# Fukashima waste **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 9, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410 "2019-08-09T15:02:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/1 "2019-08-09T15:02:39Z")
Could the ocean dilute all the waste water from Fukashima to harmless levels if dispersed properly? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/2 "2019-08-09T15:07:56Z")
I’m sure it could; the ocean contains almost unfathomable amounts of water. You’d have to tow a lot of that waste water out to a far distance at sea and put a little bit here and there, though. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/3 "2019-08-09T15:19:58Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’m sure it could; the ocean contains almost unfathomable amounts of water. You’d have to tow a lot of that waste water out to a far distance at sea and put a little bit here and there, though. At some point they will have to get rid of it. They keep building more tanks to hold the water, sounds like an unsustainable plan they are using. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/4 "2019-08-09T16:43:30Z")
If they just dumped all of into the ocean right now, there’d be a little bit of an increase in radiation around there, but it would go to undetectable levels in days, if not hours. The reason that they don’t do this is not really environmental or based on any science, but based on laws and policy made by people who are not scientists. Also, the radioactive contamination of the water is mostly fission products, not actinides. The half lives for that is much shorter. Most if not all of the worst stuff is already gone, and what is left will mostly be gone within a couple decades at most. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/5 "2019-08-09T16:59:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If they just dumped all of into the ocean right now, there’d be a little bit of an increase in radiation around there, but it would go to undetectable levels in days, if not hours. The reason that they don’t do this is not really environmental or based on any science, but based on laws and policy made by people who are not scientists. > > Also, the radioactive contamination of the water is mostly fission products, not actinides. The half lives for that is much shorter. Most if not all of the worst stuff is already gone, and what is left will mostly be gone within a couple decades at most. Well, this is patently wrong, since we can detect the radiation in the water from the US shore. Today. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/6 "2019-08-09T17:15:28Z")
For the purposes of anyone searching later, I feel obliged to point out that the standard English spelling is Fukushima (cite: [Fukushima nuclear disaster - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/7 "2019-08-09T17:42:36Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Well, this is patently wrong, since we can detect the radiation in the water from the US shore. Today. Well, to be fair, we do have extremely good detectors, we can still detect the cesium 137 in the environment from nuclear tests half a century ago. So yeah, I meant to say completely insignificant levels. [https://www.epa.gov/radiation/where-can-i-find-most-current-information-about-fukushima-and-radiation-levels-environment](https://www.epa.gov/radiation/where-can-i-find-most-current-information-about-fukushima-and-radiation-levels-environment) > [@](#): > > Ocean Monitoring - In late 2015, ocean monitoring by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), a marine research organization, detected very small amounts of radioactivity from the 2011 Fukushima incident 1,600 miles west of San Francisco. Radiation levels in the seawater were minute and pose no health risk. The WHOI is no longer monitoring ocean water for radioactivity after the Fukushima incident. To read the 2015 press release, visit Higher Levels of Fukushima Cesium Detected Offshore at whoi.edu. [https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/fukushima-higher-levels-offshore/](https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/fukushima-higher-levels-offshore/) > [@](#): > > This includes the highest detected level to date from a sample collected about 1,600 miles west of San Francisco. The level of radioactive cesium isotopes in the sample, 11 Becquerel’s per cubic meter of seawater (about 264 gallons), is 50 percent higher than other samples collected along the West Coast so far, but is still more than 500 times lower than US government safety limits for drinking water, and well below limits of concern for direct exposure while swimming, boating, or other recreational activities. And that is from 4 years ago. With Cesium 134 having a half life of 2 years, that means that those numbers are at around a quarter of that now. The rest of my point stands. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukashima-waste/838410/8 "2019-08-09T21:10:44Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Well, this is patently wrong, since we can detect the radiation in the water from the US shore. Today. There was detectable radiation in the ocean water even before Fukushima. There has always been some radiation in the ocean because radiation is a natural part of the the environment. The question is not whether it is possible to detect radiation in the ocean (the answer is always “yes”) but whether or not those levels pose a significant hazard.