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

41–50 of 66 posts

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

#41

Post by VBprogrammer »

m4rtink wrote: post #27
VBprogrammer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe just get an older tanker and sink it over the destination ? If you make holes big enough in the process it should take care of both dilution & the contaminated vessel. It worked fine for ships full of chemical weapons in the past, so should be able to work in this case as well. :)

The tanks that they are containing the water in at the moment could be made to float with some bladders and towed out.

Maybe we've cracked it :)

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

#42

Post by marcosdumay »

adrianN wrote: post #9
VBprogrammer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Evaporation may make it hard to insulate the crew from the cargo.

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

#44

Post by radnuke »

"Under the scenarios being discussed, the water would be diluted to 60,000 Bq/L before being released to the ocean. This number alone seems alarming, but is the concentration level that has been legally allowed to be released from Japanese nuclear power plants and reprocessing facilities such as Tokaimura for decades."

This is what needs to happen, any other action is kicking the can down the road. Another substantial earthquake or time will do the same.

Additionally 60kBq/L is larger compared to other isotopes because of tritium's properties. As long as this isotope is diluted properly there is no possibility of biological aggregation or concentration of this, it is just hydrogen, chemically speaking.

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

#45

Post by jc_sec »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #37
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.

I understood this to be the main concern with regards to harmful radiation. The article states that when HTO is consumed and comes in contact with biological molecules it binds to them and can stay in the body for years. It goes on to state the the negative effects of this may be underestimated.

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

#46

Post by knodi123 »

gnode wrote: post #6
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 don…

I get what you're saying, but I also can't help but chuckle at the fact that you're practically quoting the old "We'll just tow it until it's beyond the environment" skit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

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

#47

Post by hutzlibu »

Robotbeat wrote: post #18
Shorel wrote: post #16

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

It has been low enough the whole time. Radioactivity is super easy to detect even at harmless levels. Sunburn is a far (probably a million times? More?) bigger concern with similar effects (radiation burns possibly leading to cancer), yet people still go outside.

Because sun is also healthy in the right dose. Its all about the right balance..

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

Lazare wrote: post #39
rhacker wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by pvaldes »

beat wrote: post #24
Robotbeat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tritium natural decays pretty quickly. Half life of 12 years.

Which is a good point, but "half life" doesn't mean "all gone". It'll take some x cycles to get it down to some safe level y. So the water needs stored until then, if it's not being released somewhere. Meanwhile, it keeps accumulating, because the problem is caused by groundwater leaching into the contaminated reactor area. So at some point, accumulated volume p will probably exceed available storage area q, which se…

> at some point, accumulated volume p will probably exceed available storage area q

Maybe they should stack a second row of containers in the second floor then? (hey, we doubled the available space with only steel beams, some concrete and a welder! we can build upwards!, is like magic!)

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

#50

Post by Animats »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #37
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.

Right. So put it in an oil tanker, take it someplace with permafrost, pump it out, and let it freeze. A few parts of Hokkaido are cold enough. In a century, it will have decayed enough to be a non-problem.
Post reply on HN