What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

News Japan to release contaminated water into the sea

thomas

Unswerving cyclist
Admin
Joined
14 Mar 2002
Messages
11,093
Reaction score
2,346

The solution to pollution is dilution.


Last week, the Japanese government approved Tepco's plan to release contaminated water stored at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in 2023. So far, a staggering 1,2m tonnes of water have accumulated in 1,034 storage tanks on the site, with a daily increase of 170 tonnes used to cool the remaining nuclear fuel. Tepco will be running out of storage space by the end of 2022 and had been trying to secure permission to release the treated water gradually.

The contaminated water is purified through ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System ), a procedure that can remove 62 different types of radionuclides (including caesium and strontium) but not tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which remains in the tanks. If tritium levels remain high, the ALPS procedure can be repeated several times. So while tritium is radioactive, it is not nearly as dangerous as caesium-137 or strontium-90. Tritium is a weak beta emitter, and plastic sheet or human skin is sufficient to filter out most of the radiation. Unlike caesium-137 and strontium-90 (highly carcinogenic), tritium is not accumulated in the human body.



The Japanese government has repeatedly pointed out that small quantities of tritium pose no danger to marine life, fisheries, and humans. Released in small quantities, the tritium would dilute with seawater, resulting in levels so low that it could be safely ingested.


The decision of the Japanese government - though approved by the IAEA - has, of course, triggered a fierce backlash from Fukushima's local fishing industry as well as neighbouring countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and China, which argue that Japan has no right to pollute the Pacific Ocean, a body of water shared by many nations and people.

What's ironic - or even hypocritical - is that China and South Korea regularly release contaminated water from their own nuclear power plants into the Pacific. Activism, as reported below, appears to be motivated by more than just ecological concerns.



A renowned German radio ecologist, Prof. Steinhauser of Hanover University, believes that the gradual release of cooling water is, in fact, the safest solution. Steinhauser was able to take water samples in the exclusion zone around the crippled plant in 2013 and later worked at Fukushima University. He dismisses two suggestions made by those who oppose Japan's plan: namely, the idea of adding more storage tanks (as they could easily leak and contaminate the groundwater) as well as the idea of evaporating the contaminated water (as radioactive hydrogen released in the air is more difficult to control; also, wind could disperse radioactive clouds to over long distances).

Steinhauser also sees no risks for the environment. "Tritium is not like mercury in tuna. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen and does not accumulate in any algae or plankton, but rather dilutes itself progressively." (article in German).

Two concerns remain:
  • How can the Japanese government assure that only sufficiently decontaminated water with low levels of tritium will be released? The IAEA and other environmental watchdogs will have to be involved in the entire operation which will probably be conducted over many years.
  • What about Fukushima's agriculture and fishing industry? Farmers and fishers will continue to depend on subsidies. Their products will remain subject to import bans.

Updates to these issues to follow. Let me know what you think of Tepco's plan.
 

Lothor

Proofreader extraordinaire
Moderator
Donor
Joined
26 Sep 2015
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
728
A schoolfriend who is now a professor in nuclear medicine also agrees that it is safe in principle. My concern is that the dispersal will be done properly. The nuclear industry in Japan had an appalling reputation for safety even before 2011, and little seems to have been learned since them - that big reactor in Niigata - Kariwa-Kashiwzaki - has just been prevented from restarting because of major security breaches. There is also a large pyramid of subcontractors cleaning up the mess in Fukushima, which dilutes the accountability. I fear that somewhere down the line we will learn that far more tritium has been released than we were told there would be, and it will be traced back to someone who thought they could make a quick buck without anyone saying anything or to a company bullied into doing so by another company higher up the food chain. Unfortunately, business in Japan often seems to work that way.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #3

thomas

Unswerving cyclist
Admin
Joined
14 Mar 2002
Messages
11,093
Reaction score
2,346
I totally agree.

That's why third parties with no vested interests other than environmental protection should be involved at every stage. Apart from the usual ministries, government agencies and the IAEA, invite environmental organisations (Greenpeace, for instance, despite their largely negative reputation in Japan), as well as international experts, and grant representatives of neighbouring countries access to dispel their legitimate concerns and ensure complete transparency.

Don't rely on the media and the public. They will lose their interest before the first five tanks are emptied.
 

Majestic

先輩
Joined
12 Oct 2013
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
1,259
I agree that dumping it into the sea is probably going to be the least objectionable option. The quantity of Tritium, or, the concentration, seems to be mighty low, and once diluted by the ocean, it will be utterly negligible (I think). In any event, it seems to be one of the more benign isotopes - relatively short half-life (12 years), fairly fast biological half life (10 days)...Its not my area of expertise, but it seems like the potential harm to humans and marine life is going to be very low.
 

Jezinn

Kouhai
Contributor
Joined
24 Jun 2021
Messages
13
Reaction score
11
What are Tepco's other alternatives? I haven't seen any, except that they treat the water and release it. There can be only so much storage space. Maybe the more important conversation is can the purification and filtering of the water be improved?
 
Top Bottom