Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

This article's use of language is different from the situation it is describing to the point of absurdity.

> "new nightmarish challenges"

> "frantically scratching around for ideas"

> "ALARMING DEVELOPMENTS"

It seems the problem is they have a big tank and the article author wants it to be replaced? And that they measure density at the top of the tank and he wants measurements from the bottom? The article is unjustified fear-mongering and panic. It isn't even an especially big tank, they include a photo.

View on HN

The original article this was translated from is here: https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASPDG3FGWPD6ULBJ019.html?iref...

The inflammatory language, in particular the parts you quoted, seem to have been added for the English translation.

I concur; the original Japanese article is uncolored, and the English language article is not a faithful translation. Although the people responsible for authoring and editing TFA seem to go unmentioned, shame on them.

Asahi is known to biased to anti nuclear for a long time. Japanese readers may consider the bias.

They have literally hundreds of these tanks. They were building them every few days.

Doesn’t take away from your main point though.

While true, I find it hard to believe that moving water from one tank to another is some kind of grave threat to humanity like the article wants the reader to think. In the worst case scenario can't they just put these tanks in a big hole and pour concrete on them?

and what happens with concrete when the ground trembles...? it breaks. apart of that concrete is still damaged by radiation and such wholes and concrete needs to be redone after some years (there's already second one i chernobyl). and then after some years you have a lot of contaminated cement, which you need to cover again... and again... and again... it'll need to be redone even after both you and I die (assuming I don't get to my dream of changing all organs for new ones and living to 500 ;))

In other words, a problem we already know how to solve and have done so multiple times before.

Hiding problems from sight doesnt solve them. It justs hides them. Its like a temporary patch, but the ground will be radiated for long time. What then? Another spot? Then again in another spot? So my and your grandchildren will basically have live to on radioactive waste/a ticking bomb? Thats not solution.

This is how landfills work currently so it is not much of a deviation from the status quo. It would still take millions of years before we run out of land to put all the nuclear waste ever created in.

There’s not that much radiation in this water. None of those concerns would apply. They could literally just dump it into the ocean without measurable effect, which is the plan of record.

Heavy molecules sink. Salts sink. Density is used to estimate radioactive molecules, so if you measure only in the surface you are underestimating the amount of radioactivity in your mix. This is lying to themselves and to everybody, (maybe with the goal of to be allowed to keep leaking/trowing it to the sea) and must be criminally prosecuted. Is like saying that a soup is oil entirely because it has a thin layer of oil in the surface. Specially if radioactive strontium is forming a mud in the bottom of the tank

At this point of the problem the data used to evaluate the problem should be required to be accurate. We should adopt a zero tolerance with this BS. Enough is enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com