Question: is it safe? Answer: they've invited experts, from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose report will be out soon. Judging by the fact that they've built and completed a whole...
Question: is it safe? Answer: they've invited experts, from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose report will be out soon.
Judging by the fact that they've built and completed a whole release tunnel system, but did NOT build additional storage tanks for them to pump into, and the deadline is early last next year, it sounds to me like they are 100% set to release and purposely making it the only way forward.
I wish the article talked more about other ruled out options like why don't they build more tanks and what efforts have been made and failed to neutralize tritium, what tritium does to organisms and what previous assessment and remediation work the IAEA has done.
Edit: previously had typo saying deadline is last year. Should be next year early 2024.
So I meant to answer your questions awhile ago. Since the water release began today, figured it would be pertinent to chime in… I’m a chemical engineer who works at a spent fuel basin. My job is...
Exemplary
So I meant to answer your questions awhile ago. Since the water release began today, figured it would be pertinent to chime in…
I’m a chemical engineer who works at a spent fuel basin. My job is ensuring the water is clean and deionized, both to minimize fuel corrosion, and to reduce radionuclide content. Our system is conceptually similar to ALPS: the water is run through ion-exchange columns to remove dissolved material. In our case, we also have a sand filter to remove sediment, and operate a closed system (no discharge to the environment).
Why isn’t TEPCO/the Japanese government building more tanks? I suspect the answer is more socio-political than technical. Building more tanks may imply that they have failed, which could be considered shameful. This would be further damaging to the company/government. But from a technical standpoint, the main issue would be that having to deal with all these tanks would be a distraction from the major clean-up efforts (particularly defueling), and would cost more and generate more rad waste in the long-term.
Could they “neutralize” tritium? This one is complicated. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. It is bound to the water, which means you can’t remove it through the ion-exchange systems mentioned above. You would need to do isotope separation, which is energy-intensive, and would require a large electrochemical processing plant. There has been work done on more efficient systems, but they are barely at pilot scale (and thus, would likely have low availability for several years while the bugs are worked out).
Is it safe? I’ve run the numbers, and their water is less radioactive than ours (assuming you trust TEPCO’s analyses), by a lot. I’d drink their water in a pinch. Hell, I’d drink our water in a pinch. Given the dilution factor and the long timeframe, I don’t see it being an issue.
Thank you, that's wonderful to hear. From some news snippets it sounds like a lot of countries, including neighbours South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan, seem satisfied by the safety. Meanwhile in...
Thank you, that's wonderful to hear.
From some news snippets it sounds like a lot of countries, including neighbours South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan, seem satisfied by the safety.
In mainland China, news of the waste water released prompted a run on sea salt in some supermarkets, including in Fuzhou, Fujian province, and Yangzhou in Jiangsu province.
And the talking [redacted] now running HK have banned seafood from 10 Japanese prefectures, including completely landlocked Nagano and Gunma, as well as Chiba, which is clean on the opposite shore of Japan away from Fukushima. Meanwhile, Sendai prefecture, which if you look at oceans current maps is next stop from Fukushima, is not on the ban list. Typical brilliance we've come to expect from these [redacted] in recent years.
Question: is it safe? Answer: they've invited experts, from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose report will be out soon.
Judging by the fact that they've built and completed a whole release tunnel system, but did NOT build additional storage tanks for them to pump into, and the deadline is early
lastnext year, it sounds to me like they are 100% set to release and purposely making it the only way forward.I wish the article talked more about other ruled out options like why don't they build more tanks and what efforts have been made and failed to neutralize tritium, what tritium does to organisms and what previous assessment and remediation work the IAEA has done.
Edit: previously had typo saying deadline is last year. Should be next year early 2024.
So I meant to answer your questions awhile ago. Since the water release began today, figured it would be pertinent to chime in…
I’m a chemical engineer who works at a spent fuel basin. My job is ensuring the water is clean and deionized, both to minimize fuel corrosion, and to reduce radionuclide content. Our system is conceptually similar to ALPS: the water is run through ion-exchange columns to remove dissolved material. In our case, we also have a sand filter to remove sediment, and operate a closed system (no discharge to the environment).
Why isn’t TEPCO/the Japanese government building more tanks? I suspect the answer is more socio-political than technical. Building more tanks may imply that they have failed, which could be considered shameful. This would be further damaging to the company/government. But from a technical standpoint, the main issue would be that having to deal with all these tanks would be a distraction from the major clean-up efforts (particularly defueling), and would cost more and generate more rad waste in the long-term.
Could they “neutralize” tritium? This one is complicated. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. It is bound to the water, which means you can’t remove it through the ion-exchange systems mentioned above. You would need to do isotope separation, which is energy-intensive, and would require a large electrochemical processing plant. There has been work done on more efficient systems, but they are barely at pilot scale (and thus, would likely have low availability for several years while the bugs are worked out).
Is it safe? I’ve run the numbers, and their water is less radioactive than ours (assuming you trust TEPCO’s analyses), by a lot. I’d drink their water in a pinch. Hell, I’d drink our water in a pinch. Given the dilution factor and the long timeframe, I don’t see it being an issue.
Thank you, that's wonderful to hear.
From some news snippets it sounds like a lot of countries, including neighbours South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan, seem satisfied by the safety.
Meanwhile in China
And the talking [redacted] now running HK have banned seafood from 10 Japanese prefectures, including completely landlocked Nagano and Gunma, as well as Chiba, which is clean on the opposite shore of Japan away from Fukushima. Meanwhile, Sendai prefecture, which if you look at oceans current maps is next stop from Fukushima, is not on the ban list. Typical brilliance we've come to expect from these [redacted] in recent years.
What do you mean when you say "neutralize tritium"?