This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Fukushima Tritium Releases

image credit: (Photo by The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images]
Sandy Lawrence's picture
retired MD, I write and lecture on energy, climate, grid, and epidemiology

I post almost daily on science topics, dealing with energy systems, the climate system, the electric grid and epidemiology. Background is in academic medicine, but I have also been teaching in...

  • Member since 2021
  • 86 items added with 16,216 views
  • Jan 26, 2023
  • 713 views

AAAS: "Despite opposition, Japan may soon dump Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific" Japanese government planning to release 1.3 million tons of radioactive water from the now-defunct Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster. Releases could begin this spring or summer, but broad opposition swelling from 'Japan’s fishing industry and consumers, countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and some marine scientists.' Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), owner of the plant, + the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claim the discharges would meet international safety standareds. The continuous cooling water pumped through the reactors picks up radionuclides, much of which is captured by a specialized filtering process. While TEPCO plans to dilute the waste with massive amounts of seawater to reduce tritium levels below regulatory standards for drinking water, but tritium level would still be thousands of times higher than natural seawater. 'TEPCO has sampled small amounts of water from just one-quarter of the tanks, he says, and measured concentrations of tritium and only a limited number of other radionuclides.' In some tanks cesium-137 + strontium-90 has turned up in wildly varying concentrations. U.S. National Association of Marine Laboratories also opposes the plans, citing “a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data supporting Japan’s assertion of safety.” Since half-life of tritium 12 yrs, holding water in tanks for more decades would attenuate the radiation. Or bioremediation with oysters could trap the tritium in their shells. Or water could be used to make concrete, from which beta radiation would be unable to escape. Abundant solutions, but bureaucracy pushing ahead.   #fukushima    #radiation

Discussions
Jim Stack's picture
Jim Stack on Jan 27, 2023

This radio active water should never be released.  They created this mess and they need to clean it up or store it for thousands of years untill save.

Sandy Lawrence's picture
Sandy Lawrence on Jan 28, 2023

Storage for 10 half-lives or 120 yrs would reduce the original radioactivity by more than a thousand-fold, then storage for 20 half-lives or 240 yrs would reduce the burden by over a million-fold. So no need to thousands of yrs. And dilution in seawater at some point actually pretty rational, especially if not all in 1 spot. I could visualize transport by tanker multiple points in the central ocean. But I agree they have an obligation to store for more than the 12 yrs since the accident started, especially since the tritium is still being continuously created. I found it not completely credible that they have run out of space for more tanks. Whatever happens, obviously the oldest tanks have already lost about half the tritium burden, so working chronologically would be a great idea.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Jan 28, 2023

If it were just the power company claiming the releases would be safe, skepticism would be warranted.  In this case, the subject matter experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency are also endorsing the plan, so we can be confident that it's a sound choice.

The anti-nuclear policies in Japan, Europe, and the US have lead to increased coal consumption and therefore to thousands of additional air-pollution related deaths per year.  If developed nations would have gone nuclear when France switched, we'd have much cleaner air, much lower carbon emissions, and much less dependence on energy supplies from countries that don't have our best interests in mind,

We must base our policy on sound science, not hysteria.

[Sandy, I applaud your use of science to suggest exposure reduction strategies, but without a science-based target for how low is low enough, no science based answer is possible.  The sea already contains most every element on the periodic table, most of which are harmful at some concentration, and many of which are radioactive.  If we pretend that man-made radiation is somehow special and ignore the question of safe dose, we are just kidding ourselves and not doing real science.]

Sandy Lawrence's picture
Thank Sandy for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »