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

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

civilbeat.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 184 posts

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

#61

Post by dikei »

Namari wrote: post #24
dikei wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are dumping 1 Million metric tons of water over a period of 30 years. Even if China allow them to dump the water into the Gobi desert, it'd still cost billions of dollar to build and operate the pipeline. It'd never happen.

True but at this point it's not just a Japanese problem but a world wide one, if they dump it in the ocean, it could affect all the life that live there and consequently human life that feeds of it. It reminds me of the WW2 boats that are still in the Oceans leaking toxic products and nobody wants to pay to take them out.

Nah, global warming due to CO2 is a world wide problem; this is, at best, a regional issue, since the water will be so diluted once it reach the other side of the ocean. Most likely, that this won't be an issue at all.

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

#62

Post by lordnacho »

janmalec wrote: post #10
jay_kyburz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes, I am a researcher and a Ph.D. student in the field of nuclear reactor physics. I regularly operate and do experiments on a research nuclear reactor. My name is in my hn username and I have no problem defending my claims. I also own a popular TikTok account where I do science communication about nuclear reactors. My information about the water discharge comes from reports by IAEA, who is the authority on the matt…

This reminds me of that Putnam contest comment, a bit of a classic on this forum.

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

#63

Post by ceejayoz »

belter wrote: post #51
janmalec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am a researcher and a Ph.D. student in the field of nuclear reactor physics. I regularly operate and do experiments on a research nuclear reactor. My name is in my hn username and I have no problem defending my claims. I also own a popular TikTok account where I do science communication about nuclear reactors. My information about the water discharge comes from reports by IAEA, who is the authority on the matt…

Quoted post unavailable.

I have a tritium vial on my keychain. 5 mm of air is sufficient to block it. It’s pretty harmless stuff in the level of dilution being proposed.

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

#64

Post by newsclues »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #6
janmalec wrote: post #4

Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible c…

Quoted post unavailable.

Credentialism and appeals. To authority to silence dissent are disgusting anti-scientific mistakes that plague our society.

Source: I’m a dropout and frequently encounter highly educated idiots

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

#65

Post by ceejayoz »

pvaldes wrote: post #47
ramchip wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 15 grams of tritium in total, so it won't generate much helium. Source: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi... [Q6]

Very interesting, thanks. Another silly question. As is known that Tritium is bioaccumulative to the point of probably acting as a persistent organic pollutant, why they don't use biology to concentrate and eventually remove it from the tanks?. Or to keep it safely trapped in the tanks?

> As is known that Tritium is bioaccumulative…

What? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Health_risks

“HTO has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment.”

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

#66

Post by pvaldes »

u320 wrote: post #52
pvaldes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Water cannot be radioactive To start, seawater has more things than water. Both Hydrogen and Oxygen have isotopes that can decay and emit radioactivity, so yes, water can definitely be radioactive, by definition. For a relatively short time because is not plutonium of course, but it can be. And, unlike Plutonium, the problem is that life beings are mostly made of water and we didn't coevolved with a such rare eleme…

Tritium has a biological half-life in humans of 8 days. It's not a "big danger". Japan has gone out of their way to take all the precautions here, but since it's nuclear you know somebody is going to raise a stink anyway.

We share the planet with other organisms, and we even eat some of them.

"Is not a danger" here means "we don't know and, as long as liability is impossible to be traced back to us, we don't care".

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

#67

Post by perihelions »

lordnacho wrote: post #62
janmalec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am a researcher and a Ph.D. student in the field of nuclear reactor physics. I regularly operate and do experiments on a research nuclear reactor. My name is in my hn username and I have no problem defending my claims. I also own a popular TikTok account where I do science communication about nuclear reactors. My information about the water discharge comes from reports by IAEA, who is the authority on the matt…

This reminds me of that Putnam contest comment, a bit of a classic on this forum.

( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079 )

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

#68

Post by belter »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #59
belter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the released water not the seawater. That causes vomiting, delirium, and hallucinations :-) “A Japanese official said it’s okay if you drink this water,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a news briefing. “Then please drink it.”

The poster you asked is not that Japanese official. They just said dumping it was not a concern. Posting someone else's claim and asking them if they're ready to "back their claim" is disingenuous.

I realize that, and I would imagine everybody else in this thread.

That was why, to try to avoid sounding disingenuous, I tried to apologize upfront for the question, and recognized and appreciated the poster qualifications.

I was trying to qualify what safe means in this context. A bit like when talking for example to an aircraft manufacturer CEO, for example as in:

1) "This new airplane model is perfectly safe to fly" ...type of safe

OR

2) "This new airplane model is perfectly safe to fly, I will do a weekly trip on it with my family" ...type of safe

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

#69

Post by belter »

ceejayoz wrote: post #63
belter wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I have a tritium vial on my keychain. 5 mm of air is sufficient to block it. It’s pretty harmless stuff in the level of dilution being proposed.

Thank you. This was the type of answer I was looking for.

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

#70

Post by Aeolun »

ceejayoz wrote: post #63
belter wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I have a tritium vial on my keychain. 5 mm of air is sufficient to block it. It’s pretty harmless stuff in the level of dilution being proposed.

I mean, yes. But there’s no 5mm of air between tritium you drink and your stomach.
Post reply on HN