TEPCO plans to dump 11,500 tons of radioactive water

[malaise]

into the sea

from BBC International

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Selatius]

1. Perhaps it is in preparation for entombing the fuel rods like at Chernobyl?

With the radioactive water now ejected, there may be a lower level of radiation necessary to maneuver work crews in closer to the fuel rods to begin entombing them with concrete and sand laced with boron to absorb the radiation.

[Junkdrawer]

6. No, they're getting rid of high level waste to make room for higher level waste....

The 100 times legal limit stuff seems harmless by comparison. :(

[RC]

14. Correction: They are preparing to get rid of LOW level waste water, so they can

deal with High level waste water that is now flowing into the sea.
Right now, that high lever waste water is flowing into the sea because they have no place to put it. All the water storage areas are full. This dumping is to make room so the high level stuff isn't going into the ocean any longer. How is this not better than what is happening now?

[Junkdrawer]

17. 100 times the legal limit strikes me as HIGH.....

and while I'd rather that flow into the ocean than the stuff currently flowing into the ocean, I'd rather see some other arrangement found for temporarily holding the 100 times stuff than just dumping it into the ocean.

But, you're right. The pro-nuclear NRC and IAEA has perverted the definition of high and low.

[RC]

21. The fact is the limits are set very low to begin with.

It is the Anti-Nukes that are perverting the definitions for their own ends. The event has happened. They are trying to deal with it the best way they can.
What they plan to do sounds reasonable to me. Dump the low radiation stuff so they can better deal with the actual dangerous stuff.

[KewlKat]

2. Here's one link to the story

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-04/tepco-to-dump-radioactive-water-in-sea-to-keep-reactors-stable.html

[PCIntern]

3. It's the same amount of radiation as

unpacking a new answering machine.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Or eating 2 bananas...

in a brick house.

:sarcasm:

[malaise]

5. So why is it news? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

7. I guess with all the nuke apologists, I need the sarcasm tag....

Fixed.

[malaise]

9. LOL

:hi:

[watrwefitinfor]

11. It is not news.

If it was news the news shows would be reporting it.

Wat

[EFerrari]

18. Reported on Amy Goodman's show this morning. n/t

[watrwefitinfor]

23. Didn't think it was necessary, but:

:sarcasm:

Millions of people watch/listen to the network morning shows, and they had not one word about it. How many watch Amy?

Wat

[RC]

16. OH NO! But then all that lead California says is in the power cord will protect ya.

Injecting facts into a thread about Fukushima nuclear plant problems has as much effect as raising the level of the Pacific ocean by pissing in it.

[davidthegnome]

24. Really?

11,500 tons of radioactive water? Do you have some kind of uhm, er, factual data to support this claim?

[Raster]

27. It's the same amout of radiation as unpacking a new answering machine....

...with a bunch of fuel rods shoved up your ass.

[kristopher]

8. They are worried about flooding affecting the emer. equip for 5&6

They say the dump is mandated by environmental regulations.

NHK 6:05-6 ET

[kentuck]

10. That's only 46 million glasses of water...

eight oz glasses.

[Junkdrawer]

12. K&R

[LiberalEsto]

13. Just wait

One day giant mutant whales will appear. They will be very angry about 1. radiation and 2. whaling

[Luciferous]

15. Ha!

[Poll_Blind]

19. Or, more likely and sadly, they'll just wash up on the beach while the rest of the pod swim in...

...the shallows, placing their lives in danger while attempting to protect the dying one.

Which is too bad, because we could use some slapping around at this point, as a species.

PB

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. NO FUCKING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!

The international community CANNOT allow that! WTF???? :wtf:

[suffragette]

22. Time to learn about the Kuroshio Current

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuroshio_Current
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12962104



And its interaction with the oyashio current:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3181550.htm

CLIVE WILKINSON: These two currents often form eddies or gyres and these gyres can persist for weeks at a time. Such that, anything coming out of that reactor will be entrained in these gyres, which means there is a lot of time for it to be taken up by plankton and things that eat plankton such as zooplankton. Then by little fish, bigger fish and eventually up to tuna.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Dr Clive Wilkinson leads a group of passionate researchers and concerned government policy makers, called the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.

He says there is a very strong likelihood that caesium, iodine and strontium could accumulate in the food chain from phytoplankton and algae to edible fish.

CLIVE WILKINSON: I wouldn't be particularly concerned about them causing kills. My concern would be as they are magnified up the food chain. So iodine would be eventually washed out of the system because it has only got an eight day half life. But things like caesium, strontium, tellurium, barium - they could be incorporated into the food chain.






Speaking of the food chain, this info is from an interview with a person who had been working at the plant:

http://www.bostonherlad.com/news/international/asia_pacific/view.bg?articleid=1327811&format=&page=2&listingType=intasia

The worker also said the tsunami littered the grounds with dead fish that remained scattered throughout the plant, attracting birds.


From that, it looks like birds have been eating the fish and one thing birds do well is fertilize surrounding areas. I haven't seen any info examining that yet.


This is from a poor google translation of an article in "Liberation" but the article contains so much info, I think it worthwhile to post:

[hayu_lol]

25. Oh mercy...a whole 11,500 tons being dumped...

this number brings the 'sky is falling' routine into focus again.

http://www.northern-stars.com/oceans.pdf

This is a teacher's guide to the oceans.

The total weight of the world's ocean water(drum roll please):

(approx)1,450,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons OR

One quintillion, 450 quadrillion tons


Lots of good info at this site on the oceans. Can also just google: weight of the world's oceans

Many of our best physicists say ocean dumping in this case will be diluted and will become harmless in a fairly short time. It is the only way to dispose of the sea water in the reactors.

[suffragette]

26. I don't understand why you feel the need to twist and mischaracterize

a post with information about the currents in the area, info from a marine scientist about the interaction of these currents upon sealife and the account from an observer on-site at the nuclear plant into "sky is falling."

[hayu_lol]

30. Well, the panic over this dumping will reach epidemic proportions if...

facts are not injected into the subject matter from time to time. There is a regular 'Oh Woe Is Me' crew working most of these threads.

You can do what you like with the myths...but facts are facts.

Fact here is that the 11,500 tons is akin to an eyedropper full when discussing oceans of water.

I do appreciate your concern over my 'sky is falling' reference.

[suffragette]

31. Show me what I posted that isn't factual or is a myth

1) Information on currents with appropriate links
2) Interview with a marine scientist addressing this with link.
Here's another link the organization:
http://www.gcrmn.org/nodes.aspxIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC / UNESCO)
The IOC/UNESCO is the United Nations' focal point for marine science, research and observations to provide better knowledge about ocean resources, their nature and sustainability for marine management and policy development. Key priorities involve building national capacities to address the World Summit of Sustainable Development's Plan of Implementation, the role of Small Island Development States, and the Millennium Development Goals. IOC/UNESCO assists in the development of coral reef monitoring and data management, with equal emphasis on ecological and socio-economic information. A particular focus is understanding the role of reef-dependent coastal communities in conservation and sustainable development. IOC, with UNEP, IUCN and the World Meteorological Organisation formed the Global Task Team on Coral Reefs in 1991 to develop global coral reef monitoring, which was the precursor to the GCRMN, with IOC, UNEP, IUCN, World Bank and the CBD now as co-sponsors. The GCRMN contributes data on coral reef health and resources to the Global Ocean Observing System.
3) Quote from worker at Fukushima with link.

Comment from me that birds excrete waste.

Again, show me what is not fact.

By the way, when I clicked on your link upthread I received an error. You might want to fix that.

[hayu_lol]

32. Link was ok when I posted...

you can find the northernstars site...google: weight of the world's oceans...scroll down till you find the northernstar site.

[suffragette]

33. Here's your fixed link for you

http://www.northern-stars.com/Oceans.pdf

Looks like the O in "Oceans" needs to be capitalized.

[Reader Rabbit]

28. Here comes Godzilla.

[kristopher]

29. More like Minamata

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285731

This is a horrific part of recent history for Japan, and they are undoubtedly keyed in to the potential for accumulation of toxins in the food chain because of it.

The slideshow in the follow-on post is the mental model that this outflow is meshing with.