Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Leak Found In Fukushima Tank Holding Radioactive Water

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the you-look-so-hot-right-now dept.

Japan 189

The fallout from tsunami damage at Japan's Fukushima plant isn't over yet. New submitter OldJuke writes "Tokyo Electric power Co. said about 120 tons of the water are believed to have breached [a water storage tank's] inner linings, some of it possibly leaking into the soil. TEPCO is moving the water to a nearby tank at the Fukushima Dai-chi plant — a process that could take several days ...More than 270,000 tons of highly radioactive water is already stored in hundreds of gigantic tanks and another underground tank. They are visible even at the plant's entrance and built around the compound, taking up more than 80 percent of its storage capacity. TEPCO expects the amount to double over three years and plans to build hundreds of more tanks by mid-2015 to meet the demand."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381369)

Can't they mix this water into the ocean, diluting it to background levels? Surely the ocean has a certain amount of naturally occurring radioactive materials in it and I'm sure this wouldn't change it much.

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381403)

Can't they mix this water into the ocean, diluting it to background levels? Surely the ocean has a certain amount of naturally occurring radioactive materials in it and I'm sure this wouldn't change it much.

Been there done that [youtube.com] .

On top of the millions of bequarels they've dumped so far. "It's only a little drop in the ocean".

I hope you don't like seafood.

Distillation (1)

sanman2 (928866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381427)

Then can't they distill away the water, so that just the crap is left and unable to flow anywhere else?

Re:Distillation (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381461)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

This is for a normal spent fuel pool (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381571)

The spent fuel pools at Fukushima are not in any sense [youtube.com] "normal."

And the headline is self-contradictory (-1, Troll)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382163)

And the headline is self-contradictory. If there's a leak, then the container obiously doesn't hold. See also nuclear apologists' arguments that Fuckupshima was a non-lethal accident.

Re:And the headline is self-contradictory (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382217)

I share your enthusiasm for the topic and your point of view. The whole coining words like "Fuckupshima" thing is antihelpful. Could you not do that? Please?

Re:And the headline is self-contradictory (-1, Troll)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382271)

No. Greasemonkey/filter. KTHXBAI.

Re:And the headline is self-contradictory (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382447)

OK fine. I wasn't looking to censor you - only to encourage you to execute your advocacy in a more effective manner. If this is the way you enjoy doing your bit and effectiveness is irrelevant to your joy then knock yourself out.

Re:And the headline is self-contradictory (4, Insightful)

professionalfurryele (877225) | about a year and a half ago | (#43383059)

You are wasting your time I'm afraid. There are just too many people out there who cant imagine how anyone could come to a different perspective on controversial issues and how abuse of rhetoric can be polarising. If you can please take comfort in the fact that while I disagree with your point of view I can understand how someone with different facts, experiences and values could come to a different conclusion about nuclear power to the one I have. I appreciate your efforts to keep the discourse civil.

Re:And the headline is self-contradictory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43383065)

Does Slashdot give you achievements for successive Troll moderations?

Re:Distillation (1)

clemdoc (624639) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381477)

The water itself is radioactive. The problem is neither new, nor has it been solved (satisfyingly). AFAIR, there have been problems with leaking tanks reported in Washington state (or somewhere up there) not long ago.

Re:Distillation (5, Informative)

emt377 (610337) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381585)

The water itself is radioactive.

No it's not; this isn't tritium (T2O) being discussed, but normal water contaminated with Sr90. ALPS is supposed to separate the Sr. The remaining water has a modestly low level of tritium. Releasing tritium is no big deal; it may slightly harm seafood or maybe even kill it, but it will dilute quickly and is of no harm to humans who eat seafood. Sr90 on the other hand is a metal and while it's easily broken up into dust and carried around by currents it's heavier than water so collects in hot spots on the sea floor.

Re:Distillation (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382899)

90Sr in Fallout

Strontium-90 is not quite as likely as caesium-137 to be released as a part of a nuclear reactor accident because it is much less volatile, but is probably the most dangerous component of the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon.[1]

Sounds pretty fucking dangerous to me, and if you're saying heavy metals are not poisonous then again you are full of it, Or are you you going to tell me that nothing lives on the sea floor and it won't get passed up the food chain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90#Dispersal_hazards [wikipedia.org]

Re:Distillation (1)

gewalker (57809) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381599)

Assuming that you are correct, why would this be a BIG problem?

The oxygen is not radioactive (at least not for very long as the longest oxygen half-life is about 2 minutes). Everything past hydrogen 3 has incredibly short half-life. So really, it is all about the tritium, half-life about 12.3 years

I would think that given the mass ratios for the hydrogen isotopes that separating out the tritium would be trivial compared to enriching uranium, and given our history of separating this out -- not a big problem, in fact there are commercial plants that do this already for water from nuclear reactors (thousands of tons per year). BTW tritium is a valuable commercial product, so much so that we intentional create it by other means.

Tritium decay is very easily mitigated beta decay. The thinnest wall, human skin, or even a little air will stop it. So, the real threat is if you manage to inhale or drink radioactive water. Even then, you get the safety bonus of the water in your body having a biological half life of about 1-2 weeks, so drink more water to flush the bad water out of your system faster.

So, compared to nuclear wastes, seems to be a fairly minor threat.

Re:Distillation (2)

PSUspud (7236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381623)

The tanks in Washington State (Hanford, to be precise) are cold-war era relics filled with corrosive slime. The Fukushima tanks are overflowing with treated water. And yes, the problem is that distillation won't work, since the main problem is tritium, actually in the water itself.

Re:Distillation (3, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381701)

Water can not be radioactive. It's actually an incredibly good radiation insulator and that's exactly why they use it. The problem is the radioactive particulates in it. Fish eat, absorb those and then still, the fish is not radioactive, the problem is that when you eat the fish these materials get into your body. Funny enough, the radiations usually not going to cause you any health problems, the material itself is almost always heavy metals however. And those are very bad for you indeed.

Re:Distillation (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381891)

Water can not be radioactive. It's actually an incredibly good radiation insulator and that's exactly why they use it. The problem is the radioactive particulates in it.

Depending on particle size, Reverse Osmosis, Activated Charcoal, and Ion exchange [forbes.com] are all somewhat successful, and using all three together does a very good job of removing even very small particles. Distillation also works well.

Re:Distillation (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381783)

You're talking about Hanford [wikipedia.org] . Approximately one third of Hanford's waste storage tanks are known to have been or be leaking into the groundwater, having contaminated approximately 270 billion gallons or one billion cubic meters of aquifers. This contaminated groundwater is expected to reach the Columbia river in 7 to 45 years, and start contaminating everything along the river from Eastern Washington to Portland and the Pacific ocean shortly thereafter. The loss of real estate values along that river is a very real concern. Waterfront property is normally very valuable. Waterfront property on a radioactive river, less so.

Currently there is no practical plan to deal with this situation nor adequate budget to even stop it from getting worse. It is likely impossible to prevent this radioactive waste from reaching the Pacific. The Columbia river [wikipedia.org] is quite a considerable river, 4th largest in the US by volume and the largest draining into the Pacific. Though Hanford is the most highly contaminated nuclear site in the US - containing approximately 2/3rds of all US high-level waste, it still retains an operating nuclear power generating station [wikipedia.org] to this day. It uses a newer version of the type of reactor used at Fukushima, a General Electric Type 5 Boiling Water Reactor.

Over $30 billions (pdf) [oregon.gov] have been spent cleaning up Hanford already. 20 years into the initial 30 year plan only minor progress has been made. The vitrification plant, for example, is not expected to complete vitrification operations for another 34 years from now - and that may be optimistic, meaning we are further from the end now than when the work was begun. The estimate for the cost of the remaining cleanup is $112 billion [tri-cityherald.com] and is, given the nature of such things, likely to be at least three times even that.

Although the so-far estimated cost of $145 billion is very high it is important to remember than Hanford was a critical part of the Manhattan Project, essential for developing the technology and materials that made the US the first nuclear weapon capable global power at a critical cusp of international relations. The cost of not doing that might have been much higher than cleaning up or living with this mess will be.

Cleaning up Fukushima will cost far more than cleaning up Hanford. Cleaning up Chernobyl [wikipedia.org] will also be more costly, to the extent cleanup is possible at all. If you add up the cleanup costs of all three and the off-book costs of getting rid of the current stock of spent nuclear fuels you could probably outfit the entire world with alternative electrical energy solutions like geothermal, wind and solar for less. On this scale a manned Mars colony would be a trivial side project. Of more concern might be that cleaning up these messes entirely is quite simply not possible, even given the full weight of the national economies involved. It cannot be done. We have developed the power to create problems we cannot cure no matter how hard we try.

Re:Distillation (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381961)

This is completely off-topic and I expect it to be moderated that way and that's OK.

The costs of combating the ideas of Fascism, Global communism (or what was presented as such), Japanese imperialism, militarized Islam and other such notions offensive to personal liberty so *far* outweigh the costs in lives and treasure of these accidental excursions into nuclear physics as to be on an entirely different scale. It seems the pen is still mightier than the sword even when the sword is a MIRV [wikipedia.org] .

What strange fools these mortals be.

Re:Distillation (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43383071)

Water is never radioactive. In fact divers routinely swim in these pools for maintenance. They just need to keep a certain distance from the spent fuel.

Re:Distillation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381587)

Distilling [sic] radioactive water gives you radioactive water vapor. When that cools off and condenses then you have radioactive water again.

Radiation isn't something you can separate from matter by distilling it or burning it.

If it were that simple then it wouldn't be the problem that it is.

Re:Distillation (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381779)

That only applies if you're talking about tritiated water (water containing tritium rather than hydrogen). If it's water contaminated with radioactive materials (like Strontium-90 in this case) distilling will remove the contaminant like it would anything else.

Re:Distillation (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381925)

The water itself is not radioactive. Particles in the water are. Therefore, distillation is one of the methods that will work.
Other methods include RO, Ion Exchange, Activated Carbon filtration. But Water itself is not radio active.

Further, there are already methods of removal, (this is done every day all around the world), and its not particularly a difficult problem, other than the fact that the Fukushima site has an awful lot of water to deal with.

Re:Distillation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382783)

Hell no, do you KNOW how much distillation would cost!? More than having the right cables to connect batteries to the cooling system which would have prevented the meltdown, and you know nuclear power execs are too cheap for that. Remember, the goal here is to maximize profit by minimizing costs TO THE COMPANY, fuck the health of the public. They wont be able to prove shit anyway: "You got cancer, bitch? Fucking PROVE it has anything to do with Fukushima. That's what I thought . . . now go fucking die a horrible death while I count my money . . ."

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381435)

It sounds nice but what tends to happen is it settle to floor, get picked up by pants and tiny creatures concentrating it again, the eaten by fewer bigger creatures concentrating it more, and finally poisioning us we we go to eat fish.

Yes if you had some way to spread it over a very very large area of sea it would be fine probably, but you'd likely need to move it out to deep water with container ships, and then you'd have to do something with the contaminated ships. I suppose you might just scuttle them. Anyway just dump it in the ocean sounds simple but doing right ( if there is a right way ) is risky and expensive.

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (0)

umghhh (965931) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381515)

But I thought nuclear energy is safe so surely just dumping this radioactive whatever it is into the ocean is ok then?

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381533)

Do you think Molasses is safe? Ever given a second of thought to the fear that your bottle of syrup might attack you?

But wait, a disaster COULD happen.

Just like with cotton balls, unicorn dust, and pixie wings.

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381669)

Do you think Molasses is safe? Ever given a second of thought to the fear that your bottle of syrup might attack you?

But wait, a disaster COULD happen.

Just like with cotton balls, unicorn dust, and pixie wings.

Get your facts straight, the only result from the great Unicorn Dust Explosion [wikipedia.org] in Ireland back in the 1800's was a slight increase in the birth rate of Leprechans.

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (2)

Eevee (535658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382215)

Do you think Molasses is safe? Ever given a second of thought to the fear that your bottle of syrup might attack you? But wait, a disaster COULD happen.

It's happened before [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381629)

But I thought nuclear energy is safe

s/$/r/

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381621)

Picked up by pants?

Nuclear concentration by clothing? Could make 'hot to trot' a reality.

Re:Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381521)

Can't they mix this water into the ocean, diluting it to background levels? Surely the ocean has a certain amount of naturally occurring radioactive materials in it and I'm sure this wouldn't change it much.

I suspect that it depends on what flavor of radioactives you are working with. The worst-case scenario is that a substantial quantity of them are (like Strontium, which looks almost like Calcium) compounds that are readily water-soluble and readily absorbed by organisms in the water and concentrated up the food chain.

Best case scenario is that it's mostly larger silt-type particles that are largely insoluble and not bioavalable, which still isn't great but should at least end up hanging out on the bottom for most of its lifetime.

Does anybody know what makes this delicious fluid tick?

re:polluting the ocean (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381681)

umm, as a california resident, no thank you! I don't want to be pulling 3-eyed fish out of the water.

Re:polluting the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382055)

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that the tastiest three-headed fish come from Springfi***CARRIER LOST***

Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381397)

That sound you hear continuously in the background are the massive profits made from all of this!

Captcha: joyously

What's The Worst ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381433)

What's the worst that can happen? Would it be worse than what's already happened there? Can it contaminate things any more than they already are?

If yes, then they should have tested all of their infrastructure before starting things up again. It's only been a year and clearly they need more time before starting things up again.

Re:What's The Worst ... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381663)

They didn't start anything up in reactor n.4. This is water from the day of the meltdown.

THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381467)

This did not happen. Nothing to see here.

There are no problems with nuclear power. It is good and glorious.

No one will ever be harmed by nuclear power. You can trust it. It is good.

Sincerely, the Slashdot nuclear re-education committee

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (5, Informative)

IRWolfie- (1148617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381509)

Despite your post, noone has died at Fukushima from radiation. Compare that to coal.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381535)

Cancer can take decades to show up.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0, Troll)

toQDuj (806112) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382035)

And can be effectively prevented by exercising and eating healthily.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382423)

Wut? Exercise and eat as healthily as you like. Just don't expect that to "effectively" prevent cancer if you are exposed to significant amounts of radiation.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43383009)

>And can be effectively prevented by exercising and eating healthily.

Says the guy who knows absolutely NOTHING about cancer. You must be kidding.

Cancer is a lottery. The number of tickets you buy is your lifestyle, but everyone gets some number of tickets. When your ticket is pulled, it's pulled. There is no exercise and diet that will stop cancer. You can only make some choices that reduce your chances (somewhat).

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381859)

The deaths from Fukushima happened before the fuel even showed up at the plant [cdc.gov] .

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

beckett (27524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382491)

And coal comes from a dust-free dispenser next to the tree of gumdrops on lollipop lane. oh wait it's also mined [sciencedirect.com] .

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382503)

If we agree that nuclear and coal both kill people and should be avoided, let us agree to pursue sources of energy that don't, like geothermal.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382529)

So that covers Iceland and Hawaii. What will the rest of the world do?

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382589)

Right now we're talking about US and Japan, both of whom have ample geothermal resources - as does all of South America, Indonesia - the entire Ring of Fire.

There are some places that geothermal isn't apt for, but as the technology evolves they grow fewer. You would think Russia isn't a geothermal powerhouse, but they have the Siberian Traps [wikipedia.org] and have more potential even than the US. North and South America, Russia, India, China, Pakistan all have ample geothermal resources, and that's the home of 90% of breathing humans. I think we'd be OK with the rest of us making do with other sources of local power if the people with geothermal resources would just make use of what they have.

Geothermal is immune from international strife as it requires no imported fuel, nor rail or pipelines to deliver fuel. Distribution lines are vulnerable but they can be made redundant and are rather hard to hit. They can be made absolutely immune from international strife by burying to adequate depths.

Geothermal is the baseload power that is the perfect counterpoint to wind and solar. It can be ramped up at dusk and down at dawn; increase output when the wind doesn't blow, and decrease it when it does. It can exceed its base for years while alternative plants are being built and then decrease it to avoid depleting the thermal resource. You can't do any of those things with nuclear power.

Many countries with no terrestrial geothermal resources have them just offshore, and the availability of the ocean as a thermal countersink is compelling.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382807)

Geothermal is the baseload power that is the perfect counterpoint to wind and solar. It can be ramped up at dusk and down at dawn; increase output when the wind doesn't blow, and decrease it when it does. It can exceed its base for years while alternative plants are being built and then decrease it to avoid depleting the thermal resource. You can't do any of those things with nuclear power.

America's poster child for geothermal, situated in the world's most geothermally active region, is perpetually over budget and under production and also produced a superfund site in the earlier years of its operation, because they were burying the slurry produced by pressure-washing the turbines in drums off of butts canyon rd. More recently (and ongoing) they've had to pump treated sewage into the ground (as an available source of water) to keep what production they do have up, because they have depleted the thermal resource. In short, while everything you say may be true, none of it is true in the USA.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382991)

Ah, Drinkypoo, you're the local NIMBY for this one. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Considering the cover-ups involved though... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381879)

Fairewinds Speech at the New York Academy of Medicine [fairewinds.org]

Fairewinds Speech at the New York Academy of Medicine - Fukushima Two Years On - Gundersen Presents New Information concerning the Fukushima Accident: In this new video, Polaris Mediaworks laces together a video of Arnie Gundersen speaking along with the PowerPoint presentation he gave so viewers can better understand the presentation.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

mad flyer (589291) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382137)

Thank you for proving that you are a complete knuckledragger.
Nuclear already triggered at least 2 non survivable contaminated zone onearth. And the mass casualties will only be seen in 10 to 20 years. (or at least mass thyroid cancer patients).

Plus you are totally ignoring the several workers death by cardiac arrest of cleanup workers or the untraceable illness of the unproperly declared/registered/followed cleanup temp workers.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382147)

You ignorant bastard.

No-one has died but many might now face reduced life and lower quality of life caused by cancers or other toxic reactions. Not to mention the lost land, lost livelihoods, and the shadow of those broken reactors. To say no-one died is completely missing the point. Besides, do we even know anyone died? I'm sure the nuclear industry would want to keep that quiet too.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382295)

One day you will get untreatable cancer . . . and God will be smiling.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382489)

Even if this was true: Can you guarantee that nobody will die from radiation until the radioactive material poses no more threat? Like in hundreds of thousands of years? The risks involved using coal as an energy source can be reduced to nearly zero almost instantly.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381513)

Coal power disasters make for more interesting entertainment [wikipedia.org] , anyways.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381545)

Why, whenever anyone says anything the slightest bit negative about nuclear power here on Slashdot, does someone come and start whining about coal?

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381595)

Slashdot is supported in part by coal industry shills.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381613)

...er, I mean nuclear industry shills, not coal industry. By the way, where are all the coal industry shills? If Slashdot is overwhelmed by nuclear apologists, it's kind of weird that the coal industry hasn't noticed and sent some of their own.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382319)

...er, I mean nuclear industry shills, not coal industry. By the way, where are all the coal industry shills? If Slashdot is overwhelmed by nuclear apologists, it's kind of weird that the coal industry hasn't noticed and sent some of their own.

Local television and radio stations in my city (Pittsburgh) have coal and natural gas shill commercials at least once every commercial break. Range Resource and Consol Energy are the biggest offenders on telling us how fracking and coal power do not fuck up our environment [patch.com] . When documents say otherwise, they dissapear [npr.org] .

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381641)

Slashdot is supported in part by coal industry shills.

You know, if Slashdot were really supported by every flavor of shill that is attributed to this site, then Dice Holdings picked a great meal ticket. Given the fact that Slashdot has just now figured out part of unicode (and then blundered several steps back with the mobile site), I find this a bit hard to believe.

Or maybe Timothy et. al. are just getting rich. Filthy rich. 1% rich.

Or maybe not.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381687)

Or maybe Slashdot is swarming with nuclear industry shills and the Slashdot staff had nothing to do with it. They're not getting rich or making any money at all. The nuclear industry hired people to mod down posts critical of nuclear power, and scream, "But COAL!!111!1" to everything, and the nuclear industry is getting rich, not Slashdot.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381803)

I have observed this as well. Conspiracy surely explains it.

The value of a free thing approaches zero (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382129)

Making public comment free motivates profit-oriented bodies to participate and contend for space in the process until the contributions of individuals speaking their own mind is lost in the noise. Such is the nature of open discussion and there is no cure for this problem. If there is a soapbox in the public square, profit-motivated individuals subsidized to do so will contend against personally motivated folk to stand on it until there is no personally motivated person able to survive the wait time for his turn.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381959)

There might actually be a ring of truth, though for the opposite cause and not on slashdot specifically.

The coal industry has a very powerful lobby. The coal union itself is very powerful, far more powerful than the corporate interests. Combine the two though and you have a great combination for retarding nuclear research and development.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (4, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381597)

Because its an easy target? Probably also because the relative panic over nuclear power rubs geeks the wrong way: "Those peasants are being anti science again. WHY won't they look at the math?!". If we want nuclear power to succeed, and it should, we need to look at the real problem - lack of regulation. The companies that run plants too often get away with cutting corners. The lack of trust with nuclear power stems directly from this lack of trust mixed with the potential severity of a mistake. If we work hard to solve both problems, to implement solutions that already exist, and publicize those success stories, we should see progress.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382315)

"No one ever died from Fukushima."
"You could feed nuclear waste to babies, and it still would do less harm than coal."
"Dams are a thousand times more dangerous than nuclear power."


Nuclear power will continue to decline until it is a distant memory . . . too many fucking nutcases supporting it . . .

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382813)

If we want nuclear power to succeed, and it should, we need to look at the real problem - lack of regulation.

Bull shit. Fukushima Daiichi failed for two reasons. One, because it was built where it should not have been built (at the insistence of General Electric, and forced upon Japan by the US Gov't.) Two, being built where it should not have been built, it was then built without taking into account existing historical records concerning flooding and taking adequate measures to protect the system from flooding (e.g. a great wall-esque seawall, offsite backup power or at least elevated generators, et cetera.) Both of these facts were true before the plant even started operation. No amount of regulation would fix the problems with Fukushima Daiichi. Government created the problems with the plant, by deciding where and how it should be built. More government will not help.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382915)

Then what, exactly would help? Letting corporations do whatever the hell they want? If your statements are true, you had the US government doing the bidding of a corporation to pressure for this location. Are you seriously dense enough to believe that an absence of government would lead to an absence of corporate corruption and dirty dealings? What we need is less corporate involvement, especially in government.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (4, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43383073)

No amount of regulation would fix the problems with Fukushima Daiichi

No, but it would've stopped it being built there in the first place without the proper protections against tsunamis.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (2)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381863)

I'll pretend that's not a rhetorical question.

Because a typical coal plant causes more dollars in health problems, and puts more radioactive material into the environment, than a typical nuclear plant. And then there's the carbon dioxide.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382065)

Because there is enough moronic fear about nuclear. All anti-nuclear fanatics do is hurt our entire world. Total nuclear conversion solves every energy and pollution problem the world faces today. It also solves an enormous number of problems in international relations. The lives saved in war related deaths alone would be enough to compensate for us having a full scale meltdown once or twice a decade. The greatest accomplishment that the anti-nuclear establishment can hope to achieve is to keep us all in the dark ages.

The nuclear industry likes comparing to coal (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382105)

Why, whenever anyone says anything the slightest bit negative about nuclear power here on Slashdot, does someone come and start whining about coal?

Coal is traditional and cheap. Coal-fired plants have the least startup cost and the quickest time to operation. Nuclear proponents need to sell their advantages over coal. They have a point - to a point - but like all admen they are blinded by the money.

If the entire US converted to nuclear power electricity generation (beyond the huge share we get from hydroelectric) that would not slow down US coal mining, natural gas or oil production a whit. The coal would be shipped overland by trains, the gas and oil through pipelines to ports where they would be shipped overseas to be used to power developing economies and contribute even more to greenhouse gas production in places where emission standards are more lax. The net result would be even more growth of greenhouse gas emissions than present. The carcinogens would still come into the air - even more so than they are now. We would still breathe the air contaminated by these plants. Our coal miners would still die in scary numbers. But the source of these problems would be overseas, and beyond the reach of domestic policy. It's a NIMBY thing.

If US nuclear power advances to the point where it can drive more efficient extraction of fossil fuels it will be used to do so, stripping the land of them even more quickly than at present - because these resources have value and the companies that do this have obligations to their shareholders.

Think about bunker fuel [wikipedia.org] . This is the sulfur-rich tar left over from converting oil to gasoline so viscous it must be heated before it is used. Instead of being used in US power plants it powers the ships that move stuff over the oceans just outside the reach of US regulation. Just because US regulations don't allow it to be burned here doesn't mean that it doesn't get burned, and the waste gasses waft over our shores. It has energy in it. Do you think anybody is just going to throw that away? By exporting the problem beyond our international boundaries we can absolve ourselves of guilt for it without actually contributing to a solution to the problem.

There is no fission solution to this problem. You're not going to get fission-powered superfreighters any time soon, and if you did they would be used to carry our local fossil fuels more efficiently to places they could be burned less and less optimally.

Re:THIS DID NOT HAPPEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381565)

Damn.. You are right. For the sake of the children shut down those evil radiation factories and open more coal plants!

Oh . wait...

Idiot! Idiot! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381625)

Who said anything about coal? It's not politically correct to say this on Slashdot, with all the nuclear worship around here, but nuclear power can be completely fucked up, whether or not coal is. Coal is irrelevant.

Re:Idiot! Idiot! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381689)

That statement means nothing in absolute terms. You need to compare it with something else for a meaningful insight.

What is the Dai-chi plant? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381561)

According to http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/... it's Daiichi.

I'm guessing they would know.

Re:What is the Dai-chi plant? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382327)

According to http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/ [tepco.co.jp] ... it's Daiichi.

I'm guessing they would know.

Yeah, because we can trust Tepco to tell the truth.

Bah! Little league. (2, Interesting)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381569)

Hanford Washington USA
April 02, 2013

"A nuclear safety board has warned a key U.S. senator that underground tanks holding radioactive
waste at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site pose a possible risk of explosion."
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/04/nuclear_safety_board_warns_of.html [oregonlive.com]

I as everybody else in this area are "down winders". A tank blows we will certainly know about it.
These tanks have some of the most radioactive materials "contained"; the left overs of
30 some years of Plutonium production.

A lot of work has been done to the tanks to stop the leaks that have "flowed" for many years.
The leaks are now... well one can't say as everyday it's different; tomorrow they may well be gone.

I'm sure if they could, they would have by now so not sweating it myself.

Such is our bane for helping stop the japs.

Cover-ups biggest threat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381899)

Fairewinds Speech at the New York Academy of Medicine [fairewinds.org]

Fairewinds Speech at the New York Academy of Medicine - Fukushima Two Years On - Gundersen Presents New Information concerning the Fukushima Accident: In this new video, Polaris Mediaworks laces together a video of Arnie Gundersen speaking along with the PowerPoint presentation he gave so viewers can better understand the presentation.

Captcha: faiths

Re:Cover-ups biggest threat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382521)

Fairewinds Energy Education Corp received a grant to produce educational videos to help people around the world understand the truth about what happened at Fukushima Daiichi and the world-wide impact of this nuclear catastrophe that dwarfs Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl.

Thanks for linking some strong propaganda there. The truth is, all nuclear accidents are local, to one extend or another, by definition. A few km of contamination is what you get for being lazy about safety standards.

Global impact would require all out nuclear war or large amount of atmospheric nuclear tests (much more than in even in reckless 1960s). And even then, the impact would be shorter lived than what we are doing thanks to coal/gas/oil trifecta.

What I would like to know is who is behind groups like that? Big coal? They can lose quite a lot from nuclear power.

Re:Cover-ups biggest threat... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382751)

Bullshit. It just becomes harder to prove the causal connection the farther away the incident.

Moot point, irregardless. Nuclear power is dead. Too fucking expensive. Takes too fucking long to implement. Requires fucking central planning socialist fucks telling the general public to bend over and take it if anything ever happens. By the way, consuming power now at a cost of storing waste for fucking ever is the most fucking stupid and selfish idea ever (even with your magical "reprocessing" fucking magical fairy fart wet dream that has been tried endlessly and failed miserably, no matter how much money gets thrown at it. You want nuclear power? Establish the "reprocessing" technology BEFORE you create any waste, you miserable excuse of a fucking human being.).

And, most of all, you have an army of retarded fucks of supporters who endlessly parrot the false "dirty" coal dichotomy every which fucking way, when natural gas has been shutting down coal plants for the last 10 years. And you think I need some kind of fucking special interest sponsor to get me to post how much a fucking despise your filthy, intellectually bankrupt drivel? You think special interests NEED to do anything to keep you cluster-fucks from "melting down" your own cause!? Fuck you and your delusions of grandeur. Your blind stupidity is what is motivating these "groups" to piss on your delusional parade, not some global conspiracy, you paranoid fuck.

War Against Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382965)

Hilarious. No, really. It's just so ironic.

You're talking about the most efficient way of producing power save for fusion, and saying "Nah, people will just not use that."

Every "fuck" I read there warms my heart. The war on nuclear energy is destined for all the long-term success of the war on glaciers -- global warming notwithstanding.

You probably have the delusion that hydrocarbon power isn't a global pollutant. It's so funny to see someone at war against reality. Keep at it, Canute.

Re:Cover-ups biggest threat... (1)

mbstone (457308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382837)

Here's the PowerPoint version [fairewinds.org] so's you don't have to sit through 30 minutes of video.

And how bad is that? (2)

PSUspud (7236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381609)

And so what? Before we can evaluate how bad this is, we need to know how bad the radioactivity is. Are we talking "enough to kill everybody" or "enough to detect"? Given that this is water that has already been cleaned, I suspect the latter. The only radionuclide they couldn't get out is tritium, and that at a relatively low concentration. Until there are actual numbers, I won't get excited.
And when you read "highly contaminated water", remember that bananas [forbes.com] are too radioactive to meet Japanese food regulations. A little radioactivity goes a long way, as does a little hysteria.

Fuckin' nips (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381697)

If they don't get this shit under control we should drop a hydrogen bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. The first time was just a 'warning shot'...

Re:Fuckin' Racist Bitches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382681)

If they don't get this shit under control we should just castrate the lot of 'em so they don't procreate. This is the first 'warning shot' bitches...

The problem with nuclear power is (1, Offtopic)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381767)

Cost cutting, and imperfect solutions.As well as other things that happen in The Real World to fallible human beings.

Why everyone on slashdot defends to death nuclear power is beyond my understanding. The waste lasts for tens to HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years. You cannot possibly ensure anythings containment on that time scale.

We have a molten planet full of heat, a source a few tens of km away from every person. We have a fusion reactor wirelessly sending power to the planet. People need to figure out that nuclear is not the answer.

Re:The problem with nuclear power is (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43381809)

Why everyone on slashdot defends to death nuclear power is beyond my understanding. The waste lasts for tens to HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years.

Who cares?

I mean, seriously: you're worried that someone might get cancer hundreds of thousands of years in the future?

You really think that's something worth worrying about?

In even a single thousand years, our descendants will be living in space or in caves, depending on whether or not we listen to the doomsayers. Worrying about nuclear waste thousands of years in the future is just insane.

Re:The problem with nuclear power is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381851)

Oh yes? Where is my flying car?

Re:The problem with nuclear power is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43381931)

I'm sure they were worried about the continued leakage for too many years combined with accumulation of concentrated radioactive particles higher and higher up the foodchain.

Re:The problem with nuclear power is (1)

Omestes (471991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382831)

Yeah, not worrying about the future has brought us all sorts of good things historically...

Or not.

Re:The problem with nuclear power is (5, Insightful)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382153)

The issue is that were treating stuff as ubber scary that's far less dangerous that what goes up coal plants smoke stacks. Things less radioactive than coal get treated as major problems that we have to contain forever we might as well just throw the stuff into the furnace.

Spent fuel rods are the major highly radioactive bit and those should be reprocessed to make more fuel rods. We don't because that reprocessing is also a good way to get weapon grade bits. Pretty much anything that's radioactive enough to need to be contained over huge periods is radioactive enough to run a reactor. Other bits are non issues.

Radioactive water has been leaking all along (3, Informative)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382139)

A recently caught fish (April 7th) was found with very high levels of radiation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2265732/Mike-Murasoi-fish-contaminated-radiation-Fukushima-nuclear-disaster-2-500-times-legal-limit.html [dailymail.co.uk]

It was confirmed by Tepco to have amounts of radioactive cesium equal to 254,000 becquerels per kilogram, or 2540 times the limit of 100 becquerels/kg set for seafood by the government.

...

On 21 August last year, Tepco announced that rockfish caught in the Pacific Ocean within the circular area of 20 km around the plant, which is closed to all human activity, had a level of 25,800 becquerels of cesium per kilogram .

It's painfully obvious that this is caused by ongoing leakage of radioactive water from the plant. In contrast, there has be a reduction in radiatons levels on land http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201303120107 [asahi.com] . It's unlikely that biological concentration in the food chain is the primary cause after two years of radiation decay and sea water dilution.

If you don't trust the Japanese government, this would explain why they are prohibiting non-government organizations from sampling the ocean near the plant location. They say it's still too dangerous.

The motivation for a coverup is that ongoing radioactive ocean contamination would be a huge international incident. China, Korea, Taiwan, Viet Nam, Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines would all protest. There would be reputational repercussions, diplomatic turmoil and possibly economic sanctions. There is still a lot of hostility in the region from WW2, and this would be just the issue to reopen those wounds. Not to mention current rivalry over ocean areas that have China, Tiawan and Japan sending naval vessels to tiny islands with disputed ownership.

Obama Administration's NOD to Nuclear Power (1)

wanfuse123 (2860713) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382141)

I was happy to read last week that the Obama administration seems to have been reading the blogs about the mass deployment of modular generation IV reactors. I hope it was brought to their attention by my "We the People" petition to study the efficacy of a plan to convert all coal plants to LFTR Nuclear Reactors [rawcell.com] but that is probably just wishful thinking. They said that they would be deploying 50 300 MW reactors every year starting in 2050 maybe sooner if they can get the technology right. Unfortunately this is far short of the 5 year start time that I feel we could do with a Manhattan style effort. I came to a capital cost figure of 1.6 Trillion for the conversion process but have recently learned that this figure could be over costly by a factor of two which would bring the figure to 800 billion in capital costs if the new data is right. I believe it is totally worth the 23 Billion dollar effort to make it happen and will try again with another "We the People" petition when they integrate my suggested "Facebook Authentication" into their site. Hopefully with enough signatures we can make this study happen and make the results fully public in all aspects of it's execution and findings.

It's "Dai-ichi", not "Dai-chi" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382205)

"Ichi" being "one", "Dai-ichi" being "Dai #1", and "Dai-ni" being "Dai #2".

Disney and Paul Dukas come to mind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382431)

As I read about the details of how they are dealing with the hot cores of these nightmare wrecks of radioactivity, I hear the Sorcerers Apprentice and have a vision of Mickey Mouse trying unsuccessfully to deal with millions of buckets of water.

Radioactive Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43382499)

Idea: why can't we get rid of all of the radioactive waste by dumping it into the ocean? (No really) If you only increased the background radiation by 0.1% and you sprinkled the waste into the ocean (or land) how much waste would you be able to safely dispose of? The ocean already has a certain amount of radionuclides in it,

Solution: Energy from Thorium (LFTRs) (3, Informative)

ivi (126837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43382683)

Whenever I see a new article on the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster,
I am reminded of the ADVANTAGES (better cost, safety, waste, political
implications, etc.) of Liquid Fluoride THORIUM Reactors (a.k.a. LFTR's,
already being developed around the world (in various phases of R&D, eg,
in China, India, Taiwan, & [privately] USA).

More people need to know about the opportunities of this -safer- green-
energy source, so they can decide for themselves whether it's time to
-push- for regulatory changes, that will -ease- the transition to Thorium,
in our time.

Introduction: Kirk Sorensen's recent TED-talk

More details: (search YouTube.com for
                                            "Thorium remix"
                                        and take your pick)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?