Fukushima's Radiation Is Contained By a Mile-Long Wall of Ice (cnet.com) 121
CNET reports on the massive ice wall created by an "intricate network of small metal pipes, capped off by six-foot-high metal scaffolding."
It turns out, coolant is running through the pipes, freezing the soil below and creating an impermeable ice wall that's nearly 100 feet deep and a mile long, encircling the reactors. It's like a smaller-scale subterranean version of the Wall in Game of Thrones, but instead of keeping out White Walkers and wights, this line of defense keeps in a far more realistic danger: radioactive contaminants from melted-down reactors that threaten to spill into the water by Fukushima Daiichi....
The structure, which cost roughly $300 million, paid for by public funds, serves as critical protection, defending the Fukushima area from one of the most radioactive hotspots in the world. While Tokyo Electric Power Co., also known as Tepco, struggles to find a way to remove radioactive material from the facility -- a process the government estimates could take more than four decades -- the more immediate concern is what to do with the contaminated water leaking out from the facility. One of the solutions has been to put up (down?) this underground ice wall, which prevents much of the surrounding groundwater from getting in.
The structure, which cost roughly $300 million, paid for by public funds, serves as critical protection, defending the Fukushima area from one of the most radioactive hotspots in the world. While Tokyo Electric Power Co., also known as Tepco, struggles to find a way to remove radioactive material from the facility -- a process the government estimates could take more than four decades -- the more immediate concern is what to do with the contaminated water leaking out from the facility. One of the solutions has been to put up (down?) this underground ice wall, which prevents much of the surrounding groundwater from getting in.
TLDR; version - no (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason they've even bothered with the ice wall is because it's something that improves the situation, and is technically possible to do. Not too many things available that meet those t
Re: (Score:2)
Watertable lowering did help a bit though.
Re:TLDR; version - no (Score:5, Informative)
The "hottest" isotopes are of the LEAST concern at this point -- the ones that remain are still dangerous. The Ice wall is Not even perfectly watertight. The corium will have radioactivity hazardous to humans and the environment for hundreds of years... the water will contact it and become contaminated, and that contamination will spread into the soil and into the oceans and cause massive long-term damage.
Re:TLDR; version - no (Score:5, Informative)
incorrect - it will be diluted at that point to the extent it can be detected but does not cause any permanent damage (except idiots who panic about nothing causing alarm to the rest of the population)
Radio-isotopes bio-accumulate in the environment, they do not dilute. They accumulate in the food chain because radio-isotopes appears as micro-nutrients to metabolisms. For example, plutonium chloride is highly soluble and appears like iron to metabolisms, which would be absorbed into blood, for example. Radio-cesium and strontium also have these characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Plutonium is an alpha radiator, alpha radiation is blocked by a thin sheet of paper, dead skin or a few cm of air. You can hold a chunk of plutonium in your bare hands with no ill effect. The risk is if you ingest or inhale plutonium: it may stay inside you, dumping all of its radioactive energy into your body.
It means that plutonium is not that easy to detect. You may have better luck with cesium and strontium but a cheap sensor probably won't help you unless your food is literally hot with radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, during the meltdown, authorities went all over Japan checking for traces of radiation. They were extremely concerned when their detectors went off in Tokyo. Quite a panic ensued while they pinpointed the source.
Then they discovered a radium watch paint kit under someone's floor boards. It had apparently been there since the '50s.
Re:TLDR; version - no (Score:5, Interesting)
Radio-isotopes bio-accumulate in the environment, they do not dilute.
Either you don't know the meaning of bio-accumulate, the meaning of the word dilute, or the size of the environment.
Just because something can bio-accumulate doesn't mean it isn't also diluted when released into a large environment.
The GP was right, the original assertion that "massive long term damage" is done, used in the same sentence as "soil and ocean" is sensationalist. The only massive long term damage will be in the immediate vicinity of the reactor.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Radio-isotopes bio-accumulate in the environment, they do not dilute.
Either you don't know the meaning of bio-accumulate, the meaning of the word dilute, or the size of the environment.
We literally figured out in the seventies that dilution doesn't work in ocean dumping, because of not only bioaccumulation, but also currents. Like stuff tends to get moved along like paths, where it accumulates even without biological influence. That's how the garbage gyre formed in one place from plastic dumped all over the planet.
Nuclear playboys are afraid of facts (Score:1)
And the fact is that nuclear is a boondoggle.
http://feedthedatamonster.com/... [feedthedatamonster.com]
http://www.pollutionissues.com... [pollutionissues.com]
https://www.quora.com/Is-dilut... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact is that nuclear is a boondoggle.
http://feedthedatamonster.com/... [feedthedatamonster.com]
http://www.pollutionissues.com... [pollutionissues.com]
https://www.quora.com/Is-dilut... [quora.com]
These are interesting links - thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why this modded as troll when the post you are responding to is more trollish.
I think it's a good example that illustrates the point because it is difficult to imagine how radio-isotopes propagate through living things. More than likely it is difficult to accept that radio-isotopes propagate through living things.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why this modded as troll when the post you are responding to is more trollish.
Welcome to Slashdot. I can see three possibilities. First, and most likely, that the nuclear fanboys have modpoints. Second, much less likely, paid nuclear shills are here with modpoints. (Can't be worth it any more, now that Slashdot is not a leader at anything.) Third, likelihood unknown, the owner or the editors are nuclear fanboys. This seems likely to me given some of the stuff I've hit the lameness filter with which wasn't at all spammy, and which was materially similar to some of my other posts, but
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hearing you. It seem less like a place to thrash things out now and more like a place where ideas are corralled into a outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was right, the original assertion that "massive long term damage" is done, used in the same sentence as "soil and ocean" is sensationalist. The only massive long term damage will be in the immediate vicinity of the reactor.
Uptake, absorption and retention are particular to the specific radio-isotope, they all different. Some don't, many toxic ones do. Plutonium Chloride, for example, as an iron analogue is readily absorbed because iron is the beginning of many metabolic processes in the ocean.
Radio-isotopes bio-accumulate in the environment, they do not dilute.
Either you don't know the meaning of bio-accumulate, the meaning of the word dilute, or the size of the environment.
An assumption on your part. Sea grasses and plankton take up a variety of radio-isotopes and then more complex animals eat them.
Just because something can bio-accumulate doesn't mean it isn't also diluted when released into a large environment.
Except that they are opposing things, accumulation and dilution. Living things don't dilute in the ocean u
Re:TLDR; version - no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Also the ocean is LARGE - there's plenty of water there to dilute the few hundred kilograms of dangerous isotopes that have leaked so far.
It doesn't matter that the ocean is LARGE, or even that it's REALLY LARGE. What matters is that currents tend to sweep materials along into concentrated locations, and that bioaccumulation of heavy metals begins at the bottom of the food chain, with algae — which are EXTREMELY NUMEROUS. Dilution DOESN'T WORK.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually "dump it in the bottom of the ocean" was the normal procedure for a long time. 100ft of water is plenty to render just about any material safe. That's exactly how they store spent fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually "dump it in the bottom of the ocean" was the normal procedure for a long time.
Dumping industrial solvents out back of the hangar was the normal procedure on military bases for a long time, now they're superfund sites.
100ft of water is plenty to render just about any material safe. That's exactly how they store spent fuel.
Yeah, in pools, not the ocean. Pools don't have currents.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, in pools, not the ocean. Pools don't have currents.
Neither does the bottom of the ocean. and generally Uranium is pretty heavy. Then again pools have currents especially fuel storage pools.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. and Soviet testing of nuclear weapons have released far more radioactive material into the environment. On purpose.
I'm not claiming it's harmless, but let's keep things in perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, the US and Soviet tests were controlled and purposeful.
The Fukushima event appears to be uncontrolled, at least so far. It's an ongoing, active disaster, much like the Centralia Coal Fire.
We could have stopped the Centralia fire at any time by diverting the Susquehanna, but every year we've waited has made that a more economically and environmentally destructive option.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, those tests weren't all that controlled. More than one ended in fallout landing on civilians. They had no plan at all to contain or clean up after the blasts. In fact, very little cleanup was done. You can still distinguish wine produced before and after the tests based on analysis of isotopes.
Re: (Score:2)
A fair point. I meant they were controlled in the sense that they did what they were designed and intended to do; you're certainly right that there was little containment.
But unless the Fukushima reactors were designed consume more treasure than they ever generated, they are not doing what they were designed to do. They haven't been contained or controlled since the tsunami, and aren't going to be any time soon. They are an ongoing burden on the people who they were supposed to support.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than corruption, there's no reason the Japanese government shouldn't bill TEPCO for the lot of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not terribly dangerous, really. Frankly, if you released a similar amount of mercury into the area, you'd find MUCH greater health issues...and mercury isn't radioactive at all....
Re: (Score:2)
We now have experience with dismantling Chernobyl power plant - build a shelter above the power plant and start to slowly disassemble the building.
Winter is coming! (Score:2)
The Night King will break free some day, and then we'll see spiders big as hounds!
Ice Wall? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan they can build an advanced cryogenic containment system for a reactor disaster for $300 million.
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam. It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
A few trillion??? A containment system would not cost anything, because it would not get built.
I doubt that a containment system could EVER get built in California. If a reactor in California had an accident, the enviro-nut jobs would be in court trying to prevent building a containment system because of the perceived the environmental damage it would do. And since the 9th District Court is so freaking full of libtards they would decide in favor of the enviro-nut jobs. A California environ-libtard-nut j
Re: (Score:2)
a small bug that might be made extinct by the containment system is more important than the radiation pouring out of the damaged reactor. So no...a containment system would not cost a few trillion, It would not get built!
The containment would be built right over the top of the existing building, and there's substantial cleared area around plants, so there would be no danger to the orange-toed salamander, or the purple-dicked owl, or whatever animal of the week surrounded the site. This would be reflected in the EIR, and then the containment structure could be built.
Re: (Score:2)
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam.
The work done at Orville dam was amazing. It was an urgent problem that had to be dealt with, I wouldn't want to be down stream of a dam that large if it burst. They did a big engineering project because it was a clear public safety issue.
It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
It would cost a few billion dollars to reduce the fuel packing density in spent fuel pools around the U.S. Currently that is much denser than it is at Fukushima which has approximately 6000 spent fuel rods on site. This is a clear public safety issue.
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan they can build an advanced cryogenic containment system for a reactor disaster for $300 million.
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam. It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
Where did you get the idea that the ice barrier is "advanced"? This is routine technology, widely used for more than a century. There a major construction companies that specialize in it. It was used in Boston's "Big Dig" for example. It is somewhat interesting that this technology is being used at Fukushima, but nothing surprising or innovative about it.
Yeah major repairs on the tallest dam in the U.S., while is it still full, including improvements to prevent recurrence of a similar event, can be done for
interesting (Score:3, Informative)
so much of the info about Fukushima is clearly tainted by the preferences of those writing.
I've now read, within 2 days, articles about the current cleanup efforts that
a) claim they mostly don't work, the area is still dangerous and it will take decades to complete everything.
b) claim they are a demonstration of 1st world technology keeping things under control, people returning to the area, much of the radiation being cleaned up and the Japanese making impressive progress with robots in the reactor cores as well as completing a total overhaul of all their nuclear reactors to incorporate the lessons learnt from Fukushima.
So what is true? Probably some of both. But which?
Re: (Score:2)
So what is true? Probably some of both. But which?
I think part of the answer to it is in who controls the mineral rights of the two competing energy industries of the world today. Oil and Coal are essentially the Rockefeller's considered to be the wealthiest Americans of all time. Uranium mineral rights are largely held by the English Royal Family and amount to some 35 Trillion dollars.
That kind of influence must compete to manifest its version of reality amongst the populace through media organizations they both control.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get a smoke on that - it must be some strong shit.
If you'd claimed that the Crown Estate - a very different thing to the Royal Family (hawk, spit) held a lot of U mineral rights, then you could make an argument involving Canadian and Australian deposits. But I think you'd struggle to get that argument by a mineral lawyer from either sovreign government, and the UK certainly doesn't have the ar
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get a smoke on that - it must be some strong shit.
If you'd claimed that the Crown Estate - a very different thing to the Royal Family (hawk, spit) held a lot of U mineral rights
Please forgive my error, but how far down the rabbit hole should I dig? I held the information with as much disbelief until I considered it from the perspective Would those families deceive us as to their true wealth? I came to the conclusion that they would.
If I can dig out the documentary that this assertion came from I will however what I was doing was offering some conjecture as to how the true situation is distorted by the financial interests that rule the world.
Re: (Score:3)
The area is not dangerous and never was. While background radiation is now elevated higher than previous levels it is still well below levels that would effect humans at all. unless you go to the reactor itself this is the crisis that never was.
Re: (Score:2)
There are interesting movies by "Deutsche Welle" done by Heidi Grott.
The clean up is a complete disaster/fake. They remove the top 10cm - 20cm of soil around every house in a +10m radius (+10m to the size of the property), pack it in sacks and put it around the area into depressions. Land where no house is, is not cleaned. Basically 10m beyond your property it is still contaminated.
At the moment all the "valleys" around Fukushima are full with plastic sacks. The plan is to cover them with "earth".
You can fi
Re: (Score:2)
Both are true, and both are false depending on who is asking for money.
Re: (Score:1)
The official report is true: https://www.nirs.org/wp-conten... [nirs.org]
The claims that it is going well are just nuclear industry shilling. For example the "impressive" progress with robots amounts to managing to get one close enough to poke at one of the melted down reactors after 8 years.
The clean up has been failing quite badly. The government screwed up by starting before they had anywhere to put the contaminated material, and by not asking people what they actually wanted from the process. The actual cleaning i
Re: (Score:2)
That's the official report from 2012. It's well worth reading, but will not tell you anything about the construction of the "Land-side Impermeable Wall" which was started in 2016.
Fukushima status (Score:4, Interesting)
The short answer: the "ice wall" is helping to reduce water flow, but isn't perfect, and if you want to spin that in a positive way, you can say "look, it's working!", and if you want to go the other way you can say "it's not working!"-- because anything short of perfection is obviously useless.
A better question would be "how well is it working?" but even better would be "how well does it need to work?".
I'm inclined to agree with our anti-nuclear friends that this is all a bunch of theater to reassure people (much like that that other "wall" we've been hearing so much about). It would be nice if they were just reassured by declining levels of leakage, and little evidence of health impacts, but that kind of message gets lost in the weeds of statistical chatter and "activist" shouting.
Fukushimas Ice Wall Not Working [ien.com]:
Martin Fackler at the NYT commented:
From the World Health Organization faq [who.int]:
"Bio-concentration" is essentially not happening: Insignificant Environmental and Public Health Risk from Fukushima in North America 8 Years On [fukushimainform.ca]
Official Fukushima Report (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been eight years since this disaster occurred.
The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [nirs.org] contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in the facts regarding this disaster.
The report is scathing and contains lines such as a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and describes the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.
It is very difficult to believe that the company that got the world into this situation is the one that will get us out of it. Chernobyl's New Safe Confinement [wikipedia.org] took the combined resources of the European Union to fund and was designed by the British.
Re:Official Fukushima Report (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most damning lines is this:
"It is thought that the ground motion from the earthquake was strong enough to cause damage to some key safety features"
Also there is evidence that some of the power loss that was a critical factor in the disaster was not due to the tsunami either:
"This suggests that at least the loss of emergency power supply A at Unit 1 might not have been caused by flooding."
In other words there are serious questions about all the other nuclear plants in Japan and anywhere else that might experience seismic shocks. In fact we have to also question terrorism-proofing measures to defend against things like aircraft hitting the reactors, which cause shocks too.
The report also laments the poor response and clean-up by the government, and how the former residents have been treated.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very difficult to believe that the company that got the world into this situation is the one that will get us out of it.
No it's not. The situation was created through errors and negligence that were supported by a closed and punishment free working environment. The company none the less is full of intelligent experts within their field.
With the eyes of the world looking over them and their local regulators bearing down on them it is perfectly believable that they are among the best placed to get us out of a bad situation, they have more to lose than ever.
Comparing this to Chernobyl is silly. They are very different accidents
Re: (Score:2)
It is very difficult to believe that the company that got the world into this situation is the one that will get us out of it.
No it's not. The situation was created through errors and negligence that were supported by a closed and punishment free working environment. The company none the less is full of intelligent experts within their field.
Yet here we are with four smouldering reactors. It's stupid and naive to trust them to fix this issue.
With the eyes of the world looking over them and their local regulators bearing down on them it is perfectly believable that they are among the best placed to get us out of a bad situation, they have more to lose than ever.
There is one born every minute.
Comparing this to Chernobyl is silly. They are very different accidents, with very different scenarios, with very different systemic causes, overseen by a very different political environment, in a very different time in history.
Fukushima proves that the Nuclear industry learned nothing from the Chernobyl disaster.
What is an underground wall of ice? (Score:2)
It's for razor-sharp technical analysis such as the above that keeps me coming back to slashdot. What's the half-life of the radioactive material until it's rendered safe and will the coolant system last that long?
Re: (Score:2)
will the coolant system last that long?
It will last for as long as it's properly maintained.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's with the socialism remarks all over, do you even know what that word means? Obviously it's just some boogieman word for you, but morons, learn the meaning and use it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism, a collectivist ideology in which the "state" owns the means of production and distributes work and profit as it sees fit.
Communism, same as Socialism except one is not able to own anything. The debates between socialists and communists are like the medieval arguments between Franciscans and Dominican
Re: (Score:3)
It comes from the big takeover of the Republican party starting with Gingrich, who started labeling all Democrats as McGovern democrats, then soon all Democrats were labeled as liberals, and pretty much created the modern day negative campaign style of win-by-any-means.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler was a fascist, which is neither left nor right in outlook, but is a strict authoritarian movement with state control of both the economy and social life, usually a dictatorship and oppression of the opposition. Generally it's considered far right, however I think it doesn't really fit into the traditional left-right model because fascists didn't really express a coherent political ideology beyond an us-versus-them style of thinking. The modern guys on the right are only labeling it socialist as a di
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a fascist, which is neither left nor right in outlook...
Eh, once you start using various dichotomies for social issues, it all gets confusing as it applies in different ways, especially over time. Typically political right is considered authoritarian, left egalitarian. Economic right is considered capitalist and left socialist. Religious is some sort of theology and the left secular. Even those are going to change due to the context and subject of any particular discusion. That's the problem when you come up with an either/or terms to describe everything. Of cou
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in general most voters, not just in America, simplify everything to a simplistic left-vs-right because it's too complicated otherwise. They want to know if the candidate is "the guy I like" or "the guy I hate", and then are the others similar to my guy or not. It's sooo much easier to just believe in US versus THEM, it saves wear and tear on the limp brain cells. Those slightly more advanced will just keep around a list of talking points, used as ammunition against anyone seen who might not be in the
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a fascist, which is neither left nor right in outlook, but is a strict authoritarian movement with state control of both the economy and social life, usually a dictatorship and oppression of the opposition. Generally it's considered far right,
Fascism is considered far right because so far it's been used more or less exclusively to promote far right ideals. However, authoritarianism vs. anarchism is a separate axis from liberal vs. conservative. The third reich was definitely conservative-authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.prageru.com/video/capitalism-vs-socialism/
You're welcome.
Excellent video.. Wish I had mod points for you...
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.prageru.com/video/capitalism-vs-socialism/
You're welcome.
The arguments in that video are incoherent:
Re: (Score:2)
Good analogy since like the US border the radiation at fukushima poses little threat and the "clean up" is mostly political theater that has claimed more lives than the radiation ever will.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if Trump has considered using a wall of ice to keep out the Mexicans. Water is a lot cheaper than concrete/steel so you could build it really tall.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is just referring to the fact that people fear both for no reason because they don't know what it is or how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Fukushima's can be detected around the world but is insignificant. Most of it no longer exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, keep in mind significance is relative. You're just stating how you feel.
For example any ocean contamination of any sort is very significant to oceanographers, ichtyologists and fishery managers (and for more than one reason!).
And the opinions of nuke shills are insignificant when contrasted with the expressed views of the world's population, most of which understands that terrestrial fission plants are an unconscionable military vulnerability as well as economically unsupportable without direct gover
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'm stating how science feels. That includes oceanographers, ichtyologists and fishery managers, as well as nuclear health scientists.
And Nuclear typically comes in cheaper than all other forms of energy even without adding the much lower external costs due to it being one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear typically comes in cheaper than all other forms of energy even without adding the much lower external costs due to it being one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy.
What? This is literally the opposite of reality. Here in the real world, nuclear power projects are being terminated left and right specifically because they are too expensive to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor public opinion due to ignorance and capital costs, not operating costs. Wind and solar are a path of least resistance, but not necessarily cheaper. Nuclear is always cheaper than fossil fuels and usually a bit better than wind and solar at the moment. the only thing that beats it is natural gas because the initial cost is so low and scalable. Nuclear like wind and solar gets more efficient everyday and attracts huge investments.