4 ms·

I saw a report that the reactor at Chernobyl is in danger of starting a new nuclear reaction [1] Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea [2]

by lwhi 5y ago

I saw a report that the reactor at Chernobyl is in danger of starting a new nuclear reaction [1] Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea [2] [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactions-at-chernobyl-are-spiking-in-an-inaccessible-chamber/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactio... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068

Dylan16807 5y ago
We have designs now that are vastly safer than Chernobyl. > Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea Why are you even bringing that up? They're going to filter out basically everything, and the released water will be completely safe. Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. Even more, they should see intentional radiation release numbers as a motivator to use tons of nuclear in the short to medium term just to get off coal faster. Coal releases so much radioactive material into the air.
- lwhi 5y ago
  There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article. > Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. It's possible to be upset by both. If there isn't another nuclear accident in my lifetime, I'll be happy to say my concerns were unwarranted.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article. The opinions of a couple politicians are not reliably based on reality. The fishing association is not worried about danger, but about sales. And greenpeace is not going to give an unbiased answer on anything nuclear. Taken together, that gives me extremely little worry about danger. The fishermen might be right, I guess. > It's possible to be upset by both. It is! But if you're not MUCH more upset about coal's radiation release, something has gone wrong.
    - lwhi 5y ago
      I notice you didn't come back to me on my last point. Maybe that's something we can agree on ;)
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        I strongly expect to see zero major radiation releases from reactors that are generation III or later. If we keep running very old reactors, I'm less confident. And I have not done sufficient research on "II+"
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        > If there isn't another nuclear accident in my lifetime, I'll be happy to say my concerns were unwarranted. That might feel to you like a concession, point of compromise, but for us that's still a dangerously too high bar that puts the environment at risk.
        lwhi 5y ago
        That's the nub of my whole argument. I see nuclear energy via fission, as too a big risk.
- sthnblllII 5y ago
  We had safer designs than Chernobyl in the 1950s. The soviets cut a lot of corners in that reactor.
godelski 5y ago
> Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea So a bunch of nuclear scientists did a calculation and the results sound scary. And Korea is using it as a political tool. Japan and Korea are at each other all the time, though this may not be common knowledge to Westerners. But if you need a sniff test for this to pass, remember that you can go swimming in a nuclear reactor and people actually do, as many may have learned from the XKCD What If[0]. So just take that story and add a ton more water and add convection so the distribution becomes far less homogeneous. It should pass your sniff test now. [0] https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- lwhi 5y ago
  That's an interesting link, and point; but my understanding it the water is contaminated.
  - godelski 5y ago
    So is the water in the story for the link. The problem is that contaminated is not a binary function. If the material is sufficiently dispersed in the water radiation levels won't rise much (I say rise because sea water is already naturally radioactive, as most things are. Which one could say that sea water is "contaminated" but that wouldn't be useful). If it isn't sufficiently distributed then the distance between you/a fish/sea creature is going to play a big factor since water is really good at stopping radiation. Basically think about you and your wifi router. If there's a metal wall between you and the router you're not getting a signal. Attenuation is the key concept in both radiation and the wifi router. Though this is obviously the fall back for "if they mess up" which isn't likely.
    - lwhi 5y ago
      'Chuck it in the sea' has been the answer proposed by many industry scientists for a long time now. Even supposed small changes are being seen to have an effect on ecologies and food chains [1] [1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless https://e360.yale.edu/features/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_di...

by lwhi 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

We have designs now that are vastly safer than Chernobyl. > Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea Why are you even bringing that up? They're going to filter out basically everything, and the released water will be completely safe. Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. Even more, they should see intentional radiation release numbers as a motivator to use tons of nuclear in the short to medium term just to get off coal faster. Coal releases so much radioactive material into the air.

lwhi 5y ago
There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article. > Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. It's possible to be upset by both. If there isn't another nuclear accident in my lifetime, I'll be happy to say my concerns were unwarranted.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article. The opinions of a couple politicians are not reliably based on reality. The fishing association is not worried about danger, but about sales. And greenpeace is not going to give an unbiased answer on anything nuclear. Taken together, that gives me extremely little worry about danger. The fishermen might be right, I guess. > It's possible to be upset by both. It is! But if you're not MUCH more upset about coal's radiation release, something has gone wrong.
  - lwhi 5y ago
    I notice you didn't come back to me on my last point. Maybe that's something we can agree on ;)
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      I strongly expect to see zero major radiation releases from reactors that are generation III or later. If we keep running very old reactors, I'm less confident. And I have not done sufficient research on "II+"
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      > If there isn't another nuclear accident in my lifetime, I'll be happy to say my concerns were unwarranted. That might feel to you like a concession, point of compromise, but for us that's still a dangerously too high bar that puts the environment at risk.
      - lwhi 5y ago
        That's the nub of my whole argument. I see nuclear energy via fission, as too a big risk.
sthnblllII 5y ago
We had safer designs than Chernobyl in the 1950s. The soviets cut a lot of corners in that reactor.

godelski 5y ago

> Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea So a bunch of nuclear scientists did a calculation and the results sound scary. And Korea is using it as a political tool. Japan and Korea are at each other all the time, though this may not be common knowledge to Westerners. But if you need a sniff test for this to pass, remember that you can go swimming in a nuclear reactor and people actually do, as many may have learned from the XKCD What If[0]. So just take that story and add a ton more water and add convection so the distribution becomes far less homogeneous. It should pass your sniff test now. [0] https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

lwhi 5y ago
That's an interesting link, and point; but my understanding it the water is contaminated.
- godelski 5y ago
  So is the water in the story for the link. The problem is that contaminated is not a binary function. If the material is sufficiently dispersed in the water radiation levels won't rise much (I say rise because sea water is already naturally radioactive, as most things are. Which one could say that sea water is "contaminated" but that wouldn't be useful). If it isn't sufficiently distributed then the distance between you/a fish/sea creature is going to play a big factor since water is really good at stopping radiation. Basically think about you and your wifi router. If there's a metal wall between you and the router you're not getting a signal. Attenuation is the key concept in both radiation and the wifi router. Though this is obviously the fall back for "if they mess up" which isn't likely.
  - lwhi 5y ago
    'Chuck it in the sea' has been the answer proposed by many industry scientists for a long time now. Even supposed small changes are being seen to have an effect on ecologies and food chains [1] [1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless https://e360.yale.edu/features/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_di...