Fukushima
#1
Fukushima
Maybe this story is coming too soon after I have just watched Chernobyl (Netflix, very good!) but WTF Japan ??!! They are planning to release radioactive water into the Pacific? This can't be right. Where's Greta ?! Storing it on land is obviously expensive, but surely there is a moral case against releasing this water into the world's ocean?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-into-the-sea
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-into-the-sea
#2
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Fukushima
Maybe this story is coming too soon after I have just watched Chernobyl (Netflix, very good!) but WTF Japan ??!! They are planning to release radioactive water into the Pacific? This can't be right. Where's Greta ?! Storing it on land is obviously expensive, but surely there is a moral case against releasing this water into the world's ocean?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-into-the-sea
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-into-the-sea
Probably not the best decision dumping in the ocean.
#3
Re: Fukushima
Maybe this story is coming too soon after I have just watched Chernobyl (Netflix, very good!) but WTF Japan ??!! They are planning to release radioactive water into the Pacific? This can't be right. Where's Greta ?! Storing it on land is obviously expensive, but surely there is a moral case against releasing this water into the world's ocean? ....
The "radioactive water" is tritiated water - water with tritium atoms - an isotope of hydrogen instead of hydrogen. Tritium is already naturally occuring in water, and tritiated water is used as a tracer for water transport studies in life-science research and is relatively harmless (otherwise it would kill what you're studying). The half-life of tritium is only 12.3 years, so it will decay over a relatively short time anyway; and what it decays into is pure water - unlike water contaminated with say uranium, which has a very long half life and decays into lead.
#4
Re: Fukushima
I am not sure if you didn't read the article, or didn't understand it, or maybe you just see "radioactive" and think "oooh, that must be bad".
The "radioactive water" is tritiated water - water with tritium atoms - an isotope of hydrogen instead of hydrogen. Tritium is already naturally occuring in water, and tritiated water is used as a tracer for water transport studies in life-science research and is relatively harmless (otherwise it would kill what you're studying). The half-life of tritium is only 12.3 years, so it will decay over a relatively short time anyway; and what it decays into is pure water - unlike water contaminated with say uranium, which has a very long half life and decays into lead.
The "radioactive water" is tritiated water - water with tritium atoms - an isotope of hydrogen instead of hydrogen. Tritium is already naturally occuring in water, and tritiated water is used as a tracer for water transport studies in life-science research and is relatively harmless (otherwise it would kill what you're studying). The half-life of tritium is only 12.3 years, so it will decay over a relatively short time anyway; and what it decays into is pure water - unlike water contaminated with say uranium, which has a very long half life and decays into lead.
#7
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Fukushima
I did read the article, and admittedly am no expert on radio isotopes. The fact that the fishing industry is dead against it, and that the supposedly harmless water requires disposal over 40 years leads me to believe the whole project is not as benign as suggested. Why not evaporate it?
#9
Re: Fukushima
I did read the article, and admittedly am no expert on radio isotopes. The fact that the fishing industry is dead against it, and that the supposedly harmless water requires disposal over 40 years leads me to believe the whole project is not as benign as suggested. Why not evaporate it?
All that said, if they're dumping it into the harbour then I would agree that is a bad idea, but if they're dispating it 100 miles off shore then it really isn't going to be an issue as the volume of the Pacific ocean is vastly greater than the already diluted tritiated water.
#10
Re: Fukushima
As I think I have seen you post before, "beliefs" are not a good basis for rational decision making. AFAICT, the fishing industry is against it because of the publicity angle. I sincely doubt that any of the actual fishermen have any suitable education to object on any grounds other than "beliefs" and "negative publicity".
All that said, if they're dumping it into the harbour then I would agree that is a bad idea, but if they're dispating it 100 miles off shore then it really isn't going to be an issue as the volume of the Pacific ocean is vastly greater than the already diluted tritiated water.
All that said, if they're dumping it into the harbour then I would agree that is a bad idea, but if they're dispating it 100 miles off shore then it really isn't going to be an issue as the volume of the Pacific ocean is vastly greater than the already diluted tritiated water.
#11
Re: Fukushima
[2] while the volume of the atmosphere is greater than the volume of the ocean, the ocean is almost entirely water, whereas the atmosphere is very considerably less dense, and only contains a tiny amount of water vapour - even saturated air at 30ºC only holds about 28g /m^3 of water and at 10ºC it's only about 8g/m^3. Sea water is about 1,027 Kg/m^3, whereas air is only about 1.2kg/m^3
#12
Re: Fukushima
"Half life" means that half of whatever you have today will decay during the half life period. The same is true at the end of the (first) half life period - half what you have at that time will decay during the following half life. Therefore if the half life is 12½ years then after 25 years a quarter of the tritium will remain; after 37½ years an eighth will remain; after 50 years a sixteenth will remain, etc.
And the article says they are running out of space to store it, that's why some will be dumped. But to your point, the water has already been stored for as much as 9 years, and will the planned dumping schedule, a lot of the tritium has already decayed anyway.
#14
Re: Fukushima
One of the interesting things mentioned, that is only incidental to the Fukushima story, is that the public at large is generally oblivious to the amount of natural "background" radiation around us. While radioactive leaks can be catastrophic, we are already living in world that is naturally radiactive, and that some sources of man made radiation are negligible compared to the back ground radiation.
Many years ago a colleague of mine recounted a study that a friend of his had to done at university to measure radiation from nuclear reactors in the UK - literally walking up to the fence and pointing a geiger counter at the powerstation to see what he could detect. The answer was "nothing above the natural background radiation levels". As a control for the experiment he visited coal fired powerstations, of which there were plenty in the UK at the time, and found a significant increase in measured radiation levels over the background level - because of the amount of uranium that occurs naturally in coal!
#15
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Fukushima
The maximum average annual tritium levels, as measured in the municipal drinking water of Canadian communities neighbouring nuclear facilities, are about 18 Bq/l.