Japanese Ice Wall To Stop Reactor Leaks 225
minstrelmike writes "Japan is planning to install a two-mile, subterranean ice wall around the Fukushima nuclear plant. 'The ice wall would freeze the ground to a depth of up to 30 meters (100 feet) through a system of pipes carrying a coolant as cold as minus 40 degrees Celsius (minus 40 Fahrenheit). That would block contaminated water from escaping from the facility's immediate surroundings, as well as keep underground water from entering the reactor and turbine buildings, where much of the radioactive water has collected.' The technology they're using has not been used to that extent before, nor for more than a couple years. An underground water expert said, 'the frozen wall won't be ready for another two years, which means contaminated water would continue to leak out.' But at least they have a $470 million plan ready to present to the Olympic committee choosing between Madrid, Istanbul or Tokyo."
Ice Wall, Godzilla, Radiation, Earthquakes (Score:5, Funny)
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean nothing went wrong? I thought Tokyo would get leveled, for the 3rd time this week!
Re: (Score:2)
leveled? you mean irradiated. Let's not blow this out of proportion.
The building will still be there, just the people might not be.
Re:Ice Wall, Godzilla, Radiation, Earthquakes (Score:5, Insightful)
thank goodness for this ice wall. I was afraid they would pursue a pie-in-the-sky undependable solution! Cave of steel would have been my second choice, followed by Bespin like floating city.
Re: (Score:2)
We obviously need a cave of unobtainium. That's the only thing that will work. Steel will corrode too fast.
Re: (Score:2)
vibranium works better.
Re:Ice Wall, Godzilla, Radiation, Earthquakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
Well, it could lose power.
I mean, sure, there's a quite a bit longer time to failure once the power is lost compared to the reactor cooling system (i.e. the time it would take for underground super-chilled ice to melt), but seriously what is it with Tepco and safety systems that rely on the thing they're protecting working right?
Re: (Score:3)
You know nothing, ColdWetDog.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh... radiation in the ground water causes a godzilla like creature to grow in a subterranean cavern. Eventually godzilla erupts from the ground taking the ice wall with it. How did you not get that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Godzilla was created by US under-sea nuclear testing. It was actually an anti-nuclear movie, with the monster representing the damage that it can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Best solution? (Score:3)
Re:Best solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, a frozen region in the soil is a good container, because water that starts to
leak through... freezes solid and plugs the leak.
Frost heave is caused by thermal gradient, and
transports water to the coldest spot (which is
the container wall, safely underground) then freezes it.
So, no problem there!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
The Wall? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care, I just don't want a bunch of undead to start walking out of the plant if the wall fails.
Re: (Score:2)
only 100ft... lame :)
Wrong wall. (Score:5, Funny)
We don't need no radiation
We don't need no Tepcontrol
No dark sarcasm in the controlroom
Tepco leave them rods alone
Hey! Tepco! leave the rods alone!
Re:Wrong wall. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong wall. (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't eat sushi you can't have any pudding
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, those were the happiest days of my life.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly will it be as strong as the one that holds our oceans and atmosphere from falling off!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Wall? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, good, it only took 18 minutes for a generic whackjob kook to derp in and try to commandeer a discussion about JAPAN and the radiation leaked by the Fukushima reactors into whatever bullshit UNITED STATES political leaning you follow and so desperately need to tell the world about. Fuck off.
The short; (Score:5, Informative)
The prohibition on armed forces is written into Article 9 the Japanese Constitution of 1947, which states that Japan forever swears off war as a mechanism of foreign policy to resolve disputes. This was an article that was pressed in in order to ensure that Japan could never rise up militarily again - the Pacific campaign was incredibly brutal, and the Americans didn't see the worst of it (the Chinese and Koreans were treated worse). To this day China and both Korea's are still angry with Japan for what they perceive as a failure to sufficiently apologize for what the Japanese did earlier this century, and they would massively oppose any move by Japan towards returning to that state (i.e., getting a real military instead of the Self-Defense Forces they currently have).
Plus, the majority of the Japanese population supports Article 9 - the long-term suffering of the Japanese population via Allied air raids (read about the Tokyo firebombings that killed more people directly than the A-bomb attacks) punctuated by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has provided an inherent anti-war sentiment in subsequent generations of Japanese people.
In short, the US cannot decide for Japan whether to allow them to have an actual military - the US does not have the legal power to do so, and no one involved wants to eliminate this situation. (copy pasted from Yahoo)
The long;
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89apr/defend.htm [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How do you say the oath in Japanese? Anyone???
I think it's pronounced "the oath in Japanese".
Re: (Score:3)
Yoru ni tsudoi watashi no kanshi wa ima yori hajimarimasu.
Sore wa watashi no shi made hitotoki mo tomarimasen.
Watashi wa tsuma mo metorazu, tochi mo shoyuu sezu, kodomo-tachi no chichi to wa narimasen, soshite eiyo mo eikou mo motomemasen.
Watashi wa shokumu ni iki soshite shinimasu.
Watashi no ken wa kurayami ni arimasu.
Watashi wa kabe no kanshinin desu.
Watashi wa ryouiki o keigo shi tate to narimasu.
Watashi wa, inochi to, meiyo o kake waitou~otchi ni seiyaku shimasu.
Kon'ya kara, otozureru subete no yoru ni.
minus 40 degrees Celsius != (minus 40 Fahrenheit) (Score:2, Funny)
minus 40 degrees Celsius != (minus 40 Fahrenheit)
*Sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
Turn in your geek card.
Re:minus 40 degrees Celsius != (minus 40 Fahrenhei (Score:5, Insightful)
-40 Celsius IS equal to -40 Fahrenheit.
Re: (Score:2)
minus 40 degrees Celsius != (minus 40 Fahrenheit)
I was going to make a snarky comment thanking them for the conversion, but I guess it was needed! -40F does equal -40C.
Re: (Score:2)
Tis where the two meet. I'm guessing the conversion was included just to show off that fact (and maybe see who would assume it was a typo).
Re:minus 40 degrees Celsius != (minus 40 Fahrenhei (Score:4, Funny)
Quote Lex Luthor: WRONG!!!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=-40C+in+Farenheit [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
??? It DOES
This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly. How about we build an ice wall around Syria and fill it with all the nuclear waste from Fukushima.
Or was that not what you were suggesting?
Re: (Score:2)
They're only doing this to show the International Olympic Committee that they're doing something about it. It's pretty disturbing that if they weren't trying to get the 2020 Olympics, they wouldn't be doing anything.
Re: (Score:3)
One sort of wonders if the bids to host the Olympics are drying up. If the choice is between one country that will massively riot at Olympic spending while the economy is crap, another country that might very well be in civil disorder due to conflict between a repressive religious government and a significant secular population and a third that has significant problems with radioactive materials in the hands of idiots then I suspect the events surrounding the games will be far more exciting than the actual
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Because one has killed over 100,000 people and seems to be escalating towards massacre while the other might have killed a person or two and could go on to... possibly prevent people from moving back in to a small city for a while - all effects localized in a single country.
Scale. If Japanese radiation starts affecting Russian food safety or something, then you might go to the UN to let more monkeys in to fuck the football.
Re: (Score:2)
possibly prevent people from moving back in to a small city for a while - all effects localized in a single country.
A lot of this water is escaping into the ocean, making this a global problem. At this point, we have the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org].
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:4, Informative)
possibly prevent people from moving back in to a small city for a while - all effects localized in a single country.
A lot of this water is escaping into the ocean, making this a global problem.
No, because by the time it gets to global extent, it's so dilute it's not a problem any more.
At this point, we have the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org].
No, the tragedy of the commons happens when negative consequences are externalized, creating an incentive for a rational, self-interested actor to exceed optimal use of a resource.
While certain negative consequences are externalize in this case, there's already ample disincentive from the local effects to make nuclear power incidents such as the recent troubles at Fukushima very undesirable to the state they occur in. If a state could be accurately modeled as a single rational, self-interested actor, they'd have prevented this leak from happening in the first place, because the cost of decent regulation is less than the harm of the local effects only -- that it happened anyway is not because they needed more disincentive from the further (and comparatively slight) harm done to the world's oceans at large, but because of regulatory capture and other effects that can't be explained without recognizing that real government consists of multiple actors, many of whom, through serving their own interest, frequently end up working against the state's interest.
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:5, Interesting)
There's about fifty million tonnes of radioactive potassium (K-40) in the world's oceans, all natural as you can get with a half-life of ONE BILLION years!!! so it will be a persistent hazard to health until the Sun enters its red giant phase. It's the reason seawater is highly radioactive and why seafood sets off scintillometers and radiation meters (counts of about 100-150 Bq/kg typically). It also makes detecting fission isotope contamination from Fukushima and the US thermonuclear tests in the Pacific kinda tricky when the samples taken close to Fukushima read 0.05 Bq/litre from cesium-134 and cesium-137 and the meters are pegging out from the 10Bq/l emissions due to the presence of K-40. The only way to accurately measure it is to record the spectrum of the particles and gamma radiation emitted from a smaple over a period of a few weeks since the energies of the radiation due to the fission products is different to the natural K-40 background of the seawater samples.
50 million tonnes of K-40 versus a kilogramme or two of the cesium isotopes from the Fukushima reactors, which one concerns you more? Let me guess...
Re: (Score:2)
50 million tonnes of K-40 versus a kilogramme or two of the cesium isotopes from the Fukushima reactors, which one concerns you more? Let me guess...
I'll take "Whichever one I see on the nightly news" for $200 please, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Scale. If Japanese radiation starts affecting Russian food safety or something, then you might go to the UN to let more monkeys in to fuck the football.
Scale? The radiation being released will be highly toxic for the next fifty years, and some of it will remain toxic for hundreds of years. Millions of gallons are leaking into the ocean each week, and each gallon contains enough radioactivity to kill you several times over. What's going on in Syria will kill a few hundred thousand now... what's going on in the ocean is going to wind up killing many millions slowly and over a long time frame.
And for the record, it is affecting Russian food safety. It's affec
Re: (Score:3)
what's going on in the ocean is going to wind up killing many millions slowly and over a long time frame.
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I'd love to see your source. The ocean is so big that you could probably drop the whole goddamn plant in the middle of it and have only local effects. A few million gallons of radioactive water with decades-long half lives is only going to affect Japanese fishermen and no one else. And since the risk is known, the chances of someone actually dying are almost nil.
We're already finding radiation-poisoned fish washing up in Hawaii, South Korea, California, Alaska, and as the radiation plume spreads out, it's eventually going to circle the globe.
No you aren't, you are finding fish with something like twice the normal level those
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a citation for a single dangerous fish being caught outside of that part of Japan?
Here's a few dangerous [nydailynews.com] fish [nbc-2.com] stories [www.cbc.ca].
There was also a radiocative fish [huffingtonpost.com] caught near California, but it wasn't deemed dangerous. But it does go to show how far the effects of the disaster have been felt so far.
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:5, Informative)
There was also a radiocative fish [huffingtonpost.com] caught near California, but it wasn't deemed dangerous
That's the kind of report I was talking about. The fish caught away from Japan haven't registered above background radiation, depending on where you live. The cessium radiation in the fish referrenced from that HuffPost article was 40 times lower than the natural level of radiation present in the fish from natural potassium. Of course, HuffPost would never mention that little tidbit, let alone link back to the source document [stanford.edu]. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, let's bring in a UN international team to deal with this crisis, consisting of such notable experts as:
U.S. FEMA, especially the Katrina veterans
Russian crack team that saved Chernobyl
Chinese People's Liberation Army, they handle all the earthquake disaster relief over there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Acme Corporation would like to remind you that although Mr. Coyote is one of our best customers, he merely assembles our devices—often incorrectly—and has no part in their design.
Sincerely,
The Acme Corporation
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Chernobyl was not...exactly a triumph of reactor design or reactor operation; but the ensuing stabilization effort was actually pretty aggressive (albeit in a 'they had unprotected conscripts attempt to mostly extinguish a melted-down nuclear reactor and then construct a new containment building right on top of it with roughly the same attention to occupational safety and health that made the old penal battalions so exciting' sense).
Re:This needs to be taken out of their hands (Score:4, Insightful)
This. Russia may have made a lot of mistakes that led up to Chernobyl, but many men gave their lives (or at least severely curtailed them) in order to prevent what could have been a lot worse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, a lot of men KNOWINGLY worked those shifts, knowing they would die slow painful deaths, to protect others.
I've often though the Russians who worked on the containment vessel for Chernobyl are as close to heroes as we get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why so many nations are trying to reach a consensus on military action in Syria over a chemical weapon attack that may or may not have been done by the regime there but nobody has suggested multi-national cooperation to take over the mess in Fukushima.
Good thinking. Perhaps we should form some sort of International Atomic Energy Agency [iaea.org] with the authority to monitor this kind of situation [iaea.org] and set safety standards [iaea.org].
The only thing missing is a standing army to enforce compliance. All they have now is a big box to stand on and yell [phys.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read all of what he wrote or was there too many words for you? If you are too stupid to understand what a person is saying it is better that you STF rather than explaining to everyone that you are too stupid to understand English.
And sharks... (Score:2)
...with laser beams. Lots of robotic submarines and other stuff so that I can build my super villain lair in there where no one will find me shielded by a huge lead wall to keep out the radiation.
If you have no other plans... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Again (Score:2)
Invest in offshore wind power and water power.
It might sound silly, but it is much more cost effective than nuclear power.
Look at how much damage the Fukushima has already cost TEPCO and the Japanese government.
And it is not over yet: Fukushima's Radioactive Plume Could Reach U.S. Waters By 2014
Everybody get are "fair" share.
Just one of these accidents every twenty years and it is goodbye turnover.
I smell an opportunity for a new ICEE flavor (Score:3)
What I don't understand is: (Score:2)
Nuclear Winter Is Coming (Score:2)
A giant wall of ice? Where have I seen that before? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A giant wall of ice? Where have I seen that before? [wikipedia.org]
You've seen it before then [dagonbytes.com].
I can see it now. (Score:2)
Seems unfeasible; point the finger; (Score:2)
It seems like there are many reasons why this won't work. Why are they trying to beat this thing thermally? It seems unsustainable at the outset, in terms of cost and maintenance, let alone whether it will work in terms of mechanics and chemistry. If it's such a grand scheme that it's projected two years out, maybe the assumption should be that it's too complicated for Tepco to handle and/or it's too complicated for the delicate situation on the ground at Fukushima (where what integrity exists seem to be fa
Re: (Score:2)
Typically you drill the circulating tubes for the Nitrogen at a fairly close spacing, the closer the quicker it'll freeze.
Because soil is a fair insulator once you have a hefty chunk frozen you don't need to do much to keep it cold.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like there are many reasons why this won't work. Why are they trying to beat this thing thermally? It seems unsustainable at the outset, in terms of cost and maintenance, let alone whether it will work in terms of mechanics and chemistry
Don't worry about the costs - they can build a nuclear reactor onsite to power it. ;)
This sounds like the technology that was used to freeze part of South Boston so they could build the Big Dig through the mud there. It does work.
But they could be cleaning up the m
an ice wall? (Score:2)
Nuclear winter is coming? :/
Freezing the ground is not new at all. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can someone answer a few questions... (Score:2)
1 - How long will the melted down core remnants needs to water to be applied? Can the corium still sustain a nuclear chain reaction if it were exposed?
2 - Whats would occur if water were interrupted at this point? (They called it cold shutdown a year ago but sources seem to conflict)
3 - How long will water need to be applied to the spent fuel ponds? From my understanding the fuel above reactor 4 is somewhat precarious since the building was compromised during the original explosions. Would these fuel rod
Then what happens? (Score:2)
They contain the radioactive ground water with an ice wall. When do they turn it off? When the radiation decays? If they turn it off sooner, all the built up contaminated water will just leak through again.
Re: (Score:2)
in pacific rim they built a wall to keep out the kanji. maybe this is a first step in that process?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen that movie yet, did they really build a huge wall to keep out Japan's writing system based on Chinese characters?
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but also kaiju.
Chernobyl? Re:So Just So I'm Seeing This Clearly (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908 [globalresearch.ca]
we can dance around the word "proven", but deaths there certainly have been.
What's really dumb is that you could have made your point without including that stupid statement as your first paragraph. Fossil fuels are currently killing people in fairly large number and have the potential, through climate change, to kill millions. Nuclear accidents are killing people, bu
Re: (Score:3)
That death toll is completely bunk. It fails even the most basic mathematical analysis.
Chernobyl, the city, had approximately 50,000 people living there. Chernobyl was also emptied out after the disaster.
The 985,000 figure comes from extrapolating the LNT model way beyond parameters it was formulated for. Basically, the 985,000 only makes sense if you ascribed any death that happened to people exposed to Chernobyl radiation to the effects of the radiation.
And globalresearch.ca is not exactly the bastion of
Re: (Score:3)
That number is almost certainly crap. But to suggest that the number is zero is also crap. Thirty people died from acute radiation poisoning during the Chernobyl clean-up. You can say all you want to that "Nuclear accidents have not been proven to have killed a single person," but only if you can show a plausible way for them to have gotten acute radiation poisoning without it having been caused by the accident.
Re:Chernobyl? Re:So Just So I'm Seeing This Clearl (Score:4, Interesting)
Agree that the number is not zero. I was only objecting to the 985,000 number. I know WHO's estimates a number in the low thousands, like 4,000 or so, and that I can believe and accept. I remember seeing a Ted talk where someone added the death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the nuclear power deaths total because it was almost undistinguishable from zero. It really grinds my gears when people take advantage of people's ignorance to peddles lies masquerading as scientific facts.
I think there is an argument to be had about nuclear power based on facts, and I can accept that people may come to a conclusion that is different from mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908 [globalresearch.ca]
between 1986 and 2004
All studies done on cleanup workers showed average percentage of cancer deaths to be same as for example in the US in the same period = there was no significant bump over a large population
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if only there were some alternative to both nuclear and coal... But you are right, it's one or the other, there is nothing else.
Not a person? An utter whitewashing. (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear accidents have not been proven to have killed a single person.
Not a single person. Not a one? I mean, if you had led with "the numbers are vastly inflated," and then provided a supporting link debunking the inflated estimated cancer statistics, you would have sounded reasonable -- though a bit biased in being willing to accept similar loose causation for deaths from coal. Instead, you have revealed yourself as someone who is willing to disregard facts that are inconvenient to your worldview, regardless of how ridiculous the end result may seem.
At least 40 staff members and rescue workers died [wikipedia.org] directly as a result of Chernobyl. 4 died in a tragic helicopter crash attempting to extinguish the fire, but the vast majority died with in a few days or months from acute radiation poisoning. That's just the people on site during the disaster and its aftermath. It doesn't count the 9 children who died of thyroid cancer or the IAEA's estimate of 4000 additional cancer deaths out of 600,000 exposed.
That also doesn't count the Soviet K-431, K-27, and K-19 nuclear submarine reactor incidents (28 acute radiation fatalities and many more radiation injuries between them) or the two radiation deaths in Tokimura in 1999. It also doesn't count non-radiation deaths like the Mihama steam pipe explosion that kill 4 workers in 2004 or the 3 killed by the SL-1 reactor explosion. It doesn't count cancer deaths from those and more incidents such as the Windscale fire or those caused by the Rocky Flats Plant (which, admittedly, was used to create bomb materials and not simply civilian power generation).
One can argue about whether coal is more dangerous in the long-run than nuclear (which I think is true), but one shouldn't do so by making up nonsense about nuclear accidents never once causing harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear accidents have not been proven to have killed a single person.
Sa- wha- hah? What kind of logic are you spewing? Fukishama may have gotten a wiki[1] entry citing a "no deaths directly attributed" death toll, but that is by no means a trustworthy represenation of fact. Radiation poisoning[2] is a very real and well understood consequence of exposure. DNA becomes damaged and cancer results from both short term and long term exposure[3]. Sometimes the cancers can take decades to develop before actually killing you[4]. Tepco has been lying about radiation levels[5] for a
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is reason to believe the reactor is leaking stuff into the groundwater.
Stupid question: Can the melted-down reactor be moved?
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for moving it to Chernobyl. Our homeowners association is fine with storing nuclear reactors in the back yard so long as the siding and paint match the rest of the neighborhood.
Re:Misleading title (Score:4, Insightful)
The tanks are more of a tragifarce, since they've got that 'You run nuclear fucking reactors and you weren't able to build some water storage tanks that don't leak within an alarmingly short time after construction???' thing going on, and the radiation levels of the leaking material are high enough that just sending in the welders isn't necessarily doable.
The reactor leakage is the more serious problem; because those are hot enough, thermally and in the radiation sense, that just fixing the leaks is not really on the table; but not pumping substantial amounts of water, which will promptly be contaminated and partially escape, isn't really optional.
Re: (Score:2)
And now the added irony of having to use large amounts of energy to cool the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
It's big and expensive(and it wouldn't totally surprise me if 'lots of vertical tubes running deep into the ground' is not a fun thing to have to maintain in earthquakeville); but the coolant is unlikely to become substantially contaminated, and virtually all
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in The Netherlands our soil is rather soft and soggy yet we manage (at a cost) to build subway and other tunnels.
Freezing of the surrounding soil untill the concrete is well in place is a common technology.
It's done with liquid Nitrogen that's trucked in from existing factories, once a sizeable chunk of soil is frozen it can withstand a few days without additional Nitrogen.
There's a reason I suggested this option: http://slashdot.org/co [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brace yourself, leakage is coming
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are the same temperature. That is the crossover point of the two scales: (-40C * 9/5) + 32 == -40F
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned in another post they'll likely use liquid Nitrogen as a coolant, something that works fine even from cracked pipes.