5 ms·

Fukushima: Japan will have to dump radioactive water into Pacific, minister says

39 points by asymmetric 7y ago

Havoc 7y ago
I guess we get to role play all those nuclear wasteland games in real life. Just kidding. Wasn’t there a calc a while back that the concentrations are actually that bad? ie in some cases barely noticable against background radiation
- krageon 7y ago
  The nuclear field has as far as I'm aware always been full of people claiming (sometimes with pretty sophisticated reasoning) that "it's not that bad" (used to justify storing waste or just dumping it).
  - Havoc 7y ago
    Fair. I mean the correct answer is clearly zero but it's an imperfect world. Even if it is actually bad...I don't see any other options? Maybe massive oil tankers to transport it & dump it in a desert somewhere?
    - krageon 7y ago
      Radioactive waste is trading inconveniencing future generations for a tangible benefit right now. Every storage solution has inadequately addressed long-term viability ("we're sure we'll solve the issues some day") or has waved it away by pretending it is unimportant (this happens for basically every dumping solution). Fundamentally, whether or not that reasoning is unethical or wrong is up to the reader. I don't feel like disadvantaging my descendants because it's convenient for me is the right thing to do, but looking at the state of the world right now I doubt the majority of people feels that way (or even cares to think about it). Given that that is the case, sure! Dump it somewhere convenient.
pvaldes 7y ago
Here comes the excuses. Who was irresponsible in the past, will be irresponsible in the future if is allowed to do so. I would not expect a different response. Alaska, British Columbia and the rest of US West Coast will eat the garbage shaped as fishes, by courtesy of sea currents, (and is obvious that nobody cares). Strange times.
rowanG077 7y ago
It's really sad the guardian doesn't quantify at all how contaminated the water is. This basically has no news value because of it. Is this a good idea? Is this a bad idea? No way to tell without any hard numbers.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  > Is this a good idea? Is this a bad idea? No way to tell without any hard numbers. Having plenty of numbers and data is great, specially for making reports and speeches, but maths are not the only tool that a human brain can use. Often logical reasoning is powerful enough. Is a fact that radioactivity kills people. No need to demonstrate it statistically. We have enough empirical evidence. Is a fact also that radioactivity is bioaccumulative. We don't need a single "four", "seven" or a "twelve" to understand that dumping a bioaccumulative poison in a coastal area inhabited by millions and that provides a considerable part of the diet of this people, is definitely not a good idea.
  - antientropic 7y ago
    I think you have an incorrect idea of "logic reasoning" if you think that that's a scientifically sound argument. To know whether this contaminated water will be insufficiently diluted in the ocean to cause problems, you definitely do need to use numbers. I mean, if it's diluted to a trillionth of the natural background radiation, then who cares?
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      The question there then (I think that both will agree with that) is not if is a bad or good idea, is if (or how) they can get away with murder. The answer to this question is yes, of course. Had been doing it since 2011. The idea that they are getting short of space is ridiculous. The area around the central is not exactly crowded at this moment. To me is obvious that they are getting sort of money, not space, and trying disperately to find excuses to save at any cost, and pass the problem to other.
      - 7y ago
adam0c 7y ago
call me crazy but why dont they just fire it off into space... ahaha!
- tmountain 7y ago
  The use of rockets raises the threat of an accidental release of the waste into the atmosphere if there was an explosion.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  If we had a space elevator (or some exotic anti-gravity/energy propulsion), this would be exactly what we do but as has already been stated it is a no-go with chemical rockets.
Nodraak 7y ago
Very good twitter thread on this thing, with numbers and detailled explanations (in French, sorry): https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1164497983402053634 https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1164497983402053634 Check also his other threads, it's a gold mine
lioeters 7y ago
They've been dumping (or leaking) hundreds of tons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day since the incident in 2011. It sounds like they will have to dump more, as a controlled release. > [using groundwater] to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting > [built] a frozen underground wall to prevent groundwater reaching the three damaged reactor buildings [which reduced the flow]..to about 100 tonnes a day. > the prime minister..assured..that the situation was “under control”. Not convinced.
lholden 7y ago
It seems they have primarily isolated the remaining contaminant to tritium? This seems like it might be a nice source of tritium for tritium deuterium fusion reactors? I am quite sure I am missing some fairly critical elements here... but it certainly would be lovely if that was the solution. (I mean, there are not exactly a lot of fusion reactors... heh).
vilhelm_s 7y ago
There is a long article in two parts "Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done?" [1,2] which was previously discussed here at Hacker News [3]. The thing I find most interesting is that even the Fukushima fishermen agree that dumping the water will be harmless, but they are still very opposed to it because they think consumers will be irrationally scared and not buy fish caught in the Fukushima region. > Over the course of our long conversation, Sawada frankly acknowledged that the scientific consensus indicates very low risk if the water is released. “It’s not a question of scientific understanding,” he said. “We understand that tritiated water is released from other nuclear power plants in Japan and around the world. But we think it will be impossible for the public in general to understand why tritium is considered low risk, and expect there will be a large new backlash against Fukushima marine products no matter how scientifically it is explained.” I pointed out that the [fishery] coops agreed to the release of the subdrain and bypass water from Daiichi, and asked what was different about this. He pointed out that in those cases, the water is pumped out before it is contaminated, and the public seems to understand that the contamination levels are already very low. [1] https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-1-radioactive-water-at-fukushima-daiichi-what-should-be-done/ https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-1-radioactive-water-a... [2] https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-2-radioactive-water-at-fukushima-daiichi-what-should-be-done/ https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-2-radioactive-water-a... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20304208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20304208
beautifulfreak 7y ago
I suppose the problem is the other contaminants, because tritium removal isn't too difficult. Cost must be the real problem. Nothing cheaper than dumping it in the ocean. https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-expertise/technologies/our-modular-detritiation-system-mds-remove-tritium https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-expertise/tec...

39 points by asymmetric 7y ago

I guess we get to role play all those nuclear wasteland games in real life. Just kidding. Wasn’t there a calc a while back that the concentrations are actually that bad? ie in some cases barely noticable against background radiation

krageon 7y ago
The nuclear field has as far as I'm aware always been full of people claiming (sometimes with pretty sophisticated reasoning) that "it's not that bad" (used to justify storing waste or just dumping it).
- Havoc 7y ago
  Fair. I mean the correct answer is clearly zero but it's an imperfect world. Even if it is actually bad...I don't see any other options? Maybe massive oil tankers to transport it & dump it in a desert somewhere?
  - krageon 7y ago
    Radioactive waste is trading inconveniencing future generations for a tangible benefit right now. Every storage solution has inadequately addressed long-term viability ("we're sure we'll solve the issues some day") or has waved it away by pretending it is unimportant (this happens for basically every dumping solution). Fundamentally, whether or not that reasoning is unethical or wrong is up to the reader. I don't feel like disadvantaging my descendants because it's convenient for me is the right thing to do, but looking at the state of the world right now I doubt the majority of people feels that way (or even cares to think about it). Given that that is the case, sure! Dump it somewhere convenient.

pvaldes 7y ago

Here comes the excuses. Who was irresponsible in the past, will be irresponsible in the future if is allowed to do so. I would not expect a different response. Alaska, British Columbia and the rest of US West Coast will eat the garbage shaped as fishes, by courtesy of sea currents, (and is obvious that nobody cares). Strange times.

rowanG077 7y ago

It's really sad the guardian doesn't quantify at all how contaminated the water is. This basically has no news value because of it. Is this a good idea? Is this a bad idea? No way to tell without any hard numbers.

pvaldes 7y ago
> Is this a good idea? Is this a bad idea? No way to tell without any hard numbers. Having plenty of numbers and data is great, specially for making reports and speeches, but maths are not the only tool that a human brain can use. Often logical reasoning is powerful enough. Is a fact that radioactivity kills people. No need to demonstrate it statistically. We have enough empirical evidence. Is a fact also that radioactivity is bioaccumulative. We don't need a single "four", "seven" or a "twelve" to understand that dumping a bioaccumulative poison in a coastal area inhabited by millions and that provides a considerable part of the diet of this people, is definitely not a good idea.
- antientropic 7y ago
  I think you have an incorrect idea of "logic reasoning" if you think that that's a scientifically sound argument. To know whether this contaminated water will be insufficiently diluted in the ocean to cause problems, you definitely do need to use numbers. I mean, if it's diluted to a trillionth of the natural background radiation, then who cares?
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    The question there then (I think that both will agree with that) is not if is a bad or good idea, is if (or how) they can get away with murder. The answer to this question is yes, of course. Had been doing it since 2011. The idea that they are getting short of space is ridiculous. The area around the central is not exactly crowded at this moment. To me is obvious that they are getting sort of money, not space, and trying disperately to find excuses to save at any cost, and pass the problem to other.
    - 7y ago

adam0c 7y ago

call me crazy but why dont they just fire it off into space... ahaha!

tmountain 7y ago
The use of rockets raises the threat of an accidental release of the waste into the atmosphere if there was an explosion.
ryanmercer 7y ago
If we had a space elevator (or some exotic anti-gravity/energy propulsion), this would be exactly what we do but as has already been stated it is a no-go with chemical rockets.

Nodraak 7y ago

Very good twitter thread on this thing, with numbers and detailled explanations (in French, sorry): https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1164497983402053634 https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1164497983402053634 Check also his other threads, it's a gold mine

lioeters 7y ago

They've been dumping (or leaking) hundreds of tons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day since the incident in 2011. It sounds like they will have to dump more, as a controlled release. > [using groundwater] to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting > [built] a frozen underground wall to prevent groundwater reaching the three damaged reactor buildings [which reduced the flow]..to about 100 tonnes a day. > the prime minister..assured..that the situation was “under control”. Not convinced.

lholden 7y ago

It seems they have primarily isolated the remaining contaminant to tritium? This seems like it might be a nice source of tritium for tritium deuterium fusion reactors? I am quite sure I am missing some fairly critical elements here... but it certainly would be lovely if that was the solution. (I mean, there are not exactly a lot of fusion reactors... heh).

vilhelm_s 7y ago

There is a long article in two parts "Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done?" [1,2] which was previously discussed here at Hacker News [3]. The thing I find most interesting is that even the Fukushima fishermen agree that dumping the water will be harmless, but they are still very opposed to it because they think consumers will be irrationally scared and not buy fish caught in the Fukushima region. > Over the course of our long conversation, Sawada frankly acknowledged that the scientific consensus indicates very low risk if the water is released. “It’s not a question of scientific understanding,” he said. “We understand that tritiated water is released from other nuclear power plants in Japan and around the world. But we think it will be impossible for the public in general to understand why tritium is considered low risk, and expect there will be a large new backlash against Fukushima marine products no matter how scientifically it is explained.” I pointed out that the [fishery] coops agreed to the release of the subdrain and bypass water from Daiichi, and asked what was different about this. He pointed out that in those cases, the water is pumped out before it is contaminated, and the public seems to understand that the contamination levels are already very low. [1] https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-1-radioactive-water-at-fukushima-daiichi-what-should-be-done/ https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-1-radioactive-water-a... [2] https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-2-radioactive-water-at-fukushima-daiichi-what-should-be-done/ https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-2-radioactive-water-a... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20304208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20304208

beautifulfreak 7y ago

I suppose the problem is the other contaminants, because tritium removal isn't too difficult. Cost must be the real problem. Nothing cheaper than dumping it in the ocean. https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-expertise/technologies/our-modular-detritiation-system-mds-remove-tritium https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-expertise/tec...