IAEA Team In Japan For Final Review of Fukushima Nuclear Plant Water Discharge (apnews.com) 94
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: An International Atomic Energy Agency team arrived in Tokyo on Monday for a final review before Japan begins releasing massive amounts of treated radioactive water into the sea from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, a plan that has been strongly opposed by local fishing communities and neighboring countries. The team, which includes experts from 11 countries, will meet with officials from the government and the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, and visit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant during their five-day visit, the economy and industry ministry said.
Japan announced plans in April 2021 to gradually release the wastewater following further treatment and dilution to what it says are safe levels. The release is expected to begin within a few months after safety checks by Japanese nuclear regulators of the newly constructed water discharge facility and a final report by IAEA expected in late June. Japan sought IAEA's assistance in ensuring the release meets international safety standards and to gain the understanding of other countries.
Japanese officials say the water will be treated to legally releasable levels and further diluted with large amounts of seawater. It will be gradually released into the ocean over decades through an undersea tunnel, making it harmless to people and marine life, they say. Some scientists say the impact of long-term, low-dose exposure to radionuclides is unknown and the release should be delayed.
Japan announced plans in April 2021 to gradually release the wastewater following further treatment and dilution to what it says are safe levels. The release is expected to begin within a few months after safety checks by Japanese nuclear regulators of the newly constructed water discharge facility and a final report by IAEA expected in late June. Japan sought IAEA's assistance in ensuring the release meets international safety standards and to gain the understanding of other countries.
Japanese officials say the water will be treated to legally releasable levels and further diluted with large amounts of seawater. It will be gradually released into the ocean over decades through an undersea tunnel, making it harmless to people and marine life, they say. Some scientists say the impact of long-term, low-dose exposure to radionuclides is unknown and the release should be delayed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seawater already has uranium (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure where the concern comes from, because sea water itself naturally contains uranium [sciencedirect.com] anyway!
Sea life is already exposed to natural amounts of background radiation, as are we all on land.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seawater already has uranium (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell, if it gets people around the world to eat a bit less seafood from the fear of radiation that would actually help sea life more than the harm the radiation causes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or we just stop making a big deal of it, because Japan still whales basically as a "Fuck you, don't tell us what to do". The Japanese people themselves basically hate whale meat anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
I love when this site tries to sound intelligent.
Re:Seawater already has uranium (Score:5, Interesting)
The radioactive isotopes in the water is not uranium, it is tritium. Why the fine article didn't cover this seems odd to me. The reason the tritium hasn't been filtered out of the water is because the tritium makes up the water.
Hydrogen has three isotopes. These isotopes are common and unique enough that they have their own chemical names. There is protium, deuterium, and tritium. Protium is the most common isotope and is the kind most people think of when hydrogen is mentioned, an atom with only a single proton as the nucleus. Deuterium has a neutron to go with the proton, and is the kind of hydrogen that most people think of when heavy water is mentioned. Tritium is unstable and therefore radioactive, it has two neutrons with the proton in the nucleus.
It is possible to get most of the tritium out of the water but that is an energy intensive process, and not typically applied to any water outside of the core of a pressurized heavy water reactor like those in a CANDU power plant. The water in question is a mix of what came from a light water reactor core and light water that entered the reactor since from rain, firefighting, and leaking cooling pools. The light water from the reactor core will have some small amount of tritium, far more than background but still nothing near what heavy water reactors would have.
I don't know how much tritium is in this water but it can't be all that much if disposing it into the sea is considered viable. Even if every atom of hydrogen in the water was tritium we'd first have half the tritium gone by now because tritium has a half life of about 12 years. Then the water added to the ocean is tiny by comparison to the total water in the ocean, and it will mix in quickly like all water does. If anything it will flow to the bottom of the ocean, below where life can be sustained, and so not enter the food chain.
There's no uranium, cesium, strontium, iodine, zinc, or other radioactive element in the water but tritium. They filtered everything but the tritium out already. This has to be some of the purist water on the planet right now, as pure as rain. It's as pure as rain because much of the water is from rain.
Would I drink this water? Likely not since it sounds like this could have all kinds of diseases growing in it. I'd consider taking a swim in it though.
Wilson Tucker's The Time Masters (Score:3)
Bit of a spoiler: The starship of Human looking alien spacefarers has an accident near Earth, and some of the crew manage to make it down. They are all but immortal, though they require Tritium as their "water of life", and what they have of it is limited.
Their immediate problem is that humanity is thousands of years from having an industrial age, so at least one of them eventually decides to speed things along.
Wilson Tucker was a beloved member of the SF fan community, and I read this novel during "the gol
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Tritium is a gas, a variation of hydrogen.
All the tritium that ever was in the reactor(s) burned of or simply escaped when the containment building exploded.
What happens when that tritium gas is burned? Here's a hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Are you really that dumb or is it a new kind of hobby of yours to post utter nonsense and see if it's getting modded up?
It actually is a hobby of mine to post comments and see if they get moderated up.
You also appear to forget that gasses will dissolve in water. It is because O2 and CO2 dissolve in water that we have plant and animal life in the sea. Tritium gas could be dissolved in the water. If the radiation hazard is not from tritium then what is posing the hazard? That is not made clear in the fine article but I assume an
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously?
The water they want to release nearly has no more tritium inin it then natural water.
The rest of the "radiation" is caesium and iodine and similar stuff.
Still want to pretent to be an idiot?
How the funk would tritium "burned up" during the explosion - yes it will be water, heavy water - "rain down" into the cooling - emergency cooling - water reservoirs?
Seriously, you should get some clue about physics. Perhaps there is a random place nearby where you live and you can thrw stones against trees?
Per
Re:Seawater already has uranium (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Di-tritium monoxide surely? Aka very heavy water.
Re: (Score:2)
The idiot was not talking about heavy water.
He talked about tritium.
No idea if you want to join the idiot stairs.
The Fukushima reactors were no heavy water reactors. Facepalm.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, in its oxide form, is a liquid which is chemically identical to regular water.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there was a leak in the reactor core.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And that made the GAS tritium magically into WATER and mix with the cooling water.
Seriously?
Tritium is continuously produced, and it is VENTED continuously to the outside.
The emergency cooling water hardly contains more tritium than it would naturally.
No idea what there is to discuss about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are multiple issues with releasing this water.
Domestically, the nuclear accident hurt a lot of farmers and the fishing industry in the area. They bought equipment to measure radiation levels in their products and prove they were safe, but even so people weren't buying. You can rant all you like about how stupid that is; people stopped buying Corona beer when the pandemic hit. It's the reality you have to deal with.
There is also low trust in the government and in TEPCO. Safe radiation limits were raise
Re: (Score:2)
You mention "concerns" but is there any data to show any actual risk to health and safety?
What we have is ignorance, and we can't keep allowing ignorance to get in the way of good policy. The solution is to educate. If we leave people ignorant of how the world works then we have people continuing to avoid Corona beer because they equate this with a coronavirus. We'd have people that don't understand how disease spreads and so act in ways that impact their physical and mental health.
As far as the Chinese
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what this visit is about, to gather data. Obviously TEPCO have data from the site, but few people trust them these days.
SK has every right to complain. If TEPCO hasn't been cheap and had installed the necessary defences, Fukushima would not have suffered multiple meltdowns. The "everyone is stupid, it's their fault your business is suffering" argument isn't going to get them off the hook. At least these inspections may mitigate some of the damage but providing a bit more confidence.
As ever we come ba
Re: (Score:2)
An official did drink the water [npr.org]. Obviously, if you drink the water you are incorporating tritium into your body which maximizes the risk. You'd probably safer swimming in it, and much safer still by not swimming in it and mixing it with a large body of water. And if you're truly obsessed with safely, mix it with the entire ocean.
However, virtually no one in the media is reporting on just how much (= little) radiation this water contains, even though radiation is very easy to measure and understand: anybo
Re: (Score:3)
Sea life is already exposed to natural amounts of background radiation, as are we all on land.
Good thing engineers only use "natural amounts" of Uranium in nuclear power plants.
Fixed it (Score:1)
Good thing engineers only use "natural amounts" of Uranium in nuclear power plants.
Actually, good thing the engineers in Japan treated the water to be released until it has around background levels of radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... Unknown (Score:5, Informative)
Some scientists say the impact of long-term, low-dose exposure to radionuclides is unknown and the release should be delayed.
Note, this isn't because it hasn't been studied. It's because it has been studied and they haven't been able to find any effects above the noise floor. IE highly likely to be down to random chance than an actual effect. Much less a demonstratively negative effect.
As noted by SuperKendall and Xylantiel, the ocean is already full of radioactive materials, so especially after dilution, you're not going to be able to even measure the exposure by sea life without the "good" scientific gear that can measure parts in trillions and such, much less be able to authoritatively state something like "Tuna in the area have shown a 1% higher cancer rate."
Yeah but what if it's homeopathic? (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody knows that diluting a substance in water makes it a trillion more potent.
The fish are doomed!
Re:Yeah but what if it's homeopathic? (Score:4, Funny)
All I know is that dollars aren't homeopathic. No matter how much I dilute mine, I never get rich.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at it from the point of view of neighbouring provinces and countries. Low levels of tritium might be safe, might even improve health, but also might not be. Nobody knows which it is, and if it does turn out to be bad then historically it's been virtually impossible to prove a strong enough link to get any compensation. Certainly the victims of the Fukushima nuclear accident have been struggling to get compensation for all they lost.
Given that this is a problem of TEPCO's own making, and that their argu
Yeah, it is safe (Score:2)
Eat it at breakfast, then !
Re: (Score:2)
Cow manure is great fertilizer, non-toxic at appropriate levels, and all that. Doesn't mean I want to eat it straight.
In this case it'd also be less "eating" and more "drinking".
Re: (Score:2)
As noted by SuperKendall and Xylantiel, the ocean is already full of radioactive materials, so especially after dilution
Oh wow man, you went full SuperKendall there. Never go full SuperKendall.
The thing about dilution is that we've known since the 1970s that it doesn't work because of currents and bioaccumulation. You dump a bunch of stuff in one place and you hope it will spread out, but instead it makes a long plume and stays together because it's all similar and the currents act on it similarly.
Re: (Score:2)
You dump a bunch of stuff in one place and you hope it will spread out, but instead it makes a long plume and stays together because it's all similar and the currents act on it similarly.
Wooh, that's real science you have here mate. You should definitely share that with the IAEA, this is so advanced that I am sure they didn't take that into account.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about dilution is that we've known since the 1970s that it doesn't work because of currents and bioaccumulation. You dump a bunch of stuff in one place and you hope it will spread out, but instead it makes a long plume and stays together because it's all similar and the currents act on it similarly.
Dilution is a lot slower than we thought back in the day, we can't assume that it'll diffuse into the entire ocean immediately, of course, but that doesn't mean that it "doesn't work". There's also plenty of remediation available if you want more dilution faster. Ranging from "pipe with lots of holes in it so the stuff spreads out like with a sprinkler system", to "pump up extra seawater and mix it in with the contaminated stuff as you put it into the disposal pipe".
IE I could easily dilute the stuff 1000
Stop making fission reactors. (Score:2)
Economically obsolete. (Score:2)
Nuclear power is economically obsolete.
The only two real reasons to even use existing plants are:
1) Raking in subventions
2) maintaining bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is economically obsolete.
The only two real reasons to even use existing plants are:
1) Raking in subventions
2) maintaining bombs.
Okay then, be sure to tell that to everyone that will listen, and a few that won't.
Re: (Score:2)
For the usual deniers, here is a reference for 2. (and also for 1. if you have some minimal intelligence):
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/a... [lemonde.fr]
Re: (Score:2)
What I could read before hitting the paywall was a statement that civil nuclear power needs military nuclear power and vice versa. There was no mention of nuclear weapons. The statement would be similar to saying without a civil aviation sector it would be impossible to maintain an air force, or without commercial shipping there's no means by which the government can keep a navy. It seems quite logical to believe that the military depends on civilian industry to survive, and it is from the military that
Re: (Score:2)
It's fucking stupid. And no, it's not a solution to climate change.
Any source of energy that release almost zero CO2 can be a part of the solution to CO2 in the atmosphere. Saying otherwise is just uninformative.
Re: (Score:2)
... source of energy that release almost zero CO2 can be a part of the solution ..
hmm but only if it's also cheap enough, compared to wind/solar. Given that these two are "intermittent", pairing them with nuclear — which is the opposite of "intermittent" — for the "base load" is not ideal either.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, it is cheap enough! At least for your baseload. Not mentioning the fact that using nuclear doesn't require you to rewire the backbone (expensive) of your grid which is currently ill suited to handle large loads of intermittent power sources.
With solar and wind, you have no guaranteed baseload so you're stuck with storage, other stable sources such as nuclear or shortages. If you don't count it in the price, please refrain to comparing the cost of Wind+Solar to any other electricity production.
Re: (Score:1)
That tired old lie again. No, Nuclear does not release "almost zero" CO2. It is far, far worse, but gets swept under the rug routinely by the fanatical cheerleaders.
Here is some starting point: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-che... [dw.com]
Even the conservative (low) estimate of 66g CO2/kWh for nuclear is 2x that of solar, 10x that of wind and 15x that of water power. Nuclear is better than fossiles, obviously, but that is it. It is significantly to massively worse with regards to CO2 than all renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As witnessed, thanks.
Do you want Godzilla? (Score:5, Funny)
Godzilla very happy with extra food! (Score:2)
Feel like swimming in delicious wine.
is this a script for next Godzilla movie!? (Score:2)
Sell it at the grocery store (Score:2)
Fukushima could be a decent name for a bottled water brand. Put some Japanese characters on it and drawing of Mount Fuji. I'm sure it will sell well in Marin county.
[cleans glasses] That's better (Score:2)
IAEA Team In Japan For Final Review of Fukushima Nuclear Plant Water Discharge
I originally read that as "IKEA Team" and thought What....?
Re: (Score:2)
kind of foolish (Score:2)
Instead, it should be loaded onto a ship and released around so that it is massivedly diluted from the git-go.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issue with the dumping. It is a 'one-time' thing (hhhhmmmm). However, releasing all of it in the same place leaves a lot to be desired. Instead, it should be loaded onto a ship and released around so that it is massively diluted from the git-go.
And then scuttle the now radioactive ship somewhere deep?
Re: (Score:2)
Gads, you goon squad type are fucking INSANE and uneducated.
No wonder why we have ppl like trump, DeSantis, and W on the far right, with you far lefties pushing insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it had a tank of slightly radioactive waste, does not mean that the ship itself is radioactive.
Sure, but significant internal portions (tanks, pipes, pumps, walls, etc...) may be contaminated enough to make the ship unusable for any other purpose than dumping radioactive wastewater, as repairing/replacing those bits may be impracticable or prohibitively expensive. Continued use would only make the ship more contaminated...
Gads, you goon squad type are fucking INSANE and uneducated.
There's no need to be uncivil.
No wonder why we have ppl like trump, DeSantis, and W on the far right, with you far lefties pushing insanity.
Liberals aren't the reason; "Conservatives" have only themselves to blame. I'm sure you know that.
Nuclear power is economically obsolete. (Score:1)
Yeah, we did this in the 70s and 80s. Did not go so well either.
Nuclear power is economically obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Did not go so well either.
By not going so well either, do you mean (if we take the example of France): ...
- cheap electricity
- net exporter for 50 years, so neighboring countries were happy to get that electricity too
- one of the lowest death rate per TWh produced [ourworldindata.org]
- all that while being one of the lowest-emitting CO2 energy source [wikipedia.org], which means less impact climate change, less deaths related to pollution,
Yeah, it definitely did not go so well...
Re: (Score:1)
cheap electricity
LOL Even in France nuclear companies keep going bankrupt... Nuclear in France is heavily subsidized. Are you for real? How do you not this?
Not nearly as heavily subsidized as the "green" Pv+windmill fantasy, not even close, not even in the same league. Next?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"has been" (Score:2)
Nope.
In 2023, nuke is obsolete. Even the "has been" part is debated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liar + Disrespectful + Shill ....
Re: (Score:2)
Liar? Shill? NOT ONCE. If I am lying, show us. And if I am not lying, then I can not be a shill. I am simply telling the truth.
OTOH, YOU are the shill AND liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrapower will help solve the 'long-lived spent fuel' issue that we have, while Helion will deliver more cheap clean energy.
And this will be within 10, if not 7, years.
harvesting subsidies and sabotaging (Score:2)
>> Terrapower's main purpose appears to be harvesting subsidies and sabotaging other companies
Seems to be the main trend in Nuclear power industry.
Nothing else looking forward.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the alternative to releasing the water? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have seen this story a bunch of times on slashdot, yet nobody has actually explained what the situation is. What happens if the water is not discharged slowly over time? How long can the Japanese hold the radioactive water without the current containment system failing? What is the alternative to discharging the water?
Also, how much is actually being discharged relative to other countries already discharging radioactive water into the ocean today? Is it more? Is it less?
Which nations are opposed the most to the Japanese discharging water from Fukushima? Which political lobbying organizations? Which radical us political group is most against it? The liberals or the conservatives?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What is the alternative to releasing the water (Score:2)
It looks like Greenpeace is the largest lobbying group and loudest voice opposed to the discharge of water from the defunct fukushima plant. This article: https://www.greenpeace.org/eas... [greenpeace.org] gives the most succinct rationale.
Basically, Greenpeace claims that the water to be released by Tepco has not been processed by their ALPs process, as claimed by TEPCO. (in other words, that tepco is lying) In addition, Greenpeace claims that the ALPS process doesnâ(TM)t actually do what it claims to do, that is, rem
Re: (Score:2)
Technically? This could be kept in storage forever and Tritium, the main thing that cannot easily be removed, has a half-life of only 12 years. But economically? TEPCO is already bankrupt. Dealing with the Fukushima disaster is excessively expensive and will not be finished anytime soon. They probably already lost all profits nuclear power ever generated for Japan in this one accident. They will lose more.
Hence the sad truth is that they cannot _afford_ to do anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
The storage tanks won't last forever. They could be replaced with better ones, and the water could be filtered to remove the tritium before dumping the water.
It all costs money though. The cost of clean up is already in the hundreds of billions, and they just don't want to pay.
why? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why not dump it in a (dormant) vulcano or in an old vacant mine and let it slowly dissipate
Because moving radioactive water is expensive.
or at least store it there and slowly dump it in the sea
That is precisely what is being proposed.
and filter is extra before dumping it in the sea.
It's already been filtered to the point of being near laboratory grade deionized water, or so it would seem. There's nothing more to filter out. The radioactive material is radioactive water. It's not anything dissolved or suspended in the water that is radioactive, the water itself is radioactive. The radioactive element is tritium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen. Any radioactive oxygen in the water would have decayed
Re: (Score:2)
Why not dump it in an old vacant mine
Sounds like a Scooby Doo plot.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not dump it in a (dormant) vulcano or in an old vacant mine and let it slowly dissipate, or at least store it there and slowly dump it in the sea, and filter is extra before dumping it in the sea.
Why put it on land where it might enter the water table that we drink from? Instead of putting it in the ocean that we don't drink, and it will be vastly more diluted?
Wonder where Cancer comes from? (Score:1)
CRAZY science moral hazard mixed with flawed engineering design brief, what could possibly go wrong? NEVER trust science just been pawned.