5 ms·

Fukushima dumped about 45 PBq of radioactive material into the ocean. For reference: Chernobyl did 85 PBq Global nuclear weapons testing: 400 PBq Natural Ur

Fukushima dumped about 45 PBq of radioactive material into the ocean. For reference: Chernobyl did 85 PBq Global nuclear weapons testing: 400 PBq Natural Uranium-238: 37,000 PBq Natural Potassium-40: 15,000,000 PBq https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-in-the-ocean/ https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-in-t...

rcme 4y ago
Now divide each number by its area.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  The ocean constantly churns, mixing these all together, so dividing by the constant area of the world oceans doesn't change this.
  - bob29 4y ago
    Explain the trash islands
    - thereddaikon 4y ago
      I dont think its accurate to equate floating trash and something dissolved in solution. Their behavior is likely to be very different.
    - mortenjorck 4y ago
      This is presumably being downvoted for the unnecessary “gotcha” phrasing, but it is an interesting point of distinction. I have an intuitive guess as to the principles at work, but I don’t really know the actual physics.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > but I don’t really know the actual physics Vastly oversimplifying: two versus three dimensions.
        rcme 4y ago
        I don’t think that explains it at all. So garbage floats (more or less), so can be modeled as a 2D plane. But why do patches form? Why isn’t the garbage distributed uniformly across the plane? And why doesn’t that same mechanism apply in 3D?
    - thefurdrake 4y ago
      Explain the lack of sodium islands. E: "Cesium dissolves easily in water."[1] [1] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137 https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    This takes decades. The plume was largely concentrated over a few dozen km and couple hundred m deep when it hit california five years later. And actually significant spill would be orders of magnitude worse. This is also why mass expansion of reprocessing facilities is completely untenable.
    - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
      Which is why any next-gen nuclear should be doing near-complete fuel consumption. Solid fuel rods aren't going to cut it. Liquid / molten salts can be reprocessed "online" and the fission products extracted (yeah, handwaves a LOT of chemistry), so you don't get these partially transmuted solid rods. Even if you have solid rods or solid pebbles doing the primary power, maybe you can have a secondary on-site molten processor to take care of the waste without it shipping. One of the annoying aspects of arguing with pro-nuclear people is their blind spot for reprocessing/waste. It just gets shrugged/handwaved away, but to the voting public, having a reactor that produces no waste in the traditional solid fuel sense would be a political boon. The real issue is that nuclear simply isn't price competitive, it barely beats coal. I would like it to be otherwise.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Safe single fluid LFRs are scifi. Two fluid ones have worse reprocessing problems than solid fuel. It would be nice, but the list of reasons which are sufficient to stop it happening is very long.
- numpad0 4y ago
  And factor in decays too!
throw827474737 4y ago
Very comparabale! And also sheer luck the main plume went there too..
themitigating 4y ago
Is that natural uranium concentrated in rock formations? Because the weapons testing and dumping disperses the material. I'm genuinely asking
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Or 75mm bananas.
gh02t 4y ago
For some perspective: I don't have a full breakdown of the release materials on hand, but according to Wikipedia of the 45 PBq you quoted something like 20 PBq of that was Iodine-131 and 5 PBq of Cs-137. That's about 4.3 grams of I-131 and 1.6 kg of Cs-137. In radiological terms that's a LOT if they were concentrated in a small area, not so much when diluted into the entire ocean. Note that estimated releases to the atmosphere were about 10x that IIRC (but don't quote me on exact numbers). Not to downplay the risks or consequences, people need to decide that for themselves and the dynamics of how this material ends up dispersed in the environment are complicated, but talking in terms of mass helps put things into perspective. Wiki has a good writeup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...
runarberg 4y ago
These comparisons—except for Chernobyl—are disingenuous. Nuclear weapons testing has been outlawed and has mostly stopped, natural Uranium and—even more so—Potassium don’t release radiation in nearly the same concentration as Fukushima (or Hanford to that extent). Radiation is dangerous when it concentrates.

rcme 4y ago

Now divide each number by its area.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
The ocean constantly churns, mixing these all together, so dividing by the constant area of the world oceans doesn't change this.
- bob29 4y ago
  Explain the trash islands
  - thereddaikon 4y ago
    I dont think its accurate to equate floating trash and something dissolved in solution. Their behavior is likely to be very different.
  - mortenjorck 4y ago
    This is presumably being downvoted for the unnecessary “gotcha” phrasing, but it is an interesting point of distinction. I have an intuitive guess as to the principles at work, but I don’t really know the actual physics.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > but I don’t really know the actual physics Vastly oversimplifying: two versus three dimensions.
      - rcme 4y ago
        I don’t think that explains it at all. So garbage floats (more or less), so can be modeled as a 2D plane. But why do patches form? Why isn’t the garbage distributed uniformly across the plane? And why doesn’t that same mechanism apply in 3D?
  - thefurdrake 4y ago
    Explain the lack of sodium islands. E: "Cesium dissolves easily in water."[1] [1] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137 https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  This takes decades. The plume was largely concentrated over a few dozen km and couple hundred m deep when it hit california five years later. And actually significant spill would be orders of magnitude worse. This is also why mass expansion of reprocessing facilities is completely untenable.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    Which is why any next-gen nuclear should be doing near-complete fuel consumption. Solid fuel rods aren't going to cut it. Liquid / molten salts can be reprocessed "online" and the fission products extracted (yeah, handwaves a LOT of chemistry), so you don't get these partially transmuted solid rods. Even if you have solid rods or solid pebbles doing the primary power, maybe you can have a secondary on-site molten processor to take care of the waste without it shipping. One of the annoying aspects of arguing with pro-nuclear people is their blind spot for reprocessing/waste. It just gets shrugged/handwaved away, but to the voting public, having a reactor that produces no waste in the traditional solid fuel sense would be a political boon. The real issue is that nuclear simply isn't price competitive, it barely beats coal. I would like it to be otherwise.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Safe single fluid LFRs are scifi. Two fluid ones have worse reprocessing problems than solid fuel. It would be nice, but the list of reasons which are sufficient to stop it happening is very long.
numpad0 4y ago
And factor in decays too!

throw827474737 4y ago

Very comparabale! And also sheer luck the main plume went there too..

themitigating 4y ago

Is that natural uranium concentrated in rock formations? Because the weapons testing and dumping disperses the material. I'm genuinely asking

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Or 75mm bananas.

gh02t 4y ago

For some perspective: I don't have a full breakdown of the release materials on hand, but according to Wikipedia of the 45 PBq you quoted something like 20 PBq of that was Iodine-131 and 5 PBq of Cs-137. That's about 4.3 grams of I-131 and 1.6 kg of Cs-137. In radiological terms that's a LOT if they were concentrated in a small area, not so much when diluted into the entire ocean. Note that estimated releases to the atmosphere were about 10x that IIRC (but don't quote me on exact numbers). Not to downplay the risks or consequences, people need to decide that for themselves and the dynamics of how this material ends up dispersed in the environment are complicated, but talking in terms of mass helps put things into perspective. Wiki has a good writeup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...

runarberg 4y ago

These comparisons—except for Chernobyl—are disingenuous. Nuclear weapons testing has been outlawed and has mostly stopped, natural Uranium and—even more so—Potassium don’t release radiation in nearly the same concentration as Fukushima (or Hanford to that extent). Radiation is dangerous when it concentrates.