Fukushima

Old Oct 16th 2020, 10:05 am
  #1  
F.orum Ape
Thread Starter
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,300
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default 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
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 4:24 pm
  #2  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Jsmth321's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 24,789
Jsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
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

Probably not the best decision dumping in the ocean.
Jsmth321 is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 4:59 pm
  #3  
Lt (R)
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 49,336
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
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? ....
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.
Pulaski is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:17 pm
  #4  
F.orum Ape
Thread Starter
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,300
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Pulaski View Post
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.
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?
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:28 pm
  #5  
Oscar nominated
 
BristolUK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 34,466
BristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
Why not evaporate it?
Maybe the gas given off destroys Covid-19.
Unlikely saviours have worked in War of the Worlds, Day of the Triffids and a few Star Trek episodes I think.
BristolUK is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:30 pm
  #6  
F.orum Ape
Thread Starter
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,300
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by BristolUK View Post
Maybe the gas given off destroys Covid-19.
Unlikely saviours have worked in War of the Worlds, Day of the Triffids and a few Star Trek episodes I think.
Lol
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:31 pm
  #7  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Jsmth321's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 24,789
Jsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond reputeJsmth321 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
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?
Suppose evaporation might take longer, but seems like it would be the best choice.
Jsmth321 is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:40 pm
  #8  
F.orum Ape
Thread Starter
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,300
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Jsmth321 View Post
Suppose evaporation might take longer, but seems like it would be the best choice.
I have no idea. There is more atmosphere than ocean though, and if it's supposedly "safe to humans" why not?
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:45 pm
  #9  
Lt (R)
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 49,336
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
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?
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.
Pulaski is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:56 pm
  #10  
F.orum Ape
Thread Starter
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,300
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Pulaski View Post
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.
The "vastly" argument is only valid if the water is as benign as they say. It's that base assumption of which I'm sceptical. If the half life is 12.5 years, why not store it for 25 years and then use it in the domestic water supply? As for the fishermen, it's more likely the industry rather than Yoshi Fisherman that is calling the plan into question.
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 9:59 pm
  #11  
Lt (R)
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 49,336
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
I have no idea. There is more atmosphere than ocean though, and if it's supposedly "safe to humans" why not?
[1] It won't evapourate as fast as regular water because it is heavier
[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

Pulaski is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 10:08 pm
  #12  
Lt (R)
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 49,336
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by Shard View Post
The "vastly" argument is only valid if the water is as benign as they say. It's that base assumption of which I'm sceptical. If the half life is 12.5 years, why not store it for 25 years and then use it in the domestic water supply? .....
Arrghhh! You really do know nothing about radioactivity.

"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.
Pulaski is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 10:35 pm
  #13  
limey party pooper
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,333
bats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...n/#29295ccdb29

give this a read then you'll be reassured
bats is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2020, 11:11 pm
  #14  
Lt (R)
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 49,336
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Fukushima

Originally Posted by bats View Post
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...n/#29295ccdb29

give this a read then you'll be reassured
What a great article, there's some really fascinating information in there, and not just about tritium. ..... And I see it confirms my post above that the fishermen are worried about the publicity, not the actual consequences of the release of the water.

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!
Pulaski is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2020, 4:28 am
  #15  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Boiler's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 33,464
Boiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond reputeBoiler has a reputation beyond repute
Default 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.
What would you like done about this?
Boiler is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.