the promises of safety. Last month, a group representing more than a dozen countries in the Pacific, including Australia and the Marshall Islands, urged Tokyo to defer the wastewater releases. Now, Japan is poised to forge ahead even as it risks alienating a region it has tried in recent years to cultivate. Nuclear testing in the Pacific "was shrouded in this veil of lies," said Bedi Racule, an antinuclear activist from the Marshall Islands. "The trust is really not there."
But the approach is increasingly alarming Japan's neighbors. Those in the South Pacific, who have suffered for decades from the fallout of a U.S. nuclear test in the Marshall Islands, are particularly skeptical of the promises of safety. Last month, a group representing more than a dozen countries in the Pacific, including Australia and the Marshall Islands, urged Tokyo to defer the wastewater releases. Now, Japan is poised to forge ahead even as it risks alienating a region it has tried in recent years to cultivate. Nuclear testing in the Pacific "was shrouded in this veil of lies," said Bedi Racule, an antinuclear activist from the Marshall Islands. "The trust is really not there."
Send it around again? (Score:2, Interesting)
They flush the water through the reactors to cool them and then put the water into tanks.
Why not take the water out of the tanks and flush it through the reactors again after it's had a chance to cool off? Then they could get away with whatever quantity of water is used for the flush plus whatever is needed to cover the cooling down time and the requirement for added fresh water and for contaminated water disposal pretty much goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Send it around again? (Score:2)
Re:Send it around again? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only side large scale side effects of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are the paranoia and delusions of those who didnt take them.
Re: Send it around again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
what a bold statement, I have no way to prove it is a lie but I can say that it is a lie
reality distortion field will work until you crash into reality
people that did not fall into the field, see reality for what it is, a common cold, that should be handled appropriately
we are pretty much relaxed and waiting for some possible sudden death, no need to hurry, we can wait
have a nice day
Re:Send it around again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahahaha. You anti science folks are so sensitive. Why don't you go read a blog by some fringe wacko who will tell you all your paranoia and delusions are correct and it's all the worlds doctors who are wrong. I'm sure that will make you feel better.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs get approved not because they don't have side effects. They get approved based on the side effects' probability.
Re: (Score:3)
Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA.
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of Pfizer, Moderna, etc they didn't go through proper approval processes.
They had EMERGENCY APPROVAL. This by passed standard and lengthy testing. The side effects were never properly studied.
2020 wants it's anti-vax justification back
Re: Send it around again? (Score:2)
Re: Send it around again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let it melt down into the mantle of the earth and seal it at the surface.
Kola Superdeep Borehole [wikipedia.org] is at 12262 meters.
Mantle [wikipedia.org] starts at about 10 kilometers under the bottom of the ocean (Earth's crust being thinner there) or at about 35 to 70 kilometers under the surface of the continental crust.
Re: Send it around again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently there are multiple issues. The system isn't designed for recycling, and since the reactors melted down it's not easy to get anywhere near them to adjust it.
Another issue is that if you recycle then you contaminate the intake, and that just adds to your problems.
The intake is damaged too, and due to the reactors being high level nuclear contamination sites it's difficult to fix the leaks. No problem if it's clean water being fed in, big problem if it's contaminated waste water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. They are saying that it will be diluted enough to be safe, but that's questionable.
Reuse it? (Score:3)
Re: Reuse it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so simple as re-using it. "Plain" water itself is part of the nuclear reaction, so injecting radioactive water changes the equation ever so slightly.
It's a matter of "which is actually safer for everybody," and letting the experts who are actually qualified to make decisions make the call.
The hard reality is something *will* fail soon, and waiting really isn't an option given the volume of water involved - something's going to fail. A planned water treatment and controlled release is likely a better option than an unplanned, untreated, and sudden release when a tank fails.
So, people of Earth: pick your poison, because you're drinking one. The UN approved one.
There are already at least two uncontained nuclear reactors at the seabed, and their effects haven't been world-ending.
Sometimes there's no happy ending, just one that's less sad.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of "which is actually safer for everybody," and letting the experts who are actually qualified to make decisions make the call.
So, not Tepco then.
You know you're not exactly making nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
I do reject your dichotomy. I think it's perfectly possible to store the water until such time as it can be safely cleaned and released. I also think it's going to be very expensive to do that safely and that somewhere out there is a bu
Re: (Score:2)
Not just businessmen. The government is involved too. That unlimited free insurance policy that they gave to nuclear plant operators is looking like a mistake now that it's being claimed on.
Money is needed for a lot of other stuff, and instead it's going into the bottomless money pit that is Fukushima.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is one of perspective. Yes Fukushima was bad however it hasn't been responsible for megadeath. The waste isn't being improperly disposed of it is being disposed of in a considered an rational manner.
Business counts, money is often spent poorly which wastes lives and creates suffering. Invest your capital where it makes the most impact, for instances money spent on trying to separate the tritium from this waste can be spent on hospitals, electric cars or newer safer nuclear facilities. Simple ini
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been told modern reactors don't have this issue but the ones I've seen either still have it or the reason they might potentially not have it is that they're extr
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strange comparison as clearly nuclear reactors are subject to much, much more stringent review and monitoring by governments and scientists and engineers than video cards are. Perhaps you meant to show concern for the quality of video cards and intended to type:
But for how long? (Score:2)
We keep seeing this pattern over and over and over again. Fukushima. Flint Mi. Texas' grid. Jacksonville Miss.
Re: (Score:2)
How about reuse of filtered water then?
They're saying they are going to filter it before dumping. Why not filter it then reuse instead.
On that note. They probably should be filtering before storage even.
Re: Reuse it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The hard reality is something *will* fail soon
Why? I get that they're running out of storage space, but why would a failure be imminent?
Re: (Score:2)
But the radioactive stuff in the water is mostly reactor poison, that is, it would make it harder to get a chain reaction going. If they're unsure, they could dope it with boron (often present in emergency cooling water since it poisons the nuclear reaction by absorbing neutrons).
If they REALLY REALLY want to be sure, they could do the full cleanup on it and then use it to cool the reactor rather than dumping it in the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Reuse it? (Score:2)
Re: Reuse it? (Score:2)
Reusing the cooling water would, I suspect, multiply the amount of radiation in the water - with every pass through the reactor, the water adds another 'dose' of radiation.
The issue isn't temperature, it's radiation.
Tritium can't hurt anyone. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Tritium can't hurt anyone. (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
But in addition to tritium, more dangerous isotopes with longer radioactive lifetimes, such as ruthenium, cobalt, strontium, and plutonium, sometimes slip through the ALPS process, something TEPCO only acknowledged in 2018. The company now says these additional nuclides are present in 71% of the tanks. "These radioactive isotopes behave differently than tritium in the ocean and are more readily incorporated into marine biota or seafloor sediments," says Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Re: (Score:3)
Even without filtering the volume of the ocean is so high relative to the volume of somewhat radioactive water here that with any distribution by ocean currents the latter is likely to not be measurable within weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
They have already been found in seafood products from the area too, from previous discharges.
Turns out all this stuff about nuclear waste being a minor issue and easy to process is bullshit. Over a decade later and they haven't managed to deal with it, and are mostly interested in reducing their costs as they spiral towards half a trillion Euros.
Re:Tritium can't hurt anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty sure they filtered all of the heavier isotopes out first. But keep fearmongering.
When tepco said they know for certain the did not filter them out, I'm going to believe the numbers coming out of their detectors over the non-existent numbers coming out of your non-existent detectors.
Unless you mean YOU are pretty sure, instead of meaning tepco is pretty sure.
If that's the case, you are not a nuclear regulatory agency, no one cares what you are pretty sure of.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's so much difference between "Anonymous Coward" and "atomicalgebra" right?
Why not deal with the substance of the message, rather than the return address on the envelope? If you get a letter from the IRS, do you turn into a nervous wreck at the sight of their logo on the upper left of the envelope, or do you open it and find out what they want?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be projecting a position onto a post that is neither pro nor con, it's basically repeating facts as released by TEPCO. Those aren't the only facts that go into the analysis of whether the proposed action is the best approach, but they are certainly relevant to the analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
You're so concerned about the person being an AC you never even bothered to address what he said.
At this point you're worse than he/she is.
Re: (Score:2)
There is never any substance behind any of the antinuclear arguments.
A lack of acknowledging nuclear's short comings is not a great way to increase public trust in nuclear power which is absolutely essential if any more plants are ever to be built.
Re: (Score:2)
Every antinuclear argument is a fucking lie or an exaggeration bordering on hyperbole. "Waste what about the waste" is always the biggest argument. Yet it is a non problem with zero deaths ever.
The way to get the public trust is to call out every single antinuclear scumbag. And then to publicly shame them
Face it. Nuclear is a great technology with a great track record. It also the only viable option we have to deep decarbonize our world.
Re: (Score:2)
Waste isnt a problem because there havent been any deaths so far? What an incredibly poor metric to establish the safety of nuclear waste when we cant even build a proper repository in this country. I know I wouldnt trust someone telling me things like that.
Re: Tritium can't hurt anyone. (Score:2)
There have been deaths from Sellafield's nuclear waste, so I assume you mean specifically the nuclear waste that is in storage tanks.
When there's no risk of exposure, there's not going to be any deaths regardless of the risks.
I'm not anti-nuclear,bl but I am for competent nuclear and you ain't competent.
Re: (Score:2)
Every antinuclear argument is a fucking lie or an exaggeration bordering on hyperbole. "Waste what about the waste" is always the biggest argument. Yet it is a non problem with zero deaths ever.
Did you write this unironically? Because lying in the very next two sentences after accusing people you are arguing with of lying isn't a good look.
Nuclear waste isn't the biggest argument. Improper safety design and penny-pinching mismanagement is the biggest argument.
And there have [wikipedia.org] been [wikipedia.org] deaths [wikipedia.org] from waste management.
Now, it's a legit argument to raise the question of if overall nuclear power causes less deaths per year than other generation techniques even when the waste is factored in - and there's even
Re: (Score:2)
Waste isnt a problem because there havent been any deaths so far?
Yep! It is a non-problem.
What an incredibly poor metric to establish the safety of nuclear waste
What are you talking about? It is an incredibly great metric to establish the safety of used fuel(aka nuclear waste). Meanwhile the waste from fossil fuels and biofuels kill 8.7 million people annually. 0 ever versus 8.7 annually. I know which one I would pick.
I know I wouldnt trust someone telling me things like that.
Well that's a shame. An inability to change ones mind when presented with valid evidence is a sign of being a zealot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When there's no risk of exposure, there's not going to be any deaths regardless of the risks.
Unfortunately, risk of exposure isn't a constant - it increases over time because we literally don't have any materials that can contain this crap for the amount of time necessary.
Ask people downriver from Hanford what they think about the waste that is upriver from them, in storage tanks. Remember that these tanks are now leaking, and nobody has any idea what is in most of them because of the piss-poor record keeping - they know it's highly radioactive and caustic sludge that cannot be contained by anythi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I am calling you a liar. Fuck you liar. And your examples are from weapons production. Hell Kyshtym occurred before the first commercial nuclear reactor was opened in the USSR. It was not from a nuclear power plant. So go fuck yourself liar.
Zero deaths from used fuel ever.
Also coal kills more people every hour than non soviet nuclear energy has ever total.
Idiots like you cannot be convinced with facts. I am only trying to counter your constant lies so other people will not believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
And now we get to it.
When presented with even a little resistance, you go direct to vulgarity, insults, and hair splitting. What is the material difference in nuclear waste from weapons production, and nuclear waste from commercial power generation?
Not gonna convince anyone that way, and especially not people here. Go back to whatever shitty social media echo chamber you came from - you officially have nothing to contribute that is worth reading, when you aren't even going to be remotely honest or objectiv
Re: (Score:2)
I was presented with lies. Kyshtym occurred before the first commercial reactor in the USSR opened. There was a small test reactor before that, but none of its used fuel was at Kyshtym. You fucking lied, and now you are bitching about being called out like a little baby!
What is the material difference in nuclear waste from weapons production, and nuclear waste from commercial power generation?
They are not the same thing. Duh. Maybe look up what used fuel actually is before you lie about it. Watch this about used fuel. [youtube.com]
Unfortunately facts do not change most peoples minds. Especially when their opinion is based on lies and e
Re: (Score:2)
No, you were presented with a counter-argument, and you flew off your axle like a teenager who was just told his momma is fat.
I was just telling you that you were wrong. And continue to be wrong. And, for some reason, you're very smug about being that wrong.
Weapons grade material is made by taking reactor-grade enriched uranium 235 / 238 mix and loading it into a reactor so the splitting 235 can release neutrons to be absorbed by the 238 to become Uranium 239, and then decay into Plutonium 239. This also
Re: (Score:2)
It is a weak beta emitter that cannot bioaccumulate. I wish I could swim in it before they release it just to shut up the antinuclear fearmongers. Note normal ocean water is more radioactive than this water.
This question has been asked many times in Asia already: If the water is so safe, why don't Japan pipe these water into their own potable water system, bottled them for sale, or use it for irrigation? Rather than choosing to release them into the sea against the wish of everyone else? Why didn't Japan govt officials all come and drink a few cups of these waters to show their confidence?
Re: (Score:3)
Because there is a difference between something that is safe to pipe off-shore and mix in with terralitres of seawater, and something that is safe to put inside people.
This slightly contaminated water is unarguably safe to slowly and in a controlled manner, mix in with the huge amount of also randomly contaminated water that makes up the Pacific Ocean.
How much radiation will be released? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much radiation will be released? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a case of curies, but of isotopes and their ability to bioaccumulate. I suspect the number is still low, but you should note that actual radioactive particles are not the issue being discussed here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very common mistake made by nuclear fans. The classic "banana equivalent dose" fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is all nice until you have cancer
then you think how to reduce the chances for it if not for you, for your children
have no children to care about ? then you could do something good for the environment that will make Greta happy
leave this world and go to the afterlife
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers matter. How many Curies of radiation are the talking about releasing and how does that compare to natural sources of radiation entering the ocean?
By this logic, then as long as one first dilute the nuclear waste with enough sea water, ANY nuclear waste is ok to be released to the ocean, right?
So if we have X kg of highly radioactive wastes, as long as we slowly release it through a stream of sea water a little bit at a time, then fine, right?
Don't you see any problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you see any problem with that?
Yeah the oceans would not longer be pristine like they are now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't see a problem with it. Dilute it enough to be down to background radiation, and it will no longer be poisonous.
Re: (Score:2)
remember the comparison is not with zero r
Verify, rather than trust (Score:3)
Any nation concerned should be allowed (and Japan should welcome this) to go to the site and test for themselves the end result of Japan's treatment process.
This is a simple answer, either the water is radioactive or it's not. Test for radiation, put it through a mass spectrometer if you want and then either it's good or it isn't and these countries can just say "it's not good because it contains X, Y and Z" rather than hemming and hawing about history and FUD here.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a problem with that approach: there is no 'undo' button. People can inspect all they want after the tritium et. al. is flushed into the ocean - if they're wrong, too late it's already intermixed into the ocean and there isn't the square root of jack shit to be done about it.
That's kind of the point of the whole kerfuffle.
Re:Verify, rather than trust (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, maybe It wasnt clear, this should be done before water gets realeased and fairly should be done on a regular basis.
Point stands this is not something that is subjective, it is what it is, there is a fact of the matter of what the water contains, that should be clearly known to everyone concerned. If they don't trust the UN (and I can understand if they wouldn't) then do it yourself but you can't just say "I want you to stop because of what might be wrong"
Re: (Score:2)
That is a fair and valid point. Thank you for the clarification.
Re: (Score:3)
But the comment about radioactivity tells me that you may have some technical knowledge, but you know almost nothing about radioactivity beyond a high school level. First, a mass spectrometer is NOT the device you use to detect radioactivity. Second (more importantly) everything is radioactive to some degree. No, you can’t argue with me. Full stop. No more discussion. Literally EVERY PIECE OF MATTER YOU SEE AROUND YOU is radioactive to some degree. Oran
Re:Verify, rather than trust (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just about the overall radioactivity of the sample. It's about the relative concentration of different radionuclides. Some radionuclides bioaccumulate strongly, while others do not. That's why you want mass spectrometry. Not to measure the radioactivity of the sample, but to see if the radioactivity is coming from radionuclides that pose a bioaccumulation hazard or others that do not. That information helps determine the "acceptable" level of radioactivity for release into the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
No need, TEPCO have already admitted that it's radioactive and contains elements that accumulate in the ocean's biology.
Their argument is that they already tried everything and can't remove that stuff, so it's got to be dumped in the sea or they will be on the hook for even more costs. Show some humanity, this is destroying their shareholder value!
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is radioactive. There's no such thing as "radioactive or not". Some things are more radioactive than others.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is always how much of what isotopes are present and what is the risk if they are released compared to the benefit. That is a tradeoff people make (whether they know it or not) every time they get on an airliner, go somewhere with lots of granite in the
Dump it in a marine sanctuary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't take that bet.
They'll fish them all the same, but those doing the fishing simply won't eat them themselves.
Do you want Godzilla? (Score:5, Funny)
Because that's how you get Godzilla.
we just make 3 eyed fish at this plant (Score:2)
we just make 3 eyed fish at this plant
Re: (Score:2)
we just make 3 eyed fish at this plant
That is because the goggles, they do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and "a group" is prolly PETA trying to protect Godzilla from that highly processed meal.
Radioactive water (Score:3)
If there is Tritium and Deuterium Oxide, won't they be able to use those isotopes of hydrogen when we get a working fusion reactor?
Of course some of it may be 'slightly heavy water' also known as Deuterium Hydroxide.
DOH
I heard that that was invented by Homer Simpson when he was working at the plant owned by Montgomery Burns
Boil off the H2O, save what remains (Score:2)
If you run it through the first half of a distiller, you remove whatever is suspended, If you keep half an eye on the temperature, you also get whatever is dissolved in it. That's how one makes distilled water, after all.
Whatever is left is the radioactive material that you want to NOT put in the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
1.3 million tons of water = 1179339200 kilograms
Energy to boil 1 kg of water = 2257 kilojoules = 626 watt hours
Energy to boil 1.3 million tons of water = 738,266,339 kilowatt hours
Cost per kWh in Japan = $0.180 / kWh
Total cost of energy (so ignoring any overhead cost of installing equipment, personnel, etc): $132,887,941
That's probably why they're not doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? With a four digit ID?
The problem IS water. Just water with tritium instead of one of its hydrogen atoms. Distilling it solves nothing.
As usual, BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Then the highly radioactive water is pumped into hundreds of white and blue storage tanks that form a mazelike array around the plant.
It's not "highly radioactive". It's about 10x more radioactive than the natural radioactivity of water in the ocean outside of Fukushima.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought with all the hysteria about it it would be much more radioactive. 10x will get diluted to 1x very quickly in the ocean.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, collecting the water in the first place was about just as stupid.
Re: As usual, BS (Score:2)
Dilution isn't the issue. Mobility is the issue. As discovered in the Irish Sea, heavy isotopes tend to sink, then move around with the tides.
If TEPCO is right and all heavy isotopes have been cleaned (or will be), then this is a non-issue and they can dump the water safely.
I'm not thrilled with their accuracy so far, but if the UN's nuclear body says it's been checked and the plan is good, then I'd be inclined to accept that it has been checked as well as it can be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the amount, it's the fact that it bioaccumulates and concentrates. If it gets inside your body, in your organs, it causes cancer. Even if it's much less than the background level, if it sits in your thyroid for decades...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the amount, it's the fact that it bioaccumulates and concentrates.
What is accumulating? What is the “it” in your statement?
I’m not disputing anything you said. You may well be right, but vague assertions of this sort sound like nothing more than FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the biggest issue is Caesium-137. While it doesn't tend to linger in the body for much more than a couple of months, it has a long half life (30 years) so remains dangerous when it enters an ecosystem.
They are having trouble removing it, and are currently being sued by people who got thyroid cancer. In Japan there is a legal precedent that when the is strong evidence of a statistical link, it's up to the polluter to prove it wasn't their pollution that damaged the plaintiff's health.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the amount, it's the fact that it bioaccumulates and concentrates.
"It" doesn't. The main remaining radioisotope in the Fukushima water is tritium, and tritium does not bioaccumulate.
Dilution effect / overrated fears (Score:2)
Re: Dilution effect / overrated fears (Score:2)
You're assuming all nuclear waste is mobile. I thought the Irish Sea had settled that question. It isn't.
That doesn't mean the plan is bad, it just means your assumptions are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The waste in this case is tritiated water. It mixes perfectly with normal water, because it IS water.
Evaporate (Score:2)
Does radioactive material evaporate? It seems like the obvious solution when you have a lot of toxic water is to reduce the mass by letting the water turn into a much denser slurry of toxic sludge. I bet you could have less than 1% of the original volume if you just slowly filtered it through some sort of large pool area for evaporation. Then scrub the pool and barrel up the remnants again and stick them in a mountain for a thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to make tritiated rain? They have already cleaned off the toxic sludge, what remains is almost pure tritiated water. Which happily evaporates just like any other water, if you let it.
The ignorance on this topic is astounding, for a technical site.
The sea is bigger than you think (Score:3)
However big you think it is, it's bigger.