Pumping liquid rad waste to ocean vs land

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homer Simpson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Liquid Ocean
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the practice of pumping radioactive liquid waste into the ocean, comparing it to historical methods of waste disposal, particularly in the context of the NRX accident of 1952. Participants explore concerns regarding the potential risks associated with this method, including the presence of long-lived and insoluble radioactive particles, and the implications for environmental safety.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the potential for long-lived and insoluble radioactive particles to be released into the ocean, questioning the adequacy of dilution as a safety measure.
  • Others argue that the current practice involves pumping water with relatively low activity levels (up to 20 Bq/cm³), suggesting that this is minimal compared to the highly radioactive water leaking from the reactors.
  • A participant references the NRX accident, suggesting that pumping waste to land was a more controlled approach than discharging it into the ocean.
  • Some participants highlight the historical context of ocean disposal for low-level nuclear waste, noting that while any release is undesirable, the current situation may not significantly worsen existing contamination levels.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for soluble and insoluble materials to be treated differently under regulatory limits, questioning the adequacy of current practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the safety or efficacy of pumping radioactive waste into the ocean. Some agree that the current method is problematic, while others argue that it may be less harmful than uncontrolled leaks.

Contextual Notes

Participants note varying activity levels of the waste being pumped, with some suggesting discrepancies in reported figures. There is also uncertainty regarding the long-term implications of oceanic disposal versus land-based methods.

Homer Simpson
Messages
184
Reaction score
1
something that is going on that seems odd to me is the pumping of the radioactive liquid waste direct to ocean. I am sure there must be a significant amount of long lived/insoluble/particle type rad waste in there? Is there not a good chance these hot particles could get caught up in ocean currents and land themselves on shorelines anywhere? Dilution seems insufficiant if I've got a hot particle giving off several REM in my polka dot thong speedo?

In comparison to the NRX accident of 1952, here they had a large amount of similar waste to get rid of, so they pumped it to a sandy area a mile away and allowed the ground to filter out the insoluble radiation. Seems a way better plan for sure, as now the rad waste is localized and controllable.

It must just be due to a lack of time/resources that the Japan responders have opted to just pump straight to ocean?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Homer Simpson said:
something that is going on that seems odd to me is the pumping of the radioactive liquid waste direct to ocean. I am sure there must be a significant amount of long lived/insoluble/particle type rad waste in there? Is there not a good chance these hot particles could get caught up in ocean currents and land themselves on shorelines anywhere? Dilution seems insufficiant if I've got a hot particle giving off several REM in my polka dot thong speedo?

In comparison to the NRX accident of 1952, here they had a large amount of similar waste to get rid of, so they pumped it to a sandy area a mile away and allowed the ground to filter out the insoluble radiation. Seems a way better plan for sure, as now the rad waste is localized and controllable.

It must just be due to a lack of time/resources that the Japan responders have opted to just pump straight to ocean?
yes it's a very bad idea. and i don't think there is a better plan, if for no other reason because it is highly radioactive. i think that TEPCO has run out of viable options at this point, putting the toxic waste in the ground would ruin the water table underneath the island.
 
Homer Simpson said:
something that is going on that seems odd to me is the pumping of the radioactive liquid waste direct to ocean. I am sure there must be a significant amount of long lived/insoluble/particle type rad waste in there?

As far as I know they are only pumping water with an activity of up to 20 Bq / cm³ directly into the ocean.

For 10.000 tons, that would not even be 1 TBq... it's nothing compared to the highly radioactive water which flows over cracks and leaks into the ocean.

If I remember correctly, there's water in reactor 2 with an activity of over 1 billion Bq / cm³. 1000 cm³ of that water (or 1 litre!) would be more dangerous than those 10.000 tons they are pumping right now.
 
clancy688 said:
As far as I know they are only pumping water with an activity of up to 20 Bq / cm³ directly into the ocean. .
I think they have been [STRIKE]pumping[/STRIKE] leaking water with an activity of up to 20 MBq / cm³ (=20,000,000,000,000 Bq/m3) directly into the ocean. See

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=78

Bob S
 
It just seems so sloppy from a contam control point of view, as expected for the conditions I guess.

Using the ocean to dilute soluble emissions is very accepted. So long as they are careful the ocean doesn't act as 'sheilding' to some really hot stuff to go undetected, until it washes up somewhere.

Surely in the Bq per liter (etc) allowable limits that countries have in place, they must differentiate between soluble and insoluble material?? Otherwise couldn't you just go chuck a used fuel bundle in the center of the ocean and call it adequately diluted?
 
Bob S said:
I think they have been [STRIKE]pumping[/STRIKE] leaking water with an activity of up to 20 MBq / cm³ (=20,000,000,000,000 Bq/m3) directly into the ocean.

Yeah... 100 litres of that stuff do more damage than those 10.000 tons (10.000.000 litres) they are planning to pump out.

Basically, they can pump as much low level waste water in the ocean as they want - it's nothing compared to the highly radioactive stuff which's leaking uncontrolled.


A few decades ago, the oceans were frequently used for low-level nuclear waste disposal.


Of course, every radioactivity release to the sea is not a good thing. And should be avoided as hell. But in the moment, there's already so much radioactivity in the water that a little more or less won't change the damage which's already been done.
 

Similar threads

Solaculture: A novel biological approach for low cost energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K