+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/20/2018 09:54 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.536 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/04/2011 12:13 PM ID: 88603 Permalink   

Japan: Fukushima´s Radioactive Water to Be Dumped Into Pacific


A Japanese cabinet minister announced today that 11,500 tons of radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will be dumped into the Pacific.

Meanwhile, workers at the plant are trying to plug a crack which allows contamination to spread.

Releasing the water from reactors No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 into the sea is "unavoidable", according to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano. They are hoping to get additional storage space for maybe more seriously contaminated water from reactor No. 2.

    WebReporter: walktheline Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
there is no other way how to get rid of that contaminated water but dont know what a damage can cause that water in the ocean.

[ edited by vizhatlan ]
  by: vizhatlan     04/04/2011 01:07 PM     
  That´s okay  
Many Asians eat fish heads. Now they´ll have twice as many to eat when two-headed fish start showing up everywhere.
  by: womenareviolent     04/04/2011 03:03 PM     
drill a hole and pour the water into it. as the water soaks into the earth, by the time it gets to the sea it will have lost a lot of radioactivity.
  by: shannon853   04/04/2011 03:35 PM     
Lol, this would be the better case.

[ edited by vizhatlan ]
  by: vizhatlan     04/04/2011 04:14 PM     
  Missed opportunity...  
Maybe it´s my inner entrepreneur, but this is a cash cow.

Bottle the water, stick on a label featuring Marvel Comic´s Hulk, and sell that stuff.
  by: dayron   04/04/2011 04:20 PM     
  The World´s currents.....  
will spread that stuff everywhere. This summer we will be all dipping at the beach in radioactive water. I ´aint going surfing this year I can tell you.
  by: MalcolmB   04/04/2011 04:57 PM     
  No one else is saying it.....  
But I know you´re thinking it.

  by: solo4078   04/04/2011 07:11 PM     
  call up NASA  
Have them prep a Saturn V rocket for inner sun trajectory. Fill up the main cargo area with as much waste material as possible. Fire that sucker into the sun, repeat if necessary. Sure hydrogen/oxygen fuel being burned in the atmosphere, better than poisoning the entire eco system by dumping it straight into the ocean. How timid and ridiculous of them to think that this is even a remote possibility.
  by: meshuggahfan   04/04/2011 09:10 PM     
  Not too worried  
So 11,500 gallons of radioactive water in the 346 million trillion gallons of water in the oceans. Hmmm... That´s about one gallon per 30 quadrillion gallons. I don´t have any fears of surfing this year, and I live in California.
  by: ub3rtristan   04/05/2011 01:18 AM     
The ol´ right wing solution to all the world´s problems, drill baby, drill. I can´t even begin to tell you how insanely stupid it would be to dump 11,000 tons of radioactive saltwater into a hole. And where would we even get such a hole? You couldn´t possibly dump radioactive water above the water table. So, you´ve got to drill a big ass hole below the water table in an uninhabited part of Good luck. This is why God invented lead-lined tanks. And how in the world are you going to transport all that water to the hole without spreading radiation everywhere, hurting more people and not making a bigger problem than you have already?

Not a bad idea but that would be one hell of a payload. Also, can you imagine if that rocket malfunctioned. Holy crap. We could spray 11,000 tons of radioactive water into the atmosphere. Get out your lead umbrella.

You might be the only sane person in this discussion. The only big effect on the ocean is going to be immediately around Japan´s coastline. I live in Oregon and I´m not too worried about it affecting the US either.

The thing that really sucks is that we don´t have a lot of options. The Japanese are going to store as much of it as they can on land, but ultimately, we´ve got to dump the rest back in the ocean. There is really no other choice. The only other solution that might work (but it´s unlikely) would be to sacrifice a super-tanker, load it up with the water, send it out to sea, give the radiation some time to drop and then dump it back in the ocean. At least that way, we would have a bit of control over where the radiation ends up and how much of that Japanese coastline is effected by drift.

[ edited by zirschky ]
  by: zirschky     04/05/2011 01:46 AM     
  I feel bad the planet  
We just unloaded how many bajillion gallons of oil into the oceans just last year, now we´re going to top that by dumping thousands of gallons of highly irradiated water in with it as well...

what will we come up with next? just using the ocean as an all purpose garbage dump?
  by: sceptre_of_fertility   04/05/2011 02:32 AM     
Your brilliant plan is what´s called Ground Water contamination. Ground water is wrere a lot of people get their drinking water, both in Japan and everywhere else.

I´m glad the "Nuclear power is safe" people are quite. Wonder why?

[ edited by Jim8 ]
  by: Jim8   04/05/2011 04:49 AM     
  nuclear power is safe  
just not in earthquake prone areas. for example many places in canada have never, ever ever ever experienced a noticeable earthquake and as such im not even the slightly concerned about those power plants.

  by: sceptre_of_fertility   04/05/2011 05:03 AM     
  Chernobyl isn´t on an Earthquake Fault  
So it was safe? TheOnion has a great article, "Nuclear Power Perfectly Safe Unless Something Bad Happens."

[ edited by Jim8 ]
  by: Jim8   04/05/2011 05:21 AM     
  Someone should post this  
WASHINGTON—Responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought Thursday to reassure nervous Americans that U.S. reactors were 100 percent safe and posed absolutely no threat to the public health as long as no unforeseeable system failure or sudden accident were to occur.
  by: Jim8   04/05/2011 05:32 AM     
was more a result of an impatient soviet powerhouse who were more concerned with getting results than getting safe results.

nuclear power is safe when used properly and in safe areas. its not the kinda thing where you just drop a power plant wherever you want and build it with the cheapest supplies. thats when problems occur.
  by: sceptre_of_fertility   04/05/2011 05:45 AM     
We have an interesting disagreement as far as our world views. You think man can control everything, and I don´t.

We will have to wait and see who is right.

Interesting to me is that the same mind set that says man can control things also does not believe government can do anything right.

[ edited by Jim8 ]
  by: Jim8   04/05/2011 06:06 AM     
although i hope you weren´t suggesting i dont think government is capable of anything. i dont think ive said anything to suggest that
  by: sceptre_of_fertility   04/05/2011 08:46 AM     
  Science Fiction  
Comming to life.

radio active water release? i expect to see GODZILLA, MOTHRA, GAMMARA to show up in the next 2 years
  by: smgordon1259   04/05/2011 01:59 PM     
it wasn´t 11,500 gallons, obviously you cannot read. It´s 11,500 TONS of radioactive water, 1 ton = 2,000 lbs. Hope that clears up your error in mathematics.
  by: meshuggahfan   04/05/2011 08:54 PM     
Whoops, misread that. Okay, I´ll recalculate. Since 11,500 tons is about 2,760,000 gallons (~240 gallons per ton) the new grand total is about one gallon per 118,115,942,028,985 gallons of normal seawater. Soo... slightly less than one part per 118 trillion. Now I´m shaking in my boots!
  by: ub3rtristan   04/05/2011 10:03 PM     
  Nuclear power IS a safer alternative, actually....  
Though these contaminates are very dangerous, ... under "normal" circumstances, the spent fuel from nuclear facilities is far more easily disposed of SAFELY than that of coal ash/waste. And coal ash is TOXIC as well... VERY TOXIC!!! Not radioactive, but based on the quantity of coal ash that is disposed of annually, it´s of far more risk to human life and our ecosystem than the quantity of nuclear waste disposed of annually. (Especially when disposed of correctly...)

The bigger issue is whether nuclear facilities are SAFE. You can´t really use Chernobyl as an good example, because you really have to keep in mind that your talking about a time that was very early in the history of nuclear energy use. They weren´t nearly as versed in the safety measures needed...

And the other more obvious issue is that though this was a very large earthquake, ... Japan has always been at high risk of earthquakes. The US/California faults have nothing on the fault line east of Japans border. The install a facility like this as close to the eastern boarder as they did was universally stupid.....
  by: jeffillinois   04/05/2011 11:53 PM     
  jeffillinois-Two Things, at the least  
1) You have to use Chernobyl as an example. It´s an example of where mistakes were made

2) >>>spent fuel from nuclear facilities is far more easily disposed of SAFELY than that of coal ash/waste.

There is NO way to dispose of spent fuel rods. We store them forever.

No chance of a mistake when you factor in the eternity part.

[ edited by Jim8 ]
  by: Jim8   04/06/2011 05:44 AM     
  Why not...?  
I´m certainly no radiation expert but: Why can´t the spent rods and the worst of the contaminated leftovers simply be put back where they came from? Seems to me containerizing them and storing them in existing uranium mines wouldn´t cause much more damage.

The mines already have anti-social radiation and transportation of such "goods" as rods and other dangerous materials is already common - more common than many people realize.

Again, I´m no expert. Just a thought.
  by: womenareviolent     04/06/2011 06:06 AM     
  LOL @ No Big Effect  
Experts Fear Pollution may Affect Seafood Abroad

(written about the levels of radiation BEFORE they started dumping into the ocean)


"It is a considerably high amount," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

Masayoshi Yamamoto, a professor of radiology at Kanazawa University, said the high level of cesium is the more worrisome find.

"By the time radioactive iodine is taken in by plankton, which is eaten by smaller fish and then by bigger fish, it will be diluted by the sea and the amount will decrease because of its eight-day half-life," Yamamoto said. "But cesium is a bigger problem."

The half-life of cesium-137 is 30 years, while that for cesium-134 is two years. The longer half-life means it will probably concentrate in the upper food chain.

Yamamoto said such radioactive materials are likely to be detected in fish and other marine products in Japan and other nations in the short and long run, posing a serious threat to the seafood industry in other nations as well.

"All of Japan´s sea products will probably be labeled unsafe..."

-------End Quote------

An extra tidbit:

Nuclear Policy Expert: “Striking” that Radioactive Iodine-131 in California Rainwater is 18,100% Above Level Permitted in Drinking Water

  by: Questioning_Answers     04/06/2011 09:37 PM     
  @ jeffillinois  
You wrote:

"And the other more obvious issue is that though this was a very large earthquake, ... Japan has always been at high risk of earthquakes. The US/California faults have nothing on the fault line east of Japans border."

That?s just not true if you?re talking about big earthquakes. Ever heard of the Cascadia Subduction Zone?

It?s only a few hundred miles off the Washington/Oregon/California coastline. It?s well known to many geologists because every 300-600 years it produces a major earthquake (9.0 ) and tsunami which reaches the US coastline soon thereafter.

Another 9.0 from the Cascadia subduction zone can happen at any time now and incredible amounts of damage is expected when it does. The tsunamis expected from this subduction zone are expected to reach upwards of 100 feet high. That?s 3x higher than the Japanese tsunami.

Recent findings concluded the Cascadia subduction zone was more hazardous than previously suggested. The feared next major earthquake has some geologists predicting a 10% t 14% pobability that the Cascadia Subduction Zone will produce an event of magnitude 9 or higher in the next 50 years,[11] however the most recent studies suggest that this risk could be as high as 37% fr earthquakes of magnitude 8 or higher.[12][13]

Geologists have also determined the Pacific Northwest is not prepared for such a colossal earthquake. The tsunami produced may reach heights of approximately 30 meters (100 ft).

--------End Quote------

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
  by: Questioning_Answers     04/06/2011 09:55 PM     
  No more fish for me!  
  by: captainJane     04/07/2011 12:29 AM     
Is there some way nuclear plants can process the radioactive water? It would be nice to recover some of that energy in addition to not double-heading the fish.

But what about a two headed shark?! That´s just too cool not to exist.

So on second thought, never mind. I want to see that shark.
  by: Aussie   04/07/2011 01:10 AM     
Yes. The Russians apparently have a huge, floating facility specifically for processing radioactive liquids. Japan has asked to borrow it.


The “Suzuran”, one of the world’s largest liquid radioactive waste treatment plants, treats radioactive liquid with chemicals and stores it in a cement form. It is can process 35 cubic metres of liquid waste a day and 7,000 cubic metres a year."

  by: womenareviolent     04/07/2011 07:43 AM     
How moronic are you people? Safe? Safe for you maybe, screw your grand kids right? Iodine-129 has a half life of 17 million years! Humans will die out before half of this material decays. From Wikipedia: "The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses. Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically. Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning and cost evaluations are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects."

[ edited by mrspike ]
  by: mrspike   04/07/2011 09:54 PM     
  South Park reference KGO  
1. Dump radioactive water into the largest, most delicate ecosystem that you coincidentally rely on as a main source of food.

2. ??????????????

  by: id0pa   04/14/2011 12:55 AM     
  @How moronic are you people?  
Very, very moronic. You should see the world through the eyes of someone with an IQ in the 99th percentile.

An average person can think of it like living in a world full of people with down´s syndrome. Everywhere, people with downs syndrome thinking they´ve got a good grasp on things. It´s a complete joke.

And BTW, Japan is uninhabitable. I´ll say that again. Human life will no longer exist in Japan without being heavily radiated.

The US is very, very likely to follow suit. All you morons who thought nuclear power was safe, well thanks for DESTROYING NEARLY ALL HUMAN LIFE ON THE PLANET. Fucking imbeciles.

  by: Questioning_Answers     10/08/2011 10:42 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: