Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima's Radiation Is Contained By a Mile-Long Wall of Ice (cnet.com)
CNET reports on the massive ice wall created by an "intricate network of small metal pipes, capped off by six-foot-high metal scaffolding."
It turns out, coolant is running through the pipes, freezing the soil below and creating an impermeable ice wall that's nearly 100 feet deep and a mile long, encircling the reactors. It's like a smaller-scale subterranean version of the Wall in Game of Thrones, but instead of keeping out White Walkers and wights, this line of defense keeps in a far more realistic danger: radioactive contaminants from melted-down reactors that threaten to spill into the water by Fukushima Daiichi....
The structure, which cost roughly $300 million, paid for by public funds, serves as critical protection, defending the Fukushima area from one of the most radioactive hotspots in the world. While Tokyo Electric Power Co., also known as Tepco, struggles to find a way to remove radioactive material from the facility -- a process the government estimates could take more than four decades -- the more immediate concern is what to do with the contaminated water leaking out from the facility. One of the solutions has been to put up (down?) this underground ice wall, which prevents much of the surrounding groundwater from getting in.
The structure, which cost roughly $300 million, paid for by public funds, serves as critical protection, defending the Fukushima area from one of the most radioactive hotspots in the world. While Tokyo Electric Power Co., also known as Tepco, struggles to find a way to remove radioactive material from the facility -- a process the government estimates could take more than four decades -- the more immediate concern is what to do with the contaminated water leaking out from the facility. One of the solutions has been to put up (down?) this underground ice wall, which prevents much of the surrounding groundwater from getting in.
What's with the socialism remarks all over, do you even know what that word means? Obviously it's just some boogieman word for you, but morons, learn the meaning and use it right.
Nope. The wall does exactly nothing. It's basically a part of Kabuki theater that is the whole Fukushima cleanup operation. The reactor is still leaking, but the amount of released radiation is now below the dangerous levels - the hottest isotopes have decayed by now.
The Night King will break free some day, and then we'll see spiders big as hounds!
Someone tell the flat earthers.
so much of the info about Fukushima is clearly tainted by the preferences of those writing.
I've now read, within 2 days, articles about the current cleanup efforts that
a) claim they mostly don't work, the area is still dangerous and it will take decades to complete everything.
b) claim they are a demonstration of 1st world technology keeping things under control, people returning to the area, much of the radiation being cleaned up and the Japanese making impressive progress with robots in the reactor cores as well as completing a total overhaul of all their nuclear reactors to incorporate the lessons learnt from Fukushima.
So what is true? Probably some of both. But which?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's been eight years since this disaster occurred.
The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in the facts regarding this disaster.
The report is scathing and contains lines such as a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and describes the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.
It is very difficult to believe that the company that got the world into this situation is the one that will get us out of it. Chernobyl's New Safe Confinement took the combined resources of the European Union to fund and was designed by the British.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
In Japan they can build an advanced cryogenic containment system for a reactor disaster for $300 million.
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam. It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
A few trillion??? A containment system would not cost anything, because it would not get built.
I doubt that a containment system could EVER get built in California. If a reactor in California had an accident, the enviro-nut jobs would be in court trying to prevent building a containment system because of the perceived the environmental damage it would do. And since the 9th District Court is so freaking full of libtards they would decide in favor of the enviro-nut jobs. A California environ-libtard-nut job can not see the forest for the trees. So a small bug that might be made extinct by the containment system is more important than the radiation pouring out of the damaged reactor. So no...a containment system would not cost a few trillion, It would not get built!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
“It's like a smaller-scale subterranean version of the Wall in Game of Thrones”
It's for razor-sharp technical analysis such as the above that keeps me coming back to slashdot. What's the half-life of the radioactive material until it's rendered safe and will the coolant system last that long?
I wonder if Trump has considered using a wall of ice to keep out the Mexicans. Water is a lot cheaper than concrete/steel so you could build it really tall.
No sig today...
https://www.prageru.com/video/capitalism-vs-socialism/
You're welcome.
Excellent video.. Wish I had mod points for you...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam.
The work done at Orville dam was amazing. It was an urgent problem that had to be dealt with, I wouldn't want to be down stream of a dam that large if it burst. They did a big engineering project because it was a clear public safety issue.
It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
It would cost a few billion dollars to reduce the fuel packing density in spent fuel pools around the U.S. Currently that is much denser than it is at Fukushima which has approximately 6000 spent fuel rods on site. This is a clear public safety issue.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
In Japan they can build an advanced cryogenic containment system for a reactor disaster for $300 million.
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam. It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
Where did you get the idea that the ice barrier is "advanced"? This is routine technology, widely used for more than a century. There a major construction companies that specialize in it. It was used in Boston's "Big Dig" for example. It is somewhat interesting that this technology is being used at Fukushima, but nothing surprising or innovative about it.
Yeah major repairs on the tallest dam in the U.S., while is it still full, including improvements to prevent recurrence of a similar event, can be done for pocket change. Sure.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
https://www.prageru.com/video/capitalism-vs-socialism/
You're welcome.
The arguments in that video are incoherent:
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Good analogy since like the US border the radiation at fukushima poses little threat and the "clean up" is mostly political theater that has claimed more lives than the radiation ever will.
Maybe this is just referring to the fact that people fear both for no reason because they don't know what it is or how it works.
Actually Fukushima's can be detected around the world but is insignificant. Most of it no longer exists.
The short answer: the "ice wall" is helping to reduce water flow, but isn't perfect, and if you want to spin that in a positive way, you can say "look, it's working!", and if you want to go the other way you can say "it's not working!"-- because anything short of perfection is obviously useless.
A better question would be "how well is it working?" but even better would be "how well does it need to work?".
I'm inclined to agree with our anti-nuclear friends that this is all a bunch of theater to reassure people (much like that that other "wall" we've been hearing so much about). It would be nice if they were just reassured by declining levels of leakage, and little evidence of health impacts, but that kind of message gets lost in the weeds of statistical chatter and "activist" shouting.
Fukushimas Ice Wall Not Working:
Martin Fackler at the NYT commented:
From the World Health Organization faq:
"Bio-concentration" is essentially not happening: Insignificant Environmental and Public Health Risk from Fukushima in North America 8 Years On
Which one to fear? You mean as far as "fearing" I should care between one totalitarian system which will throw me into a gulag for not following the party rule and another which will do the same?
Socialism, a collectivist ideology in which the "state" owns the means of production and distributes work and profit as it sees fit.
Communism, same as Socialism except one is not able to own anything. The debates between socialists and communists are like the medieval arguments between Franciscans and Dominicans: "are we, as followers of Christ allowed to own an extra pair of shoes"
Both Socialists and Communists despise individualism and individual liberty. It makes their arguments in favor of "democracy" laughable.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Well, keep in mind significance is relative. You're just stating how you feel.
For example any ocean contamination of any sort is very significant to oceanographers, ichtyologists and fishery managers (and for more than one reason!).
And the opinions of nuke shills are insignificant when contrasted with the expressed views of the world's population, most of which understands that terrestrial fission plants are an unconscionable military vulnerability as well as economically unsupportable without direct government sponsorship.
It comes from the big takeover of the Republican party starting with Gingrich, who started labeling all Democrats as McGovern democrats, then soon all Democrats were labeled as liberals, and pretty much created the modern day negative campaign style of win-by-any-means.
Hitler was a fascist, which is neither left nor right in outlook, but is a strict authoritarian movement with state control of both the economy and social life, usually a dictatorship and oppression of the opposition. Generally it's considered far right, however I think it doesn't really fit into the traditional left-right model because fascists didn't really express a coherent political ideology beyond an us-versus-them style of thinking. The modern guys on the right are only labeling it socialist as a distraction and part of the "please repeat these talking points endlessly" style of political debate.
a small bug that might be made extinct by the containment system is more important than the radiation pouring out of the damaged reactor. So no...a containment system would not cost a few trillion, It would not get built!
The containment would be built right over the top of the existing building, and there's substantial cleared area around plants, so there would be no danger to the orange-toed salamander, or the purple-dicked owl, or whatever animal of the week surrounded the site. This would be reflected in the EIR, and then the containment structure could be built.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually I'm stating how science feels. That includes oceanographers, ichtyologists and fishery managers, as well as nuclear health scientists.
And Nuclear typically comes in cheaper than all other forms of energy even without adding the much lower external costs due to it being one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy.
And the fact is that nuclear is a boondoggle.
http://feedthedatamonster.com/...
http://www.pollutionissues.com...
https://www.quora.com/Is-dilut...
These are interesting links - thank you.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Hitler was a fascist, which is neither left nor right in outlook...
Eh, once you start using various dichotomies for social issues, it all gets confusing as it applies in different ways, especially over time. Typically political right is considered authoritarian, left egalitarian. Economic right is considered capitalist and left socialist. Religious is some sort of theology and the left secular. Even those are going to change due to the context and subject of any particular discusion. That's the problem when you come up with an either/or terms to describe everything. Of course, the real meaning of right is siding with the king and left is against the king.
Well, in general most voters, not just in America, simplify everything to a simplistic left-vs-right because it's too complicated otherwise. They want to know if the candidate is "the guy I like" or "the guy I hate", and then are the others similar to my guy or not. It's sooo much easier to just believe in US versus THEM, it saves wear and tear on the limp brain cells. Those slightly more advanced will just keep around a list of talking points, used as ammunition against anyone seen who might not be in the proper mindest, sort of like bible verses, but are not prepared to back up those talking points or give a cogent argument or debate. In fact, at least in America, it's no longer necessary to even have a political debate because people are voluntarily staying within a bubble and the talking points are about preaching to the converted. Anyone with a decent political argument tends to be shunned for not being ideologically pure enough.
Hitler was a fascist, which is neither left nor right in outlook, but is a strict authoritarian movement with state control of both the economy and social life, usually a dictatorship and oppression of the opposition. Generally it's considered far right,
Fascism is considered far right because so far it's been used more or less exclusively to promote far right ideals. However, authoritarianism vs. anarchism is a separate axis from liberal vs. conservative. The third reich was definitely conservative-authoritarian.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nuclear typically comes in cheaper than all other forms of energy even without adding the much lower external costs due to it being one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy.
What? This is literally the opposite of reality. Here in the real world, nuclear power projects are being terminated left and right specifically because they are too expensive to continue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Poor public opinion due to ignorance and capital costs, not operating costs. Wind and solar are a path of least resistance, but not necessarily cheaper. Nuclear is always cheaper than fossil fuels and usually a bit better than wind and solar at the moment. the only thing that beats it is natural gas because the initial cost is so low and scalable. Nuclear like wind and solar gets more efficient everyday and attracts huge investments.