Fukushima No. 1 can’t keep its head above tainted water

[Wernothelpless]

Source: The Japan Times

Tepco says there is a limit to how many tanks the complex can accommodate before the site runs out of storage space.

Tepco said it can boost storage capacity from 430,000 tons from this year to 700,000 tons by mid-2015 by clearing a forest and other space in the compound. The move is expected to buy them about three years’ time.

Tepco is proposing some of the water be dumped into the sea after processing it to remove most, but not all, radioactive isotopes. Local fishermen strongly oppose the plan as it will taint the image of their produce.

Read more: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/21/reference/fukushima-no-1-cant-keep-its-head-above-tainted-water/#.UZtqC8pdCX1

---

The terrible, inevitable, ongoing contamination of the Pacific Ocean.

[deutsey]

1. The fricking hits just keep coming, don't they?

[Poll_Blind]

2. From the article "Tepco must perpetually pour water over the melted cores of reactors 1, 2, and 3...

...via makeshift systems to prevent the fuel from melting and burning again."

First, let that sentence sink in. Now, go to Google image search and type "tepco contaminated water tanks", sans quotes. When you're looking over the search results, you're going to see lots of pictures of light blue tanks and also dark gray ones, in close proximity to each other. Like this:







These are some of the water tanks built to hold the contaminated water.

There are even underground tanks which have been added to hold the stuff and this picture shows where they are, too:


Actually, it shows just the underground tanks that are leaking, but you get the idea.

This situation is not tenable, folks.

PB

[socialsecurityisAAA]

3. Their worries are founded. Many have stopped buying products from Japan as well as from California

Because of the regulatory fiasco that led to an irradiated pacific.

[sulphurdunn]

4. This is the kind of problem

to be expected from anything you can't shut off. Continuing to build nuke reactors is an act of depraved indifference toward nature and civilization.

[darkangel218]

5. +100

[closeupready]

13. +101.

[Safetykitten]

69. +1000. Great point.

[Octafish]

6. You know, there are easier ways to boil water.

Then again, War Inc does need plutonium.

Think of the Bomb as the Winchester of the 20th, uh, 21st Century.

[FBaggins]

8. Still stuck on that, eh?

They don't get plutonium for bombs from civilian power reactors.

If anything, it's the other way around (plutonium from bombs converted to MOX fuel).

A particularly silly claim when you realize that Japan doesn't make bombs at all.

[Octafish]

19. Still stuck on defending the indefensible, I see.

Perhaps if it's put into financial terms: Nuclear power is not a cost-effective way of generating electricity. No one has identified a method for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. As Fukushima has demonstrated, the costs of mitigating the damage from an accident is more than astronomical -- we don't know how to fix it. So, while it no longer is hyped as a safe alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear is still hyped as a viable alternative for cheap energy, which also is a lie.

As for the plutonium:

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons: Making the Connections

EXCERPT...

In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower, for whatever motives one wishes to ascribe to him, announced his "Atoms for Peace" program, by which the destructive force of the atom was to be harnessed for "peaceful" purposes. It was also at this time that the U.S. began offering nuclear technology and training to the rest of the world.

In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would received uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors. The plutonium was to be shipped to Rocky Flats in Colorad- o, where the federal government made plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons.

In retrospect it is a simple matter to see that there never was an intention to separate nuclear weapons produc- tion from the use of commercial nuclear power. In a document from the Los Alamos National Laboratory dated August, 1981, one finds this statement:

"There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one. What has persisted over the decades is just the misconception that such a linkage does not exist." ("Some Political Issues Related to Future Special Nuclear Fuels Production," LA- 8969-MS, UC-16).4

CONTINUED...

If there weren't a connection between nuclear power, nuclear weaponry and political power, I'd venture public utilities would use solar power to boil water to make the turbines go.

[FBaggins]

25. Nope. Just correcting the ridiculous.

I can see how you might confuse the two.

Once again... Japan has never used plutonium to make a nuclear weapon because they don't HAVE nuclear weapons. So it's pretty ridiculous to pretend as you have.

But at least you're entertaining.

[Octafish]

48. Shows what you know.

Japan’s Nuclear Industry: The CIA Link.

By Eleanor Warnock
June 1, 2012, 10:18 AM JST.
Wall Street Journal Blog

Tetsuo Arima, a researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo, told JRT he discovered in the U.S. National Archives a trove of declassified CIA files that showed how one man, Matsutaro Shoriki, was instrumental in jumpstarting Japan’s nascent nuclear industry.

Mr. Shoriki was many things: a Class A war criminal, the head of the Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan’s biggest-selling and most influential newspaper) and the founder of both the country’s first commercial broadcaster and the Tokyo Giants baseball team. Less well known, according to Mr. Arima, was that the media mogul worked with the CIA to promote nuclear power.

SNIP...

Mr. Shoriki, backed by the CIA, used his influence to publish articles in the Yomiuri that extolled the virtues of nuclear power, according to the documents found by Mr. Arima. Keen on remilitarizing Japan, Mr. Shoriki endorsed nuclear power in hopes its development would one day arm the country with the ability to make its own nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Arima. Mr. Shoriki’s behind-the-scenes push created a chain reaction in other media that eventually changed public opinion.

SNIP…

Mr. Shoriki, backed by the CIA, used his influence to publish articles in the Yomiuri that extolled the virtues of nuclear power, according to the documents found by Mr. Arima. Keen on remilitarizing Japan, Mr. Shoriki endorsed nuclear power in hopes its development would one day arm the country with the ability to make its own nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Arima. Mr. Shoriki’s behind-the-scenes push created a chain reaction in other media that eventually changed public opinion.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/06/01/japans-nuclear-industry-the-cia-link/

[FBaggins]

49. Seriously? That's the best that you could come up with?

A researcher claims that one of the many people who pushed for nuclear power 60+ years ago had in the back of his mind that it might help his country obtain nuclear weapons... and that's proof that commercial reactors exist to make plutonium?

Despite so many decades of experience proving just the opposite?

Hilarious.

[Octafish]

53. It's more than you've come up with. Not a single article. No journal entries. No links. Nothing.

Here's a bit more on the subject:

United States Circumvented Laws To Help Japan Accumulate Tons of Plutonium

By Joseph Trento
on April 9th, 2012
National Security News Service

The United States deliberately allowed Japan access to the United States’ most secret nuclear weapons facilities while it transferred tens of billions of dollars worth of American tax paid research that has allowed Japan to amass 70 tons of weapons grade plutonium since the 1980s, a National Security News Service investigation reveals. These activities repeatedly violated U.S. laws regarding controls of sensitive nuclear materials that could be diverted to weapons programs in Japan. The NSNS investigation found that the United States has known about a secret nuclear weapons program in Japan since the 1960s, according to CIA reports.

The diversion of U.S. classified technology began during the Reagan administration after it allowed a $10 billion reactor sale to China. Japan protested that sensitive technology was being sold to a potential nuclear adversary. The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations permitted sensitive technology and nuclear materials to be transferred to Japan despite laws and treaties preventing such transfers. Highly sensitive technology on plutonium separation from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site and Hanford nuclear weapons complex, as well as tens of billions of dollars worth of breeder reactor research was turned over to Japan with almost no safeguards against proliferation. Japanese scientist and technicians were given access to both Hanford and Savannah River as part of the transfer process.

SNIP...

A year ago a natural disaster combined with a man-made tragedy decimated Northern Japan and came close to making Tokyo, a city of 30 million people, uninhabitable. Nuclear tragedies plague Japan’s modern history. It is the only nation in the world attacked with nuclear weapons. In March 2011, after a tsunami swept on shore, hydrogen explosions and the subsequent meltdowns of three reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant spewed radiation across the region. Like the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will face the aftermath for generations. A twelve-mile area around the site is considered uninhabitable. It is a national sacrifice zone.

How Japan ended up in this nuclear nightmare is a subject the National Security News Service has been investigating since 1991. We learned that Japan had a dual use nuclear program. The public program was to develop and provide unlimited energy for the country. But there was also a secret component, an undeclared nuclear weapons program that would allow Japan to amass enough nuclear material and technology to become a major nuclear power on short notice.

CONTINUED...

http://www.dcbureau.org/201204097128/national-security-news-service/united-states-circumvented-laws-to-help-japan-accumulate-tons-of-plutonium.html

Going by the record, it's clear some super duper secret authoritirian types thought Japan should keep a ready stock of plutonium, just in case.

[FBaggins]

57. Wrong.

I provided two incontrovertible facts that by themselves easily overcome any number of blogs.

1 - Civilian reactors aren't used by "War Inc" to make bomb materials in Japan (or the US).
2 - Japan doesn't make nuclear weapons.

You can post dozens of conspiracy theories if you like... but they don't add a whit of evidence to back up your original post. It's simply implausible that Japan built dozens of reactors... not to power their economy... but to build bombs.

[Octafish]

73. Smear away, I don't care.

You've mocked DUers since March 11, 2011 regarding Fukushima. And you've failed to provide any supporting documentation for your "incontrovertible facts." Meaning, without support, all they are is your, eh, opinion.

The last two years have only reinforced how nuclear power is nothing but a disaster unparalleled in history, except, of course, for the fortunate few who are employed by the industry.

[chknltl]

95. Must disagree on one item:

Regarding those fortunate few with jobs in the nuke industry.


I can not agree that having employment in Mordor is "fortunate" . I understand the benefit that comes with earning money but some jobs....well let's say Judas had the more 'fortunate' job. He in comparison, only sold out one man for money. To Judas' credit he spent little time afterword trying to convince everyone with cost analysis charts that his was the better plan! Now I am no fan of anything biblical but I think Judas developed a soul later on in life and came to regret his earlier career decision.

[sulphurdunn]

71. They do get depleated uranium

for munitions. Don't they?

[FBaggins]

77. From reactors? No.

Japan has virtually no uranium mining. They once looked at trying to get it from seawater.

[FBaggins]

7. Still can't figure out why it can't be a closed system.

Take the contaminated (but cooled) water and pump it back into the cores. So what if it's contaminated already?

[flamingdem]

9. Yeah, it's easy to fix this thing right FBaggins? You always underestimated this disaster

and never copped to that ongoing miscalculation as you protected the nuke biz on this site.

[FBaggins]

11. Never copped to that ongoing miscalculation?

And what, pray tell, was that? Feel free to look back to March 2011 and let me know what I got wrong (be sure to look at some of your own posts for comparison if you need a laugh).

You've made the claim several times and been called on it more than once. When asked to give a few examples... you run and hide.

Odds on that changing this time? Slim.

[flamingdem]

16. For starters you denied that there could be a meltdown

and you denied that it could be cataclysmic - which it is.

[FBaggins]

17. Can you back it up?

Of course not... because I was calling it a meltdown within a day or two of the start of the incident.

and you denied that it could be cataclysmic - which it is.

Lol! Yeah... as long as we completely redefine the meaning of the word.

You might want to actually read some of those posts. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Octafish]

22. You are consistent. Here's one thing you wrote on March 11, 2011.

13. But we DO know ONE thing

Whatever amount is announced. There will be at least 3-6 posters here who are certain that the actual levels were at least 100 times higher.

Possibly mant (sic) thousands of times higher.

The nuclear industry lies you see?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x277818

[FBaggins]

23. Thanks for backing me up

Since that's precisely what happened.

[Octafish]

54. Not backing you up. Those are your words, minimizing the danger and defending the indefensible.

Here are my words:

TEPCO was warned and took the cheapskate's way out.

and...

Fukushima owners failed to follow emergency manual - report

and...

The people's ancestors left monuments to remind them of the dangers...

and...

Fukushima tsunami plan a single page

and...

Doubts deepen over TEPCO truthfulness after president s sightseeing trip uncovered

and...

TEPCO: Plutonium is not dangerous. Where is the Boss?

and...

Fukushima owners failed to follow emergency manual - report

and...

Fukushima and the Nuclear Establishment -- The Big Lies Fly High

There are many more, but when it comes to telling the truth about Fukushima and nuclear power, you're on another, eh, wavelength.

[FBaggins]

56. So did you not read them... or not understand them?

Because yes, they were my words, and they were correct.

Here are my words:

Nah... I think I'll pick a few of my own. Like when you repeated the nonsense that a few atoms of plutonium was a deadly dose (and hinted that a lot of "good people" would die).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4793340

Then there's #6 in this thread... where you misunderstood the difference between radiation and the elements that emit radiation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1148388

And let us not forget the classics. #15 in this thread is where you claimed that tons of cesium and plutonium were released - when the actual estimate for Plutonium is in the few milligram range (and even the wildly off-base conspiracy claims would still add up to grams... not tons). IIRC, the cesium estimate is around 12,000TBq. For comparison, Cs 137 has a specific activity of a little over 3 TBq/gm... so we're talking a few kilograms. Again, tons is ridiculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4867792

You actually spent quite a bit of time harping on the dangers of plutonium (even to the West Coast)... when it simply hasn't been an issue. The plutonium that has been detected is dwarfed by the environmental amounts left from the cold war (and WWII).

But let's get back to the original claim. You claimed that I denied that there was a meltdown. Can you back it up or can't you?

[Octafish]

72. Plutonium is an issue.

A Public Service Announcement on Plutonium

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf

BTW: Where did you get "a few milligrams?" It looks like tons from the spent fuel pool went airborne during the explosion that claimed seven lives we never seem to hear about anymore. Indefensible.

[FBaggins]

74. Time to come back to the real world Octafish.

Or at least visit once in a while.

Where did you get "a few milligrams?"

Take the Bq release of plutonium and divide by the specific activity. It isn't that hard.

It wouldn't be possible for there to be tons released and have readings as low as we've seen. They're off by many orders of magnitude. The readings have been so low that the only way to pick them out of the background is to compare the ratio of a shorter-lived plutonium isotope.

The estimated release matches both the contamination levels that have been found as well as the modeling for the meltdown.

It looks like tons from the spent fuel pool went airborne

Only in your imagination. Have you missed the clear photos from inside that pool that show clearly that the fuel is still there? The explosion in the photo is not from inside the SFP. It was almost impossible from the beginning... but we're known beyond a shadow of a doubt for a long time now.

[Octafish]

85. The open-to the air fuel pool with all the debris and crap sticking out? That fuel pool?

The fuel pool that had to be doused with seawater to keep it from boiling? That fuel pool?

Plutonium has been detected miles from the plant. Is that part of the real world, too?

EXCERPT...

But the greatest deceit, and most harmful pack of lies, in the aftermath of the meltdowns may have had to do with strontium or plutonium. There was no effort made to inform the public that vapor forms of these isotopes were being released AND that these isotopes - when compared becquerel to becquerel - are much greater public health threats than iodine and cesium. What did happen was there was a blackout of the 's' and 'p' words - the words 'strontium' and 'plutonium' were rarely, if at all, mentioned.

[FBaggins]

90. Yep. That's the one.

Or rather, the one that used to have all the debris and crap sticking out.

Plutonium has been detected miles from the plant. Is that part of the real world, too?

Found in amounts that were consistent with a total release in the range of milligrams. Not tons.

these isotopes - when compared becquerel to becquerel - are much greater public health threats than iodine and cesium

Duh... but when compared actual Bqs released to actual Bqs released - it wasn't anywhere near as great a threat.

Just look at the photo. The racks are still there... the fuel is still in the racks. It isn't posslble that there was an explosion in the pool that blew the fuel out of the pool... because it's still there.

When you're ready to visit... just let me know.

[Octafish]

99. So what if they put a cover over it? The thing exploded sending plutonium fuel all over Honshu.

Plutonium is one of the deadliest elements known, created by human beings for nuclear weapons. Now that there are better ways of powering pacemakers and space probes, plutonium has no good application.

Your calculation that says "consistent with a total release in the range of milligrams. Not tons" is based on what? TEPCO? The NRC? I'd LOL if it weren't tragic.

And, even if you are correct, a few thousand milligrams of plutonium is all that's needed to give everyone on earth cancer.

A medical look at plutonium.

EXCERPT...

Summary of medical aspects

* Plutonium is toxic as a result of its radioactivity: not outside the body, but very much so inside the body. The smoke of burning plutonium contains microscopic plutonium particles, that may settle in the lungs where the "fire" seems to continue. Therefore, they are called: "hot particles", causing microscopic burns in the living tissues. At the edge of them lung cancer may develop. It was calculated that an amount of 27 micrograms of plutonium-dust is sufficient to cause lung cancer (note: one microgram is one thousandth of a milligram). In experimental animals bone cancer has also been found.

* Congenital defects due to plutonium contamination have not been described as yet.

* Plutonium can go off when it is piled up, a 'criticality' disaster. The pile suddenly produces a flash of penetrating radiation causing acute radiation sickness in those who are in the vicinity of it. The smoke coming out of the burning pile may lodge tiny particles containing plutonium deep in the lungs. Fall-out from an explosion of an atomic bomb also contains plutonium dust, and so does the smoke of a nuclear disaster like 'Chernobyl' and 'Windscale' (see page 41).

* Traces of plutonium have been found in the environment where children play, like the sea shores of Cumbria, in the Irish sea and near Cap la Hague on the Channel coast; this fact has caused an outcry by the local population. An increase in the occurrence of leukaemia amongst children has indeed been found, but causality could not be proved.

* Private properties have gone down in value after being contaminated with plutonium dust. Doctors are unable to convince any buyer about the safety of low level radiation. Because of both the facts and the health fear, leaking plutonium may turn out to be an expensive matter.

* Plutonium has a very long half-life. Thus, its toxicity is a potential health hazard for thousands of years. That poses a moral problem; future people may find it but may have forgotten the danger.

* There are no medical applications for plutonium, like those of radium. Plutonium as a power-generator in pacemakers is now obsolete.

SOURCE: http://www.nvmp.org/pluto4.htm

The conditions and scenarios needed for this horrible possibility are too many and varied to put into print. I trust you'll do the math.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. How would you maintain the pumps, valves, etc?

At some point it gets too radioactive to handle in the coolant loops, which have to be maintained.

[FBaggins]

12. They're already pumping radioactive water.

And they're handling those pumps/etc as they shift from one tank to the next.

And wouldn't occasionally replacing pumps/valves be easier to live with than dumping water into the sea because you've run out of space?

[AtheistCrusader]

14. I highly doubt

that the amount of waste generated by this one site is going to significantly damage the ocean. Countries have been dumping 55 gallon drums full of waste into the oceans for decades, to say nothing of entire, operating reactors, and weapons, that have been lost to the sea completely.

Should be discouraged/fined, etc, but actually the net result is pretty negligible/mostly local impact. (Will require compensation to the local fishing industry, just like BP/Gulf)

They are currently probably keeping the contamination level of the water low enough they can still handle the pumping hardware with minimal decontamination. (Entirely speculation)

[FBaggins]

15. Oh I agree...

... but we've got nuts out there who are wasting time obsessing about the radiation in the Pacific getting closer to the West Coast... when we're talking about 10Bq per ton.

They could clean out all but a little tritium until the released water was no more dangerous than some landfills leak... and they would still run into opposition from the fringe scaring people.

Frankly, I've got to wonder how much contamination is actually added by the cores at this point. There wouldn't be a volatility problem (i.e., it isn't "creating" more cesium etc). They should call it a "decontamination" project... trying to remove already-released cesium (etc) from the basements.

[RobertEarl]

27. Seriously? Nuclear waste is negligible?

And here all this time I have been thinking that pollution of any kind is not negligible. I guess if you are sitting up high somewhere in a tower with everything supplied to you, after food tasters and all that to make sure you get no pollutants in your food air or water, nuclear waste is negligible.

But for us 99% in the rest of the world, it is not.

Thanks for your science lesson, Crusader. But you know where you can stick it, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I live on the pacific rim.

Thanks for completely ignoring the context and constructing some sort of feeble personal attack out of that wherein somehow you imagine that I am not concerned about pollution, and am somehow unaffected by it. I eat fish out of that ocean all the time.

187,189,915,062,857,142,857 gallons of water in that ocean. (Approx)

Again, it has swallowed up entire reactors, to say nothing of unknown tons of actual radioactive waste over the last 60 years.
Within that context, the contaminated water from Fukushima Dai-ichi is negligible, and mostly just a local hazard. Again, something to be fined, something to be discouraged by law, and something to be compensated to the local fishermen for the economic damage, just like BP/the gulf.

I will not 'stick it' anywhere, because your grasp of what I said was weak.

[RobertEarl]

29. You're gonna stick with negligible, eh?

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It must be nice to live apart from nature and not give a shit about the rest of life on this planet.

Besides, you have no science to back up your crazy idea that it is negligible. All the science about nuclear waste says it is deadly for decades and that it is a mutagen. But there you sit, claiming that nothing will happen, when shit will be happening long after you are dead and gone.

Ah, but you are a symbol for all the folks who have been saying for years that man can't alter the environment. Most of us know man is not negligible any more. Not with the 'power of the sun' at our fingers.

'Power of the sun' is exactly the words used by the chest thumpers who brought us nuclear power, when describing how high and mighty their science had become.

Well, our buddy Albert was wont to say that the idiots would drive us over the cliff, and there you are saying the cliff is negligible.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I don't live apart from nature. Again, you seem incapable of understanding context.

COMPARED TO the raw tonnage of solid radioactive waste dumped into that ocean by MANY nations over MANY decades, plus Russian and American reactors that went straight to the bottom, PLUS atomic ordnance lost by both nations into said ocean, COMPARED TO THAT, the water they are proposing to release is negligible.

"All the science about nuclear waste says it is deadly for decades and that it is a mutagen."

Show me science that says ALL DOSAGES of all radioactive waste are deadly for decades. Because that is what you are inferring. (No dosage is SAFE but that isn't the same thing as saying all doses are deadly)

"Well, our buddy Albert was wont to say that the idiots would drive us over the cliff, and there you are saying the cliff is negligible."

No, YOU are the one mis-identifying the cliff. What we, and other nations have done intentionally to that ocean for decades, largely in secret, and unaccountably, is the cliff. Some of that cliff we have already gone over, some of it is yet to come as drums containing waste break down. All of that is the cliff.

The radioactivity currently sequestered in the water in those storage tanks is, by comparison to the rest of it, negligible. Please do try and keep that context in focus for two seconds. One is worse than the other. By a LOT.

[RobertEarl]

31. Of course

So you have the science that compares what has been dumped before versus what has been dumped at Fukushima? No. Of course you don't.

So quit acting like you do know, because it just makes you look, well, whatever.

What we do know is that 3 very large reactor cores have escaped containment. We know that such a thing has never happened before and the science is still uncertain. But there you are, professing to the world that it is negligible. Your word, not mine, you own it.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Before I do, do we

trust TEPCO's statements on how many Becquerel's of radiation is locked up in that water?

Because yes, there is ESTIMATES of the amount already dumped in the ocean (As I mentioned, a lot of it was unaccountable/done in secret, so it will have to be an estimate), particularly around the entire reactors we know of that have gone into the ocean.

And the containment on Fukushima 1-3 is leaking, but no the cores have not escaped the containment.

[RobertEarl]

34. Not escaped containment?

Good gawd almighty, you are still in utter denial.

The cores are not contained. That's why there is a problem there.

Incredible that you would say such a thing:
"...the cores have not escaped the containment."

Really, Crusade, you have no credibility. Just stop.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The cores have escaped the REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL. Not the containment. Period. If you have evidence that they have, please present it, because the world would probably be interested in that.

[RobertEarl]

37. The cores melted through the containment

You even say so what the cores did was melt through the "REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL" which is what contained the nuclear fuel.

When it melted through the pressure vessel and became open to the environment via the wide environment of water pipes and torus and turbine areas, it did not stop melting.

Not even robots can last long enough to examine the inside of the buildings, and few humans have entered because of high radiation levels from the un-contained core, we know the cores are not contained. The cores are doing what melting cores do, act like lava.

We do not know the exact location of the cores and we may not know for years because they are not contained and are releasing radiation to the atmosphere. Releasing radiation to the atmosphere means free. Means not contained.

Please reply that you understand this because, really, it's two year old history.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You don't seem to know what the containment is.

The Reactor Pressure Vessel (commonly referred to as the RPV) is not The Containment(TM). Period. That you seem to think so, is embarrassing. The CONTAINMENT is not just the steel RPV, it's steel and several feet of special concrete. That the containment is LEAKING WATER does not mean the cores have escaped it. That claim has special meaning. Don't pretend that venting gas, or leaking water is equal to 'escaped containment'.

Nor is the CORIUM still 'molten'. You are being silly.

"act like lava." More silliness. Lava will bore through concrete at a rate of about 1 foot per hour. Simply silly.


"We do not know the exact location of the cores and we may not know for years because they are not contained and are releasing radiation to the atmosphere." MORE silliness. The radiation of the corium itself can reveal its location via scattering radiography. Los Alamos provided the detectors in October of last year.


"Releasing radiation to the atmosphere means free. Means not contained."
Now you are backpedaling. Not contained != CORES ESCAPED CONTAINMENT. Recall your statement:
"What we do know is that 3 very large reactor cores have escaped containment."

That is simply not true. The cores are inside the containment. Leaking water from the containment in no way equals CORES HAVE ESCAPED CONTAINMENT.

Dude, you're talking to someone who no longer supports the continued operation of, or construction of new reactors. And I know your claims are wild and completely untrue. Just stop.

[RobertEarl]

40. They melted through but they are contained?

You don't know where the cores are. No one does. The cores can't be examined because of the heat and radiation.

The water they are pumping out contains radioactive isotopes from the cores. The cores are spreading, the cores are not contained. They were contained before the earthquake, but not contained now. That's what the problem is, duh!

Your dream that this is all negligible, is just a dream. Dream on, Doood.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. First off, it's not cores anymore.

It's corium. It's slag. You've seen the corium from Chernobyl, right? It cooled in place, looks like a frozen lava flow. (that that wasn't blown, burning, into the sky directly (something like 80% of the mass of the core))

That material is pretty much stuck in place. Most of it is still in the catchment. Again, the radiation of the corium itself will reveal the position of the mass of corium. If you know that the corium is spread beyond the containment, get your ass over to CNN and present your case, because there's no evidence of that in the public domain at this moment.

(If it didn't burn through 24-18 months ago, it's not going to.)

The radioactive material carried by the water from the containment is not equal to "cores have escaped the containment", period. You are using meanings for these terms you've made up in your own mind.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. By the way, guess who else used the word 'negligible?'

Just the IAEA and CRESP, regarding all the shit we dumped in the ocean on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste#North-East_Pacific_Ocean.2C_North-West_Atlantic_Ocean_dump_sites_of_USA

It's a big-assed ocean, dude. Not good. Not something we should ever start doing again. But the contaminated water at Fukushima Dai-ichi, is NEGLIGIBLE compared to what we, Russia, Japan, and a host of other nations, did on purpose, over decades.

[RobertEarl]

80. There you go

One the one hand you say dumping is: "Not something we should ever start doing again."

And then you run over yourself saying that if we do it won't matter: "is NEGLIGIBLE"

How anyone can sit there and make excuses for more pollution is beyond me.

But it does remind me of climate denier's argumants, who we all agree are quite fucking insane, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Who 'we' white man?

*I* am not proposing TEPCO dump that water. I am not in Japan. I am not a subject of the Japanese Government. I have no control over whether they do so. I simply have the opinion (Which I believe is easily qualified when you look at the numbers I linked to above) that this is of negligible impact to, for instance, the US.

So no, I do not run myself over in suggest that "if we do it won't matter" since WE are not dumping a damn thing (as best we know anyway, the government has a history of not disclosing everything it does within the scope of the MIC)

Saying 'this is negligible in comparison to what we, and other nations have already done' is not the same as saying people should just huck whatever the hell they want into the ocean. This situation is not operating as intended. It's exigent circumstances to an industrial disaster that has to be mitigated. That means operating BEYOND what we would normally allow for risk or exposure. That means addressing the issue via the courts, for fines, restitution, and possible criminal penalties.

None of that is "make excuses for more pollution".

[RobertEarl]

89. You are almost there

You are almost about to say that this situation is untenable. That it has gone beyond all reason, Is FUBAR. And that you want it fixed. To hell with the excuses, to hell with any more pollution.

That is a long way from your 'negligible'. You are learning, grasshopper. Give you another dozen lessons with me and we'll have you right up there with us, demanding an end to the nuclear pollution. We are not done.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. While we are 'taking lessons' here you might want to know

I support closing these reactors entirely, largely because of the poor performance of the safety measures in place in Fukushima Dai-Ichi.

You would know that if you had simply asked me, instead of freaking out and tipping over furniture in response to YOUR reading of my intent with the word 'negligible'.

An amusing tack on your part, given your rules gaming and backpedaling over your use of 'containment' in reference to the location of the corium in reactors 1-3.

Yes, the situation is untenable. That's why TEPCO is raising the option of dumping the water. They cannot store what is being produced forever. The more they store, the more likely they are to suffer ADDITIONAL catastrophes. What kind of earthquake are those water tanks rated to withstand? Filtering it and dispersing it is technologically feasible, and minimal risk, given the alternatives of say, attempting to store it until another earthquake releases it in an uncontrolled manner, or they run out of acreage to store it on, or run out of money to build more storage, or any number of un-planned-for failures.

[RobertEarl]

93. Closer, but still

Quote: "...I support closing these reactors..."

Here we go, Crusader... they can't just close these reactors. Good God, how can anyone say something so ridiculous?

Quote: "TEPCO is raising the option of dumping"

Tepco is not raising the option of dumping, they have been dumping. But now, the crazy anti-nukers are ""tipping over furniture"" demanding an end to it.

Of course we will lose and they will dump it all, but at least we have stood up for the earth and the future. Join us, why don't you?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. I do not support closing ALL reactors.

'These' was in reference to power production. In fairness to you, I could have been more clear about that.

Closing ALL reactors would preclude the production of useful nuclides for the purposes of medical treatment, or industrial inspection of life-safety structures like bridge welds, pipelines, etc.

[RobertEarl]

96. Back to containment

You do know that even the EPA has determined that fission material from the cores at Fukushima have been deposited in the US.

So how can you claim the cores are in containment when parts of the core are spread around the world? How is it possible? It is an almost god like faith in Tepco and nuclear power for you to sit there and say the corium is contained at Fukushima, when even the EPA has said it is not.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. You are making assumptions.

For starters, you assume that no criticality occurred in any of the damaged fuel pools, to supply that material.

Again, let's look at your claim:


"What we do know is that 3 very large reactor cores have escaped containment."

That statement is not explicitly true. Only when you walk back to very general definitions of 'containment' or 'cores' do you get anything that sort of inferentially allows that statement to almost be true. This is an age-old argument from day one of this disaster here on DU, from the 'convinced the cores burrowed below the containment into the earf' contingent. Don't pretend it isn't, so you can pretend fission products from the core or fuel pools getting outside the reactors shows the cores have escaped the containment.

We got fission products outside at three mile island, but the core was INSIDE the containment. Always was.
At Chernobyl, containment was utterly lost from the moment of the prompt critical excursion. What was left of the core (not thrown directly into the sky, burning) burrowed down, out of containment.

Edit: and the RBMK reactor design can't really be properly considered a containment at all, in all honesty.

[RobertEarl]

100. Well

No. If something that was contained gets out it is no longer contained. Too simple for you to grasp?

People who understand nukes and containment, and are quite familiar with nuclear reactors and the explosions at Fukushima, believe the cores have escaped containment and are releasing, even today, core material to the atmosphere.

Nuclear reactors are made to contain the cores from releasing to the atmosphere. These cores overheated, blew up, and escaped containment. Did you not see the explosions?

If the cores were contained and the containment intact, Tepco would not have excess water that they have to store. It would all be contained within the containment. It is not contained and that is why there is a problem because the containment has been breached by the melted cores.

I guess that is too simple for you?

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Another untrue statement.

"These cores overheated, blew up, and escaped containment."

The cores did not blow up. The zircalloy cladding on the fuel rods reacted with water in the RPV and catchment to produce hydrogen, which was vented to the buildings and exploded. This is what I mean about your statement upthread. It means something you pretend it doesn't say.

"If the cores were contained and the containment intact, Tepco would not have excess water that they have to store. It would all be contained within the containment."

Um no. The cores are contained. The containment is leaking water and possibly gasses, but the core is still inside. (Or likely the corium that remains of it.). You know what the CORE actually is, right? Even if the containment had perfect integrity, they would STILL have to pump water in and out to remove decay heat from the corium. Again, you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"No. If something that was contained gets out it is no longer contained."

The corium is still inside the containment.

Can you cite actual monitoring data that shows the reactors are still releasing material to the atmosphere? (I am not referring to skyshine over the site itself)

[marions ghost]

55. +++++

[NickB79]

51. You lost all credibility with anything related to nukes

With these threads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022750608

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728

When you have even the most ardent anti-nuke posters at DU calling your theory that Fukushima released enough radiation to superheat a good chunk of the Pacific Ocean a big load of batshit crazy, you know you've spiraled out of control......

[FBaggins]

58. Nonsense.

In order to "lose" something... you must first begin with it.

I can't figure out whether Kris is correct with the "sock puppet" claim, or that we're talking extreme gullibility/ignorance combined...

... but "credibility" is simply not in play.

[RobertEarl]

63. Hahaha

You two nuke lovers, now that your whole nuke world is crumbling, are left to attacking science and new information and discussions about nukes.

I really do feel sorry for the two of you. What a miserable existence it must be, trying to save your dinosaur nukes.

[FBaggins]

64. You forget that you're one of the few things that nuke and anti-nuke here agree on.

And I can't remember the last time you used actual science in a post.

[RobertEarl]

68. Hahaha

Making stuff up is your specialty.

Again, all you have is personal attacks. And supporting pollution.

And all along, you have been wrong about Fukushima from day one.

Now I am not going to continue with you here. You have shown to be a supporter of polluting the ocean, again. And opposing the people who want to end the nuke pollution. What else needs to be said? Your words right here condemn you.

[RobertEarl]

109. Thanks, nick. Great threads, eh?

In review, I see no anti-nuke posters who disagreed with the theory.

Mostly it was just last couple of nukers left on DU who were &%#*ing their shorts over the science.

We ardent anti-nukers are all in agreement, far as I can tell.

[sofa king]

20. I asked a similar question a while back.

I was asking why the water itself could not be evaporated off and the contaminants reconcentrated and stored.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014473058#post22

The answer appears to be that water is being pumped directly over the melted cores and the concentration of those radioactive materials in the cooling water has to be kept exceedingly low and carefully stored to prevent a criticality accident.

Thus a closed-loop cooling system would not work because the core would continue to add fissile materials until criticality levels were reached within the flow of the coolant, somewhere. Vortices in the pumping system and precipitates within the tanks and lines are probably a big problem already.

[FBaggins]

24. That's definitely not the case.

There's no way that they can get a criticality accident from the materials in the cooling water. Even if they were the right type (Uranium/Plutonium rather than primarily cesium, etc), we're talking many orders of magnitude between the amount of mass we're talking about.

[sofa king]

70. Are you including direct contact, coolant and core?

And the indications that the measured amounts of plutonium contaminating the site have dramatically increased, including outside of the containment area?

What about the fact that the shape of the containment vessel, currents within it, precipitates at flow interruptions throughout the system, and vortices caused by pumping can all increase local concentrations of dissolved or suspended fissiles by orders of magnitude? Historically, pumping and stirring are two of the major causes of criticality accidents.

I think the ultimate answer as to why Fukushima is not using a closed loop is because the site is totally wrecked and leaking in more places than can be identified or counted (an underground containment wall between the site and the ocean was never completed before the 'quake, either).

Containment is hopeless and the loop is too fucked up to be closed now. It's only a matter of time before it all winds up in the sea, which is precisely what Tepco wants because that's the cheapest option.

[FBaggins]

76. It was really in the context of your statement.

Re: the cooling water containing enough material that if it were to be condensed (through evaporation or otherwise), there could be a criticality accident.

Understand that a criticality accident required a mass of fissile material above what's known as "critical mass" (which varies by isotope). Some things to consider:

1 - In a reactor accident (except Chernobyl), the primary releases are not fissile. Noble gases, radioiodine, cesium, (etc) can't have a criticality accident no matter how much of it you get - because they aren't fissile.
2 - The isotopes that ARE fissile (some of the uranium, plutonium) aren't volatile enough to be released in significant quantities. The levels found in the releases water are VERY low (when compared to critical mass)

Example for #2 - the estimate for total plutonium release has been in the low single digits of milligrams. That's not the amount in the pumped water, it's the TOTAL release. You would need hundreds of thousands of times that amount (miraculously unimpeded by other elements) in order to have a criticality accident.

But taking the rest of your scenario above into consideration - it's still not a danger. The fuel resolidified years ago, so while a criticality was a slight possibility back when the meltdowns occurred, it would take the fuel re-melting (almost impossible at this point - not enough heat) and somehow settling into a new configuration.

[sofa king]

82. Understood.

I believe you are saying that the retained water represents more of a health hazard than a criticality hazard. In this case plutonium's contribution is as a major health hazard.

Which, again, is why I think they are going to dump it all into the sea, sooner or later. In fact they already have, and already are doing just that, either deliberately through the draining of the original contents of the tanks (mildly hazardous by comparison to what's in there now), or inadvertently through inability to control leaks.

[RobertEarl]

83. That's it

It will all end up in the sea... as long as they are allowed to do so.

Can you believe the excuses here that are meant to make it easy for Tepco to dump their pollution into the sea?

No one could be that ignorant, right? So they must be a salesperson. A used nuke salesperson.

[Sirveri]

103. Tritium is a form of helium and has likely infiltrated the water molecules.

As such when you boil it you get tritiated steam. Not the end of the world, but makes it a bit difficult to remove all the radioactive isotopes, it might also explain why they aren't recirculating it into the containment housing because they're afraid of a reactivity increase due to heavy water addition which is four times as reactive as normal water. At this stage I'd just risk it and dump some more borax into the cycle to compensate.

Either way I know my boat used CPW (Controlled Pure Water), that had been filtered to remove contaminants, not 100% sure why they can't do it here... maybe they're worried about their borax supply running out?

[Throckmorton]

47. Inleakage, from rain and ground water intrusion.

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

They do recycle part of the outflow, but the in-leakage is still an issue. All the fuel fragments make water pumped out too hot for free release. That being the case, it is stored on-site, My guess is it will be released after 3 or 4 years in storage.

[FBaggins]

50. That makes sense.

Thanks!

[Sunlei]

18. it is at sea level it will always flood! incoming radioactive isotopes to the west coast usa

radioactive isotopes into the entire ocean food chain.

How about Japan has the regulators who allowed a nuke-plant to be built at sea level pay for the entire storage facilities and structure changes. close down the darn plant and store all that waste in your mountians.

[Zoeisright]

21. The terrible, inevitable, ongoing

disaster that is the nuclear power industry.

[mwooldri]

26. Is there any way to treat the contaminated water at all?

Instead of pumping into lots and lots of tanks - pump it into an oil tanker (empty of oil of course) and ship it somewhere that can process it and remove the radioactive stuff from it?

[FBaggins]

33. Yes. Of almost all but the tritium.

The problem is that even though that wouldn't be much to worry about... enough ignorant people wouldn't accept it and would scream.

And plenty of rational fishermen would understand and still not care because they know that many of their customers are irrational on the issue.

[RobertEarl]

38. That technology does not exist

"Is there any way to treat the contaminated water at all?"

We are not advanced enough to clean up our mess.

The US Government's Hanford nuclear waste site cleanup program has not been successful. I wish they could clean up our waste. But after billions spent trying, we still have almost as big a problem as Fukushima.

But it is nice to think; any day now they will discover the secret.

[caraher]

42. Except that the article in the OP says they're doing exactly that for everything but tritium

Tepco has been using an advanced liquid processing system made by Toshiba Corp. to decontaminate the coolant water.

ALPS can bring the density of 62 main radioactive substances below detectable levels, including strontium and plutonium.

Tritium is the exception, however. Tepco says the tritium level in the contaminated water is between 1 million and 5 million becquerels per liter. The legal limit is 60,000.

They're talking about decontaminating the cooling water they've poured on the reactor, not the disposing of high-level wastes inside the reactor buildings. This process is not presented as a cure-all for every kind of nuclear contamination problem (hence the irrelevance of Hanford's woes).

Hanford presents different technical challenges. Lumping everything in one bin as "nuclear" isn't helpful in understanding ways of managing (or not) these problems.

[RobertEarl]

44. Sure, Tepco has it all figured out

They never lie and they are always right.

And I have a slightly used nuke plant I can offer you at a great deal.
You'll love it!

[caraher]

45. TEPCO is definitely sleazy

But it's not their technology, and the article gives no reason to doubt the Toshiba technology does what it claims to do. And why shouldn't it? The problem is basic chemistry, and that also explains why they can't get out enough tritium - water molecules with tritium are chemically almost identical to ordinary water. Everything else they are filtering out is physically and chemically very different from water.

And recall that the thrust of the article is that even with this technology in place, there's a real problem, because people aren't happy about casually releasing all that tritium. This isn't a matter of trusting TEPCO, it's a matter of deciding what to do with the radioactivity all parties agree can't be readily filtered out.

[RobertEarl]

46. Gosh, you're right

Go ahead and dump the shit in the ocean. Go right a'fuckin head.

What do you think is the location and condition of the cores from the three reactors that melted down?

Wait, don't walk away... you are here trying to sell me on dumping the Tepco water in the ocean, stand up and defend yourself.

Prove you really have a clue, caraher. C'mon, bring it.

[caraher]

75. Reading comprehension fail

When you show me where I said to dump the water in the ocean, I'll respond in detail to your asinine challenge.

I merely commented on the technical issue without making a single recommendation for action. I did not say anything about the location and condition of cores; I confined myself to what the article actually talked about.

I am under no obligation of any kind to defend a position I have not taken.

[FBaggins]

78. I see no reason to limit your post in that way.

"Reading" was an entirely superfluous waste of keystrokes.

[RobertEarl]

79. I am not so proud

Of the way you duck and twist.

You can't even answer the question of the day about the cores.
A simple fucking question and you duck and sway.

Anybody who does not take a stand against Tepco dumping nuclear polluted water in the Pacific is a person who is in the same class as climate deniers.

And here we are, with a changing climate and nuclear pollution spreading around the world.

Good job, caraher. You make polluters proud.

[caraher]

81. What you are proud of is your concern, not mine.

I must be a very special person indeed to have RobertEarl so determined to be proud of me.

The OP is about the huge problem they have coping with all the contaminated water; that is the "question of the day." What should they do with it? Filter what they can and dump it? Find a way to recirculate it? Find a way to store more of it? I don't know. Neither did I claim to know.

Have I mistaken DU for a forum wherein each day RobertEarl asks me a question of his choosing and gets to call me names if I don't reply to his satisfaction? It seems so...

[RobertEarl]

86. Not proud of you

Get that straight at least.

You act all so full of science and smart, and then when you get asked what is the cause of the problem you duck and run.

This is all so very simple and has been going on for two years now, and all you pro-nuke people still can't face the reality. Just like climate deniers.

Why not, for once, take a stand against nuclear pollution? It's really easy to do so. I just don't get why people continue to support pollution.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. The pollution is, and will continue to be produced by this damaged reactor complex regardless of

your approval or disapproval, or regardless of my approval or disapproval.

What remains is what to do with it. Certainly they cannot store it all on-site forever until the materials in the damaged reactors are inert. They possess the power to filter out most of it, excepting the tritium, and then disperse it. This is a technologically valid option. They don't have many other options, regardless of how upset you are about it.

I don't believe you have established that the poster you are responding to is 'pro-nuke'.

[Sirveri]

104. to be fair, it is technically possible to get the tritium out of the water.

Simply filter it until you've got pure water, then electrolysis to strip the hydrogen gas, dump the O2 gas, retain the "heavy" H2 gas and then use the tritium to build more nuclear weapons... or gun sights... not really used for much else...

[caraher]

105. Sure

Sounds like it gets a lot more expensive though...

I suppose if you have a lot of tritiated H2 lying about you can hold it for decay and then harvest the resulting He-3. There must be some low-temperature physicists out there who need it for dilution refrigerators...

[Sirveri]

106. Probably much more expensive, but doing things right tends to cost money.

For too long we've gotten away with dumping coal soot into the atmosphere and the rivers and every where else. Same for all our other pollution, always taking the cheap and easy way out. Nuclear was never given that option, but nobody should ever have been given that option.

He-3 could be useful for fusion research... However we'd have to wait 50 years for the ten half life's before we could declare it to be decayed out.

[caraher]

107. Good point

Our cheap energy wouldn't be so cheap if we paid the full costs up-front.

Actually, tritium's half-life is 12 years so 10 half-lives would be 120 years. Which makes me think... I'm not even sure electrolysis really helps, because then you'd need to find some way to store the H2 formed by the electrolysis of a gazillion liters of water, which even compressed would take up a lot of volume - possibly more than the original water, even at high pressure (and at high pressure you have a risk of leaks). So probably the best you could do would be to hold the water for decay - which brings you straight back the problem in the OP of finding some way to store so much water.

Which is why they're tempted to dilute and dump...

[Sirveri]

108. I used to be a nuke tech on my submarine.

We'd typically just blow the steam straight out the side of the boat direct from the core during pressurizer degas ops.

We also made our own hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis, the hydrogen went overboard, the O2 we stored in tanks.

Damn you're right, 12.32 years... probably thinking of Co-60. We called it safe after 5 half lifes, but theoretically, as long as you didn't release the gas during a lighting storm, it would theoretically float into the upper atmosphere before blowing off into space and becoming part of the magnetic belts.

But they should never have made so much RAM in the first place, should have simply kept recirculating. Makes zero sense. Would actually be very curious as to the reasoning behind what they did.

[DeSwiss]

43. K&R

‘Absurd’: Intentionally dumping Fukushima nuclear material into ocean from land “is not considered dumping” — Allowed under international law?

Title: WHOI : Oceanus : Seafood Safety and Policy
Source: Oceanus
Author: David Pacchioli
Date: May 6, 2013

The Fukushima disaster is without precedent and will have unprecedented impacts on future policies governing the ocean, both Japanese and international.

[...] The Fukushima accident has revealed some key shortcomings in international law, said Kentaro Nishimoto, who teaches law of the sea at Tohoku University. To illustrate, he used an incident that has brought sharp criticism from Japan’s neighbors: the intentional release of radioactive water into the sea.

[...] Nishimoto said, the relevant international laws proved to be nonbinding. In particular, he noted, the London Convention on marine pollution, although it expressly prohibits ocean dumping of radioactive material, limits these restrictions to vessels at sea. Release of materials from land is not considered dumping.

“When I tell this to people outside the field of international law, the reaction I get is, ‘This is absurd,’ ” Nishimoto acknowledged. [...]
[link:http://enenews.com/absurd-intentionally-dumping-fukushima-nuclear-material-ocean-land-considered-dumping-allowed-international-law|
link]

[darkangel218]

52. Does anyone here really think that contaminated water hasnt been already dumped into the ocean??

I'm 100% sure it has. They usually do it and tell us afterwords.

Fuck Tepco.

[RobertEarl]

59. Of course there has. Lots of it

And here on this thread we have folks telling us more is ok.

That more is negligible.

That they have it almost pure now, they BELIEVE, and that the ocean is too big for our nuke waste to have an effect, except on the stupid fishermen who have spent their lives fishing. Why if it wasn't for the fisherman, Tepco could dump away.

So they say. I say they are, well, not well received.

[darkangel218]

60. All nuclear plants should be closed ASAP

I lived through Chrenobyl, I.survived. not many others did.
:'(

[RobertEarl]

61. It is the only wise action

Close all the nuke plants and cover the buildings with solar panels.

Seems like after Chernobyl there would have been enough wisdom in the world to close all the nukes. Even after Fukushima, we ain't there yet.

We either close them safely or they close themselves like Chernobyl and Fukushima have; with a big bang.

[darkangel218]

62. People are ignorant

They don't realize the dangers until it happens close to home.

I have survived Chernobyl. In 1986, I wil never forget it. I was really close to the nuke plant.


Please close them all, its not worth it.

:'(

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Well, almost half of the represented material was dumped in a very uncontrolled manner in the early

phases of the plant failure.

I almost said 'accident', but the plant underperformed the designer's claims, so I wouldn't call that an accident as in 'no one could have forseen this eventuality' or so. The plant failed. Quite a lot (we have fairly reliable estimates how much) from public sources on how much of the total radiation released got into the ocean.

[darkangel218]

65. WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THE DANGERS??

When is too late, that's when.

:'(

[Wernothelpless]

66. When do they generally wake up? ...

About 15 minutes too late ....

[darkangel218]

67. Yah, and that will indeed be too late

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Yeah, I didn't take it.

Funny, I didn't die.

[darkangel218]

98. lol

[CountAllVotes]

101. All nukes need to go

NOW!!!!!!!

They are killing the world and everything in it for gawd's sake!

Stupid is as stupid does!!!!!!!