Fukushima - wtf.

[RickRastardly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

If you read the report it says that the water used to continue to cool the damaged fuel rods and thus needs to be stored.

I get that.

But why rather than storing ever more radioactive water, why cant they re-use it?

Surely they only need to wait until the water cools down then re-use it...... obviously I'm missing something, but it is a bit weird.

Also the leaking radioactive water situation leaking into the worlds sea sort of scares the hell out of me a little bit, despite the fact that I live on the other side of the planet.

[Kimberly]

Don't worry, RickRastardly--the public is a lot more afraid of nuclear power than it needs to be. The World Health Organization found that there was no risk to the general public inside or outside Japan, and predicted only a minor increase in cancer risk in Fukushima Prefecture. Despite this, the original incident received the same level on the international scale measuring nuclear incidents as the Chernobyl explosion! A Pew Study recorded that 51% percent of people watching coverage on the earthquake in Japan focused on the damaged nuclear plants¹--how many deaths did the damage cause? As far as we know, zero so far. The earthquake and tsunami, on the other hand, killed some 16000 people.

The ongoing problems at Fukushima are a serious environmental issue, to be sure. Just not one the average Joe really needs to worry about at all.

To answer your main question: they don't reuse it because it's not a closed system. There are leaks all over the place. If you pump in contaminated water, then some of that water is going to leak out, and if you cycle it over and over you keep putting more of it into the environment. You limit the amount of radioactive particles that get into the environment by only pumping in clean water.

1. Pew Research, "Most Are Attentive to News About Disaster in Japan: Public Focuses on Crisis at Nuclear Plants", March 2011.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Kimberly

[segaprophet]

Nuclear power is usually one of the cleanest power sources available - unless you build a plant in a friggin' tsunami zone.

[Mercy]

You wanna drink irradiated water? Be my guest, mate.

[Moon Goddess]

If you are in the Americas then you are drinking irradiated water off Fukashima only in the sense that Homeopathy is real.

[segaprophet]

What I mean to say is - events like Fukushima and Chernobyl before it make nuclear power look bad, but managed properly, it's reasonably safe, and most importantly, one of the most potent sources of energy production we have that can meet rising demands without ruining our planet on the quick.

I'll take having to stow away nuclear waste in salt mines over spewing more carbons into the atmosphere any day.

Edited August 22, 2013 by segaprophet

[ZedNova]

Nuclear power is usually one of the cleanest power sources available - unless you build a plant in a friggin' tsunami zone.

Still is, a ton more people have been killed by coal power than nuclear.

Nuclear energy is the best way to go for now, as soon as we get the Thorium reactors working we'll be in business.

[Mercy]

Still is, a ton more people have been killed by coal power than nuclear.

That's because coal powers been around a hell of a lot longer than nuclear, m80.

[Radam]

That's because coal powers been around a hell of a lot longer than nuclear, m80.

Yeah right.

Radioactive trace elements

Coal is a sedimentary rock formed primarily from accumulated plant matter, and it includes many inorganic minerals and elements which were deposited along with organic material during its formation. As the rest of the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.[21] In comparison, a 1,000 MW nuclear plant will generate about 30 short tons of high-level radioactive solid packed waste per year.[22] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[23] The collective radioactivity resulting from all coal burning worldwide between 1937 and 2040 is estimated to be 2,700,000 curies or 0.101 EBq.[21] It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.[21] But it is also worth noting that normal operation is a deceiving baseline for comparison: just the Chernobyl nuclear disaster released, in iodine-131 alone, an estimated 1.76 EBq .[24] of radioactivity, a value one order of magnitude above this value for total emissions from all coal burned within a century. But at the same time, it shall also be understood that the iodine-131, the major radioactive substance which comes out in accident situations has a half life of just 8 days. Hence, it is not going to cause as much as damage as the uranium and thorium which are released from coal-fired power plants which have much higher half-lives. Also, the risk of exposure to I-131 can largely be mitigated by the consumption of iodine tablets.

[Mercy]

Yeah right.

Radioactive trace elements

Coal is a sedimentary rock formed primarily from accumulated plant matter, and it includes many inorganic minerals and elements which were deposited along with organic material during its formation. As the rest of the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.[21] In comparison, a 1,000 MW nuclear plant will generate about 30 short tons of high-level radioactive solid packed waste per year.[22] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[23] The collective radioactivity resulting from all coal burning worldwide between 1937 and 2040 is estimated to be 2,700,000 curies or 0.101 EBq.[21] It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.[21] But it is also worth noting that normal operation is a deceiving baseline for comparison: just the Chernobyl nuclear disaster released, in iodine-131 alone, an estimated 1.76 EBq .[24] of radioactivity, a value one order of magnitude above this value for total emissions from all coal burned within a century. But at the same time, it shall also be understood that the iodine-131, the major radioactive substance which comes out in accident situations has a half life of just 8 days. Hence, it is not going to cause as much as damage as the uranium and thorium which are released from coal-fired power plants which have much higher half-lives. Also, the risk of exposure to I-131 can largely be mitigated by the consumption of iodine tablets.

What?

Just because coal has traces of radioactive elements in it doesn't mean it's nuclear power.

[Radam]

No but it does radioactive pollution nontheless. That is if you are worried about that at all.

[Mercy]

No but it does radioactive pollution nontheless. That is if you are worried about that at all.

No, I was referring in my very first post to the fact that the OP suggested "re-using" the Fukushima water. Know what the #1 use of water is? Drinking it.

[Rascal Nag]

That's because coal powers been around a hell of a lot longer than nuclear, m80.

I think it would have been more effective if he had said that the annual amount of deaths caused by coal power are greater than those caused by nuclear power - which is true.

[Mercy]

I think it would have been more effective if he had said that the annual amount of deaths caused by coal power are greater than those caused by nuclear power - which is true.

Think of it like a plane and a car. Coal = car, nuke = plane.

You're a lot more likely to have an accident in a car than a plane, but when they plane crashes it's usually a hell of a lot worse than the car.

[Radam]

No, I was referring in my very first post to the fact that the OP suggested "re-using" the Fukushima water. Know what the #1 use of water is? Drinking it.

Right, and I was reffering to your coal remark.

But yes, the water is gonna be radioactive anyway. Reusing it would increase that level of radioactivity. Not really sure if one can evaporate the water and therefore keep radioactive isotopes in heavy concentrations but smaller volume.

[Mercy]

Right, and I was reffering to your coal remark.

But yes, the water is gonna be radioactive anyway. Reusing it would increase that level of radioactivity. Not really sure if one can evaporate the water and therefore keep radioactive isotopes in heavy concentrations but smaller volume.

I say we just ship it out to the desert along with the buildings and other things that were irradiated, and people can do IRL Fallout RP.

[Anton P. Nym]

No, I was referring in my very first post to the fact that the OP suggested "re-using" the Fukushima water. Know what the #1 use of water is? Drinking it.

Nope. Number 1 use of water (by volume consumed per annum) worldwide is irrrigation of crops, followed by hydroelectric power generation IIRC. Industrial use as a solvent and coolant is pretty far up the list too. Personal use for drinking and hygiene are way, way down the list.

Also I believe the OP was suggesting reusing Fukushima water within the plant as coolant, and as I gather most of it is after filtration to remove radioactive particulates.

-- Steve

[Psycix]

I think that the Fukushima disaster is a display of nuclear reactor safety rather than hazard.

First off it is worth mentioning that this is caused by a natural disaster rather than human error.

Then there are the numbers:

A nuclear plant built all the way back in 1971 gets hit by an earthquake which is scaled by a staggering 9.0 magnitude, followed by a 14 meter high tsunami that flooded the entire place.

Despite these extreme conditions, the released radiation is be expected to globally kill a maximum of 130 humans through cancer - a fraction of the 18500 that died due to the same earthquake-tsunami combo.

To put this into perspective:

Multiple 40 year old nuclear reactors get hit by the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded, plus a tsunami that tops 10 meter high wall by an extra 40%. As a result the nuclear disaster is responsible for less than ~0,7% of all casualties of the earthquake and tsunami.

[Kimberly]

What?

Just because coal has traces of radioactive elements in it doesn't mean it's nuclear power.

It substantiates the point that coal power is more dangerous than nuclear power. The thing about nuclear power is that it's quite dangerous when something goes wrong. Because of that risk, we've gotten very good at making nuclear power safe. The waste produced is not really dangerous as such; it just has to be handled with care and stashed in a safe place. With coal power, however, there is emission of radiation (and other pollution) as a matter of course--we don't get a nice barrel of waste to put under a mountain somewhere, we pump the waste into the atmosphere.