Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(34,937 posts)
7. In theory, I don't think it would have made much difference to have done it that way, evaporation, but...
Sat Aug 24, 2024, 02:34 PM
Aug 2024

...the rate would have probably been much slower.

It is also possible that the public perception, as silly as it is, would have been worse, since the concentration of tritium in the atmosphere would have been somewhat higher. Rapid diffusion in seawater quickly leads to dilution to even more trivial concentrations.

It has not proved possible to detect tritium in seawater outside the Fukushima reactor since the concentration is very near background.

The water being released at Fukushima is passed through ion exchange resins to remove any other radioactive components, soluble fission products like cesium radioisotopes that may be in the water, again for public perception purposes, as the ocean is way more radioactive naturally than anything Fukushima can do, largely because a naturally occurring isotope of potassium 40K is present in vast quantities. It is also in all living things, as potassium is an essential element to life.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Fuel debris removal attem...»Reply #7