Slashdot Mirror


Safety Measures Fail To Stop Fukushima Plant Leaks

AmiMoJo writes "The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant has been developing countermeasures to deal with repeated leaks from tanks of contaminated water. But despite the measures, 100 tons of radioactive water leaked on Wednesday and Thursday. 'The leaked water was among the most severely contaminated that Tepco has reported in the aftermath of the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, when damage caused by an earthquake and a tsunami led to meltdowns in three of the plant’s reactors. Each liter of the water contained, on average, 230 million becquerels of particles giving off beta radiation, the company said. About half of the particles were likely to be strontium 90, which is readily taken up by the human body in the same way that calcium is, and can cause bone cancer and leukemia.' The estimated volume of the leaked radioactive materials caused Japan's nuclear regulator to rank the leak a level-3 serious accident. The international scale of nuclear and radiological events ranges from zero to 7."

7 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What would happen if they just let it meltdown? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once the melted core hit the water table (considerably shallower than 1000' down considering the proximity to the ocean), you would get a huge radioactive steam geyser throwing the fission products into the atmosphere.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  2. Re:Solution: by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    No sell it to facebook, they will buy anything.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  3. Becquerels of particles by digitrev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Becquerels of particles? Really? That's like saying (obligatory car analogy incoming) joules of cars. A becquerel is a measure of activity - each litre gives off 2.3e8 electrons per second. While this is a problem, this is a nonsensical way to talk about it. What's that law again? The one that says that "every news article in your field of expertise is utter garbage". I'm pretty sure it holds here.

    --
    Cynical Idealist
  4. Re:What would happen if they just let it meltdown? by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Google Cherynobyl? To this very day it is so radioactive you can't get within 50 to 100 miles of it?"

    After the accident/explosion/fire etc. in 1986 the Ukrainian authorities continued to operate the three other undamaged reactors at Chernobyl (they needed the electricity supplies). After a few years folks started running tourist trips to visit the area including the evacuated towns surrounding the damaged reactor. Thousands of workers have been working on the reactor building for decades attempting to entomb it or at least cover it up so it doesn't leak quite as much residual radioactivity as it does even today.

    Sure in a Hollywood disaster movie script the Chernobyl site is so radioactive you can't get within 50 to 100 miles of it. However this is real life which is kinda different.

    Ah, I just realised you're trolling, aren't you? Silly me.

  5. Re:What would happen if they just let it meltdown? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google Cherynobyl?

    To this very day it is so radioactive you can't get within 50 to 100 miles of it?

    Unless you take a guided tour.

    However, this demonstrates nicely the factual level anti-nuclear lobby operates at.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  6. Re:Solution: by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, dilution *is* a reasonable approach to disposing of this waste, but what we have here appears to be an ongoing leak from a point source into tidal waters, which is not at all the way you'd design a project to dilute the waste.

    There are several big differences between letting the stuff leak and a proper attempt to diffuse the waste over a large area of the ocean. First of all the leak is a point source discharging into an intertidal zone. My wife is a physical oceanographer who helped site a major sewage outfall, so I remember some of the concerns. Stuff that is discharged right near the shore doesn't diffuse nicely out to deep water, it gets transported along the shore with the same currents that deposit sand from rivers along the coast.

    This means that the S90 may well get deposited in sediments. The concentration of S90 probably won't be enough to be a direct concern to humans, but because strontium is an analog to calcium, it can bioaccumulate. This means the somewhat incomplete process of dilution gets undone when critters like benthic worms on the bottom of the food chain consume the S90, and are in turn consumed by ground fish and so on up the food chain. At each trophic level the S90 is concentrated a little more.

    I agree that the amount here reported is probably not a serious threat to human and environmental health, but the problem is that this process is ongoing. It is possible that what is going on doesn't present any threat to human or environmental health, but we can't be sure. By the time we figure it out it will be too late to do anything (or anything affordable) about it if it is a problem.

    In a nutshell: dilution could work, but there's a significant chance that just letting the stuff leak into the sea won't do the job. This stuff needs to be contained or otherwise dealt with *now*.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. Re:380 million becquerels isn't a whole lot by symbolset · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's 380 million per liter times 100,000 liters. Considering how much of this stuff they have on the site the total must be quite horrific.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.