Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.safecast.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

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

#31

Post by AbrahamParangi »

jessriedel wrote: post #25
fredley wrote: post #7

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...

No one knows with any confidence whether radiation levels below background levels are harmful or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

Sure but the assumption is that however infinitesimally bad it is, it’s not worse than what you’re already tolerating.

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

#33

Post by Lazare »

Shorel wrote: post #16

So, this means I can eat fish caught in the Pacific ocean again? Is the radioactivity low enough?

There's probably a number of reasons not to eat fish caught in the Pacific ocean, but nothing to do with Fukushima was ever one of them.

People grossly overestimate how much radiation there is, not to mention how dangerous it is. Bananas are much more radioactive than fish from the pacific, regardless of when or where caught. :)

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

#34

Post by throwaway5752 »

jessriedel wrote: post #25
fredley wrote: post #7

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...

No one knows with any confidence whether radiation levels below background levels are harmful or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

Doesn't work that way if you ingest it, right? And obviously not all radiation is equal (alpha, beta, gamma) and even among those they have varying level of energy based on source.

The concern here - if I understand correctly - is that it's ingestion and absorption of a low half live (more energetic) beta emitter.

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

#36

Post by rhacker »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #15

Anyone who lives in Colorado receives a dose of many Fukushima's a year. I have a radon counter in my basement and watch the count ebb and flow with the seasons. One self luminous exit sign contains about 0.00074 PBq of tritium. The Fukushima stored water contains about 0.76 PBq of tritium, enough for about 1027 signs. I suspect there is far more tritium in the exit signs in Tokyo then there is in the Fukushima water…

I don't fully understand the comment - but I think it's my lack of knowledge here. If I stand next to a sign made with a small amount of tritium I get a small dose of radiation. If I live near a river or ocean that has 0.76 PBq dumped into it, isn't that high concentration going to be a lot worse for me even if I drive past every exit sign in Tokyo? What if I end up growing a Tritium vegetable garden?

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

#37

Post by throwaway5752 »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #15

Anyone who lives in Colorado receives a dose of many Fukushima's a year. I have a radon counter in my basement and watch the count ebb and flow with the seasons. One self luminous exit sign contains about 0.00074 PBq of tritium. The Fukushima stored water contains about 0.76 PBq of tritium, enough for about 1027 signs. I suspect there is far more tritium in the exit signs in Tokyo then there is in the Fukushima water…

Tritium undergoes beta decay and has a 12 year half life. Beta decay from a sign or your watch can only partially get through your skin (and skin is continuously shed and contains melanin). If you drink (or eat plants/animals in a tritium contaminated foodchain) then you bypass that protective layer and can damage organs that have far less resilience to radiation exposure.

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

#38

Post by Lazare »

pvaldes wrote: post #26
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?

Hiding the problem under the rug. The sucessful human way of choice to manage radiation since the simpsons' first season Water currents would return it to home, or to somebody's home or kitchen. Fishes migrate also.

That's not how it works. It's dilute enough it's safe to just dump it on the coast already; dumping it at sea would just be a big PR production to make it appear even safer.

There's no risk of "water currents causing it to return home". That's not even something that is physically possible.

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

#39

Post by Lazare »

rhacker wrote: post #36
opwieurposiu wrote: post #15

Anyone who lives in Colorado receives a dose of many Fukushima's a year. I have a radon counter in my basement and watch the count ebb and flow with the seasons. One self luminous exit sign contains about 0.00074 PBq of tritium. The Fukushima stored water contains about 0.76 PBq of tritium, enough for about 1027 signs. I suspect there is far more tritium in the exit signs in Tokyo then there is in the Fukushima water…

I don't fully understand the comment - but I think it's my lack of knowledge here. If I stand next to a sign made with a small amount of tritium I get a small dose of radiation. If I live near a river or ocean that has 0.76 PBq dumped into it, isn't that high concentration going to be a lot worse for me even if I drive past every exit sign in Tokyo? What if I end up growing a Tritium vegetable garden?

> isn't that high concentration going to be a lot worse for me even if I drive past every exit sign in Tokyo

No, absolutely not. Both are extremely harmless. Zero is zero; neither is more harmful than the other.

Let me put it this way: In both cases, a much bigger threat to you would be walking past the display of bananas at the local supermarket. (And no, you shouldn't be worried about the radiation from THAT either.)

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

#40

Post by [deleted] »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #15

Anyone who lives in Colorado receives a dose of many Fukushima's a year. I have a radon counter in my basement and watch the count ebb and flow with the seasons. One self luminous exit sign contains about 0.00074 PBq of tritium. The Fukushima stored water contains about 0.76 PBq of tritium, enough for about 1027 signs. I suspect there is far more tritium in the exit signs in Tokyo then there is in the Fukushima water…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN