8 ms·
As they say in the article, tritium is usually not considered a health hazard, but organizations are starting to question that standpoint. It would, as they als
by joshuapants 11y ago
As they say in the article, tritium is usually not considered a health hazard, but organizations are starting to question that standpoint. It would, as they also say in the article, be politically unpopular to do so regardless of what the actual effects are.
- tptacek 11y agoWell, there's two questions, right? The first is how harmful tritiated water is to begin with. It's a low-energy beta emitter and, because it mixes quickly and permanently with water, it's eliminated quickly as well. You wouldn't want to go out of your way to drink it, though. The second question is, what is the environmental impact of dumping it in the ocean? No matter how dangerous it is, the ocean is gigantic. So you want to know: are there environmental processes that concentrate or amplify it? Later: I had to leave before writing this last part. Obviously, all things being equal, you'd rather TEPCO keep spending money to keep this stuff out of the ocean. But are all things equal? Is it riskier to try to contain it?
- ceejayoz 11y ago> The second question is, what is the environmental impact of dumping it in the ocean? This is the wrong question. The relevant question is "what is the political impact of dumping it in the ocean?" and the answer is "devastating". No matter how scientifically sound the solution, "dump it all in the ocean" simply can't happen.
- elithrar 11y ago> No matter how scientifically sound the solution, "dump it all in the ocean" simply can't happen. Headline: "State Government to dump contaminated water from nuclear plant in ocean" Quote: "There may potentially be a risk to flora & fauna, but we don't know for sure." That's all it takes to make the idea political suicide. I think that's obvious from a mile away, even if many of us here agree that diluting it in the ocean is likely to be environmentally and fiscally sound.
- rogeryu 11y agoIt could happen, if this had worldwide scientific consensus (Japan, China, Australia, US, Europe and Russia), and if agreed on in the UN. And if you dump this all at once in the same place, you're stupid. It could be dumped over the course of years in different places, while monitoring radiation levels in water and fish.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> It could happen, if this had worldwide scientific consensus (Japan, China, Australia, US, Europe and Russia), and if agreed on in the UN. Since we're allowing impossible situations, it could also happen if we had a magic wand.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago> No matter how dangerous it is, the ocean is gigantic. That's kind of a dangerous precedent to set. If we can dump radioactive water into it, why not oil?
- analog31 11y ago... or carbon dioxide.
- tdy721 11y agoTritiated water isn't poisonous, and mixes with water (Because it is water). The environmental effects really aren't comparable.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoOcean dumping is illegal. It was quite popular for a while. (And - debatably - still is in some parts of the world.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_w...
- mapt 11y agoNormal ocean water has potassium and rubidium radionuclides that run to 11Bq/L. At the higher level of 5MBq/L, they would need to dilute it into 3000km^3 of seawater in order to reach double background radiation levels, or a patch of the 6km deep Pacific abyssal plain that is 22km x 22km.