# Questions about Fukushima **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826 "2013-11-13T16:28:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **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:** [November 13, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/1 "2013-11-13T16:28:38Z")
First off is the ocean big enough to disperse all the potential radioactive material and waste water without having major effects on the enviroment? Next question, is this an example of the the capacity of the human race to bury their head in the sand when faced with something seemingly unsurmountable? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/2 "2013-11-13T16:41:35Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > First off is the ocean big enough to disperse all the potential radioactive material and waste water without having major effects on the enviroment? Define “major”. While the effects are measurable, fish taken from the Pacific Ocean are going to be safe to eat. Effects won’t be worse than the literal tons of nuclear weapons tested in the ocean in the past. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Next question, is this an example of the the capacity of the human race to bury their head in the sand when faced with something seemingly unsurmountable? Absolutely no. It’s not a good situation, but most of the radiation didn’t even make it to the ocean and can be contained. And much of the problem doesn’t appear to be with the human race but one with specific roots in Japanese culture and face-saving. It’s not currently on the front page, but that’s human nature. People who need to be concerned study the issue daily. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/3 "2013-11-13T16:55:15Z")
The Pacific ocean is enormous, the [NOAA](http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html) give a value of 660,000,000 km[sup]3[/sup]. Say the water released at Fukushima was 400,000 tons or 400 m[sup]3[/sup], that’s going to be 4x10[sup]-7[/sup]km[sup]3[/sup]. [This is larger than the ~500 tons of contaminated and 300,000 odd tons of less radioactive water references in Wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Water_releases) The ratio becomes 4x10[sup]-7[/sup]km[sup]3[/sup]/ 660,000,000 km[sup]3[/sup] giving 6x10-16 So even if the water is a trillion times more radioactive than regular sea water I don’t see problem _if_ the discussion is around complete mixing. Localized issues are different of course. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/4 "2013-11-13T17:02:17Z")
As a lay person who knows absolutely nothing about this my fears and thoughts seem to linger around high concentrations in localized areas. I see all that waste water building up with an evergrowing tank farm storing all this contaminated water. I have some concern that the life of these tanks will expire with no wear to put this water. Why can’t they simply start a program of using tankers to haul this mess out to sea and release it in areas best suited for dispersion? It seems less likely to concentrate in any area of the food chain if properly dispersed from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/5 "2013-11-13T17:38:07Z")
This should be in GD. I’ll stick to GQ answers. No. We don’t allow oceans to become deposits of highly toxic waste. As far as around Japan, it’s problematic because the currents take the radioactive waste down the local currents and into fishing areas. As an example of burying your head in the sand, that is GD, but I’d say yes. More if this gets moved. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/6 "2013-11-13T17:44:34Z")
I requested it be moved. I started to put it there to begain with. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/7 "2013-11-13T18:23:43Z")
**Moderator Action** Since the factual part of the OP has been addressed, I’ll go ahead and move this thread to GD as requested, so that the remainder of the OP can be discussed/debated. Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/8 "2013-11-13T18:28:52Z")
If a planned and coordinated dispersal into the ocean turned out to be the only viable alternative would world opinion and fear overide scientific knowledge and be prevented because the only solution was so unpopular? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/9 "2013-11-13T18:32:36Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > First off is the ocean big enough to disperse all the potential radioactive material and waste water without having major effects on the enviroment? As noted by others, the amount released is relatively trivial. Seawater naturally contains 3 parts per billion of uranium anyway. > [@](#): > > Next question, is this an example of the the capacity of the human race to bury their head in the sand when faced with something seemingly unsurmountable? No: it’s an example of inadequate planning and risk assessment. The plant survived he earthquake but the sea wall wasn’t high enough to protect against the tsunami. Plus the diesel generators were placed in low-lying positions. Plus the reactor was not fail-safe. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Toothpaste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e56c9b/32.png) [@James\_Toothpaste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Toothpaste)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/10 "2013-11-18T22:31:37Z")
It might cause problems in the Japanese coast, but not the Pacific Ocean as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/11 "2013-11-18T22:35:49Z")
> [@](#): > > First off is the ocean big enough to disperse all the potential radioactive material and waste water without having major effects on the enviroment? As others have noted, it won’t even be detectable outside of the immediate environs around Japan. > [@](#): > > Next question, is this an example of the the capacity of the human race to bury their head in the sand when faced with something seemingly unsurmountable? Which part is ‘unsurmountable’? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/12 "2013-11-18T23:02:40Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Next question, is this an example of the the capacity of the human race to bury their head in the sand when faced with something seemingly unsurmountable? No, it is an example of the capacity of the human race to blow trivial threats out of proportion. Less than two hundred people are expected to die as a result of the Fukushima meltdown. To cause those deaths, a natural disaster had to kill eighteen thousand people. It’s like walking out of a car crash and whining that you got a papercut. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-fukushima/673826/13 "2013-11-18T23:12:47Z")
As a rough guide, the exposure at Fukushima hasn’t been that bad. While the media jumped on it like a modern-day Chernobyl (because ratings matter more than facts), it wasn’t all that terrible. Yes, contaminated water was flushed into the ocean (because a few people are _idiots_) and yes there may be some lingering minute increase in background radiation around the Fukushima facility for the next decade or three. But, even for people living there day to day, outside of the first initial failure caused a radioactive venting and the second failure in the release of cooling water exposures, the background exposure is fairly low. As a side note: If they were using an upgraded reactor, it probably wouldn’t have happened. But that particular reactor was an older design that didn’t have passive cooling, which means that when the generators failed, the core overheated. Newer reactor designs are much more forgiving of power losses. And, as always, [xkcd](http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/) is on the scene. (Note, this is from about the first week of venting.)