Plans To Release Entire Fukushima Waste Into Ocean Confirmed By Tepco

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Weedygarden

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
19,386
The Fukishima information has been greatly suppressed for years. Interesting that his is even out there. Japan greatly relies on fish for their diet. This could be interesting for them. It will also affect our fishing industry, won't it Caribou?

https://www.social-consciousness.co...3VGA5SaZASjKSnPmyiS045IoqdVeSdelCZEby21Dtd_Ik

Tepco has confirmed it plans to release the radioactive material from the Fukushima plant into the ocean saying that the “decision has already been made”. The decision has an upset local fisherman who says the decision will kill their industry as a result of a massive loss of sea life.

Under the controversial plan, which could be a massive environmental disaster, the radioactive material tritium, which is being used to cool reactors whose cooling systems were damaged in 2011 tsunami, will now be released into the ocean.
 
Really? Tritium?
Tritium is a hydrogen atom with two neutrons. It has a half life of about 8 years and produces only beta particle radiation.
The radiation can only penetrate 1/4 inch of air. The radiation count is so low that it has to be concentrated in a liquid to measure.
Tritium is often used medically as a tracer in x-rays. It exists naturally in trace amounts in our atmosphere when hydrogen reacts with cosmic radiation.
You can bathe in tritium with no ill effects because it can't penetrate the first layer of skin. That means it is less damaging than sunlight.

Not ALL radiation or radioactive substances are dangerous. ps: it is commonly used for night sights on pistols and rifles because it glows slightly in the dark. The sights have to be replaced after 8 to 10 years because it no longer works.
 
SD is spot on about Tritium. However there is a lot more in that water than tritium. And that water has been going in the ocean since the tsunami first struck. They have yet to do much of anything to control it. Radioacitivty has been found as far down the coast as California the last I heard.
 
I think that we have a bigger problem the tritium but let's stick with that for the nonce. A small one cell creature absorbs the tritium. It either dies or is eaten by something bigger which in turn is eaten by something bigger. While not particularly deadly while on the outside of anything it is dangerous when absorbed or consumed and is on the inside. Other isotopes are far worse. Two problems, the feed is dying and the feed is contaminated so either the larger creatures die from starvation of radiation. Either way I wouldn't want to be a commercial fisherman today.

I believe we are seeing the death of the Pacific due to the constant poisoning from Fukushima. This year scores of whales are dying due to starvation. Starfish in Alaska are disappearing. Seabirds and sea mammals are having die offs for years now and all this after Fukushima.
 
I think we got too smart for our britches. Technology is a two edged sword.

You are so right. Add to that the idiocy of building Nuc plants right on the oceans, fault lines, drinking water of major cities or smaller ones. One small accident, not to mention a major disaster and serious problems for everyone .
 
One of my engineer uncles said that nuclear energy was the best way for us to get energy. I wonder who sold engineers that pack of lies and how they bought into it. John Birch society had a billboard in Oregon in 1976 that said, "No Nukes is Good Nukes." I loved it then and I love it even more now.

Fukishima was one nuclear plant. How many more are there that will help destroy the planet? When it is all over, the earth will uninhabitable.
 
Last edited:
Well if we switched to liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) there wouldn't even be a possibility of a nuclear accident. They don't use high pressure to operate. They operate at nearly 90% efficiency. They are refueled as they run and there is no long term waste problem. The waste is all medical and scientific isotopes that have more value than the power production costs. The fuel is four times as plentiful as uranium and you can hold it in your hand. It doesn't have to be enriched. If a LFTR has a leak or a broken pipe the fluoride/thorium cools down turning solid and all reactions stop. If it gets too hot the liquid expands and the reactions slow down which cools the reactor. They can be used to get rid of the waste from normal reactors and they don't use water so there is no possibility of hydrogen explosions like the ones that made Fukushima such a mess.
This is truly a safe reactor. The down side is that it doesn't make weapons grade products of uranium or plutonium.
 
The original two reactors at Hanford Washington were breeder reactors. The B reactor was strictly for plutonium production. The power they produced was a "free" by-product. It was never free to the population but until they shut the facilities down people in the area were only paying $15 a month for however much electricity they used.
 
Not to speak of where to store the stuff that takes 1000s of years to break down.
I've heard some are considering sending it into space!:ghostly:
Add to this the over populated third world still populating that needs energy like the rest of us.
 
There are international treaties against sending it into space. It would just be pulled by gravity one way or the other. What if we sent it to the sun? That won't work either because it would vaporize before it got to the sun and the solar wind would just blow it back into space as a cloud of precipitated nuclear fuel. Each time the earth passed through it we would have radioactive dust storms falling from the sky.
While it is true the above does make it sound a lot worse than it would be.
The best use of spent nuclear fuel is to "burn" it up in a LFTR that completely uses the nuclear products to the point that all that's left is medical and scientific isotopes that are in high demand.
 
There are international treaties against sending it into space. It would just be pulled by gravity one way or the other. What if we sent it to the sun? That won't work either because it would vaporize before it got to the sun and the solar wind would just blow it back into space as a cloud of precipitated nuclear fuel. Each time the earth passed through it we would have radioactive dust storms falling from the sky.
While it is true the above does make it sound a lot worse than it would be.

Yep thats another good example of a real bad idea.
 
Sorry Meerkat, you posted while I was editing by adding the last line.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top