Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Teh_Diplomat

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

Recommended Posts

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/fukushima-japan-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-water-into-pacific-minister-says

 

Quote

More than a million tonnes of contaminated water lies in storage but power company says it will run out of space by 2022

 

3267.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=forma

 

Quote

The operator of the ruined Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will have to dump huge quantities of contaminated water from the site directly into the Pacific Ocean, Japan’s environment minister has said – a move that would enrage local fishermen.

 

Quote

Currently, more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water is held in almost 1,000 tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi site, but the utility has warned that it will run out of tank space by the summer of 2022.

 

Quote

One recent study by Hiroshi Miyano, who heads a committee studying the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi at the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, said it could take 17 years to discharge the treated water after it has been diluted to reduce radioactive substances to levels that meet the plant’s safety standards.

Quote

The government spent 34.5bn yen (£260m) to build a frozen underground wall to prevent groundwater reaching the three damaged reactor buildings. The wall, however, has succeeded only in reducing the flow of groundwater from about 500 tonnes a day to about 100 tonnes a day.

 

...:grimaceright:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... Fucking transport it somewhere else... Build underground containment somewhere else, do literally anything except dumping it into the ocean.

 

We should nuke these people again. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JONBpc said:

How can this even be allowed ?

Because they were in the middle of a nuclear reactor potentially melting down, and they traded one problem for another.

 

Remember that the country was greatly hindered because they had just dealt with an earthquake that messed up Japan pretty badly.

 

The couldn't have a nuclear meltdown, because if they did, then they lose a portion of land, and there isn't much land in Japan to begin with.

 

And that happened because the expensive nuclear power plant was operated by a private corporation that cut corners, like having small shitty gasoline-powered backup generators that don't work if Japan has a tsunami and a whole bunch of water floods the generators that were sitting at ground level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the solution is to dump it into the ocean? There has to be something else they can do .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JONBpc said:

So the solution is to dump it into the ocean? There has to be something else they can do .

They can do what any other developed country does with nuclear contaminated waste, build an underground containment facility and store it there until it's safe to dispose of. Or if push comes to shove ship it to another country willing to contain it. 

Edited by DynamiteCop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JONBpc said:

So the solution is to dump it into the ocean? There has to be something else they can do .

It's been a giant clusterfuck since the incident; essentially they are continually pouring water onto the damaged reactors, then bottling it up in giants vats, and then argue that they'll simply pour it all back into the ocean gradually over the next two decades... But they're going to have to start that process by 2022...

 

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

They can do what any other developed country does with nuclear contaminated waste, build an underground containment facility and store it there until it's safe to dispose of. Or if push comes to shove ship it to another country willing to contain it. 

I think the issue with that, is that because it's contaminated water - and not solid waste; there's likely a (very high) chance of it running into the groundwater. That would be my speculation.  Since, at least with solid nuclear waste, you can dispose of it in massive coffin of concrete and earth like they have done in Nevada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Teh_Diplomat said:

I think the issue with that, is that because it's contaminated water - and not solid waste; there's likely a (very high) chance of it running into the groundwater. That would be my speculation.  Since, at least with solid nuclear waste, you can dispose of it in massive coffin of concrete and earth like they have done in Nevada.

There has to be a way to store liquid indefinitely, and the ground water excuse can only get you so far because it will eventually saturate from the ocean into the soil and enter the ground water naturally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

There has to be a way to store liquid indefinitely, and the ground water excuse can only get you so far because it will eventually saturate from the ocean into the soil and enter the ground water naturally. 

I assume there must be a way, just nothing that the Japanese government is willing to take; after all, they gotta spend that loot on their upcoming Olympic games... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

There has to be a way to store liquid indefinitely, and the ground water excuse can only get you so far because it will eventually saturate from the ocean into the soil and enter the ground water naturally. 

But they are counting on ocean currents to send that shit off somewhere else in the world.

 

They don't want to dump the water, in any form, inside their own land, because if it doesn't work out exactly as intended, it seeps out right in the middle of their small piece of land, and then they're really fucked.

 

It really is a problem.  Up until now, there's alot of people that have been criticizing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for saying "No" to nuclear power in their proposals. But, going back and looking at what Japan and other countries are going to have to do to take care of the Fukushima mess really helps kill the momentum for pushing for nuclear power in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jehurey said:

But they are counting on ocean currents to send that shit off somewhere else in the world.

 

They don't want to dump the water, in any form, inside their own land, because if it doesn't work out exactly as intended, it seeps out right in the middle of their small piece of land, and then they're really fucked.

 

It really is a problem.  Up until now, there's alot of people that have been criticizing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for saying "No" to nuclear power in their proposals. But, going back and looking at what Japan and other countries are going to have to do to take care of the Fukushima mess really helps kill the momentum for pushing for nuclear power in the US.

Why would anyone say no to nuclear energy? It's clean and quite safe assuming something doesn't go horribly wrong and issues with it are extremely uncommon. Hell, the bulk of our Navy fleet is nuclear powered, how many problems have you heard of regarding ships or subs melting down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Why would anyone say no to nuclear energy? It's clean and quite safe assuming something doesn't go horribly wrong and issues with it are extremely uncommon. Hell, the bulk of our Navy fleet is nuclear powered, how many problems have you heard of regarding ships or subs melting down?

Issues with US ships? None that I know of, Russian's on the other hand...

 

Alos, extremely uncommon is fine if we're talking about a blackout and temporary loss of power, people will & can get by until power is restored; however, if we're talking about the impact of Nuclear meltdowns the stakes are much higher. I mean these incidents we now have to follow, study for decades in order to come to fully understand the fallout and impact of any nuclear crisis.

 

If we were really serious about this kind of technology, why not just build it underground in a relatively safe seismic area, thousands of miles away from any large concentrated populace so that in the event of a meltdown/explosion its impact would be minimal. Well, at that point you're considering the exorbitant costs involved of research, digging, infrastructure, and operational costs: where do these people who work there come from? And now we venture into the realm of unfeasible ventures due to the costs and time involved.

 

And I'd like to bring up the point that this wasn't some 3rd world, or developing nation that just went "Oh my bad, still figuring it out"; this is Japan we're talking about, so yeah we can avoid their particular issue of building a Nuclear power plant on ocean front property, but many times these plants are built nearby water sources specifically for the reason that cooling them down is much less cost intensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Why would anyone say no to nuclear energy? It's clean and quite safe assuming something doesn't go horribly wrong and issues with it are extremely uncommon. Hell, the bulk of our Navy fleet is nuclear powered, how many problems have you heard of regarding ships or subs melting down?

You just said that government-created, government-built, government-operated nuclear reactors in ships do not melt down.

 

Well you can see the difference quite easily. And secondly, naval warfare isn't exactly a common thing, sub aren't getting attacked, rarely are there submarine accients.

 

And lastly, if something does go wrong with the nuclear reactor, the sub serves as its coffin to contain the radiation.

 

The size of a nuclear reactor you would need to power an entire city is going to be a hell of alot bigger than the one needed to power a submarine's propellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Teh_Diplomat said:

Issues with US ships? None that I know of, Russian's on the other hand...

 

Alos, extremely uncommon is fine if we're talking about a blackout and temporary loss of power, people will & can get by until power is restored; however, if we're talking about the impact of Nuclear meltdowns the stakes are much higher. I mean these incidents we now have to follow, study for decades in order to come to fully understand the fallout and impact of any nuclear crisis.

 

If we were really serious about this kind of technology, why not just build it underground in a relatively safe seismic area, thousands of miles away from any large concentrated populace so that in the event of a meltdown/explosion its impact would be minimal. Well, at that point you're considering the exorbitant costs involved of research, digging, infrastructure, and operational costs: where do these people who work there come from? And now we venture into the realm of unfeasible ventures due to the costs and time involved.

 

And I'd like to bring up the point that this wasn't some 3rd world, or developing nation that just went "Oh my bad, still figuring it out"; this is Japan we're talking about, so yeah we can avoid their particular issue of building a Nuclear power plant on ocean front property, but many times these plants are built nearby water sources specifically for the reason that cooling them down is much less cost intensive.

There's only been 29 nuclear involved incidents in 62 years, only 5 of them resulted in any deaths that of which the death tolls were 1-3 people bar Chernobyl, and most had nothing to do with any kind of meltdown or radioactive exposure. 

 

The risk is negligible, it's not even on the map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

There's only been 29 nuclear involved incidents in 62 years, only 5 of them resulted in any deaths that of which the death tolls were 1-3 people bar Chernobyl, and most had nothing to do with any kind of meltdown or radioactive exposure. 

 

The risk is negligible, it's not even on the map. 

:drake: are you using "official figures" to figure out the human cost of these nuclear incidents?

 

The risk is negligible? Tell that to the entire portions of the Ukrainian population that have multiple forms of cancer.

 

Will you eat seafood from the Pacific Northwest if Japan's radiated water gets carried over there by ocean currents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Um... Fucking transport it somewhere else... Build underground containment somewhere else, do literally anything except dumping it into the ocean.

 

We should nuke these people again. 

You are an idiot and also what are you worried about?  The U.S. pollutes the ocean far more than Japan does.  I don't see you throwing a fit about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×