Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you see any alternative to Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) dumping radioactive water from its destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean as it runs out of room to store it?

30 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

I don't see why they couldn't make additional attempts to filter the water of additional radioactive material before releasing it into the ocean.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Post Olympics, maybe, just maybe, there will be time and (our tax payer's) money to deal with this problem effectively and with international input. (Not holding breath). I predict a midnight dump-o-rama and a major "shoganai".

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I loathe nuclear.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

No, because it's cheaper to dump the radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean and nobody wants to pay for disposing of the contaminated water properly. The cheap & dumb way usually wins.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

How about a volcano since it is hot it would evaporate the water thus making steam. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid like radioactive metal, it may become more disposable. So as to decontaminate radioactive Ions by boiling.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

No other serious option but to dump, but not all of it at once, and I do like the idea of filtering it once more first, if Teppo can afford the proper scheduled changes of the surely expensive filters.

Perhaps the bottom sludge from each tank could be collected into tanks in one corner of the site.

The other problem will be what do do with a thousand rusting and radioactive empty storage tanks.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

How about a volcano since it is hot it would evaporate the water thus making steam. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid like radioactive metal, it may become more disposable. So as to decontaminate radioactive Ions by boiling.

Volcanoes typically don't get hot enough to split the atomic nuclei to render it inert. Shield volcanoes, generally the hottest, reach about 1300 degrees C. This is not nearly hot enough. It would have to be hotter by 10 to 15 times the heat of an average shield volcano. Maybe more - I can't remember clearly as it has been a very long time since studying physics. If the volcano went active and vented a lot of gas, the pyroclastic cloud would be even deadlier as it would be radioactive as well.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The other problem will be what do do with a thousand rusting and radioactive empty storage tanks.

Fill them up again with more water. The water problem will continue for as long as the melted fuel or corium remains in the reactors. Must be covered with water to prevent the release of radiation.

The radiation level inside the No2 rector building is 15 SIEVERTS /hour. The radiation inside the reactors, 500 SIEVERT/hour.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Of course there are alternatives. Those alternatives cost money and might be inconvenient for the myth the government is peddling, that the disaster is over and not a major problem.

The treated water contains tritium and some other radioactive isotopes but it far less problematic then when it was full of other substances. It could be stored in tanks until the tritium decays off. The other isotopes could be managed by further filtration that deals with those specific isotopes. Something like a continuous loop filtration system could be used on these tanks to deal with that remaining contamination.

There would be a need for more tanks to hold this water. The government has already purchased land for soil storage outside the plant grounds. They could do the same for this type of tank.

There are existing technologies that can remove tritium. The complaints about those is cost and that they would be hard to "scale up". These technologies are already in place at some nuclear plants to filter water in their systems. There would be a need for multiple of these systems but the byproduct of this is hydrogen. Hydrogen can be collected and sold as a usable fuel product.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The radiation level inside the No2 rector building is 15 SIEVERTS /hour. The radiation inside the reactors, 500 SIEVERT/hour.

yeah the reaction is ongoing, it's not like the Fukushima disaster is stopping any time soon so the dumping will be a regular occurrence.

Can it be put under a concrete sarcophagus like Chernobyl ? Or is it too leaky?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

i mean lot of areas in japan is contaminated and i think they want to do that to the sea then like 2011 Tsunami will come and bring back all that radioactive water that they dump.

power companies never care about the environment they just wanna make billions and destroying anything so they can make that money.

its really sad if they agree to dump it in the sea i hope other countries wouldn't allow them especially Korea

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Nobnaga

i mean lot of areas in japan is contaminated and i think they want to do that to the sea then like 2011 Tsunami will come and bring back all that radioactive water that they dump.

You should spend sometime on this radiation map, citizens, you will see that Japan isn't contaminated except near and around the nuclear disaster site.

http://jciv.iidj.net/map/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The melted fuel or corium will need to be covered with water for more than 100,000 years. If it can be removed then doing that will be easier than if it remains in place.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Mayor of Osaka has just offered to allow dumping of this water into Osaka Bay, apparently, 'if the government can guarantee that it is safe'.

https://news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6336810

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Osaka Mayors offer is all puff & blow.

No way in a 1,000 years would citizens of Kansai, Hyogo etc allow it - safe or not.

And Osaka Bay being part of the Greater Seto Inland Sea is like a giant bath with 2 & a bit plug holes.

Kinda the exact opposite to the Pacific Ocean which has attracted many negative opinions re dumping there.

So how on earth could it be dumped in Osaka?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Mayor of Osaka has just offered to allow dumping of this water into Osaka Bay, apparently, 'if the government can guarantee that it is safe'.

The Fishery Coops along the Seto Sea would have something to say about that! The movement is much less than the Pacific Ocean.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Transporting the water from Fukushima to Osaka would need overland tankers or sea ship tankers. They would probably become contaminated by radiation to some level so what would happen to them once the water is delivered?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Surely not all fit into one supertanker? As you say, zichi, this is an ongoing scenario, so they could be used again and again. Or it could be puff 'n blow as browny1 says above. Maybe he said it hoping to curry favour with the right noises, safe in the knowledge that it will never happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they wanted to use a sea tanker they could just take the water further out into the Pacific Ocean and release it there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The solution to radioactive pollution is not dilution! If these companies

can build nuclear reactors they can build safe containers!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One million tons of water would fill 400 olympic swimming pools.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's the easiest way of disposing the radioactive water, but I honestly thought Japan was more innovative than this!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, but it's expensive and TEPCO doesn't want to spend the money.

They need to build a seawall fronting the facility. Drain off the ocean water and then back fill the seawall area. Then build a walled concrete containment area, transfer the waste water to new tanks and then pour a sarcophagus over the whole mess.

This is a forever problem if they don't physically separate the facility from the ocean.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is possible to remove the tritium from the water. However, over the last 8 years of letting the water build up to the point of having no further space to store it they have no other option. Tritium is not a heavy isotope and will be 'diluted' by the pacific although, they have admitted the water is not thoroughly filtered and contains heavy isotopes as well. This is the real worry.

it is a crime to dump radioactive water into the oceans.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Firstly I'd be considering how to concentrate it up to a level that allows it to be used in an existing or new type of reactor as fuel. Tritium is a very powerfull molecule, it would be a shame to waste it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Firstly I'd be considering how to concentrate it up to a level that allows it to be used in an existing or new type of reactor as fuel

I’m no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t believe your comment matches up with the science that it speaks of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Next to the power plant, excavate a gigantic valley or hole.

Line the bottom and sides with stainless steel.

Build stainless steel drums and put all the water tanks into them.

Build a giant sarcophagus over the whole valley.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gotta wonder why the scientists haven’t done that since it’s apparently so easy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Over 70% here are saying yes, there is an alternative, so let's hear it then. Only about three people have suggested anything even remotely practical.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'd pay Elon to ship those containers into space, along with the executives responsible for this mess.

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