How Contaminated are the Oceans from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster?
A reader asks for my viewpoint on this article, suggesting that one-third of the world’s oceans have been polluted from the radiation that continues to leak from the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
My take is that this is the typical hysteria about nuclear energy, driven, at least in part, by the folks who don’t want nuclear energy to replace what we have now. The oceans are “contaminated” in an extremely limited, virtually inapplicable sense of the word. Please see: this, this, and this. Obviously, there are reports from the Japanese government and the nuclear industry itself on one hand, and those from the rabid anti-nuke people on the other, both of which should be taken with a grain of salt—or better, avoided entirely.
It’s worth adding that there are many well-meaning people who are anti-nuke, but most of them fail to understand how completely screwed this planet is if we continue to burn fossil fuels, particularly coal, for the next few decades. In addition, most anti-nuke people don’t really get the science here, which means that they appreciate neither how relatively safe nuclear is, nor the terrific advancement that “advanced nuclear” represents.
I have the same gut feelings about nuclear vs coal as you do Craig. I can only echo the idea that advanced nuclear has far fewer environmental risks associated with it than coal.
The problem with the rabid antinuke people is that they don’t want either nuclear or coal even in the short term. Base load problems need to be addressed and maybe wind, solar, geothermal, OTEC and other new technologies can do the job if they are integrated into a smart grid but not today.
It is encouraging that the 9.0 earthquake itself did not damage any of the nuclear plants. The damage was caused by failure of the Diesel generators which were needed to operate the emergency cooling systems after the reactors were shut down. A 9.0 earthquake is exceedingly strong and the fact that it did not damage the nuclear plants is encouraging and confidence inspiring.
In my opinion, it is unwise for nuclear plants to be designed in such a way that they depend on electricity to power an emergency cooling system to prevent a melt down after they have been shut down. The relatively new Westinghouse AP1000 gets around that problem by storing water above the reactor level so that if emergency cooling is needed, it can be done by gravity rather than requiring pumps.
Another problem with the Fukushima reactors is that the hydrogen recombiners were insufficient to prevent the damaging hydrogen explosions. That is a problem which can easily be corrected either by retrofit or in the original designs.
Actually, in spite of the disaster, the Fukushima nuclear plants saved lives by eliminating the need to build more coal burning power plants. If the nuclear plants had not been built, the pollution from the coal burning plants would have been fatal to a significant number of people.
At this time, it is unlikely that damaging global warming can any longer be prevented. We will need far more power to deal with the damaging effects of global warming. For example, in many areas of the world, the water table is going down because water is being extracted from it faster than nature can replenish it. Global warming will exacerbate that problem in some areas and a large part of the solution will have to be sea water desalination which is very energy intensive. And, of course, air conditioning will become essential in places where it is now optional. It will be essential to get practically all of our power from non-CO2 emitting sources.
Craig,
Very well said !
Incidentally, the oceans contain a lot of naturally occurring radioactivity. This was once thought to be the source of genetic mutations, however in recent years this theory has been dispelled.
Advanced nuclear technology appears to be gaining ground everywhere except in the US and those countries with large numbers of old “Ban the Bomb” activists. (Ah, how I miss those halcyon days, Jack Kerouac, Bob Dylan, Barry McQuire, Buffalo Springfield, Woodstock, Pirate radio, long haired, long legged, bight eyed young girls,….mmm, but I digress :).
More an more scientists are turning to advanced nuclear to produce economic, reliable, zero-emission mass “power on demand”.
The “perfect’ shouldn’t be allowed to become the enemy of the merely good.
The failure of the backup generators at Fukushima was down to an error in design. Rather than place the generators high above any threat of Tsunami, they were placed rather foolishly in the basement where they were put out of action by flooding. This in an area known to be at risk of Tsunami.
Re the risk posed by leaked radiation, whilst I would be concerned about eating locally caught shellfish, or locally cultivated seaweed, – particularly on a regular basis I would not be overly concerned more generally beyond basic reasonable precautions.
Not widely known is that a typical coal fired power station in normal operation releases more radioactive isotopes than a nuclear power station.
The point about air conditioning becoming essential with a warming climate is not an exaggeration.
Wet Bulb temperature is the temperature a wet thermometer bulb in front of a fan cools to by evaporative cooling – the more humid the air, the closer together measured regular temperature and wet bulb temperature are.
Scientists and doctors have calculated that a wet bulb temperature above 35 centigrade can only be survived by humans for a few hours beyond which you die. This summer in India, the hottest populated locations reached wet bulb 34 centigrade and a significant number of people died. This is right on the limit of survivability, any more, and people caught in the open even in the shade will not be able to survive.
Gary,
That was a good post. However, for the convenience of those who do not have a good feel for the metric system, it will be helpful to point out that 35 centigrade is 95 Fahrenheit. People can easily survive 95F if the air is dry, but 95F wet bulb is a very different matter.
Here in New Mexico, 95F is not unusual in summer but because the air is very dry it is survivable although unpleasant.