TEPCO considers evaporation, storage of tritium-laced Fukushima water

Evaporation means the radiation goes into the air for everyone to breath in. What isn't inhaled will fall as rain on the land or sea. If it falls on crops, will those crops be tested (answer: no).

It sounds like a daft idea to me. They may as well put the water into tankers and hose down the streets of Tokyo with it.

If evaporation was done in closed containers, such as those used to collect water via evaporation/condensation in high sunlight environments, the above mentioned contamination would not be an issue if properly if the products were treated. But, having worked with TEPCO and some energy related Japanese agencies, I am not holding my breathe.

Tritium really is a relatively -- emphasis relatively -- harmless isotope. The problem is that TEPCO is an absolutely -- emphasis not relatively -- incompetent steward of the Fukushima Daiichi site. Consequently, the fishermen have no confidence, and hence fish consumers have no confidence that any manner of tritium management is sound so long as it is in the hands of TEPCO.

Please let them do the evaporation. Storing water forever is not going to work and neither will this ice wall.

Incompetent fools.

Farmboy,

Wikipedia give the info as coming from "Fukushima Diary", not a scientific source. Here's what Iori Mochizuki of Fukushima Diary says:

This is 59 times much as the annual safety limit of 4 reactors to discharge to the sea. This means, they would take over 59 years to resolve the current water problem even if they choose to discharge it to the sea.

I think the authorities will not be following the advice of a blogger who fled Japan when the accident happened.

Rikmann,

If evaporation was done in closed containers, such as those used to collect water via evaporation/condensation in high sunlight environments, the above mentioned contamination would not be an issue if properly if the products were treated.

Correct me if I've gottne this wrong, but if the containers were closed - then the water would only be recondensing and so remain on site?

Simple solution keep re using the water over again as coolant then incinerate it in a volcano possibly work. But im not a scientist. It is only just a thought

"incinerate it in a volcano"

I think that would be the same as evaporating it.

I find hilarious how some people who are not scientists speak about "easy solutions"when not even real scientists have any idea about how to deal properly with this disaster. Tepco isn't competent, but the whole truth that not many people want to admit is that nobody in the world have the experience and technology to deal with such a huge nuclear disaster. Also the Americans don't have any real solution to suggest, how showed by this article. Nuclear power plants are too much dangerous for us using them since we didn't developed proper ways to deal with big disasters like this yet.

the heat would instantly destroy everything if done under the mantle

Farmboy,

And so then, you are curious, so you go to Fukushima Diary, and they give their source as this, which seems scientific enough:

Yes, and where do they say it will take 60-odd years to get rid of the tritium?

Ron Barnes,

Volcanic heat certainly is destructive, but it cannot destroy atoms.

Well. Since there is no solution, they have to release the tritium to the sea. I doubt people want to eat this relatively harmless isotope, so fishermen must be compensated for this.

"the heat would instantly destroy everything if done under the mantle"

The expression "not even wrong" comes to mind.

Summer's approaching. Start evaporating now!

As they say: the solution to pollution is dilution.

The stuff has to be released eventually. Put it into leaky containers and air-drop it over Antarctica somewhere with heavy snowfall that turns to glacier. Use multiple locations. The water will freeze over and be stored for a very long time. Eventually it will be released, but over a much longer period of time than 59 years. Problem is solved.

It'll be extremely expensive to move that much water that far, but it's an easy answer and hard to screw up.