4 ms·
Time to build a million year wall around this plant, deep enough to protect the aquifer and big enough to keep it from the ocean and the ocean from it.
by Shivetya 13y ago
Time to build a million year wall around this plant, deep enough to protect the aquifer and big enough to keep it from the ocean and the ocean from it.
- Turing_Machine 13y agoNo, more like "time to learn how to do arithmetic", such as how little something like Fukushima amounts to when diluted in a volume the size of the Pacific Ocean. The Soviets used to dump scrap ship reactors into the Arctic Ocean whole. Many of them, and over a long period of time.
- null_ptr 13y agoIt all adds up, and over a long period of time.
- Turing_Machine 13y agoNot really. The ocean already has 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium in it. That's the equivalent of 45 MILLION reactors. And of course the Fukushima reactor wasn't dumped in the ocean whole to begin with.
- Turing_Machine 13y agoLet's actually do the arithmetic here. I don't have an exact number for this reactor, but several sources indicate that nuclear reactors have something of the order of 100 tonnes of uranium in them (there are also fission products, of course, but those are in much smaller quantities). The oceans have about 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium in them from natural sources. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-the-sea http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-th... It should be clear that even if you ground up the entire Fukushima reactor into a fine powder and dumped it straight into the ocean, it wouldn't make the slightest difference. Can a reactor disaster pollute the local region, including ground water? Certainly. Can a reactor disaster make a significant difference in something the volume of the Pacific Ocean? No, it's sheer nonsense.