Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe • Hacker News Board

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#181

Post by belorn » Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 10:16 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #176

belorn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can read, 1 gram of tritium is 358 trillion berequel. Thus, 760 trillion berequel of tritium would be a total of 2.1 grams.

I think you can adjust either side of that statement to fit, and not change anything about the point I was trying to make :) I just copied the numbers I saw elsewhere in this thread.

It wasn't a critique of the argument. I was just a bit uncertain which number were correct. 2.1g or 15g is still pretty tiny in comparison to the mount of water that it is diluted with. I was/am tempted to calculate what the probability of a single atom would be in a glass of water.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#182

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#183

Post by marze » Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 11:00 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #174

Tritium in Fukushima tanks: 20 kilocuries. Potassium-40 in the oceans: 530 gigacuries.

From a PR perspective, they would do better constructing a precast concrete plant nearby the site, and use the water to make concrete.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#184

Post by Archelaos » Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 2:34 PM UTC

madsbuch wrote: post #179

Archelaos wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, I understood you very well. The flushing of the toilet is of course also a liability. But my point is, nevertheless to take it serious, even though its impact might be small. I think we should not only focus on where it matters the most, and ignore the rest, but try to improve the situation across the board, including the smaller things.

I think this comment very well encompasses the modern discourse on sustainability: With a complete lack of a principle of proportionality. The problem by elevating the seriousness of flushing a toilet, is that it dilutes more severe cases where one could do an actual impact.

The problem is that people think there is a lack of proportionality until they discover that there reall isn't. That happend again and again. And this is the reason why an ecologically sensible society fights on all fronts. There are reaons why you are not allowed to flash anything down the toilet, there is ongoing research how to improve wastewater management, etc., etc.

To get back to the original issue: the OP told us that the dumping of Tritium does less harm than other discharge and thus we should look elsewhere for improvements. As I understand this sentence, he means we should not worry about it at all. This is out of proportion: he could have claimed that we should worry less about it, but it does not follow, that we should totally ignore it.