Japan will dump fukushima nuclear waste into pacific!

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Aye, but they would be doing it by accident.

Shame the US canny claim the same.

Funny old World full of weird Karma i guess.

Man, nothing good is coming if they dump that into the ocean, that sh@t is toxic.

second

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Just remember, if you happen to visit the west coast from Vancouver British Columbia to San Diego California, don't eat the seafood. Our continental west coast is going to get what Japan unleashes.

I can see it now, Godzilla attacks Los Angeles.

How much arrived from the initial disaster? Besides derelict boats and stuff? Did radiation levels increase much?

The ocean is very wide and very deep. The ocean holds much water.

Not good for the Fukushima fishery but the west coast, or Hawaii, meh.

ourradioactiveocean.org...

You know chenobyl is now a rich ecosystem and life is absorbing the radiation away much much faster than "science" thought possible.
But doom and gloom and all that...
a reply to: makemap

a reply to: Rob808

Life can absorb the radioactive particular matter all it wants, that does not change its halflife far as im aware, all it does is distribute it over a wider area.

Chernobyl, nor the surrounding area is safe and won't be for a very, very long time.

a reply to: makemap

Well the Japanese fishermen are fighting against this proposed dumping of 850,000 tons of tritiated water into the ocean - calling this scheme 'thoughtless'. Greenpeace thinks the Japanese can build new holding tanks and also build an elaborate filtration system, but Japanese experts disagree it will work. Plus the price tag is way too high.

Then we have the scientists telling us that tritium is not dangerous to humans (low energy beta emitter - can't penetrate the skin but is dangerous if ingested);

Water containing tritium isn't very dangerous for humans – dumping tritium-laced water into the ocean is common practice for coastal nuclear plants. But it could endanger the local marine species, including fish, which provide a source of income for people living near the power plant.

www.sciencealert.com...

Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which allows it to readily bind to hydroxyl radicals, forming tritiated water (HTO), and to carbon atoms. Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin),[20] but it can be a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin.[21][22][23][24] HTO has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment.[23][25] The biological half life of tritiated water in the human body, which is a measure of body water turn over, varies with the season. Studies on the biological half life of occupational radiation workers for free water tritium in the coastal region of Karnataka, India, show that the biological half life in the winter season is twice that of the summer season.[25]

en.wikipedia.org...

And then we have a scientist specializing in nuclear waste disposal telling us that it is perfectly safe to dump it into the ocean - even safe for marine life.

The biological half-life of tritium in fish and marine life is even shorter than in humans, less than 2 days and the dilution in seawater would be too rapid for any significant dose to get back to any people.

www.forbes.com...

Is this part of the new green deal?

Have they tried throwing money at it?

a reply to: InTheLight

a little radiation nevah hurt nobady.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Just remember, if you happen to visit the west coast from Vancouver British Columbia to San Diego California, don't eat the seafood. Our continental west coast is going to get what Japan unleashes.

I can see it now, Godzilla attacks Los Angeles.

How much arrived from the initial disaster? Besides derelict boats and stuff? Did radiation levels increase much?

The ocean is very wide and very deep. The ocean holds much water.

Not good for the Fukushima fishery but the west coast, or Hawaii, meh.

ourradioactiveocean.org...

If you lived in Vancouver, who knows where the fish came from anyway. Fishermen cannot sell to restaurants, it has to go to a possessor..from there..who knows.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: InTheLight

a little radiation nevah hurt nobady.

a little tritium supposedly nevah hurt no body. lol

a reply to: makemap

That means it might reach the west coast of America... It could have a reverse effect on the radical progressives out there. Could this be the solution to making California normal again?

Another serious note, if you take it into the far reaches of space and nuke it (provided that's possible), you're not worried about it coming back and entering our atmosphere?

originally posted by: LSU2018
Another serious note, if you take it into the far reaches of space and nuke it (provided that's possible), you're not worried about it coming back and entering our atmosphere?

Unless the rocket... I don't know... BLOWS UP on launch! Oopsie daisy!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: makemap

It is impossible to destroy radioactive particles in an explosion, even a nuclear explosion. All you would do is spend a small fortune to rain radioactive particles on the entire earth over the next few centuries.

And as far as shooting it into the sun, I'm not sure what reactions would result from the fissioning material and the fusioning plasma. I don't like the idea of taking a chance on the source of all life on earth.

TheRedneck

No moron, have you not heard of solar radiation? Shooting into sun, the sun will shoot the radiation 10x- 100x back to us.
It should be shot to Mars direction, not the Sun. We should not be making the sun more radiated. Solar flare will push the radiation away from us most likely. Magnetic field of Earth will do the rest.

a reply to: LSU2018

All I have to say is Hawaii is totally screwed.

a reply to: InTheLight

Tritium is “sticky” because it is a form of hydrogen and is very reactive with other molecules. It sinks into the sands around Japan and lives it 12 year half life in the sand. After 12 years half is gone and half remains. Sea life does not have some “magical” defense against it despite what was quoted from the article. But there are yearly monsoons that stir the sediment back up.

That is the issue. You add more to an ecosystem already coping with beta radiation material and add more... welp you don’t need to be a nuclear physicist to understand that if you keep taking craps in your toilet without flushing then, one day less than 12 years in the future, you have a sh!te storm on your hands!

But this is not something that you can wash away as it accumulates in various places in your body. Why would sea life be any different?? (A: It ain’t)... it climbs the food chain like the micro plastics.

The sea food is not bad now but I do not consume as much as I used to (PAC Rim dweller). And if they dump the water, I am done with anything that migrates in the Pacific.

@all, a nuclear bomb does not emit radiation as you think. It emits gamma rays that makes normal things like dust energetic enough to start to emit radiation. The fallout is that... irradiated dust. The short lived stuff can be coated fairly easily. It is the stuff that your body need like cesium or selenium that accumulates in various glands and emits beta radiation over years that causes cancer.

To restate the obvious, tritium is not good for the environment. They should try to separate it first. MOFs or a graphene filter should work if we can get enough of it out of the lab (or black projects). Heck, we are the world, and even inefficient centrifuge treatment should be tried before a dumb mass dump into our plastic stressed ocean.

-Peace

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: InTheLight

Tritium is “sticky” because it is a form of hydrogen and is very reactive with other molecules. It sinks into the sands around Japan and lives it 12 year half life in the sand. After 12 years half is gone and half remains. Sea life does not have some “magical” defense against it despite what was quoted from the article. But there are yearly monsoons that stir the sediment back up.

That is the issue. You add more to an ecosystem already coping with beta radiation material and add more... welp you don’t need to be a nuclear physicist to understand that if you keep taking craps in your toilet without flushing then, one day less than 12 years in the future, you have a sh!te storm on your hands!

But this is not something that you can wash away as it accumulates in various places in your body. Why would sea life be any different?? (A: It ain’t)... it climbs the food chain like the micro plastics.

The sea food is not bad now but I do not consume as much as I used to (PAC Rim dweller). And if they dump the water, I am done with anything that migrates in the Pacific.

@all, a nuclear bomb does not emit radiation as you think. It emits gamma rays that makes normal things like dust energetic enough to start to emit radiation. The fallout is that... irradiated dust. The short lived stuff can be coated fairly easily. It is the stuff that your body need like cesium or selenium that accumulates in various glands and emits beta radiation over years that causes cancer.

To restate the obvious, tritium is not good for the environment. They should try to separate it first. MOFs or a graphene filter should work if we can get enough of it out of the lab (or black projects). Heck, we are the world, and even inefficient centrifuge treatment should be tried before a dumb mass dump into our plastic stressed ocean.

-Peace

As I am not a nuclear engineer, I cannot disagree on your stance on this matter. I can only look to and refer us to an actual nuclear engineer that has knowledge on this subject. However, I do agree that the marine life around Japan will take the brunt of this disaster. What damage to the life around the waters of Japan remain to be determined. I wonder how the marine life has fared to this day from the previous dumping.

I am not too sure how far the diluted radioactivity will migrate in the Pacific Ocean though as the previous dumping did not have any major negative health effects in coastal Canada nor the U.S.A., from what I had read on this matter.

I agree that filtering the water first would be a good solution, but I read that the Japanese government said they simply cannot afford it. They state that to build the filtration system would be billions, then hundreds of millions thereafter, every year, for operations and maintenance. I don't expect any of the other nations of the world to kick in money to make this happen, so the Japanese are left with no other choice but to dump it into the ocean.

Ooops, wrong thread.

TheRedneck

Fukushima had rain & flood warning earlier today during typhoon after typhoon, which will probably get the trillion tons of water up into the air not just the ocean, figures!

Depopulation.

They also noted the death count from Fukushima as over 2000.
None of those deaths were related to radiation.

As in “not yet” and “so far”?

Why add anticipation-based, biased editorials to factual statements?