No One Knows What to Do with Fukushima’s Endless Tanks of Radioactive Water
nautil.us
nautil.us
First of all, Tritium is an beta emitter, blocked by a piece of paper or the skin. It's not dangerous in the environment unless it's consumed. Even better, it does not bio-accumulate, because it's water.
Second, the half life of Tritium is 12.4 years.
Consider this excerpt:
""" The World Health Organization’s standard for tritium in drinking water is 10,000 becquerels per liter (34 ounces). According to Mayumi Yoshida, a TEPCO communications officer, Fukushima’s stored water contains between 1 and 5 million becquerels per liter. """
So our radioactive waste is acceptable as Drinking Water at 10K.
Lets do the math
5000000/(2^9) = 9765.625
9*12.4 = 111.6 years
No one knows what do about the Radioactive Water?
How's about we wait few generations, and drink it!
This is child's play next to the real problems posed by long lived (400K+ year long half life) bio-accumulating isotope disposal.
I wouldn't mind if they dumped it in the ocean TBH.
So if you diluted it all 500 times, the problem goes away. 620,000 tons of water is about...2 supertankers. So if you mixed it with 1000 supertankers worth of water, you could safely drink it (at least as far as the tritium is concerned).
Now, where near Fukishima could we find 1000 supertankers worth of water? Right, the ocean.
tdy721 wasn't joking; dumping it all into the ocean is a perfectly sensible (and safe) solution. (Although as the article notes, it's politically a non-starter.)
From the Nautilus article, I get that there is now ~6E5 Mg contaminated water, containing 1E6-5E6 Bq tritium per liter. The overall range is ~6E14 Bq to 3E15 Bq, or between ~0.4% and ~2% of annual natural production.
So yes, it's not such a big deal.
But now I'm curious about the magnitude of other anthropogenic sources.
Something to think about is my Canadian friends used to spend enormous amounts of energy to purify heavy water for their CANDU reactors. Sending them two tankers full of the best "raw refinable ore" on the planet is likely to put smiles on their faces. Yes I'm well aware that heavy water is deuterium and 1 in 700 atoms of H2 is deuterium and 1 in 700 atoms of naturally sourced non-H1 aka mostly-deuterium is the tritium we're talking about... the point is they know how to isolate it, handle it, and have a use for it, or in relative terms they are likely the best people on the planet to do the job (not to disparage any other countries with heavy water programs, intentionally anyway).
Or send over some container ships full of canadian machinery and jets full of canadians and refine the "ore" into salable product on Japanese soil, maybe right next door, whatever.
The assumption being made is this "waste" is useless, like coal fly ash or something, rather than being the valuable ore that it is.
Politically it could be a disaster, whats going to happen to the revenue from D2 and T2 sales other than infinite screaming about infinite possibilities? Everyones going to want a cut of it and the management and accounting costs might exceed the actual revenue...
On a side note, the LFTR people say they fly ash is one practical source of Thorium for their fuel cycle.
It seems like we're spending a lot of energy just to hold on to this stuff in the riskiest possible way.
And because in the ocean will harm fishes, shellfishes, corals, other valuable forms of life; and there is no more than 50 living japanese right whales in all the planet.
And because the main species targeted by fisheries in all the planet earth is the peruvian anchovy. Since Fukushima we are seeing some strange death mass events of non human anchovy eaters like sea birds, seals and whales from Alaska to Peru. The cat's food tin that we open in our kitchens is made of peruvian anchovies flour. Your beloved pets will have more probabilities to die from cancer.
And because there are maybe thousands of cases of TEPCO shamelesly saying: 'oops, hundreds of liters of our radioactive waste are dumped to the sea again, how bad luck' since 2011. We simply can not expect them to act responsibly after repeatedly lied everybody in the past. They will use this easy way out to quickly dump anything they want to the water ("oops we forget again to classify and separate radioactive atoms from the water dumped. Is such an expensive process... how bad luck")
And because all oceans are connected by sea currents and radioactivity travelling with currents and migratory fishes will reach American coasts in a few weeks.
And because animals are made of water in a 60-95%. There is much more water than fat in a human. And rain is made of water also.
And because this is not a game of probabilities. To have only a chance of 1% of finding a tiger is not the same idea as "this tiger is 99% harmless".
From the analysis above it looks like this stuff is harmless once sufficiently diluted.
It's not really possible to discuss something if the only acceptable answer is "fuck TEPCO", by the way.
I don't know enough about the claimed process of purification so I could be wrong, but I'm understanding by the article that tons of radioactive saltwater are magically converted in yummy distilled water and that tritium is the only cause of concern. It reminds me the same old rethoric: "they are clever, they know how to do this, don't make questions, nature will gobble the problem and we all will be safe and happy again".
I think that is reasonable to be sceptic in this case.
Are we talking about to dump distilled pure water or saltwater to the sea?. Is a different situation. It is saltwater there is a lot of things about to care, not just hydrogen. What happened with the dissolved salts and organic matter in the radioactive saltwater?.
And of course, how we could control the real composition of the dumped water?. Just because TEPCO promises us that this time is safe?. This is also a legitimate question. Are we just sending a clear message of 'do as you please with the waste'?. This could be a huge mistake in my opinion.
There is available space in Fukushima for more tanks. Nobody lives in the area and if properly designed to be durable seems a safer option. We have the technology to design such containers.
If the question was just "should TEPCO keep paying", I'd agree.
But that's not the only question.
In the ocean, the tritiated water gets diluted, quickly, to levels asymptotically approaching ambient beta radiation. A mishap with the tanks on land however exposes the land ecosystem to potentially concentrated radiation.
Hydrogen bomb tests are estimated to have created several hundred kilograms of tritium, the bulk of which went straight into the oceans. No impact on sea life has been measured.
You list a parade of horribles, but the cold fact is that there is no theory as to how any of those even might occur. Anchovies are not going to die because of a couple grams of tritium. Nor will your cat get cancer. Radiation is not magic, nor is a taboo. It's a physical phenomenon with well understood characteristics.
(And, again, even if you're right—and the entire scientific community is wrong—if 4 grams of tritium would do all that, what do you think the hundreds of kilos from nuclear tests did?)
This is just wishfull thinking. A clear and well documented impact on sea life with a lot of local extinctions can be easily checked still 50 years later, in fact. Nothing growing in the island is safe to eat currently.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415101021.ht...
1) Your link does not discuss tritium. Tritium is a specific substance with specific characteristics; you can't just lump it all under "Evil Radiation" and make meaningful conclusions.
2) Whatever effect tritium would have would be global. You talk about local extinctions, but we're actually looking for evidence of massive global extinctions. The early 1960s (which saw peak tritium levels) are not known for a huge spike in inexplicable extinction events.
3) Not only did the tests spread it everywhere, but ongoing runoff means that rivers have been pumping tritium into delta regions. Almost a kilogram of tritium was pumped into the Gulf of Mexico over the last 50 years. Again, no impacts from the tritium have been detected; whatever impact it might have had was drowned out by all the other much more serious crap we humans were doing.
4) Again, there's still no theory as to how tritium (specifically tritium, and not, eg, radioactive cesium or iodine) might do all this crazy stuff. I'm just pointing out that there's also no emperical evidence either, and thus, no real reason to think our entire understanding of how radiation impacts living organisms is wrong.
All of which means that people worried about the impacts of 4 grams of tritium on the Pacific Ocean are—to be charitable—innumerate. They're certainly wrong, because we've already dumped something like a HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES more tritium into the Pacific ocean than that, and we literally have been unable to detect any impact. It's absurd to think we could even measure the impact of 4 grams.
The 1958 criticality accident at Los Alamos was the result of merely turning on a mixer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Kelley_criticality_accid...
It has nothing to do with technical issues. Imagine the public reaction.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/North_Pac...
At no point since the meltdown began, through when radiation began leaking into the atmosphere - of which was dispersed and detected around the globe, has any entity associated with the Fukushima plant or Japan shown any signs of willingness to be upfront and transparent about the situation.
The US Navy seemed to be one of the only real orginizations who offered an upfront warning of radiation exposure to citizens. [1] [2]
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/japan.us.navy.ra...
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-2011-...
[3] http://www.radiationnetwork.com/Message.htm
[4] http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-b...
The world's oceans are absolutely massive and already have millions of tons of radioactive material dissolved along with plenty of cooling power. Maybe the specific dumping zone would be a little radiated for a bit but that can be solved by spreading it out in the deep sea and through natural ocean currents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari...
and I don't believe any aircraft carriers have. (Russia didn't have any, and the US hasn't lost an aircraft carrier since WW2.)
that's where I have issues. TEPCO doesn't have the best record regarding honesty.[0][1]
I fully expect that group to cook the books in any possible way that will make this look like less severe an issue.
[0]: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-10/it-s-time-f...
[1]: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201506...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/why-the-ocean-may-not...
I'm not anti-nuclear by any stretch, but it boggles my mind that we just stood around and said "well, shit. We don't have a backup plan, and we're stuck with this for a very, very long time".
EDIT: It takes 10-20 years to get a nuclear generation plant built, starting at $1 billion USD, and I've never seen a wind turbine or solar panel need to be kept cool for days after having moderator rods dropped to prevent fuel rods from melting down and hydrogen gas destroying a pressured containment vessel.
Don't talk to me about thorium, MSRs, breeders, or whatever new fangled reactor is being pushed this year unless you're willing to guarantee with incredibly steep financial penalties that if you start building a reactor today, you will be done on time, and within your budget.
Otherwise, move out of the way while we build out solar, wind, and utility-scale battery storage, all proven to work with existing tech, needing no liability waivers from the government nor permanent spent fuel storage that doesn't (and won't ever) exist.
The sun is pretty safe to us, yes. No comparison possible.
It isn't. Any power generation method that requires human staff will have deaths due to installation and operations accidents.
Solar is right up there in terms of number of deaths because installation is labour intensive compared to the energy output vs. nuclear.
Maybe that would change if we favoured larger plants over rooftop installations, but at the moment if we replaced all nuclear with solar, the number of deaths would increase significantly.
People aren't just going to turn the lights and air conditioners off.
I find that answer to be simple. Of course we prefer nuclear over coal, with the caveat that its existing nuclear capacity that will be attritioned out as more renewables come online.
> People aren't just going to turn the lights and air conditioners off.
Agree. Use pricing to incentivize the expedited reduction in fossil fuel generation. Don't allow new coal fired plants to be brought online. Allow natural gas plants, but only for peaking and with strict emissions controls until utility scale battery installations are provisioned.
a.k.a give everyone in the lower middle-class and below a big middle-finger
Having come from a family of modest means, I can appreciate the cost of power when budgeting on a limited income.
On the other hand, we don't allow "the poor" to drive without emissions controls on their cars because its cheaper and they're poor.
Raising the price of fossil fuel electrical generation and using that to directly subsidize renewable generation gets very close to a net zero increase in power costs, considering that wind and solar are already at grid parity in most states (and those costs will continue to decline).
If you want to be specific, we can significantly curb our fossil fuel subsidies at the federal level, and use those to directly subsidize renewables production (with any deficit made up by the general fund).
I don't like nuclear. In fact, I hate it. Particularly uranium fission. I think it can never be truly safe, and I think it's ultimately unnecessary, as we should be able to get plenty of energy from green sources. But if nuclear will get us off coal and oil sooner, I'm all for it.
You could grind up all the current radioactive waste into particles and pump it into the atmosphere on purpose, and nuclear would still likely cause less harm than most of the alternatives.
The problem with nuclear is fear and politics.
And most of the management "problems" with nuclear is down to exactly that too. We have plants that generate more waste than necessary because of cold war politics. We have storage "problems" because of irrational levels of fear of the risks.
Meanwhile we keep burning coal that continues to shower us in radioactivity and other nastiness sufficient to do as much damage (including deaths) as a Chernobyl sized incident every couple of year or more.
Citation please.
Also I'd like to know if the numbers are in any way significant compared to overall construction work accidents.
Nuclear is the best game in town, even though the accidents are well publicized and the marketing for alternatives have done a really good job of making us scared of the nasty radioactivity, nuclear has the best safety culture and safety record.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
Even crowded Germany manages to set up fields full of solar panels, so I guess the US can do just as well.
Leave rooftop solar installation to those who build new homes or repair the roof, so there's no additional risk from climbing around in high places.
But also keep in mind that solar also causes mining deaths (sand quarries are not without accidents just because they're not deep mines; but of course nuclear has related mining accidents too) as well as work with hazardous chemicals during production of the cells. There are also related fire risks. Not huge, but they are there, and given sufficiently deployed capacity it adds up.
Also keep in mind that solar is not nearly all photovoltaics. Here's an article about a lethal accident at a concentrating solar power plant in South Africa [3], though generally we will likely see fewer deaths per kwh for large plants. But even fields full of solar panels involves plenty of construction work and electrical work that can kill.
Basically, anything labour intensive, no matter what, will have a death toll. Even hiring a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing all day will have a death toll from accidents one way or another. As such, all else being equal (and of course they never are), the least labour intensive alternative will win out. Similarly, all else beiny equal, the larger / more electrical installations you add the more fires etc. you will have.
Since all things are not equal, it gets complicated, but it doesn't help to pretend that these alternatives does not have risks.
> Leave rooftop solar installation to those who build new homes or repair the roof, so there's no additional risk from climbing around in high places.
They're not immune to death just because they have experience, and there will always be additional risk because it means more time is spent climbing around in high places. There's been plenty of professional installers and construction workers falling to their deaths too. The pages I referenced are targeted at professionals, for a reason.
[1] https://www.osha.gov/dep/greenjobs/solar.html [2] http://www.coshnetwork.org/sites/default/files/OSEIA_Solar_S... [3] http://www.csp-world.com/news/20141104/001395/two-killed-and...
Put another way, let's assume the energy death numbers are not at all "significant compared to overall construction work accidents". Is one death by rooftop installation accident less tragic than one death by radiation poisoning? Just because you can lump the first into the big pool of construction work deaths, while the radiation death sticks out by itself?
Maybe we should just do that then? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than disposing of it safely. Because the problem is that safety is so massively expensive. And that is a huge factor in deciding if new stations can be built.
It would still cause lots of deaths if you did that, it's just that other power generation methods causes lots of death anyway, so in comparison the storage problem for nuclear waste is not nearly as bad as it seems.
This is because of draconian regulations.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/19...
It's not just the technology itself that's unsafe, it's the fact that it's handled by profit-driven corporations.
I think nuclear energy may be unavoidable as transitional tech until we can move entirely to cleaner technology, but it very clearly needs very tight regulation, and it's not the end goal. (At least uranium fission isn't; I keep hearing positive stuff about thorium. But even then, wind and solar already works; we need a lot more of that.)
Supposing we just ignored the radioactivity and did nothing, compare the number of deaths and environmental damage per kwh to what business as usual for any alternative would cause (coal mining? Oil drilling? Flooding land for hydro-electric? Mining the stuff that solar panels are made of?).
You mean silicon-oxide a.k.a. sand?
Actually I was being a bit facetious as well, given that sand is one of the forms of mining where there are quite a few deaths due to organized crime involvement in illegal sand mines [1] [2] [3]. Exactly because it's easy to set up and not much capital lost if you get shut down.
[1] https://www.toovia.com/posts/2015/apr/05/0.13503.61179257842... [2] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/woman-hacke... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-17/indian-college-kids...
The second question is, what is the environmental impact of dumping it in the ocean? No matter how dangerous it is, the ocean is gigantic. So you want to know: are there environmental processes that concentrate or amplify it?
Later: I had to leave before writing this last part.
Obviously, all things being equal, you'd rather TEPCO keep spending money to keep this stuff out of the ocean. But are all things equal? Is it riskier to try to contain it?
This is the wrong question. The relevant question is "what is the political impact of dumping it in the ocean?" and the answer is "devastating".
No matter how scientifically sound the solution, "dump it all in the ocean" simply can't happen.
Headline: "State Government to dump contaminated water from nuclear plant in ocean"
Quote: "There may potentially be a risk to flora & fauna, but we don't know for sure."
That's all it takes to make the idea political suicide. I think that's obvious from a mile away, even if many of us here agree that diluting it in the ocean is likely to be environmentally and fiscally sound.
Since we're allowing impossible situations, it could also happen if we had a magic wand.
That's kind of a dangerous precedent to set. If we can dump radioactive water into it, why not oil?
It was quite popular for a while. (And - debatably - still is in some parts of the world.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_w...
At the higher level of 5MBq/L, they would need to dilute it into 3000km^3 of seawater in order to reach double background radiation levels, or a patch of the 6km deep Pacific abyssal plain that is 22km x 22km.
Which now that I think about it, is a little ironic.
According to Wikipedia, Tritium is worth $30,000 per gram [1]. I can only assume that we can separate super-heavy water (T20) from regular water since we can separate heavy water (D20) from regular water. I don't know if $30K per gram is enough to cover the separation cost, but it seems like it might...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Self-powered_lighting
How much Tritium does the world really need?
Bury where there's already plenty of radioactivity. It does occur in nature, I hear.
The more radioactive it is, the shorter the half-life, right?
However the water keeps accumulating. I don't think that part is sustainable. Until they fix the root cause of a seemingly endless amount of water that needs to be stored, this is going to be a problem.
Maybe put it in a bunch of large bags and tow it to Antarctica. But you'd need to avoid the bits that are already collapsing.
Corner the self-illuminated exit sign market!
At first I thought that might have been a unit conversion error, but Wolfram Alpha [2] seems to confirm the tiny mass.
So if it costs more than $120k to separate it from the rest of the water, it would not be worth the effort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Fukushima_Daiichi
[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+1+petabecquerel...
ie, if the next best is to store it, and it would cost $1M. but filtration costs $1.1M , its actually $20k better to filter it.
Seems like the politically expedient thing to do would be to separate a few tons to show that someone is doing something, and smuggle the rest out in ballast tanks.
For example: "Possible use of A̲l̲c̲a̲l̲i̲g̲e̲n̲e̲s̲ p̲a̲r̲a̲d̲o̲x̲u̲s̲ as a biological monitor"
I also wonder if you could blast pellets of radioactive waste with a very big laser like the one at the NIF [0]. I don't know much about physics so I accept this could be a disastrous or futile idea but if anyone can comment that would be great.
That always seems to turn out well in the movies.
If they're still pumping coolant into the reactors, why aren't they reusing the water that's already radioactive for that purpose?
Just the water from the leaks has be retained at present.
If they mixed the water from the tanks, they'd have to retain 100% of the flow of the water.
Now if they built a big cooling pond and stuff they could reuse the water 'forever'. But the last thing you want is a big pond of slightly radioactive water than all kinds of wildlife can come live in.
Can't the already-contaminated water be used for cooling in a mostly-closed system?
And if the expansion due to rainwater is significant, perhaps some kind of large tent arrangement?
1- "Even better, it does not bio-accumulate, because it's water".
Myth: First of all tritium is not water, is radioactive hydrogen. Hydrogen is a common piece in the metabolism of all living beings.
"The study showed that inorganic tritium accumulated differentially in mussel tissues in a dose-dependent manner, with the gut accumulating the highest amount of radioactivity, followed by the gill, mantle, muscle, foot and byssus thread".
-> Awadhesh, Dogra, Turner, Millward (2005) Impact of low doses of tritium on the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis: Genotoxic effects and tissue-specific bioconcentration. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 586, 1: 47–57
-> Inomata T (1983). Accumulation and lethal effect of tritium (tritiated water) in Rhodopseudomonas spheroides. Under light-anaerobic and dark-aerobic conditions. Radiat Environ Biophys. 21(4):281-94.
-> Inomata T, Higuchi M. (1976) Incorporation of tritium into cell materials of Rhodopseudomonas spheroides from tritiated water in the medium under aerobic conditions. J Biochem. 80(3):569-78.
2- "Tritium is safe to drink if diluted".
True. But dangerous if eaten (and marine organisms can also pick up and reconcentrate again some substances). Japanese eat marine fishes, algae and clams all the time.
"Our results demonstrated that the dose calculation based on tissue-free-water tritium alone would under-estimate the radiation exposure of the human population exposed to tritiated food"
-> Komatsu, Okumura and Sakamoto (1990) Radiation dose to mouse liver cells from ingestion of tritiated food or water. Health Phys. 58(5):625-9.
3- "Tritium radioactivity is blocked just by a sheet of paper or by the skin"
Paper's blocking properties are not relevant under the sea. Human skin is not comparable to the structure or function of fish/crab/worm gills.
4- "Hundred kilos of tritium were released and nothing happened"
The fact is that hundred kilos of tritium where released and dozen of species of corals (and all its associated fauna) are missing still 50 years later from this area. This can be related with tritium or not, but "absence of evidence" can not be granted "as evidence of absence". Is a common rule in science. It only takes to briefly loose all its zooxanthellae to kill a 1000 years coral colony.
5- "Tritium don't have any efect in the marine organisms". "Nobody will be harmed"
Myth:
"Tritiated water delivering dose rates below 500 μGy h−1 was shown to be capable of inducing genetic damage in the haemocytes of edible mussels"
"Despite growing scientific, public and regulatory concern over the discharge of radioactive substances, no serious attempts have been made to develop a rationale to evaluate the impact of environmentally relevant radionuclides in the aquatic environment." ... "The study suggests that the generic dose limits recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency for the protection of aquatic biota might not be applicable to all aquatic organisms".
-> Awadhesh, Dogra, Turner, Millward (2005) Impact of low doses of tritium on the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis: Genotoxic effects and tissue-specific bioconcentration. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 586, 1: 47–57
New marine organisms are discovered every year. We just don't know the effect of tritium on most marine organisms, specially with critical groups like sea cucumbers (that process tons of silt and sand each year), sponges and filterer worms (millions of water liters processed), or coral zooxanthellae.
6- "Come on, its only four grams... what could be happen?"
Many things, this four grams could cause a serious damage to the credibility of the acuaculture japanese companies and to cultured shellfish, oysters and clams as source of reliable food for example. The value of total japanese aquaculture production in 2003 worth US$ 4 428 962 000 (source: FAO). Fish related economy is a 'no joke' affair for japanese employing a lot of people and moving big money each year so this would be also a political suicide probably.
The impact of tritium in fish eggs, alaskan cods, right whales or californian vaquita porpoises is totally unknown.
7- "Again, there's still no theory as to how tritium can do all this crazy stuff".
False: Tritium effects are similar to other typical carcinogenetic substances. On mice: abort of some mice embrios, increased mortality, bone marrow failure, resorbtion of gonadal tissue and developping of solid tumours. It depends on the dose.
"mice receiving a single intraperitoneal injection of tritiated water 7.4 x 10(8) Bq (20 mCi) died of bone marrow failure within 20 days".
-> Seyama, Yamamoto, Kinomura and Yokoro (1991) Carcinogenic effects of tritiated water (HTO) in mice: in comparison to those of neutrons and gamma-rays. J Radiat Res. 32 Suppl 2:132-42.
8- "The early 1960s (which saw peak tritium levels) are not known for a huge spike in inexplicable extinction events".
Myth (and not understanding how things really work in biology).
To prove extinction in marine organisms is notoriously difficult and in any case it takes 50 years to declare a species extinct. Therefore species extinct in 1960 are recognised as this by science in 2010, not in 1960.
And the fact also is that not enought research had be done. There is about 800 living hard corals providing support for 4.000 species of reef fishes, more than 50.000 species of marine molluscs, and 13.800 species only in the Class Polychaeta (a type of marine worms). Scientists estimate total number of different species inhabiting coral reefs between 2 and 9 millions. We are talking just of reef ecosystems here, there are also soft bottom ecosystems and epi/meso pelagic and abyssal plains. Most of the marine species are still undiscovered.
However, in years as recent as 2004 the World Conservation Union (IUCN) had conducted threat assessments of only 814 marine species (Baillie et al. 2004). The real situation of millions of species is unknown.
I don't see why Japan couldn't do the same. I expect it already does this, with the coolant from its other reactors.
The water used to mix cement doesn't evaporate, that is cement doesn't dry, it sets or hardens. The binder is a chemical known as "Portland Cement"; it hardens when it combines chemically with water.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radiation-helps-fu...
> Based on experiments with three different types of fungi, they believe the melanin-containing breeds absorb the high levels of energy in ionizing radiation and somehow turn it into a biologically useful (and benign) form, akin to a dark and dangerous version of photosynthesis.
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/using-fungi-remediate...
> G. glutinosus has been reported to absorb – via the mycelium – and concentrate radioactive Cesium 137 more than 10,000-fold over ambient background levels. Many other mycorrhizal mushroom species also hyper-accumulate.
The second method still leaves you with radioactive waste (harvested mushrooms are burned, the ash is turned into glass) but it gets the radiation out of the environment.