Ice Shelf too Big to Tug?

All it needs is a little water....like a swimming pool......ice is not required...

I guess my question would be, then, are they recirculating the same water and cooling it in that circulation loop? Or are they dumping it in the ocean? Or both?

Seems to me the only reason to circulate would be to cool it off, and if they are dumping it because it is too hot to cool, then isn't that the biggest concern? Dumping radiotion-laced water into the ocean? Or am I missing something. My point would be that, cooling a recirculating liquid might lessen the amount that has to be dumped... I'm no expert, just wondering what the water does if not cool, and how ice would not accommodate that process and offset at least some of the pollution.

Did you ever take a class on thermodynamics? Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature? To prove your understanding, please explain if a small swimming pool or the flame of a burning wooden match will have more heat and which will have a higher temperature?

I already admitted ignorance, apparently just not graphically enough. "I am no expert" should have provided the answer to those arrogant questions, why did you ask them in the first place?

Just give an answer, if you have one, unless you feel compelled for some reason to pose, I asked a simple question, stated my ignorance, but for some reason, not only do I have to admit I am not a scientific genius, I have to qualify my ignorance to your satisfaction?

Lots of snivellers around here. Obviously some of you detectives have serious trouble with the obvious. And ego.

wannabe sophists...

You do not have to be an expert on nuclear power production, but you do have to understand the concepts and terms of thermodynamics to discuss the topic of cooling. Since you refused to even attempt to answer any of my questions I must assume that you do not know anything about thermodynamics. I do not have the time nor the patience to try and teach this fundamental of physics. I will answer my final pair of questions and briefly relate them to your question.

The temperature of a match flame is higher than the temperature of a swimming pool. There is much more heat in a swimming pool than in the match flame because of the much larger total mass of the water in comparison to the flame. The rate of heat production by decaying spent fuel rods is no longer sufficient for electric power production but unlike the match flame it cannot be stopped. Air and water are both fluids that allow natural convection to circulate the fluid. The rate of heat production of "old" spent fuel is low enough that the lower density of air can easily transfer the heat load without a high temperature. This is why old fuel is safely kept in dry casks. Newly spent fuel produces enough heat that the higher density of water is needed to limit the temperature rise. The water does not leave the wet storage cask or pool. The heat transfer to the container provides more than enough cooling for the convection circulating coolant.

I guess I was just looking for some way to alleviate some radioactive dumping, apparently it is wishful thinking. So sorry to impose my ignorance upon you all, but if there is any advantage to what I have imagined, however naive, shouldn't we look for that instead of discouraging ideas, no matter how uninformed?

Seems to me that is what science is all about, looking for the answers instead of ridiculing the questions.

Scientists, not so much.

A sorry conundrum, no, a contradiction, that apparently goes with the territory.

There's a difference between entertaining novel ideas and responding to somebody that doesn't have a clue what is going on. That is why I asked my questions that you took offence. I wanted to tailor my answer so you would understand the situation better. I did not intend to insult you. The problems at Fukushima are much more complicated than just bringing in cold water. Actually part of the problem is that they have too much water and not enough sealed containers to store it.

On another note, I recommend that you change your signature to something other than an e-mail address. You will attract spambots that will quickly render that e-mail useless. The good thing is that when you change your signature, all of your entries will show the new signature.

Perhaps a couple of used oil super tankers in the circulation circuit would buy them some time?

How corrosive is the water after being exposed to the debris?

Looking at solutions would be an interesting thread; but there isn't any reliable information available as to the status of the incident.

I gave you an answer, it was no.

I don't have any trouble with my ego, at all. It's huge, and so is my opinion of myself.

I'm satisfeid with your ignorance. It's the attitude I don't like.

You might want to look at the mass and the size of the berg. Then look at the towing capacity of a tug boat or 50.

attitude? I was speaking to redfred, who should get methane rescheduled as a noble gas, actually I did not have a chance to thank you for your straightforward answer...

You're welcome.

What are you smoking? Is it legal?

I've had enough. You're not ignorant. Ignorance is curable.

Good bye.

depends on the State;

don't miss the changes before you go...

Lyn,

Are there any responses of yours which are not snide and actually uphold the values of CR4?

Posters like you are exactly why certain websites start to lose subscribers and certain discussions are not had.

Sometimes you need to learn how to zip it and move on.

Anonymous posters (of any and all numbers): Are there any comments made in your 'name' that contain ideas worth of championing? Do the people that make comments via the machination 'anonymous poster' miss their testes (or comparable figurative component of female anatomy should someone willing to use their CR4member name prefer to have their dignity, gusto, moxie, confidence, je ne sais quoi, or esteem described in a more y-chromosome-deficient (-free?) manner)?

.

'....Sometimes you need to learn how to zip it and move on.....'

.

It is amazing how often really bad advice demands hypocrisy....the bad advice itself must be ignored/disobeyed just to even spill it out at everyone's hazard.

Crikey mate, I'm so ignorant I had to Google "sophist". How dumb is that?

Not dumb, just unsophisticated.

First paragraph. Both.

Second paragraph. Yes, you're missing something. Actually, a lot.

I suggest that you research the cooling water problems they have there already, and how much radioactive water has already leaked into the ocean.

The reason contaminated water is being released is because containment has been breached.

.

Adding cold water is not necessarily a good idea for attempting to cool down a thermal fission reactor, especially in the three plants that have novel unknown geometries of fuel due to melt down. Fuel that has been enriched so that the plant using water as coolant can be controlled via thermal (slow) neutrons generally has what is known as a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity.

.

Water, a significant portion of which is hydrogen, if very effective at thermalizing (slowing down) neutrons. Since colder water over the range of temperatures of concern is more dense than warmer water, colder water is more effective at slowing down neutrons. Since thermal neutrons are what drives the reaction, adding cold water is typically a large addition of reactivity. In an core of unknown geometry and composition (post meltdown) this might result in criticality accident.

basically when you see an installation like this they use the ocean for cooling, yes, but there is no intentional "dumping" or contact. they use water to water heat exchangers.

so, this process would not be improved if imbedded into a giant cube iof ice? My distilling skills may not be a scientific as they are moonshiner, but seems to me there really is a basic application, if this is the model we are dealing with.

this might help you to understand part of the problemhttp://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/tag/spent-fuel-rods/ once these "spent rods have begun to cool they can remain "hot" for up to 20 years, a chunk of ice regardless of how large it might be simply can not approach the job. a near constant source of cooling is required(like an ocean)

are you so certain we aren't going to have an unlimited supply of these ice calves over the next decade?

Again, all I am doing is attempting to figure out how to keep the irradiated cooling fluids out of the environment... so circulating them through ice blocks seems like an option that is worth at least visiting.

Why do all you scientists say "NO!" so readily, isn't science for seeking answers first, then deciding what will or won't work? But, it has always been the status quo among the science community that stifles their own profession when their own dogma is defied. You naysayers have not even attempted to suggest any way this might help, and I can not imagine there is NO benefit, even if it is unlikely.

Play with it a little in those mighty minds, at least, exercise some imagination and offer ideas instead of insults.

okay I tried

Fredski,

.

Unfortunately there have been several large sea water injections into the various fuel pools and reactors since the tsunami. The corrosion implication are not pretty.

.

I don't think this detracts from the main point you were making. It is just info that I though you might like to know (if you didn't already).

When an immovable ice floe encounters an irresistible tugboat, what happens?

ξ

I'll be happy to answer the question directly.

No!

Chilling? Great Idea for most of us.

Using an iceberg to cool something - well - OK !!

But how? Describe your proposed process.

The answer as to the direct dumping of contaminated water into the ocean environment:

As of right now - that kinda looks where this is going to go.

There are three reactors in various states of melt down - with very little specific and reliable information available to the public. There is however; a huge push to show the incident as being of relatively benign significance using the same tactics that have always been used; but then I've seen the level of nonsense go from one extreme to the other.

In any case - this situation is beyond our technological capability, but more important, economic capability, to mitigate to what yesterday would have been considered an environmentally satisfactory level.

I believe the conditions are such that the end game leads to direct discharge of contaminated water directly to the ocean; hopefully removing SOME of the materials before doing so.

I believe the technologies needed to do otherwise is beyond economic interest; and therefore beyond our capability.

Setting up centrifugal, induction, filtration or other separation technologies is too expensive and too slow to deal with the huge amounts of cooling water needed to keep the sites cool. The cooler the water temperature can be maintained the less evaporation, and therefore atmospheric contamination, occurs.

Because of the oceanic currents direct dumping into the ocean would carry the contamination away from Japan - good for Japan - not so good for the Northern Pacific Fisheries.

It sounds like the specific activity of the debris is so high that human entry into the three melted down reactor buildings is prohibited.

Recently there was a significant spike in ground water radiation levels. Since the true condition of containment in the most severely damaged reactors is unknown, this may be an indication that the outer containment may beginning to fail - OR hopefully, it was just a spike related to runoff from heavy rains. It would depend on the depth and time the samples were taken.

I believe the cores of the most severly damaged reactors are probably laying in a semi molten pool; slowly eroding away at the containment where the cooling water is not reaching.

I believe we are in a race that we may have already lost.

Describe your proposed process.

circulate the irradiated cooling water through lead pipe, sunk into the ice, instead of dumping it? also, harvest the melted ice for potable water?

certainly, I realize there is a great deal of scientific ignorance expressed in these ideas, bear with me, this issue matters enough to endure any perceived humility.

How did your Kansas wind turbine research ever turn out?

I just came back from visiting my wind farm in southern Minn. Spin, baby spin.

the town I was trying to convert signed a 10 year binding agreement with the coal producers to purchase their power exclusively...

Just recently, I was trying to figure out how much money they have already lost in that deal, if they had passed a bond back then and bought some of those used German mid-size turbines. They could have paid off the bond and made a few million, either in city proceeds or lower tax rates, had they been listening, but I'm chopped liver, if you know what I mean.

"I believe the technologies needed to do otherwise is beyond economic interest; and therefore beyond our capability."

I am one of those who believes we need a global Manhattan project approach to this disaster.

My "attitude" is, there are way too many secrets in Fukushima, we certainly should never have been in the dark about what is really happening in the first place.

Especially scientists. If there IS any sort of resolution, it will come from them. But like you, I am relegated to using the word "IF" because the uncertainty is so pervasive, so the worst case scenario downside seems likely, and without full disclosure to and from the scientific community, that uncertainty is unlikely to abate.

The phrase "lead pipe" suggests a deep unfamiliarity with the issues at hand.

Well, T, I was just just looking for something that keeps the irradiated fluid from radiating the surrounding ice and melt-off as it is being cooled... do you know any other metal that might accomplish that and still transfer the heat as well?

I realize that is premised on the idea being feasible in the first place, but seriously, is there any other metal that would accomplish both the protection from radiation and the transfer of heat away from the fluid (or cold INTO the fluid, there, my ignorance is even more blatant.)

Again, why do all these answers come with some sort of attitude about me?

Yes, I admit it again and again, I AM deeply unfamiliar with much of what the rest of you are expert at, so why can't you people just respond with ideas, some of you seem desperate to be something other than just informative.

But let me reiterate; my original goal was to discern if there is any way to abate or diminish the dumping of radiated cooling water into the ocean. Apparently, anyone trying to ask questions here has to deal with the insecure egos of some of the regulars, regardless of our motives.

Like I said, grow up. Take the personal crap out of your responses, or some of you look like skinny little Jr. High eggheads desperate to beat up the quarterback in the classroom.

Or something like that. Go read yourselves. It is blatant. And now it seems as if there is actually a Lord of the Flies support group here, defending this childishness as if it is productive.

Answers, not attitude.

Perhaps -

"Well, T, I was just just looking for something that keeps the irradiated fluid from radiating the surrounding ice and melt-off as it is being cooled... do you know any other metal that might accomplish that and still transfer the heat as well?

I realize that is premised on the idea being feasible in the first place, but seriously, is there any other metal that would accomplish both the protection from radiation and the transfer of heat away from the fluid" ------------------

would have been adequate to elicit response from the forum members.

My recommendation would be to do some self study in material constants; perhaps obtain a Periodic Chart that incorporates material constants and do some caparison.

Lead; although quite dense (isolation) is not a very good thermal conductor (thermal transfer) when compared to other materials.

Perhaps the iceberg idea should be put to rest for this specific application? There is a HUGE heat sink available right next to the plant - but I don't believe its needed.

Deleted because it was a response to the wrong thread.

Thanks for that.

who you callin' turkey??

...just joshin', and thanks for this VERY comprehensive article, SE, my son and I have been posting this kind of stuff to our FB pages frantically, in hopes it might get more people involved in pushing for global engagement in this mess. It is our only medium for such exposure. I have over 3000 "friends", many of them professionals in political and editorial journalism, for reasons too complex to elaborate on.

I would point out that I was met with some unpleasant experience here, and since I was desperate to try to do something meaningful, it compounded the disappointment and frustration. When laymen seek answers, experts need to understand our own scientific ignorance is very frustrating. The kind of arrogant attitude I met immediately when I came here only stifles the process towards resolution. You need to moderate some of your members so they don't discourage resolution, it is like a bad teacher you don't want to ask questions of because they treat you like ignorant children.

I do wish I had more knowledge about the scientific ramifications of Fukushima, but if I waited until I knew everything, I wouldn't need to ask the experts.

You allhave to decide, day by day, if what you do here really matters. If it does, then act like people are watching who really matter and should not be treated to childish ego games. I have lurked here for years, wholly impressed with the sum of knowledge I have been able to garner about things I have wondeed over for decades. I sent the link to every egghead i know so they could benefit from it. Sites like this certainly could represent a super-valuable resource, especially in times of desperation. Communication is the one way to answers, simply put.

But when all that important information has to be selectively weeded out from between pereonal insults and callous comments, is discourages that communication. I undersatand your frustration with lazy researchers seeking easy information at your expense, I really really do. But my query had non of those hallmarks, it was a sincere attempt to address a real issue, and I sought answers fro a place I trusted to have at least SOME of them.

Instead i got crabby-ass know-it-all attitude, and scolded for even trying.

You folks already know this, you see it every day, and this is the second time I've been through it. All I will say is to repeat what I just posted; "Sites like this certainly could represent a super-valuable resource, especially in times of desperation."

That is what I thought I could depend on, but it is not what I found when I arrived.

Too big to tug? YES!

Through the 'Screaming Sixties', the 'Furious Fifties' and the 'Roaring Forties' - fatal to all involved.

Even if broken into small pieces

https://www.google.ca/search?q=towing+icebergs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZU2TUtSLOoiG2gXR8IHwAw&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1008&bih=497#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=6jJf_uuIWVsGHM%3A%3B4zcmMcNJcXN2PM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wired.com%252Fwiredscience%252Fwp-content%252Fgallery%252Ficeberg-towing%252Ficeberg-towing-illustration-dassault-systemes.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wired.com%252Fwiredscience%252F2011%252F08%252Ficeberg-towing-drinking-water%252F%3B660%3B555

SO COOL! took this from your link,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusNajaesAk

Am I the only person to notice that the video of the "latest crack" in the ice shelf was from nearly SIX years ago?

Who even knows where that chunk of ice is now? Does anyone remember any major news reports about it since that dire warning from March 2008? Yeah, me neither.

did you even try to google current events? Or are you one more person whose knowledge is total and perfect, and you can't learn ANYTHING because it is a confession of personal failure?

You guys aren't scientists, you are spoiled, insecure children turning this blog into a Lord of the Flies running insult.

'you are unhappy that no one has given you the answer that you wanted'

absolutely true, but not because of me, because of the impending issues... ego has nothing to do with my disappointment, I have no personal stake in this but humanity.

I could not care less what you folks think of me, I am just one more simple man, hoping for resolution in a terrible disaster. Nothing more.

Or less.

By the way, I find it somewhat annoying that You attacked me for what was really just an offhand comment about the video. I never made any comment on the feasibility, or improbability of your idea.

The breakup continues. NASA has some nice images. (No surprise) I wonder why so much of Antarctica is falling apart? Who could possibly be doing this nefarious deed?

NO, you are not.

I've pretty much tuned the OP out, and am just here for entertainment.

I remember reading about some trial to tow an iceberg to an arid country to provide fresh water. By the time they got there it was essentially melted. So, I'd say the answer is no.

I'm just wondering why you pick an Antarctic chuck of ice. When the are some in the Arctic that would be much closer.

One so large that we would not have to worry about large pieces that would break off in the major shipping channels as we haul it there. Possibly causing a shipping disaster with more clean up and loss of life.

I mention more than once that there should be a continual supply of these ice calves as our wayward ways melts the caps. And I also reference the Arctic as a closer alternative.

I actually do understand more science than I am admitting, and I am certainly not convinced there is no practical application like I have proposed, I would love to see just one of the Gurus entertain for a moment my icy scenario, just for kicks.

Everyone seems to miss my point that it is the dumping into the ocean of radiated cooling fluid that might be alleviated, at least to some degree, by cooling that fluid in a closed loop. And I am speaking about tower 4, not the meltdowns.

The illustration of the heat exchange tank that one of you provided has an intake for cooling fluid, that is where I think the ice could help, by supercooling that fluid flowing into the exchange.

Is it possible that 35 degree water would not cool more quickly than 60 degree water?

I am not certain what you all thought I meant, I never suggested this iceberg be dumped on anything, the idea was to increase the efficiency of the heat exchange by cooling the fluids first and close the loop so almost none of it EVER has to be dumped in the first place.

And all the lead was for was to circulate the irradiated fluid through the ice bath so i would not irradiate that bath, I know lead is not the best for heat transfer, but that is one of the compromises so the circulating fluid coming from the tower will not leak radiation.

And it is Tower 4 I am speaking of primarily, I do not imagine any way it might apply to the melted cores.

Again, go back to the diagram Fredski so kindly provided and look to the far left, and regard the words "shell side fluid in" and then reconsider what you think I was trying to say here.

THAT fluid, the light blue stuff in the pic, is what I am suggesting should be circulated through an ice bath, I am not suggesting pouring the melted berg on anything. And the reason for the lead as the circulation pipe is to protect the ice and the environment from any radiation that might leak from the exchange into the cooling fluid.

I don't know if that changes anyone's opinions, and I still do not pretend I know enough to call this "practical." But again, the whole concept is to mitigate the leakage of radioactive fluids into the ocean by cooling the fluids more efficiently and dumping less sea water in the process. Again nothing more. Or less.

I still don't think you're grasping the concept here. these fuel rods aren't like a cake that needs to be cooled down for an hour or so. once these rods are "spent" they are hot for years!, typically 10-20 years. also you don't just walk over to a rod and grab it or toss a few ice cubes on it, they have to be handled very carefully. this is usually done strictly by machines that wont croak from radiation exposure.

<The big bad meanie returns.>

You still don't get it. This is an engineering forum. We insist that one gets the terminology correct. Incorrect use of terminology proves to us a misunderstanding of the problem. That is until a polite acknowledgement of the wrong use of terminology. We all make errors.

You on the other hand lash out and verbally abuse anyone who even tries to correct or explain anything to you. You act more like a spoiled, petulant child that should be sent to bed without dinner instead of an adult. This is why any merit of your idea will not be discussed. You are not just closed to criticism, you are abusive when criticised.

I'm grateful that you have no influence in Fukushima. Your ideas and attitude would produce much more damage and I'm sure you'd blame some one else.

"That is until a polite acknowledgement of the wrong use of terminology."

for a scientist, you sure miss the evidence...

did you even read my first comment? Do I have to bleed or something to convey my ignorance?

let me refresh your memory;

"I'm no expert, just wondering what the water does if not cool"

do you need something better? How many people come here and say that right up front in their first response?

So, apparetly completely abandoning your scientific discernment sklills you responded to my confession of ignorance with "Did you ever take a class on thermodynamics? Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature? To prove your understanding,"

Did I not already express that I did not consider myself possesing that understanding? So why would you pose a technical question? Agfin, apparently you aren't very good at seeing the evidence before you if it isn't a math formula.

And then, in order to drive home the point that I was POLITELY TRYING TO ADMIT MY IGNORANCE, which apparently is the gateway to your compassionate understanding, I added again

"I already admitted ignorance, apparently just not graphically enough. "I am no expert" should have provided the answer to those arrogant questions, why did you ask them in the first place?"

Just give an answer, if you have one, unless you feel compelled for some reason to pose, I asked a simple question, stated my ignorance, but for some reason, not only do I have to admit I am not a scientific genius, I have to qualify my ignorance to your satisfaction?"

OK, maybe the second time wasn't your idea of polite, but by then it wa on you to be civil and clearly you wweren't really interested in "polite" just some sort of reverent fealty to stroke your scientific ego.

The real problem is, you crabby-ass experts have created a Lord of the Flies response personae here, I would bet you have driven off a lot of other valuable members, and I feel sorry for the hosts of this site because it can be so special.

That is, until someone asks a question. Then it is the Lord of the Flies Laboratory for wayward and bitter scientists. And from all appearances, RF, you are the guy dancing around the campfire in the pigskin. And now that I have noted your rude behaviour, you have circulated this whole conversation around to listing my faults as a questioner, and that I somehow broke the sancrosanct rules you and your jungleboys have established.

I do not doubt anyone's scientific credentials here, but I doubt your ability to use it wisely. I am just disgusted with the arrogance that matters more than science, and now the vain attempt to defer guilt for the way you treat people, onto one of the people you mistreated.

And now there are brand new attackers completely engrossed in defending the rudeness of this site.

You guys (you know exactly who you are) are jerks, you are obviously proud of it, and you seem perfectly content in your encapsulated world of complete knowledge.

Just don't try to pretend it is anyone else's game, you get to play all by yourselves.

One thing I am certain of, none of you are educators. Even if you imagine yourselves to be. Educators expect ignorance in their students, and fix it, they don't ridicule it.

I think it is great you respect each other, though, you have to get it somewhere.

How sad, how pathetically sad.

Good bye.

Hey, wait for me!!!!

'This is why any merit of your idea will not be discussed.'

Is that some edict from on high?

Thanks for everything, though, I actually enjoyed this exchange.

Too bad you have to feel like it was a debate. It never was.

I don't imagine for a moment I "won", just because you could not handle my persistence and left in frustration, so don't go away thinking otherwise.

The only consolation I take from this is that maybe next time someone with a "stupid" question comes here you will reconsider being an arrogant prick.

BTW, do you have any idea how long I have been reading here without posting?

And in all that time you haven't learned anything?

let me guess, you drive a Cavalier?

You claim to have a desire to have a better scientific understanding about what is going on, but you clearly aren't reading (for comprehension) the information being provided to you in the responses. This is clear because your continue to base your assumptions on some fundamental misunderstanding that have already been noted and for which attempts have been made (apparently without success) to address/correct.

.

The significant misunderstandings include:

.

Your confusion about radiation (as compared to contamination) manifested in your idea that irradiated water is changed fundamentally over anything but the very shortest term and that this water might be a hazard to be released, in your mind necessitating lead pipes.

.

Your unwillingness to consider, more than one attempt to explain to you why cold water is not a good idea for cooling the reactor.

.

Your unwillingness to consider the idea, reiterated several times that the barriers that formerly separated different areas in the reactors have been degraded to the point the various areas are not water tight any more.

.

It is frustrating when you complain that no one considered what you proposed, when you have failed to consider the detailed reasons provided explaining the errors introduced by your various misunderstandings.

.

It is apparent that you are upset that YOUR idea has not been accepted. If you were genuinely more concerned about the damage being done to the environment rather than to your ego, you would have been eager to listen to the comments that detailed what you weren't understanding.

'Your unwillingness to consider the idea, reiterated several times that the barriers that formerly separated different areas in the reactors have been degraded to the point the various areas are not water tight any more.

...did you read what I said about tower 4 being what I am concerned with? I state clearly that I can not imagine how to resolve the meltdowns, this all has to do with the cooling liquid circulating through #4. Did you ever read that part?

Another "scientist" who has not studied the evidence...

The only thing you folks want is for me to say I agree with you, isn't it enough that you are right? You don't care if you are or not, you just want others to tell you so. I have never once said I disagree with you, but apparently it takes some sort of gymnastic genuflection to convince you.

I don't think any of you has actually read what I wrote, at least without ego blinders on.

Even containing the discussion to just reactor #4, if make upgrade your understanding, you will see why the idea isn't helpful.

.

Cold water is not a good idea for cooling a reactor.

.

If the containment is intact, then fission products and degraded fuel would not be reaching the sea. The radiation in the area is only dangerous in the direct vicinity, as long as the contamination is contained, the radiation will stay in that area.

.

I don't know how well the containment for #4 survived the earthquake, i.e. to what extent it is still intact. If it is intact then your idea is not needed, if it isn't intact your idea isn't viable.

.

What else could you possibly need to know to convince you that the cause you are championing is not worthwhile?