Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

So oil tankers can apparently carry some 300000 tons. Three or four oil tankers full would then be enough storage space for the onsite water. Couldn't we fill some tankers and have them release the water far away from any fishing grounds?

Re: Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

#5

Post by VBprogrammer » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #4

So oil tankers can apparently carry some 300000 tons. Three or four oil tankers full would then be enough storage space for the onsite water. Couldn't we fill some tankers and have them release the water far away from any fishing grounds?

I wondered that myself. I think the problem is that they first need to dilute it considerably before releasing it. If they do that before loading it onto the ship it might take too many journeys to empty the tanks. If they do it onboard the ship the you've got a ship full of radioactive water sailing about. I'm not sure how hazardous the water is but you might struggle to find people willing to sail on it.

Re: Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

#6

Post by gnode » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:06 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #4

So oil tankers can apparently carry some 300000 tons. Three or four oil tankers full would then be enough storage space for the onsite water. Couldn't we fill some tankers and have them release the water far away from any fishing grounds?

This was my thought also, although it may not be trivial to just hire an oil tanker to transport radioactive water. Before dilution, there may be a significant risk of contamination to the vessel and crew. You'd probably need a special vessel, specifically designed to handle radioactive fluids. Even if an oil tanker is technically adequate, there's likely some costly certification / approval that would need to be done.

All the handling involved would also introduce risks, and is probably more cheaply and safely achieved on land.

That said, there's a political aspect to this, and maybe the perception of disposing of the water far away from Fukushima justifies the scientifically unnecessary added complexity.

Re: Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

#7

Post by fredley » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:10 PM UTC

My old Physics teacher always said to put it on cornflakes. The surface area of all cornflakes in existence (back of the envelope) would result in totally harmless concentrations, undetectable above background. Of course getting the waste evenly distributed over all the cornflakes is another matter, one for the engineers...

Re: Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

#8

Post by warmwaffles » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:16 PM UTC

Quick question / thought, why not run it through beds of sand that take some of the radiation and bury that sand somewhere? Eventually as you run the water through the sand long enough it should become less and less irradiated right?

Re: Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

#9

Post by adrianN » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #5

adrianN wrote: post #4

So oil tankers can apparently carry some 300000 tons. Three or four oil tankers full would then be enough storage space for the onsite water. Couldn't we fill some tankers and have them release the water far away from any fishing grounds?

I wondered that myself. I think the problem is that they first need to dilute it considerably before releasing it. If they do that before loading it onto the ship it might take too many journeys to empty the tanks. If they do it onboard the ship the you've got a ship full of radioactive water sailing about. I'm not sure how hazardous the water is but you might struggle to find people willing to sail on it.

Tritium is quite weakly radioactive. It is effectively shielded by a few millimeters of air. As long as the crew doesn't drink the cargo they should be pretty save.

Re: Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi: What should be done? (2018)

#10

Post by bitL » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #4

So oil tankers can apparently carry some 300000 tons. Three or four oil tankers full would then be enough storage space for the onsite water. Couldn't we fill some tankers and have them release the water far away from any fishing grounds?

...and damage some preserved ecosystem in the process. Great idea!