This kinda sucks....

Utahski

New member
Oct 20, 2008
546
0
0
Northern Utah
The japanese are beyond mentally ill for building a powerplant that close to the ocean.. Seriously

Ever been to San Onofre? Or Seal Beach? That's just two less than 50 miles from each other. So how many powerplants have you seen that weren't near the ocean or a river/estuary? I'll answer that....none.
 

lts1ow

Needs moar PAH!
May 14, 2012
1,598
0
36
NJ
Ever been to San Onofre? Or Seal Beach? That's just two less than 50 miles from each other. So how many powerplants have you seen that weren't near the ocean or a river/estuary? I'll answer that....none.

Chernobyl is by a sort of lake, thats not a river or ocean :D
 

Fingers

Village Idiot
Vendor/Sponsor
Apr 1, 2008
1,715
86
48
White Oak, PA
x2.

Seems kind of silly. "dont drink any milk, fish, or tapwater, because its FILLED WITH RADIATION"??? Gimmie a freaking break.

Im curious what Fingers has to say about this, because im sure he is 1000x more knowledgeable on this subject than the paranoid/conspiracy-theorist idiots who wrote that article are.

ben

The leaking water from Fukushima is a problem, no doubt. Hard facts are hard to come by though on how much radioactive material is actually being released into the surrounding water. What contaminates are leaking out is even more important. Some are nastier than others. But that information is in technical briefs that I don't think most of you would get anything out of.

The machinery for pumping out the water and decontaminating it is already being built at the plant. But like all things, it takes real time to do. Seems I saw a timeline someplace calling for processing of the water to start early next year. The processing will continue for the entire decommissioning effort at the site. Some 20 years or more.

There is some talk of freezing the ground to reduce or stop the water flow till they can process the water. The press makes fun of it, but it has actually been done before at other hazardous cleanups.

The red flag for bullshit with these pieces is when the author doesn't know the difference between radioactive contamination and radiation. Sadly, neither does the public. FWIW, contamination is what you worry about. It's the stuff that follows you around.
 

mackthehack

DUH...
Apr 16, 2007
831
0
16
Ever been to San Onofre? Or Seal Beach? That's just two less than 50 miles from each other. So how many powerplants have you seen that weren't near the ocean or a river/estuary? I'll answer that....none.

Rancho Murieta in nor cal was by a small lake. Its been closed for a long time now.
 

Fingers

Village Idiot
Vendor/Sponsor
Apr 1, 2008
1,715
86
48
White Oak, PA
Nukes need water, and a lot of it. There are very very few not near a major water source. The one that comes to mind is Palo Verde in the middle of the Arizona desert. It too uses a lot of water and sucks all the sewage from Phoenix to make up the water it needs. I guess in desert terms, a sewer line is a major water source. ;)
 

Z3R0

New member
Aug 10, 2013
6
0
1
Plant City, FL
Just to put my two cents in on this one, if I recall correctly, they actually put the spent rector rods in a giant pool until they become less radioactive and safer for transport. IIRC, water actually can serve as radiation shielding. Seeing as how the uranium/plutonium/radioactive fuel of choice is heavier than water, most of the stuff would sink and be shielded. Its the seafood to be wary of and that's closely monitored anyways. No real concerns even if there was truth to the article.
 

adeso

wait, what?
May 30, 2011
1,569
0
36
Minot, ND
Time distance shielding. all 3 help with radiation. You need to keep it contained until it decays enough to not be harmful. and yes, Z3R0 you are correct with it wants to settle to the bottom. Until something stirs the dirt up.
Funny, the nukes I know don't need any water

:happy2:
 

Fingers

Village Idiot
Vendor/Sponsor
Apr 1, 2008
1,715
86
48
White Oak, PA
Just to put my two cents in on this one, if I recall correctly, they actually put the spent rector rods in a giant pool until they become less radioactive and safer for transport. IIRC, water actually can serve as radiation shielding. Seeing as how the uranium/plutonium/radioactive fuel of choice is heavier than water, most of the stuff would sink and be shielded. Its the seafood to be wary of and that's closely monitored anyways. No real concerns even if there was truth to the article.

Yes, they are stored in water, and no the not all the byproducts settle out. There are many many byproducts from the fission process. Many dissolve into the water and are then available to be ingested into organisms if they are exposed to them. Some are rather nasty. Cesium for one. But you have a whole boatload of contaminates to choose from.

It IS a concern, the question is how much.