national

System to treat contaminated water at plant still having problems

14 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Next month? Yet the water is going to overflow in 8-9 days. Writing is on the wall.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Who cares if it is contaminated. Can't it be sued as a coolant water anyway? They are going to decontaminate it and use it again...then it gets contaminated again and again. Sounds stupid to me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Amazing how only the stuff from abroad has broken down... Could it be they did read the manual right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course it is "bound to have problems". They are not setting up something that is proven and mass-produced, they are rigging a system ad-hoc on-site. Whenevery you do that, it would silly to expect it to work flawlessly from the start.

(Just as it would be silly to see a journalist write about this objectively and without bias these days....)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Agree with ihavegreatlegs, use the contaminated water. What is the reason to de-contaminate only to re-contaminate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB you're staring to sound like a TEPCO representitive...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Usual irritating article. Not surprised that even the IAEA, Tepco's greatest fan, had a sharp word on the subject of information release.

Falls back on old excuses despite what has subsequently come to light, and doesn't for example even mention the lever that was in the wrong position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ihavegreatlegs

Who cares if it is contaminated. Can't it be sued as a coolant water anyway? They are going to decontaminate it and use it again...then it gets contaminated again and again. Sounds stupid to me.

Right, then from the point of view of an informed person your statement sounds more than stupid. Pumping equipment (among other things) would then become radioactive as well, which, believe it or not, is a problem. Thank you for insulting the people working on this, now go with your great legs and operate radioactive equipment yourself.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OH NO!!!! "threatening to leak into the sea and posing health risks and logistical hurdles to the workers struggling to make repairs at the plant." Health risks shock horror and to think up until now there have been no health risks..... Sorry no immediate health risks. This circus is really getting tiresome

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Xinef said this:

Right, then from the point of view of an informed person your statement sounds more than stupid. Pumping equipment (among other things) would then become radioactive as well, which, believe it or not, is a problem. Thank you for insulting the people working on this, now go with your great legs and operate radioactive equipment yourself.

Now I obviously haven't seen details of how the plant works. It has filters to remove radioactive particulates, but what system dos it have to remove radioactivity in solution? If there's some system to remove these, that solves the problem of the system not becoming contaminated in any case. However, obviously the ~100 000 tons of water has got to be removed to allow access to the structure for whatever remedial actions can be carried out at this stage.

But once ll this lot has been finally pumped out, is there any real reason why the filtered decontaminated water can't be recirculated, even if it has a residual amount of radioactive solubles in it? I/m asking the question from the practicality of doing this, because everything is high;y contaminated with fission products in any case. Of course the water pumping plant still has to be accessible for maintenance, and filter replacements, so it can't be allowed to become too highly contaminated, resulting is unacceptably high radiation doses to workers.

But on the other hand, unless the decontaminated water is released to the sea - obviously yes if it's seawater to start with - the sea is a pretty large diluting medium. Freshwater supplies certainly must not be contaminated with it.

Just wondering, because 100 000 tons of water is around 100 000 cubic metres of it - quite a large volume to deal with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing systematic about this approach it is still as bad as it was 3 months ago. NOTHING has improved so it has GOT worse. Imbeciles!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

NHK is reporting that the system is starting to work today and the expected.or hoped-for decontamination figures are being reached. Exit water with 100,000th of the radiation at entry. They have treated 2,500 tons so far.

Since they have been reducing the daily amount of cooling water being pumped into the reactors, they have managed to buy some vital extra time that way too.

About time we had some good news. Good luck to them!

Much appreciated guys. :cheers:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The heavy radioactive metals clog the pipes and they also have to remove the salt from the seawater they used, which corrodes. The cement company tasked with incinerating radioactive debris has the same problem. Salt is no good in cement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, I believe the final step is to remove the salt.

But that at least should be relatively easy , seeing as desalination is well-tested technology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites