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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:22 PM Mar 2013

Fukushima Toxic Waste Swells as Japan Marks March 11 Disaster

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-10/fukushima-toxic-waste-swells-as-japan-marks-march-11-disaster.html

Every morning, 3,000 cleanup workers at the Fukushima disaster site don hooded hazard suits, air-filtered face masks and multiple glove layers. Most of the gear is radioactive waste by day’s end.

Multiply those cast-offs by the 730 days since a tsunami wrecked the Dai-Ichi nuclear station two years ago and the trash could fill six Olympic swimming pools. The tens of thousands of waste bags stored in shielded containers illustrate the dilemma of dealing with a nuclear accident: Everything that touches it becomes toxic.

Contaminated clothing represents just a fraction of the waste facing Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501) in a cleanup that may take four decades. A tour of the plant last week went past rows of grey and blue tanks holding enough irradiated water to fill 100 Olympic pools on the plateau overlooking Dai-Ichi’s four ruined reactors. And the water keeps coming.

The utility estimates it may be eight years before radiation levels fall enough to let workers start the main task of removing 260 tons of melted nuclear fuel. That process took more than a decade at the U.S. accident on Three Mile Island, a partial meltdown at a single reactor containing about one fifth the amount of fuel at Fukushima.
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fukushima Toxic Waste Swells as Japan Marks March 11 Disaster (Original Post) xchrom Mar 2013 OP
Wow... chervilant Mar 2013 #1
Fukushima..the gift that keeps on giving. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #2
Too true ... chervilant Mar 2013 #3
I am sure the mothers of deformed babies in Iraq appreciate those denials. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #4
Nobody argues that DU is "NOT radioactive" FBaggins Mar 2013 #5
There are chervilant Mar 2013 #6
That's two different things FBaggins Mar 2013 #7
Bleh... chervilant Mar 2013 #10
Nor facts/science it would appear. FBaggins Mar 2013 #11
The problem is "much less radioactive than natural uranium" doesnt mean it's safe rhett o rick Mar 2013 #8
Really? "no amount of radiation is safe inside your body" ? FBaggins Mar 2013 #9

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
1. Wow...
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:52 PM
Mar 2013

***crickets***?!?

Hard to argue for nuclear energy when shown how hard it is to "clean up" Fukushima ...

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
2. Fukushima..the gift that keeps on giving.
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 06:01 PM
Mar 2013

When you add up all the radiation that is blanketing the planet, thanks to us..
Hanford contamination, for decades, into the Columbia River.
Fukishima, where ever the wind blows, where ever the tide goes
Chernobyl
All the depleted uranium in the Middle East

just for starters

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
3. Too true ...
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 06:13 PM
Mar 2013

Thanks for mentioning depleted uranium. I've had some DUers argue that depleted uranium is NOT radioactive and NOT dangerous...

FBaggins

(26,744 posts)
5. Nobody argues that DU is "NOT radioactive"
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 06:22 PM
Mar 2013

What they (correctly) state is that it's much less radioactive than natural uranium (get this... it's "depleted&quot ... which is all around us already.

There has never been a scientific study indicating any radiological danger from DU. It's dangers fall into two clear categories:

* - It's a heavy metal, like lead, and (just like lead) it's not a good idea to eat the stuff.

* - It's deadly when traveling really fast.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
6. There are
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 06:41 PM
Mar 2013

a number of people who've argued that DU is not radioactive and not dangerous to our troops.

IMHO, the MIC has done much to misinform and mislead us about DU. I've archived some articles from my activism against the Iraq invasion. I'm sure if you use the Google, you'll find articles about the dangers of DU, particularly when it 'aerosols.'

FBaggins

(26,744 posts)
7. That's two different things
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 06:49 PM
Mar 2013
a number of people who've argued that DU is not radioactive

Should be easy enough to come up with a few examples, no?

not dangerous to our troops.

Not a radiological danger... no.

I'm sure if you use the Google

I'm sure that if you use Google you'll find any number of nutty claims and conspiracy theories. What you won't find is any valid science saying that.

particularly when it 'aerosols.'

Of course. Just as I said... it's dangerous in two main ways. If you're in a tank when a DU round "aerosols" as it pierces the armor - it's possible that you'll ingest some and risk heavy metal poisoning. Even more risky is when you come in contact with it at 2,000 fps.

Then it's really dangerous stuff.

FBaggins

(26,744 posts)
11. Nor facts/science it would appear.
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 10:03 PM
Mar 2013


It isn't a particularly hard exercise to perform. You can look up the natural radiation found in the human body (primarily potassium and carbon) and a good estimate for what you're breathing in all the time (radon etc). And compare that to the amount of DU you would have to ingest on an ongoing basis (it has a comparatively short biological half life) in order to increase that dose in any meaningful way.

Then you could look at the average amount of natural uranium in the soil of the area already. If you're imagining kids with a particularly pica-esque diet, they would be eating that too.

In the end I think you'll find that you have to worry about the heavy-metal poisoning long before there's any reason to care about the radiation.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
8. The problem is "much less radioactive than natural uranium" doesnt mean it's safe
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 07:12 PM
Mar 2013

to ingest or inhale. While the levels of radiation may not be dangerous when outside your body, no amount of radiation is safe inside your body where your organs are not protected by muscle and skin.

"Once a depleted-uranium round strikes its target, the projectile begins to burn on impact, creating tiny particles of radioactive U-238. Winds can transport this radioactive dust many miles, potentially contaminating the air that innocent humans breathe. This inhalation may cause lung cancer, kidney damage, cancers of bones and skin, as well as birth defects and chemical poisoning."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1211-22.htm

You say, "it's not a good idea to eat the stuff" like we wouldnt figure that out. But depleted uranium in the dirt can easily find it's way onto hands and into the mouth esp for children.

FBaggins

(26,744 posts)
9. Really? "no amount of radiation is safe inside your body" ?
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 08:22 PM
Mar 2013

Better tell that to your body... which is itself radioactive.

Plus the air you breath is radioactive... as is much of the food and drink that you consume.

The relevant question is "how much radiation dose would DU inhalation/ingestion add compared to that amount?" (and the relevant answer is "not much".)

But depleted uranium in the dirt can easily find it's way onto hands and into the mouth esp for children.

Sure. And pretty much anything else we would make bullets out of would also be potentially toxic to children if they pick it up off the ground and eat it. It isn't uncommon for the things that we use to kill other people to be dangerous to one degree or another.

But it isn't a radiological danger. Let alone the WMD that the nuts would have you believe.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Fukushima Toxic Waste Swe...