It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan Plans to Dump a Million Tons of Radioactive Fukushima Water Into Ocean

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Sounds to me like waste disposals in the 70s.
Remember that old Volkswagen Beetle your uncle just dumped in that trough over at the end of that field? Some earth over it, curiously nothing grows there, must be a thing with the sunshine or such...

The boundary value for Japan's influx was once determined to be below 60.000 becq/litre. That would be the equivalent to 1 x-ray of the torso for a human drinking this kind of water a whole year.

Right about now there seems to be 3-4.000.000.000.000.000.000 becq stored in those 1.000.000.000 liters. Which would mean a mean-pollution of 4.000.000.000 becq/litre. So it has to be dilluted A LOT.

Map




posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Still think nuclear generation of energy is a good idea?


Yep, but just not places which may suffer a natural catastrophe.

Just a question of perspective. How much radioactive waste / products were pushed into the Pacific from the many atomic bomb tests done over the decades by the French and US? What was the impact?



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


Still think nuclear generation of energy is a good idea?

Absolutely, the Fukushima plant was an old design and built in a very dumb spot and was poorly maintained. Building a few nuclear plants to power a nation is far more cost effective and far better for the environment than covering large swaths of land with solar panels and wind turbines, not to mention a much more reliable and stable power output.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Of course nuclear power is the way to go. What other power source do we have now that can do what it can do?

The problems lies in idiots that build them over fault lines, in the path of tsunamis, etc. Before a nuclear reactor gets built, they should have a contingency plan for anything that may naturally happen in that area.

Human error happens too, that's why we need AI to run these places.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

It seems the Japanese are still in the discussion phase.



The authorities are debating whether it might be acceptable, given the relatively low radioactive levels in the water, to dilute the contaminated water and then dump it into the ocean. But local fishermen are vehemently opposed. Many people still do not trust Tokyo Electric because of its bungled response to the disaster, the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.


www.snopes.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: FyreByrd

Of course nuclear power is the way to go. What other power source do we have now that can do what it can do?

The problems lies in idiots that build them over fault lines, in the path of tsunamis, etc. Before a nuclear reactor gets built, they should have a contingency plan for anything that may naturally happen in that area.

Human error happens too, that's why we need AI to run these places.


I think as far as nuclear power the risks outweighs the rewards. There is currently no safe way to dispose of nuclear materials. And this means reactors have control rods just sitting in tanks making them a target for terrorist's. No nuclear reactor should have been built until they have a way ti dispose of the waste.

High-level nuclear waste--one of the nation's most hazardous substances--is accumulating at 80 sites in 35 states. This is simply unacceptable, were expected to have 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Until we come up with a way to provide the power needs of a nation, nuclear is the way to go. There isn't much that can come close to the level of power output for the footprint or pollution. Barring a nuclear disaster that is.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

I would have to agree with you and with what I am reading from scientists.



Five years on a review by the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, which brings together ocean experts from across the world, said radioactive material had been carried as far as the United States. But after analysing data from 20 studies of radioactivity associated with the plant, it found radiation levels in the Pacific were rapidly returning to normal after being tens of millions of times higher than usual following the disaster. "As an example, in 2011 about half of fish samples in coastal waters off Fukushima contained unsafe levels of radioactive material," said Pere Masque, who co-authored the review published by the Annual Review of Marine Science. "However, by 2015 that number had dropped to less than one percent above the limit." Read more at: phys.org...




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join