Slashdot Mirror


The Status of the Fukushima Clean-Up

doom writes "Ian Sample at the Guardian UK does a really thorough write-up of what's going on with the Fukushima Clean-up. From the article: 'Though delicate and painstaking, retrieving the fuel rod assemblies from the pools is not the toughest job the workers face. More challenging by far will be digging out the molten cores in the reactors themselves. Some of the fuel burned through its primary containment and is now mixed with cladding, steel and concrete. The mixture will have to be broken up, sealed in steel containers and moved to a nuclear waste storage site. That work will not start until some time after 2020.'"

24 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. TL;DR version by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it still sucks and it's going to take forever to clean up.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:TL;DR version by discord5 · · Score: 2

      What color do you want your sushi to glow tonight?

      There, fixed that for you.

      At least fix the damn typo while you're improving the content.

    2. Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      To be exact, "forever" is probably equal to enough half-lives of most active and dangerous materials so that they become relatively harmless.

      Same idea as in Chernobyl. Unlike chemical waste, radioactive waste destroys itself over time. It makes sense to contain it and let most of it destroy itself to manageable levels before cleaning it up.

    3. Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      No, we'd like the anti-nuclear lobby to stop blocking plant upgrades. In doing so, they effectively cause these problems. The sad reality is that anti-nuclear lobby blows everything out of proportion. Minor piping problem on secondary circuit? "Nuclear accident!" Plant generational mid life upgrades? "They are building up more nuclear, PROTEST, BLOCK IT!"

      And then you get Fukushima, 60s plant that never got upgraded, get hit by earthquake order of magnitude bigger than they were originally designed for, survive it, get hit by a tsunami that kills its diesel generators which are safety critical because plant didn't receive any mid-life upgrades at all, then it melts down as infrastructure in the region is devastated and there's no power for downright ancient cooling systems.

      Nuclear industry isn't the one that is able to turn its image around. Your strawman argument is an excellent example - nothing in this world is "perfectly safe", and claiming otherwise instantly results in "oooh, you admitted it's dangerous". It's facing power hungry well financed "green" anti-nuclear lobby, financed by coal and oil, which are loving the Fukushima by the way, they likely paid for most of the lobby financing done in last century just on last two year buildup in Japan and Germany alone. I seriously doubt that nuclear will ever be able to shake the image that is being pushed on it with so much of both money and fairly uneducated people who think "something I can't see that kills, scaaaary" when they hear "nuclear", at least until the global warming gets really bad.

      By that time, it'll probably be too late, but that's all too human I guess - we'll just shove our collective heads in the sand, get scared by something we can't see but we know is nowhere near as harmful as alternatives, and build up those alternatives because their harmfulness, we can at least see. It's pretty fucking horrifying, but we can see it - so by definition of average person, it's not as scary.

      Errare humanum est.

  2. Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by Calinous · · Score: 2

    The plants were stopped. Unfortunately, stopped nuclear plants still produce heat, so they need cooling (lots of cooling at that).
          The tsunami broke the cooling installation, so the heat from the "non-functional" reactors (or storage pools or whatever) had nowhere else to go fast. If I remember correctly, two of the nuclear plants were to be decommissioned, and were kept at "zero operating power" (that is, as low as possible). As they weren't cooled enough, they had a heat buildup that ended with meltdown.

  3. Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    All Japanese nuclear reactors were closed down after the tsunami, and only two, a long way from Fukushima, have restarted

    They haven't actually restarted yet, fwiw. The operator has applied for permission to restart them, and after some controversy, the government has decided in principle to consider the request, so the relevant agency has started a safety assessment. Even if approved, they are unlikely to restart before 2016.

  4. I Live 90 Miles From the Site by fullback · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And I have two things to say.

    1. It's an incredibly difficult job where new challenges have to be met with new thinking every day.

    2. The people who are doing the difficult work deserve a huge gratitude of thanks for their effort. Working in full radiation suits and masks in 35C temperatures in summer took extraordinary strength of purpose and determination.

    All of you that are going to make jokes about glowing whatever and Godzilla can go fuck yourselves. And I mean it. Go Fuck Yourself.

    1. Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humour is a coping strategy. If people are not allowed to make jokes about stuff that scares them it gets much scarier for them.

      Live with it.

    2. Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by NandGate1 · · Score: 2

      I think it's great that someone close to the site posted something like this. It could have opened up a wonderful dialog. However, you really diluted your message by adding those last two sentences.

  5. Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am held AGHAST by the biblical-level hysteria that is circulating about Fukushima these days. It is being served up and replicated with the relish of the street-corner preacher with an end-of-world sign. Every die-off of fish is related (ignore the Atlantic), the melting starfish (never mind it's happening worldwide), from mammals to narwhals there is some serious confirmation bias being stirred.

    The computer model plume of currents has DEATH arriving at the United States West coast; mere detection of miniscule amounts of Cesium -- which science is capable of to an extraordinary level of precision -- is being fronted as a radioactive death sentence.

    There seems to be no deference to expert or even medical opinion on true risk factors; and in the tired vein of disaster porn, any appeals to consider such generates a (predictable) backlash of conspiracy coverup allegations. At times it is literally a no-think zone.

    Radioactivity is the new whipping boy of disaster porn.

    NO-HYPE Fukushima information:

    Fukushima Accident Updates. Leslie Corrice has done an excellent job chronicling the accident from 2011. Following the latest posting thread backwards in time (some 60 pages so far) is a detailed account you will find nowhere else.

    Fukushima Accident Commentary Leslie Corrice again, exhibiting a level of journalistic integrity that is fast-fading on today's news and Internet sources, has maintained a separate thread of personal opinion and commentary. It is as fascinating a read as the last, here you will find topics of politics, culture and status and observation of the Fukushima victims' compensation fund and resettlement.

    Nuclear Industry source: Nuclear Street tag: Fukushima

    Rod Adams' Atomic Power Review has scaled down its Fukushima coverage as of late, but in the archives you will find some detailed articles with week-by-week coverage.

    Do add more!

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The hysteria is whipped up by the more extreme hippy enviromentalists and their patsies in the ignorant media and governments (hello Germany). The hippies have a deep seated hatred of anything nuclear simply because SOME power stations in SOME countries were used to generate plutonium. So regardless of its benefits they damn the best form of power generation we have to offset climate change - and don't anyone bloody start about fucking stupid windfarms that cost a fortune, blanket god knows how many square miles and produce sod all power most of the time - simply because of their political leanings and their mindset being stuck in the 1980s along with whats left of CND.

      Frankly these people are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves, but instead they just make more and more noise. The only consolation is they'll all be dead in a few decades and hopefully sanity will prevail once more. And anyone who still thinks nuclear power is dangerous should think twice about visiting France. Though I'm not aware of it being radioactive yet.

    2. Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by hey! · · Score: 2

      Yes, dagnebbit. If only them long-haired hippies with their free love, LDS and bell-bottom trousers would go away, TEPCO would have this licked.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry but where is this hysterical coverage? The Guardian article you're critiquing here ends with:

      "Two years ago there was a huge earthquake and tsunami that killed around 20,000 people. But every day when I read the paper, it said, 'nuclear disaster, nuclear disaster, nuclear disaster'. In actual fact, not one person has died of radiation, nor is anyone likely to. The straight story is the Japanese didn't have a nuclear response plan. There were a lot of human errors during what happened at Fukushima. It was old technology, badly maintained, and the regulator was not respected. Those are the facts. They have to be faced and dealt with."

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  6. Re:I live on the Pacific by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I've stopped eating Sushi.

    So you were happy when the coal plants were dumping untold amounts of mercury and other crap into the sea (it all winds up there eventually), but now you've stopped eating fish because of Fukishima?

    You need to evaluate your risk assessment strategies.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Fukushima news will become scarce by vix86 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This will get little coverage in news outlets around the world, but its worth spreading and this article is as good as any to mention it. The Japanese Lower House, in the Diet, passed a bill which set up a National Secrets law. Essentially it is an anti-whistleblower law. It has many of the usual sections present in other countries save for one. The bill sets forth that all information dealing with "nuclear energy" will be considered a national secret and releasing any information without the oversight of the government will basically be illegal.

    This means that if something bad is happening at the Fukushima plant, then we have to rely on someone doing the moral thing and telling the world and then going to jail.

    The bill still has to go through the Upper House but it's likely to pass without much opposition even though the media and the public have been strongly opposed to it. It seems very likely that the bill is there to cover up any bad information that might tarnish Japan or TEPCO's image.

    Japan state secrets bill on track to become law despite protests

  8. Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That post's own source article says quite the opposite, that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment. Not exactly being honest with the readership, there.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. Re:I live on the Pacific by tommeke100 · · Score: 2

    Most fish used in sushi doesn't come from the Pacific.
    It comes from fishing farms, where the fish have so little room that most are sick, so pesticides and anti-biotics are used to keep them alive until they're good to harvest.
    No need to tell you eat that stuff as well.

  10. Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That a simplification but essentially correct.

    In fact both the earthquake and tsunami damaged the cooling system. They could have recovered from that using emergency pump trucks, which in fact they did try to do. The problem was that all the monitoring equipment was out of action due to lack of power, so they were unaware that a valve was open and syphoning off the water they were pumping in before it reached the reactors. The tsunami damage made getting near enough to make manual checks difficult, and then things started to explode as well.

    The plant was designed to survive flooding and tsunami, it just didn't work in a real emergency situation. That is why when operators claim that their plants are safer or they have some new design that can't possibly go wrong people are sceptical. The same reassurances have been made before.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 2

    that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment.

    What treatment are you talking about?! If you call the plan for dilution a "treatment" then yeah. other than that how exactly to they plan to "treat" irradiated water before dumping it in the ocean?

    Erm, nothing? Because diluting it to the point where it's not a big deal is the plan? It's not as if the stuff is going to magically re-concentrate itself after dilution and sea dumping. Hell, they could probably just dump it all into the depths of the pacific as is without dilution. It's a lot of ocean with a relatively tiny amount of radioactive material going into in as a one off. Really, it's just about the safest thing they can do with the stuff.

    By the way, where did they get the info saying that the fuel had "burned through" the pressure vessel? Afaik, that is essentially impossible.

  12. Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are filtering the waste water and using ion exchange systems, zeolite cartridges and the like to remove the radioactive materials in solution. That's how they're "treating" contaminated water (irradiation isn't the problem).

    The water itself isn't radioactive, it's just hydrogen and oxygen. There may be some tritiated water in there but very very little, same with radioactive isotopes of oxygen. The contamination they are dealing with is radioactive particles in some cases, in others chemical substances in solution like cesium and strontium. Until the levels for all the contaminants are below international standards then the water can't be released into the sea.

  13. Re:I live on the Pacific by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    I love sushi, but what I fear about it is the possibility of parasites. I would be a lot happier if sushi were routinely irradiated.

  14. Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by nojayuk · · Score: 2

    Two reactors at Ohi were restarted back in 2012. Japanese nuclear regulations require a shutdown and inspection of all reactors every thirteen months, usually done as part of a refuelling operation. The Ohi reactors have been shut down again after operating for thirteen months but are not restarting after inspection and refuelling for various reasons, mainly bureaucratic and local-political.

  15. Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 2

    Soooo diluting the irradiated water, with clean water, before dumping it into more water (i.e. the ocean) is all Ok because it has been "treated". The mind boggles.

    To be quite blunt, "Yes". In fact, it doesn't even really need to be treated or diluted . You could pour it right into the middle of the pacific ocean and it would do no harm. That's just how big the ocean is and how low the concentration of radioactive material in the coolant is already, before you even dump it in the ocean. The extra filtering and dilution is a wee bit overkill. "Overkill" being what governments around the world (for some odd political reason) mandate that anything "nuclear" has to do in order to be allowed to even possibly exist as a concept.

    Also, the water itself is not "irradiated". The radiation emitters are suspended within the water. As long as we can bring the concentration down, then it becomes far less dangerous than it already is. But oh wait, it's already barely anything to worry about. What boggles my mind, is why they haven't dumped the water into the pacific already. I think it would be best to transfer the water onto a ship for disposal a few hundred miles or so out to sea, just to stop any chance that the particles of the radioactive materials have of being washed back up on land in any sort of concentration above "one or two atoms per litre" (the actual unit escapes me).

  16. RTFA by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    Look, the article you're commenting about says they're going to treat the water with their Advanced Liquid Processing System prior to discharge. That will take most of the radionuclides out. I know most people can't be bothered to do even basic research before making unfounded claims, but maybe you should consider it? In cases like this, where there are real risks, unfounded fear mongering will detract from those risks in the long-run.