
Fukushima: Japan will have to dump radioactive water into Pacific, minister says - asymmetric
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/fukushima-japan-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-water-into-pacific-minister-says
======
rowanG077
It's really sad the guardian doesn't quantify at all how contaminated the
water is. This basically has no news value because of it. Is this a good idea?
Is this a bad idea? No way to tell without any hard numbers.

~~~
pvaldes
> Is this a good idea? Is this a bad idea? No way to tell without any hard
> numbers.

Having plenty of numbers and data is great, specially for making reports and
speeches, but maths are not the only tool that a human brain can use. Often
logical reasoning is powerful enough.

Is a fact that radioactivity kills people. No need to demonstrate it
statistically. We have enough empirical evidence.

Is a fact also that radioactivity is bioaccumulative.

We don't need a single "four", "seven" or a "twelve" to understand that
dumping a bioaccumulative poison in a coastal area inhabited by millions and
that provides a considerable part of the diet of this people, is definitely
not a good idea.

~~~
antientropic
I think you have an incorrect idea of "logic reasoning" if you think that
that's a scientifically sound argument. To know whether this contaminated
water will be insufficiently diluted in the ocean to cause problems, you
definitely do need to use numbers. I mean, if it's diluted to a trillionth of
the natural background radiation, then who cares?

~~~
pvaldes
The question there then (I think that both will agree with that) is not if is
a bad or good idea, is if (or how) they can get away with murder. The answer
to this question is yes, of course. Had been doing it since 2011.

The idea that they are getting short of space is ridiculous. The area around
the central is not exactly crowded at this moment. To me is obvious that they
are getting sort of money, not space, and trying disperately to find excuses
to save at any cost, and pass the problem to other.

~~~
Nodraak
Murder? Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge nobody died of
radiation at Fukushima.

~~~
pvaldes
> nobody died of radiation at Fukushima.

Are you sure?

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-45423575)

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/get-a...](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/get-
away-with-murder)

~~~
Nodraak
Sorry for misunderstanding getting away with murder, I'm not a native english
speaker. Thank you for the denifition.

Not sure he died because of Fukushima:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/09/06/no-the-
ca...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/09/06/no-the-cancer-death-
was-probably-not-from-fukushima/).

Anyway, we are discussing one case. Nobody died during the crisis and after 8
years there is only this case, and this is the second worst nuclear disaster.
I am not saying that nuclear is the best, but it is way safer than how people
think it is. And definitly way safer than other ways of producing electricity.

------
Nodraak
Very good twitter thread on this thing, with numbers and detailled
explanations (in French, sorry):
[https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1164497983402053634](https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1164497983402053634)

Check also his other threads, it's a gold mine

------
pvaldes
Here comes the excuses. Who was irresponsible in the past, will be
irresponsible in the future if is allowed to do so. I would not expect a
different response.

Alaska, British Columbia and the rest of US West Coast will eat the garbage
shaped as fishes, by courtesy of sea currents, (and is obvious that nobody
cares). Strange times.

------
lioeters
They've been dumping (or leaking) hundreds of tons of radioactive water into
the Pacific every day since the incident in 2011. It sounds like they will
have to dump _more_ , as a controlled release.

> [using groundwater] to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting

> [built] a frozen underground wall to prevent groundwater reaching the three
> damaged reactor buildings [which reduced the flow]..to about 100 tonnes a
> day.

> the prime minister..assured..that the situation was “under control”.

Not convinced.

------
vilhelm_s
There is a long article in two parts "Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi:
What should be done?" [1,2] which was previously discussed here at Hacker News
[3].

The thing I find most interesting is that even the Fukushima fishermen agree
that dumping the water will be harmless, but they are still very opposed to it
because they think consumers will be irrationally scared and not buy fish
caught in the Fukushima region.

> Over the course of our long conversation, Sawada frankly acknowledged that
> the scientific consensus indicates very low risk if the water is released.
> “It’s not a question of scientific understanding,” he said. “We understand
> that tritiated water is released from other nuclear power plants in Japan
> and around the world. But we think it will be impossible for the public in
> general to understand why tritium is considered low risk, and expect there
> will be a large new backlash against Fukushima marine products no matter how
> scientifically it is explained.” I pointed out that the [fishery] coops
> agreed to the release of the subdrain and bypass water from Daiichi, and
> asked what was different about this. He pointed out that in those cases, the
> water is pumped out before it is contaminated, and the public seems to
> understand that the contamination levels are already very low.

[1] [https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-1-radioactive-
water-a...](https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-1-radioactive-water-at-
fukushima-daiichi-what-should-be-done/) [2]
[https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-2-radioactive-
water-a...](https://blog.safecast.org/2018/06/part-2-radioactive-water-at-
fukushima-daiichi-what-should-be-done/) [3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20304208](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20304208)

------
lholden
It seems they have primarily isolated the remaining contaminant to tritium?

This seems like it might be a nice source of tritium for tritium deuterium
fusion reactors? I am quite sure I am missing some fairly critical elements
here... but it certainly would be lovely if that was the solution. (I mean,
there are not exactly a lot of fusion reactors... heh).

------
beautifulfreak
I suppose the problem is the other contaminants, because tritium removal isn't
too difficult. Cost must be the real problem. Nothing cheaper than dumping it
in the ocean.

[https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-
expertise/tec...](https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-
expertise/technologies/our-modular-detritiation-system-mds-remove-tritium)

------
Havoc
I guess we get to role play all those nuclear wasteland games in real life.

Just kidding. Wasn’t there a calc a while back that the concentrations are
actually that bad? ie in some cases barely noticable against background
radiation

~~~
krageon
The nuclear field has as far as I'm aware always been full of people claiming
(sometimes with pretty sophisticated reasoning) that "it's not that bad" (used
to justify storing waste or just dumping it).

~~~
Havoc
Fair. I mean the correct answer is clearly zero but it's an imperfect world.

Even if it is actually bad...I don't see any other options? Maybe massive oil
tankers to transport it & dump it in a desert somewhere?

~~~
krageon
Radioactive waste is trading inconveniencing future generations for a tangible
benefit right now. Every storage solution has inadequately addressed long-term
viability ("we're sure we'll solve the issues some day") or has waved it away
by pretending it is unimportant (this happens for basically every dumping
solution).

Fundamentally, whether or not that reasoning is unethical or wrong is up to
the reader. I don't feel like disadvantaging my descendants because it's
convenient for me is the right thing to do, but looking at the state of the
world right now I doubt the majority of people feels that way (or even cares
to think about it). Given that that is the case, sure! Dump it somewhere
convenient.

------
adam0c
call me crazy but why dont they just fire it off into space... ahaha!

~~~
tmountain
The use of rockets raises the threat of an accidental release of the waste
into the atmosphere if there was an explosion.

