If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Fukushima engineers 'solve' problem of radioactive water by pumping it back into the damaged, leaking reactors. Well, that's one less thing to worry about, right?   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 28
    More: Unlikely, Fukushima, Fukushima plant, electrical power industry, nuclear accidents, Reuters UK, UK and Ireland, water pollutions, nuclear reactors  
•       •       •

2694 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:08 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-06-27 03:26:52 PM
Yes, I take the same approach when my toilet isn't flushing. Just shove it back where it came from.
 
2011-06-27 04:09:40 PM
Tada!
 
2011-06-27 04:09:41 PM
Excellent.
 
2011-06-27 04:10:59 PM

gopher321: Yes, I take the same approach when my toilet isn't flushing. Just shove it back where it came from.


My pants just got tight.
 
2011-06-27 04:12:17 PM
The ingenious solution to pumping water back into the reactor:

visualfunhouse.com

Approved by the Japanese Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Geisha Exploratory Committee.
 
2011-06-27 04:19:34 PM
At least we know where all the radiation is. So that's good.
 
2011-06-27 04:23:09 PM
Recycle....your life may depend on it.
 
2011-06-27 04:53:22 PM

Gyrfalcon: At least we know where all the radiation is. So that's good.


Except that part that's leaking...
 
2011-06-27 05:00:20 PM
The firm said it would continue to inject 16 tonnes of water every hour into reactors 1, 2, and 3, and that 13 tonnes of this would be the decontaminated water.

Is there any point of decontaminating the water if you are going to pump it back into the reactor?

Assuming it's not leaking into the ocean and ground (yes, I know, big assumption).
 
2011-06-27 05:01:43 PM
Ta da!
 
2011-06-27 05:03:22 PM

jaytkay: The firm said it would continue to inject 16 tonnes of water every hour into reactors 1, 2, and 3, and that 13 tonnes of this would be the decontaminated water.

Is there any point of decontaminating the water if you are going to pump it back into the reactor?

Assuming it's not leaking into the ocean and ground (yes, I know, big assumption).


Currently, they are feeding 16 tonnes of fresh water into the reactor per hour. Now, they will be able to pump 3 tonnes of fresh water and 13 tonnes of recycled water.

In addition to not contaminating as much more clean water, they also are running out of space to store the contaminated water.

I don't get why this is being ridiculed, to be honest.
 
2011-06-27 05:07:09 PM

LikeTheSearchEngine: jaytkay: The firm said it would continue to inject 16 tonnes of water every hour into reactors 1, 2, and 3, and that 13 tonnes of this would be the decontaminated water.

Is there any point of decontaminating the water if you are going to pump it back into the reactor?

Assuming it's not leaking into the ocean and ground (yes, I know, big assumption).

Currently, they are feeding 16 tonnes of fresh water into the reactor per hour. Now, they will be able to pump 3 tonnes of fresh water and 13 tonnes of recycled water.

In addition to not contaminating as much more clean water, they also are running out of space to store the contaminated water.

I don't get why this is being ridiculed, to be honest.


Because nuclear is scary.
 
2011-06-27 05:07:54 PM

LikeTheSearchEngine: In addition to not contaminating as much more clean water, they also are running out of space to store the contaminated water.

I don't get why this is being ridiculed, to be honest.


Because at this point it really doesn't matter. Their fishing industry is permanently farked.
 
2011-06-27 05:32:58 PM

bigdavediode: Because at this point it really doesn't matter. Their fishing industry is permanently farked.


I hope not, and I don't think so. But I'm not a biologist.

But that means they should stop trying? Just dump millions of gallons of contaminated water, because, hell, its already bad?
 
2011-06-27 05:36:35 PM
Damn. Can't find a screenshot, but anyone remember the scene in Catch-22 with the hospital patient in the full-body cast, with one bag of liquid feeding him and another draining him, and the nurses come in occasionally and switch the bags?
 
2011-06-27 06:01:18 PM
Gyrfalcon: "At least we know where all the radiation is. So that's good."

Failing_Junk: "Except that part that's leaking..."

That's bad.
 
2011-06-27 06:10:27 PM

LikeTheSearchEngine: I hope not, and I don't think so. But I'm not a biologist.

But that means they should stop trying? Just dump millions of gallons of contaminated water, because, hell, its already bad?


I have no idea what they should do -- the game's over and they've lost. They opted for nuclear and have thus turned a good part of their coast into a sewer with fish eating seaweed that will be radioactive for decades or longer.

Try? No try? Doesn't matter.
 
2011-06-27 06:12:47 PM

LikeTheSearchEngine: jaytkay: The firm said it would continue to inject 16 tonnes of water every hour into reactors 1, 2, and 3, and that 13 tonnes of this would be the decontaminated water.

Is there any point of decontaminating the water if you are going to pump it back into the reactor?

Assuming it's not leaking into the ocean and ground (yes, I know, big assumption).

Currently, they are feeding 16 tonnes of fresh water into the reactor per hour. Now, they will be able to pump 3 tonnes of fresh water and 13 tonnes of recycled water.

In addition to not contaminating as much more clean water, they also are running out of space to store the contaminated water.

I don't get why this is being ridiculed, to be honest.


Because it makes us feel better about ourselves if we assume that nuclear engineers are all just stoopid.
 
2011-06-27 06:36:17 PM

MycroftHolmes: Because it makes us feel better about ourselves if we assume that nuclear engineers are all just stoopid.


It's not because the nuclear engineers are "stoopid" it that the business persons are greedy.
 
2011-06-27 06:53:48 PM

MycroftHolmes: LikeTheSearchEngine: jaytkay: The firm said it would continue to inject 16 tonnes of water every hour into reactors 1, 2, and 3, and that 13 tonnes of this would be the decontaminated water.

Is there any point of decontaminating the water if you are going to pump it back into the reactor?

Assuming it's not leaking into the ocean and ground (yes, I know, big assumption).

Currently, they are feeding 16 tonnes of fresh water into the reactor per hour. Now, they will be able to pump 3 tonnes of fresh water and 13 tonnes of recycled water.

In addition to not contaminating as much more clean water, they also are running out of space to store the contaminated water.

I don't get why this is being ridiculed, to be honest.

Because it makes us feel better about ourselves if we assume that nuclear engineers are all just stoopid.


At worst, this is a buying-some-time tactic. And it helps drastically with mitigating further damage.

But 16 tons of water is a little under 4k gallons. My above ground swimming pool is three times that. The dinky 1.5 g/min pump I use to clear the rainwater off the winter time tarp on my pool could pump 16 tons in two weeks.

But that doesn't sound as dreadful as omg, tons, TONS OF CONTAMINATED WATER, AAAGH!

So yeah, non-story...
 
2011-06-27 07:14:58 PM

bigdavediode: LikeTheSearchEngine: I hope not, and I don't think so. But I'm not a biologist.

But that means they should stop trying? Just dump millions of gallons of contaminated water, because, hell, its already bad?

I have no idea what they should do -- the game's over and they've lost. They opted for nuclear and have thus turned a good part of their coast into a sewer with fish eating seaweed that will be radioactive for decades or longer.

Try? No try? Doesn't matter.


Yeah, and we know this is true because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL uninhabitable. Not to mention the bird eating trees and giant squirrels that popped up within months of the bombs being dropped.

Nucular is teh debbil
 
2011-06-27 07:59:43 PM

bigdavediode: LikeTheSearchEngine: In addition to not contaminating as much more clean water, they also are running out of space to store the contaminated water.

I don't get why this is being ridiculed, to be honest.

Because at this point it really doesn't matter. Their fishing industry is permanently farked.


No it's not. The ocean is amazingly big and has absorbed more nastyness than this during all the atomic testing since the 1940's. A few shipments near the plant may be heavily contaminated, but this will be a historical footnote in a few years/decades -- much like this historical footnote from a few decades past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Fallout_incident

/especially dirty because this bomb was detonated on the ground
 
2011-06-27 08:06:24 PM

D_Moran: Gyrfalcon: "At least we know where all the radiation is. So that's good."

Failing_Junk: "Except that part that's leaking..."

That's bad.


So it's a washia

try to keep your glass half full....even if it glows.
 
2011-06-27 08:34:41 PM
It's a whitewash.
 
2011-06-27 10:21:43 PM

tollbooth_willy: Yeah, and we know this is true because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL uninhabitable.


Stupid: the particulates emitted by a nuclear bomb are shorter lasting than a radiation leak at a nuclear plant.

jshine: No it's not. The ocean is amazingly big and has absorbed more nastyness than this during all the atomic testing since the 1940's. A few shipments near the plant may be heavily contaminated, but this will be a historical footnote in a few years/decades -- much like this historical footnote from a few decades past:


Stupid #2 -- it's not the water that's going to collect the radioactive matter, but the seaweed. The fish then eat the seaweed. Larger fish eat the smaller fish. Already seaweed in the Fukushima area shows five times the safe limit for radiation.
 
2011-06-28 01:18:47 AM

bigdavediode: tollbooth_willy: Yeah, and we know this is true because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL uninhabitable.

Stupid: the particulates emitted by a nuclear bomb are shorter lasting than a radiation leak at a nuclear plant.

jshine: No it's not. The ocean is amazingly big and has absorbed more nastyness than this during all the atomic testing since the 1940's. A few shipments near the plant may be heavily contaminated, but this will be a historical footnote in a few years/decades -- much like this historical footnote from a few decades past:

Stupid #2 -- it's not the water that's going to collect the radioactive matter, but the seaweed. The fish then eat the seaweed. Larger fish eat the smaller fish. Already seaweed in the Fukushima area shows five times the safe limit for radiation.


The fishing industry is farked, but not because of anything nuclear. It's farked because of overfishing on the part of pretty much everyone.

You do realise that the Japanese fish in places other than the coast of Japan, right?
 
2011-06-28 02:07:49 AM

bigdavediode: Stupid #2 -- it's not the water that's going to collect the radioactive matter, but the seaweed. The fish then eat the seaweed. Larger fish eat the smaller fish. Already seaweed in the Fukushima area shows five times the safe limit for radiation.


Wow, 5 times the safe limit. Sounds serious... Hmm, reducing radioactive contamination to less than 1/5th will require less than 3 half-lives (1/2*1/2*1/2 = 1/8). The isotope that accumulates in seaweed is I-131:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131

I-131 has a half life of ~8 days. So 3 half-lives is 3*8 = 24 days = 1 month. Yea, that's pretty serious, those fisheries may *never* recover from the iodine contamination. And by "never" I mean a month.

/never mind that it's also being diluted into the ocean water where it is highly soluble; we'll just overlook that
 
2011-06-28 08:27:18 AM

Pancoaifo: But 16 tons of water is a little under 4k gallons. My above ground swimming pool is three times that. The dinky 1.5 g/min pump I use to clear the rainwater off the winter time tarp on my pool could pump 16 tons in two weeks.

But that doesn't sound as dreadful as omg, tons, TONS OF CONTAMINATED WATER, AAAGH!

So yeah, non-story...


Per hour. Since the disaster. This is not a trivial amount of water that they have accumulated.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report