Japan Poised to Approve Release of Fukushima Nuclear Plant Water Into the Ocean (japantoday.com) 99
New submitter evaverdeazul shared this report from Japan Today:
The Japanese government is poised to release treated radioactive water accumulated at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea despite opposition from fishermen, sources familiar with the matter said Friday. It will hold a meeting of related ministers as early as Tuesday to formally decide on the plan, a major development following over seven years of discussions on how to discharge the water used to cool down melted fuel at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The treated water containing radioactive tritium, a byproduct of nuclear reactors, is said to pose little risk to human health because even if one drinks the water, so long as the tritium concentration is low, the amounts of tritium would not accumulate in the body and would soon be excreted. There is also no risk of external exposure even if the water comes in contact with skin. Still, concerns remain among Japan's fisheries industry and consumers as well as neighboring countries such as South Korea and China.
The government has said it cannot continue postponing a decision on the disposal issue, given that the storage capacity of water tanks at the Fukushima complex is expected to run out as early as fall next year. It asserts that space needs to be secured on the premises, such as for keeping melted fuel debris that will be extracted from the damaged reactors, to move forward with the decades-long process of scrapping the complex.
Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc (TEPCO) says it will take around two years for the discharge to start.
The treated water containing radioactive tritium, a byproduct of nuclear reactors, is said to pose little risk to human health because even if one drinks the water, so long as the tritium concentration is low, the amounts of tritium would not accumulate in the body and would soon be excreted. There is also no risk of external exposure even if the water comes in contact with skin. Still, concerns remain among Japan's fisheries industry and consumers as well as neighboring countries such as South Korea and China.
The government has said it cannot continue postponing a decision on the disposal issue, given that the storage capacity of water tanks at the Fukushima complex is expected to run out as early as fall next year. It asserts that space needs to be secured on the premises, such as for keeping melted fuel debris that will be extracted from the damaged reactors, to move forward with the decades-long process of scrapping the complex.
Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc (TEPCO) says it will take around two years for the discharge to start.
History shows again and again (Score:5, Funny)
How nature points up the folly of man
Godzilla!
Re:History shows again and again (Score:4, Informative)
I love the Blue Öyster Cult [youtube.com] reference.... but in fact, diluting the waste in a quadrillion gallons of seawater is going to be pretty low risk.
Another source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/n... [japantimes.co.jp]
More tritium in house (Score:3)
There is some milligrams or micrograms of tritium in those millions of gallons of water. Some people probably have more tritium in their house, in consumer products they own. This is a ridiculous non-issue where indeed the only thing we have to fear it fear itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. Close to 100,000,000,000 neutrinos are passing through people as they read these word. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that the contaminated water also contains fear?!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad to see that a Godzilla joke/reference was the first post of this thread.
It's even modded 20% Insightful, too!
Yes. (Score:1)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Not much. Tritium is not particularly dangerous.
Tritium is a low-energy beta emitter with a half-life of about 12 years. It does not bioaccumulate.
Tritium forms naturally from cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere. It has a concentration of about 1e-18 in rainwater. The planned release will not make a significant difference.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot more [sciencedaily.com] involved and environmental interaction is a real concern.
Excerpt: " Isotopes that remain in the treated wastewater include carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium-90. These and the other isotopes that remain, which were only revealed in 2018, all take much longer to decay and have much greater affinities for seafloor sediments and marine organisms like fish, which means they could be potentially hazardous to humans and the environment for much longer and in more complex ways than tritium."
Also note: ""The current focus on tritium in the wastewater holding tanks ignores the presence other radioactive isotopes in the wastewater," said Buesseler. "It's a hard problem, but it's solvable. The first step is to clean up those additional radioactive contaminants that remain in the tanks, and then make plans based on what remains. Any option that involves ocean releases would need independent groups keeping track of all of the potential contaminants in seawater, the seafloor, and marine life. The health of the ocean -- and the livelihoods of countless people -- rely on this being done right."
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is that nobody will listen. Tepco don't want to pay out any more, nobody knows what else to do with the water, and nuke fans are in denial.
It will get dumped and consumer confidence will be hit again, after they spent a decade trying to build it up again.
Re: (Score:1)
The real problem is that nobody will listen.
No one will listen, OR bother to understand, or even care.
Which is why they should have just dumped it already.
This is Japan we are talking about. Everyone complaining will simply go out over the weekend, eat a fish during a meal, and consume a good fifty times this amount of beta emitters from natural sources.
Next it rains, a thousand times this amount of tritium will literally pour down around them from the sky.
Just as it does over the rest of the planet.
Even if you told people this, they wouldn't care,
Re: (Score:2)
No one will listen, OR bother to understand
Yeah, you didn't bother to understand there is more than just tritium in the sludge (it's not "water" anymore).
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, Co-60 and St-90? THat is a bit concerning.
Assuming that the mass is low of this, not a big deal, but again, I say, the tritium is valuable and really should be processed. THis water should have a fairly high quantity of H3, and that is
Re: (Score:2)
C-14 is NOT a big deal.
B-b-b-but in that Sting song, he said was deadly for ten thousand years! (In reality it's barely even usable as a biological age marker for much longer than about 30Ky.)
And the tritium concentration is probably low enough that it's not worth "processing", that's now non-dangerous it is. Sorting out heavy water is a lot of work. What is it even that useful for? If you don't use it right away, in a few years much of it it will have decayed anyhow.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
Isotopes that remain in the treated wastewater include carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium-90.
None of them are in any serious quantity. In fact, they can just dilute the water by 3x and it will be legally OK to be discharged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yes. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blancpain and Rolex both used tritium in the 1960s as a non radioactive or less radioactive replacement for radium. And it did glow. For twenty or thirty years.
Tritium is also commonly used for night sights on firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium is also commonly used for night sights on firearms.
Because it glows ;^)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the obvious thing that could go wrong is that the wastewater turns out not to be exactly what was promised.
The *idea* is reasonable enough: remove the stuff that's dangerous but easy to remove and which could potentially bioaccumulate -- the radioactive strontium and cobalt. Don't bother with the tritium because you can dilute it and bioaccumulation won't undo your work. Removing it, even if possible, adds cost and no real benefit.
But to execute that idea safely, you need to have an organization that
I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:1)
when I see the CEO of TEPCO take a bath in the stored water.
Re:I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:5, Insightful)
when I see the CEO of TEPCO take a bath in the stored water.
And I'll believe you think global warming is a real problem when you stop fear mongering about nuclear power.
Re:I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:4, Interesting)
And I'll believe you think global warming is a real problem when you stop fear mongering about nuclear power.
Opposition to natural gas pipelines is also evidence of not taking catastrophic antropogenic global warming seriously.
Natural gas is bad but coal and petroleum is worse. I'm seeing evidence that natural gas is possibly better for the environment than solar PV and biomass fuel. Because I expect people to not understand my statement I will repeat an important point...
NATURAL GAS IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
Have I made that point clear? Now, if we are to lower our impact on the environment then we need to deploy energy sources that have less negative impacts on the environment than natural gas. Energy sources that are safe, affordable, plentiful, and I believe inevitable. Those would be onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear fission. People advocating for solar PV and biomass fuels are not taking CAGW seriously. They are advocating for energy sources far more expensive, dangerous, and damaging to the environment than nuclear fission.
Solar power makes sense off the grid, like with pocket calculators and communications satellites. Biomass fuel can make sense in narrow cases as well, such as burning wood scrap and sawdust. In actuality the majority of biomass comes from entire trees being chopped to bits and tossed in a firebox with old tires and low grade coal. Wood alone would not burn hot enough for the boilers but it makes good fuel to dilute the sulfur and mercury numbers from the smokestacks, and get "green energy" credits.
Good job you environmental ignoramuses, you came up with energy sources worse for the environment than a fossil fuel. Solar power and biomass fuel subsidies are driving nuclear power plants into early retirement. This means the EPA and DOE are making burning coal profitable again. If there's no natural gas pipeline then utilities will put brown coal and entire trees on a train for fuel. They call this "wood chips" but this is only true because the trees are chopped up into chips before being shoveled into a firebox.
People serious about CAGW would educate themselves on the unintended consequences of their policies and fix them. Utilities are being paid to chop down forests, use that wood as an excuse to burn brown coal, then where there were trees and green grass there's solar PV panels. Yep, that's better than those terrible nuclear fission reactors. Let's keep "saving the environment" until all the trees are gone.
Re:I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:5, Informative)
when I see the CEO of TEPCO take a bath in the stored water.
Tritium emits beta particles (electrons) at 19 keV. They will travel about 0.01 mm in bathwater and won't penetrate the outer layer of dead skin.
I wouldn't drink the tritiated water, but a bath would be no problem.
The Solution... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention that, after being dumped into the ocean, the concentrations will be reduced by several orders of magnitude over the course of a few days. The ocean is really, really big. In the grand scheme of things, a few hundred million gallons of processed water isn't a whole lot.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this logic is that it is a fallacy. For the waste water is becoming more and more and more. Instead of treating it, they just release it and the next it will be released again, and again. THIS is the problem...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of treating it, they just release it
They did treat it. The water they plan to release is treated water. Most contaminants have been filtered out.
But there is no plausible way to remove tritium from water since tritium (HTO) IS water.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no plausible way to remove tritium from water since tritium (HTO) IS water.
You could use a hydrolysis and an Isotope Separation System? You are right though, I am not sure anyone has actually built one on that scale. It is a shame really, all this dumping in the ocean seems like a waste of good tritium to me.
Useful (Score:2)
This will be useful for scientists. They've dumped tritium in the ocean to trace currents. It's a great solution as, after a few years, it just decays into water, and it's relatively easy to detect very minute amounts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium-90 isn't a problem either right?
Re: (Score:3)
C14 and Sr90 are no problem unless you ingest them. Like H3, they decay by beta emission, which will penetrate less than a mm of bathwater.
Co60 is a high-energy gamma emitter and it bioaccumulates (Vitamin B12 contains cobalt). It is nasty stuff. But the danger depends on the concentration. Cobalt does not readily dissolve in water, so I doubt there is much in the wastewater. So I'll take a waterproof Geiger Counter with me into the tub.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon-14 and tritium are naturally occurring isotopes, whatever they add to the ocean will not be detectable. So, not a problem.
Cobalt-60 has a half life of about 5 years and strontium-90 about 30 years. That's a long time but the levels they add are already trace levels in the water before they dispose of it, after being dumped in the ocean the harm it could do will be undetectable. If this was done routinely then I can see a problem. Since this is an unusual event that is unlikely to be repeated then
Re: I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Great - so if he was to take a bath it would, hopefully, alleviate many people's concerns. Which is why I suggested it.
Re: (Score:2)
Great - so if he was to take a bath it would, hopefully, alleviate many people's concerns. Which is why I suggested it.
It won't. The Japanese don't have the same irrational fear of everything nuclear that westerners do. The Japanese issue is fearmongering in western markets will hurt Japanese fishing exports. This wouldn't help with that. Its a PR stunt targeted at environmentalists that wouldn't change their mind anyway. See about 1/3 of the comments on this thread for examples of that fear mongering. I expect to see Simpson references on trash sites but /. is supposed to be better than that and yet there will still
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't believe you.
I'll see plenty of environmental ignoramuses claim that if something happens then they will change their minds or take some action, but they don't change their minds or their behavior.
If you were being honest about the problems of nuclear power then you'd be honest about the problems of the alternatives. We will be getting more nuclear fission power plants because of people like Kyle Hill making YouTube videos about how much better nuclear fission power is than any alternatives. Videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There's your evidence that nuclear power is safe. This is just one example of many on how people are using logic, science, and real world data to conclude that we need more nuclear fission power. You demonstrated that you cannot be convinced of nuclear power safety by making your demand in the year 2021. Decades of real world evidence shows us just how safe nuclear power can be. If you haven't been convinced yet then I expect no evidence will convince you.
If nuclear fission power concerns you then you need to come up with something that is safer while also being affordable, plentiful, reliable, and has low impact on the environment. Kyle Hill did his homework on this and presented the evidence for people to see. He and people like him have been producing videos, podcasts, print articles, and so on showing how nuclear power is safe for decades. Your demands for evidence on the safety of nuclear power is showing your willful ignorance. This disposal of tritium into the sea has been debated for years and the evidence is in on this being safe.
Safety in anything is relative. Nuclear power is not safe because nothing is truly safe. We make these decisions on relative safety all the time. Given our options the safest one is nuclear fission. We've seen people's lives cut needlessly short because of opposition to nuclear fission power. The longer we delay this inevitable shift to nuclear fission power the more people will die needlessly.
Your demands for greater safety is getting people killed.
Re:I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientific journals have very little influence on popular culture, 15 minute "edutainment" videos from "autistic idiots" on YouTube do. YouTube is a reflection of popular culture as much as it is an influence upon it.
Videos on nuclear power being popular shows the general public have an interest in this. Videos in support being more popular than those in opposition shows that there is public support.
If you want to spread opposition to nuclear fission power then a 15 minute video that is as entertaining as it is educational will get far more eyeballs than a "real" scientific paper.
The opposition to nuclear power is losing support. That's because "autistic idiots" like Kyle Hill can bring evidence in support of nuclear power, and do so in a way that is easily digested by the general public. If nuclear fission power opponents want this same kind of influence then they need to bring evidence to the public that is convincing as much as it is entertaining.
What is the argument against nuclear power anyway? Kyle Hill made a good argument supporting nuclear fission power. Can anyone link to a 15 minute video that brings numbers to show why nuclear fission power is a bad idea?
What I usually see from solar power proponents is how solar power compares to coal and natural gas. That's not really the question any more today, is it? I'm not really seeing a lot of support for the status quo. That's assuming that they compare nuclear power to anything. They'll talk about all the waste that is produced, the money that is spent, and so on. They do this with no comparison to show how anything else is any better. That might work for a while but at some point people will ask how nuclear power compares.
What we see from proponents for nuclear fission power is a comparison of nuclear power to not just coal and natural gas but also wind and solar. Where's the solar power advocates talking about how solar power is better than nuclear fission? For a half century the solar power advocates didn't have to answer those questions because there was a general public opposition to nuclear fission power. That's disappearing. With the opposition to nuclear power fading then what does that mean for solar power?
Opposing nuclear power requires offering an alternative that is superior. That includes providing evidence on how the alternative is superior. You brought no evidence. All you brought is an insulting comment. Insults are not an argument. Claiming that evidence exists to support alternatives to nuclear fission power is not evidence. We will be getting more nuclear fission power in the USA, and around the world, because the opposition to nuclear fission power has only insults.
Re: (Score:2)
You shill.
Right back at you.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas nuclear fission is still, at best case scenario, 10 years from commercialization.
I think you have confused fission and fusion. Fusion is the one 10 years or so from commercialisation - fission is the one in active commercial use all round the world - and formerly at Fukushima.
Re: (Score:2)
What I usually see from solar power proponents is how solar power compares to coal and natural gas. That's not really the question any more today, is it?
Not really. It's comparing apples to orangutans. Coal and natural gas work anywhere and anytime and are well-suited for providing the base load (though fission may be even better if not for generalized idiocy). Solar is great when and where there's sufficient sun, but, barring further improvements in energy storage technologies, it can't compete with m
Re: I'll believe that it is safe ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one problem I see with nuclear fission.
And that's that people occasionally do idiotic things, and cause accidents.
But the same is true of all other energy sources, as well as those who try to first make, and then enforce, decisions around which ones should be "winners" and "losers."
I suspect that absent purely idiotic considerations, most likely, the older generations of nuke plants would be retired, and then replaced with better, safer, and (for the most part) bigger ones.
Then, we would have a
Re: (Score:2)
Have they got the decommissioning part sorted out?
Re: (Score:2)
when I see the CEO of TEPCO take a bath in the stored water.
Perhaps he could [xkcd.com] with some safety.
i wont be eating anymore seafood (Score:1)
Re:i wont be eating anymore seafood (Score:4, Informative)
THis is TRITIUM, not Plutonium. THe ocean is LOADED with it. Japan can not manufacture and dump enough to even raise it, if they spread it out.
THe only issue should be about dumping something valuable that can actually be reprocessed.
Re: i wont be eating anymore seafood (Score:1)
Re: i wont be eating anymore seafood (Score:2)
Blinky likes this (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Blinky likes this (Score:1)
They could let it evaporate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Why not boil it? (Score:1)
Darn. (Score:2)
I guess I'll just have to eat one or two fewer bananas [xkcd.com] this year.
reprocess it (Score:2)
I am not opposed to the spreading of this in the ocean. After all, the ocean already has this. BUT, if this water has concentrated tritium, and we have reprocessing plants that are capable of extracting it, it is insane to speak of going to the moon to mine tritium when we have so much just sitting there.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It is not valuable. If it were they would not dump it. They _have_ considered this alternative. Seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think it's not valuable? Have you ever priced how much it costs? It's probably the most expensive item per gram in the world at about $30,000 / gram. It can cost the USA $100,000 to $200,000 / gram to produce it.
https://fire.pppl.gov/fesac_dp... [pppl.gov] (page 7)
Re: reprocess it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is in solution in water. The cost of extracting it is _higher_ than what it is worth. Hence no, it is not valuable. It has negative worth in its present state. Some minimal understanding of reality required.
Re: (Score:2)
So, this would NOT be bad to process.
Re: (Score:3)
You really think that if filtering the tritium from all this water could be done const neutral or even profitably? Talk about no contact to reality.
Seriously, do you really think your amateur-level can compete with what one of the most advanced industrial nations on earth has considered as options? Here is a hint: It cannot. Just stop. You do not have what it takes to contribute anything here. This water has _already_ gone through the best filtering available.
Re: reprocess it (Score:2)
Re: reprocess it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? Barrels? This is about the _tanks_. You have no clue and you are confused...
Re: (Score:2)
Q5 (Is it possible to store or discharge treated water outside of Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS)):
A: Decommissioning of FDNPS is essential for reconstruction of Fukushima. Every day, decommissioning measures are taken to reduce risks on the site, while preventing increase in risks at the surrounding areas. Both to transfer the treated water to outside the site and to store the treated water in tanks outside the site are the activities which will increase risks outside the site. In addition, it is necessary to obtain understanding from related local governments and local residents, which takes a considerable amount of time. Regarding offshore release, to carry the treated water and discharge it from the marine vessel is prohibited by international treaty (London Convention).
They do not move tanks. Instead, they are concerned about transferring to barrels, then transferring to offsite.
Gads.
Elementary question. Mine it? (Score:2)
Is there an economical way to concentrate the tritium-containing water molecules?
They're an exception to the rule that isotope changes don't change chemistry. Deuterated water is a slightly different shape and acts differently biologically. It could of course be sorted on the mass difference but every way I know of doing that is slow or energy intensive.
Once that's done, the tritium could be sold, or the tanks could just be left to bubble the decay product Helium 3, which I seem to remember there was a shor
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not stupid, but asking it now is. What do you think the alternatives considered were?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an economical way to concentrate the tritium-containing water molecules?
Ask Canada. They do it. Economical or not (part of the benefit of recovering it is environmental) the tritium they recover is worth $30,000 per gram.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no environmental benefit from filtering tritium from water. It does not bioaccumulate and it has a short enough half-life.
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium is not recovered from water.
Yes, it is. See https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00326809.pdf [fas.org], page 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an economical way to concentrate the tritium-containing water molecules?
You can't separate it by filtering, so you have to do full isotope separation routine. And it's way too expensive to do for millions of tons of water.
Don't waste this valuable asset (Score:1)
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, are you going to pay to build a pipeline to one? Second, do you prefer the radioactive elements boil off into the atmosphere -- into a cloud which can then affect nearby villages?
Re: (Score:2)
Just dig a new volcano.
Who should we cancel and what should we boycott? (Score:2)
Please don't make me read all the comments, just tell me!
Seawater is already radioactive (Score:3)
Tritium is a low-energy beta emitter. You can buy it sealed in small glass vails [amazon.com] as a novelty (it glows in the dark for over a decade). The radioactivity is so low-energy that the thin glass is sufficient to block it. From what I've read, the radioactivity from tritium in the water being collected at Fukushima is about 20 Bq/L (1 Bq = 1 radioactive decay per second). The natural radioactivity of seawater is about 12 Bq/L [lbl.gov]. So if they slowly release the collected water so one liter mixes with 1 m^3 of seawater or more, the increase above natural radioactivity will be negligible.
Radioactive cesium, strontium, and iodine are a higher concern because they get incorporated into our body via biological activity. So they almost never pass out of our bodies. But our bodies just use water as a solvent, and it gets cycled out (as opposed to plants which pull it apart and incorporate the hydrogen into cellulose) If you're worried about the radioactivity in this release, you should already be staying out of the ocean entirely because of natural radioactivity. Also get rid of any bricks and granite countertops, don't fly, don't go into sunlight, and don't sleep next to your spouse. They're radioactive as well [xkcd.com] and will give you a higher dose over a year than going swimming in the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a problem (Score:2)
I did some calculations about dumping the Tritium at Fukushima into the ocean. There are 760 TBq of Tritium in the the Fukushima water. That is 20540 Ci (760e12/3.7e10). The EPA limit for drinking water is 20000 picoCuries/liter, or 2.0e-8 Ci/liter, so if you dilute the tritium in bit more than 1 trillion liters of water the water would be safe to drink (so far as tritium is concerned: 20540/2.0e-8). There are a trillion liters in a cubic kilometer, so even if you dumped all the water in at once as soon