35 replies to this topic

[bigjohnnofish]

planning on dumping fukashima waste into the ocean ???

 

http://thefreethough...adiation-ocean/

 

seen this on a few sites now - is the rest of the world just gonna sit by and let this happen? never eat fish again - unless it comes out of your aquaponic setup

 

[Bombshocked]

why should the whole world pay for there mistake, thats your water you can keep that

[Ivan Sng]

Good thing I have got my aquaponics setup already.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bigjohnnofish]

poisoning the world is what us humans seem to do best

 

do you think there is any hope for the world or are we headed for the 6th extinction ?

[Bombshocked]

All we gotta do is tip the balance something as small as the reproductive cycle of algae in the ocean could be sterilized from this waste and then the chain starts no food for shrimp/small stuff they die, no food for bigger stuff it dies, hey at least people wont have to worry about sharks, just sprouting a 6th toe after a dip

 

would you let me drop 1ml of radioactive waste water into your pond/tank??? no

 

id rather them have to treat it and keep it, i thought about boiling it down but then its gonna make gas/vapor so they pretty much are stuck with it because its there problem i mean you cant burn it because that's some radioactive smoke, they don't have a deasert to bury it in so maybe they have to launch it into space???

 

edit:we are definitely headed for extinction with our reproductive rate, longer life spans etc

Edited by Sir_Anubias, 05 April 2014 - 04:17 AM.

[theKid]

Quote from the actual source (abc news):

He believes that after the water is treated and stripped of most radioactive elements, it will be safe to dump into the Pacific.


Not saying what they are doing is right, but emotional reporting is what gets the green movement ignored in the first place. Real reporting is finding out what treatment and what levels they consider acceptable? Where I work we have waste water containing hexavalent chrome (the carcinogen that made Erin Brokovich famous) which is disposed off into sand filled soakwells. Sounds horrible! Of course I left out the treatment we do first, reducing all contamination levels to drinking water and separating all chrome into solid waste, backed up by independent lab testing and continuous ground water monitoring.

Not defending the dumping of dangerous substances, but some of that reporting is almost as toxic.

[werdna]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story...

[tunagirll]

Yeah sorry, there's a fair bit of sensationalism in this story. It's true that nobody wants to see radioactive waste dumped anywhere, but the fact of the matter is that the volume of water in the ocean will dilute the radiactive water into infinitely small levels - which is the whole point of putting it in the ocean. It's far safer to dilute it heavily to the point of harmlessness (to marine life as well overall) than concentrate it and leave it in one area.

[Kleinz]

Atmospheric testing doesn't speak well to that.

 

Our whole ethos with atomic waste is it is in fact far safer to leave it concentrated somewhere safe than allow it to disperse over a wide area.

[tunagirll]

In this case the waste is contaminated water rather than spent nuclear fuel.

[bigjohnnofish]

with such sensitive aquatic life present in the ocean i dont think any amount of diluted or undiluted waste when dumped in the ocean will turn out favourable for life

[Bombshocked]

[tunagirll]

with such sensitive aquatic life present in the ocean i dont think any amount of diluted or undiluted waste when dumped in the ocean will turn out favourable for life

 

Ocean volume is well over a billion cubic km.

 

400 cubic METRES of contaminated water in Fukushima they're looking to dilute.

 

The ocean currently carries far more radioactive waste from underwater nuclear testing than this volume of contaminated water. Just saying.

[Bombshocked]

so are you saying we should do this with all future contaminated radioactive waste water? im just wondering were this logic comes from

[malawiman85]

The way I see it is:
Kleinz is right. Waste is better off contained normally.
BUT: with bulk waste, right or wrong, it is not feasible or safe to contain as we would with spent nuclear fuel. In this case the best bet is probably dilution.
This event cant be undone. Now we have to realistically move forward and mitigate the risks both present and developing.
Not ideal to say hey, Japan this is your problem because its not just japans problem its the problem of the global community as is any nuclear disaster.
There are plenty of examples of nuclear disasters all over the world. Some with regional rather than just local consequences. Easy to say dont dump it but if you dont, what do you do with it?
imagine being part of the management team that has to make this problem go away. You have to decide on what measures you are going to take, what would they be?
As far as 400m3 of water to dilute we know that is a conservative figure.

[tunagirll]

Even if it were a cubic km (1 billion cubic m) it woiuld still dilute it to 1 part in a billion.

[Bombshocked]

who really cares they were the ones risking it were paying like 600$ power bills and they were getting nuclear power for next to nothing why should we foot the bill when they were not willing to share the reward

 

like sure if it was a global thing everyone was getting power from id be all for the dilution but it wasn't

 

when bp spilled all there oil they had to pay to fix it up/clean it up no one cared about helping them even tho it was an global thing, just because there a country why should they be any different to BP screw you you made the mess you fix it, no one in this world ever gave anything to me for freei even have to pay to dump my rubbish, why dont i just chuck my old furniture into the swan river it will deteriorate over time its ok,??

 

so what if another 3 plants blow are we going to dump the water in the ocean for these aswell?? im just saying sure you can do it once or twice but its not a sustainable solution for the permanent handling of this waste

 

id also like to know if anyone has done any studys on the effects of the 100-300 nuclear bomb tests from like the 50's, and what levels of radioactivity are detrimental to the smallest lifeforms in the oceans and at what levels

 

i personally beleive it should be stored on the moon at costs to japan

[tunagirll]

That's a great ideal, but all you hve to do is look how much rubbish we Aussies put in the ocean and you'll see that's not a great argument in real life.

[Kleinz]

Atmospheric testing, while while adding very small amounts of matter to the air and spreading it around the world, has nonetheless raised the measurable level of background radiation and increased cancer rates appreciably worldwide.

 

Background radiation went up 7% across the globe and a spike in cancer rates resulted.

 

There isn't really a safe dose of things like plutonium.

 

The amount of rubbish Australians put in the ocean has as much bearing on this as the average number of banana palms per acre in Uganda.

[tunagirll]

Background radiation did go up due to atmospheric testing - in the 60's - and then went back down.

In the meantime, cancer diagnoses continue to rise.

Correlation =/= Causation.

 

Here's a chart on radiation dose and where it comes from - it should put it a bit more in perspective in regards to where we receive our radiation from.