Fukushima - Meeting the Challenge

First thing is to get rid of the TEPCO board and install some people who really want to solve this than lining their pockets and act like there is no problem, TEPCO is asking for a handout from the government again.

Nicely done Solar Eagle. You get a GA from me.

It seems that many would prefer to rely on their preconceived notions about this disaster rather than finding out what is actually known. The immediate media reports that came out over two years ago were sketchy and very frightening. Much more is known today about the present status and the series of events that happened when the wave hit the facility.

I don't have any intelligent ideas. Who figured an earthquake would cause all that damage?

That's two devastating tsunamis in the recent past, among other _unnatural disasters, that nobody could have predicted.

Not to mention this: the aftermath of Chernobyl, a deserted city, Pripyat.

What it looks like today:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402589/Vanishing-Chernobyl-Aerial-photos-devastated-town-radiation-disaster-zone-reclaimed-nature.html#ixzz2lcYUvqV0

That disaster caused far more damage than the subject disaster.

Very well; as Solar Eagle has pointed out with concurrence from other members; there is adequate information available to make inference as to plant status.

A few of the challenges appear to be -

How to Increase water storage capacity at a rapid rate.

How to isolate the evaporating water from the cooling process from the atmosphere.

How to integrate a scaled method of water decontamination into the cooling cycle.

How to reduce the average specific activity of the reactor environment so that electronic sensors and humans can operate in close proximity. _ (Solar Eagle has pointed out that electronic sensors can operate in the environment.)

How to identify the location and status of the fragmented reactor core under large amounts of debris.

How to expediently isolate those fragments from direct contact with containment structure.

How to break up and remove solidified masses of high tensile material of very high specific activity.

For those of you who may have some ideas - why not share them?

T.I.N.A.C - Thank You for your thoughtful reply.

Could you better explain your statement -

"This is problematic, since as the core cools, the water becomes more dense and a better neutron moderator which can result in the core increasing heat production. "

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the issue.

Could I ask you to share an overview of your ideas for a step by step process extending from the present through the end of decommissioning?

I think we would have something to learn from that.

Also; what steps could be taken to isolate the debris from the containment walls? Is this needed to prevent the containment structure from being breached?

Nicely done.

I agree that the situation has been poorly handled to the point that we should all question any "good" news we hear from this fiasco. I'm not sure if it is possible to handle this magnitude of a problem well.

When things go out of control due to a natural disaster larger than planned for almost anything can happen. Engineers can only plan so far. Determining what actually exists after a disaster requires careful "on site" inspection and testing to make educated guesses what actually exists. At the same time the less educated general public demands immediate absolute answers that do not exist. When initial reassuring guesses are found to be wrong guesses then reputations crumble. Nobody cares that the public through the press insisted on an answer before one was known.

IMHO very good. And educational to me and my interest in nuclear stuff.

Besides this sort of knowledge, it sure would be nice to get rid of the panic and hyperness of the media. They interfere with a proper solution.

The heavier than uranium products (tranuranics) formed from using uranium fuel generally are less radioactive and cooler than the lighter products formed. In the case of Fukashima, Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 are being released at levels 100 times the background. Both cesium-137 and strontium-90 ( half lives of 30 years) are readily adsorbed onto zeolites as mentioned in one of my earlier posts. The transuranics like plutonium-139 are much less harmful as a waste than their shorter half lived cousins. The short half lived products are more dangerous but will only be in the environment as a harmful product for several hundred years compared to the millions and billions of years for transuranic products. That doesn't mean that we should not be concerned with the heavier products of uranium, it is just that they will persist much longer and pose less immediate danger than the short lived (albeit still a long time) cousins like cesium and strontium. The wall and containment barrier with a zeolite will address the migration of these products but will require replacement down the line.

I point this out because once stontium-90 is allowed to enter the food chain, the problems will be amplified as it will affect a fishery industry and of course any dairy industry because they are the products humans will consume. Strontium can be particular proplematic with young children developing bones.

IMO immediate attention to controlling these short lived products are imperative to protecting Japan as well as a North Pacific fishery.

As for using a gas coolant, I am guessing that could be implemented at the same time. Nothing will be cheap or easy. The $5 billion Tepco set aside (from SE's good post) will be used up quickly.

For extra reading.

By the way thanks for your prior posts, excellent.

Thank you for contributing.

.

The fission products are certainly a primary concern. The radiation exposure from this event has been (at the outset by fission product gasses) and will continue be dominated by fission products. I would like to make some distinctions about one thing you mentioned:

.

'...The transuranics like plutonium-139 are much less harmful as a waste than their shorter half lived cousins...'

.

If you are comparing how harmful various isotopes would be in someone's body, certain transuranics like certain isotopes of americium and plutonium, would be difficult to consider 'much less harmful' than the major fission product of concern. The harmfulness is related the extremely long biological half lives and to the more localized damage from the higher energy alpha particles that are typical from transuranics and actinides in general, as compared to less powerful (but the still energetic) and more widely dispersed damage done by the beta emissions typical of the fission products of concern.

.

Plutonium is bad stuff. Like other transuranics, its isotopes yield alphas with energies of 5+ MeV, and has a biological half live around 200 years. On a per mass basis, it has toxicity comparable with nerve gas. Keeping in mind that Pu is one of the most dense elements, many orders of magnitude more dense than nerve gas, puts some perspective on the dangers of ingesting or inhaling even minute particles.

.

In the context of an accident like this, the relative abundances and relative mobility of various isotopes, will ultimately lead to more harm being done in the short and intermediate terms by fission products. I just don't want any confusion being introduced that would lead people to discount the dangers of inhaling or ingesting alpha emitters. We already accept over 1000 tons of fine particulate alpha emitters to be dispersed every year into our environment here in the US, almost without any oversight. The dismissal of the ongoing problem is criminal and as much as possible I'd like to nip in the bud anything that might suggest erroneously that it might be reasonably safe (which wasn't what you wrote, but you know how people can misconstrue things).

.

.

Okay, enough of that. Thank you again for your input.

'....I believe the transuranic element health concern was purely an external to the body radiological dose concern....'

.

I think you meant to type something else. What you wrote after that shows you understand the above sentence isn't right.

.

Just to be clear, there is essentially no hazard from alpha emitters external to the body. The dangers are in situations where the particles can be readily ingested or inhaled.

.

The thing is, the dangers from fission product radionuclides in most situations involving release to the environment, is very similar, i.e. it is ingestion and inhalation that you have to be worried about. Fission products are typically beta emitters, and while betas penetrate further, there is still some protection from the radiation originating externally. Gamma radiation also occurs, but internal betas still dominate from a damage aspect. Additionally, if external, the time of exposure or intensity can be managed to some degree. Another huge factor is the propensity for certain isotopes to collect in specific organs within the body.

.

But even aside from specific exacerbating factors, average whole body exposure of the public from widespread contamination of fission products will typically come mostly from what is inhaled or ingested.

.

Cobalt 60, is a different story. It is not usually a fission product (though a minute amount undoubtedly is formed that way and keeps me from stating as an absolute that it is not). Cobalt 60 is an activation product that results when Cobalt 59 is exposed to thermal neutrons. This typically occurs in high strength alloys of various components in close proximity to the reactor, though there has been a move to minimize or eliminate Co59 that would become activated and cause future decommissioning and maintenance problems. Co60 is also purposefully generated for a number of industrial uses.

.

The net result is that Co60 does not typically become finely divided, with the notable exception being corrosion and wear products (see CRUD, Chalk River Unidentified Deposits) that pass with the coolant through a reactor at power, though efforts to uses cobalt free alloys from primary coolant piping and equipment make this increasingly rare. Aside from that exception, the danger of Co60 is almost exclusively from radiation external to the body, because it is the rare individual that regularly chomps down on machine screws or inhales ball bearings. The high energy gammas and half life just over 5 years make even external exposure close to any sizable amount of Co60 a significant hazard.

.

I agree with you that fission products external to the body would be a greater concern. That concern is vastly overshadowed by ingestion and inhalation concerns in most situations likely after an accident like this.

.

I appreciate your input and clarifications.

Yes. Exactly. I should have specified.

As always, you are correct. I was thinking more on the ground water migration and the danger presented by Strontium-90. But yes, plutonium is not a product one wants in their body by ingestion or inhalation. Regards.

TINAC's proposal of using overpressure to stop the outflow of contamination sounds like a much more practical solution than the "Ice Dam."

There may be some application for "Horizontal Drilling and Fracking Technology" here. A fully mature technology that could be used to inject subterranean barrier sealant around and below the structures; that when solidified could be used as containment for the injection of a mitigating slurry at a slight overpressure relative to the water column in the structures. The barrier would be injected several feet below the bottom of the structures, that when cured would allow for slight pressurization between the barrier boundary and the building structure.

Any ideas here on what could be used as an injection material for the barrier that could be injected as a liquid, would bind with the surrounding soil, and be impermeable to water?

What type of slurry would be free flowing enough enter the structures at a slight overpressure?

TINAC considered the structural integrity of the buildings; IMO the overpressure only needs to be very slightly above that of the water column inside the plant - something that could be accomplished and varied simply by altering the height of a slurry column feeding the slurry injection pipes that would be located between the barrier and the bottom and sides of the structures.

Perhaps this would also allow for circulating slurry up through the compromised containment structure and into areas of the structure not seeing adequate slurry now; and possibly allow for the injection of sealing compounds.

Once ground water intrusion is eliminated TINAC's proposal for a transitioning from water to gas cooling could be implemented.

The recent blog entry here - http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/23733/A-Giant-Arch-To-Seal-Chernobyl-s-Sarcophagus --shows what's happening at Chernobyl; but I believe the underlying geology may be quite different between Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Even at Chernobyl there is reference to removal of the debris instead entombment in place.

In the case of Fukushima I am beginning to believe containment is even more problematic than at Chernobyl; if for no other reason that there are three meltdowns to contend with instead of only one.

As a member of the general public I look forward to hearing some good news relative to the on going event.

At Chernobyl the G-8 is supplying funding. Why not at Fukushima?

The more I read, the more grim the situation at Fukushima seems.

.

Apparently a sizable part of the property containing the reactors is land fill, reclaimed from the sea. This seems like bad new for a number of reasons including inferior stability, enhanced mobility of leakage, and general longer term impermanence concerns.

.

This is also likely to make any flooding of the area surrounding the building ill-advised, so it takes away some of the options in the first suggestion I made about attempts to minimize further leakage.

"Work should focus on cooling and excluding water from entering (rain, shore or groundwater) the areas of the reactors."

by keeping the cooling fluid in a closed, lead pipe loop, doesn't that prevent some, if not a great deal, of that radiation from damaging the outside environment? Or would the radiation continue to increase in that recirculated fluid?

I guess I haven't figured out yet how an ice bath would not help with the cooling process, and lead pipe or lead-lined pipe would not help prevent the radiation from "leaking".

Pleas, ignore me if I am beating a dead theory, I'm not a scientist by the tough standards imposed by the folks who hang out here, but if these really are the main problems, why is my iceberg idea so ludicrous? And keep in mind, there will potentially be a ready supply of these bergs as the globe warms. Some of them much closer to Japan than the one that gave me this stupid idea in the first place.

Your, "iceberg idea <is> so ludicrous" because it is 80 nautical miles (150 km) long and 60 nautical miles (110 km) wide.

...and what does one do when the supply of icebergs runs out?

"I guess I haven't figured out yet how an ice bath would not help with the cooling process, and lead pipe or lead-lined pipe would not help prevent the radiation from "leaking"."

Jep;

Why do you believe an iceberg is needed to maintain adequate cooling?

I believe you are correct in assuming recirculation will increase nuclide concentration in the water.

It isn't "adequate" cooling, it is "accelerated cooling" I think I am getting at, and only for the express purpose of diminishing the contamination. Am I wrong to think cooling that water somehow means using les of it? A pool may hold as much heat as a lit match, but why contaminate the whole pool if just cooling the water down would represent less actual fluid necessary to flow through tower 4. Apparently that has no practical application.

I have one last question, then, IF the that cooling water temperature was lowered, would it work more efficiently and eliminate some contamination? My premise is, ANY improvement matters, but maybe this is so far beyond that those increments just don't matter.

I will stay out of it now, I am relegated to the peanut gallery again, I return to lurking as I watch you all talk about something I am very glad is being discussed.

The problem is that the containment is riddled with holes and cracks. Image you are trying to keep a core covered in a concrete pool but there are two and three inch holes through the concrete and large cracks. Where do you put the lead pipe?

.

Also, it is important to understand the difference between radiation and contamination. Very simplified, you can think of radiation as the stink, and contamination as the dog shit. There is no need to use lead pipes to recirculate, because the area the recirculation would be occurring in isn't somewhere people could be anyway. The water laden with fission products and remnants of decomposing fuel elements leaking out the significant holes in containment is a big problem, that a lead pipe won't help with. You'd have to be inside the lead pipe to see any benefits.

.

The reason that cold water is not a good idea is not a short answer, look at my response #23 above.

I am talking ONLY about Tower #4, NOT the reactors that have melted down...

Here's some ice for you: BBC News - Fukushima leaks: Japan pledges $470m for 'ice wall'

I don't think an ice barrier will work for very long. As long as water is allowed to move under the site, sooner or later, that water will flow over and around the dam. No real attenuation but money burned. They still need to de-water and divert ground water. Perhaps then the barrier has a chance of working.

Maybe we could use the contaminated water for fracking.

I never thought it would work.

The only way it COULD EVER work is if they freeze a bowl shaped area under the entire site. That might isolate the "hot" water from the ocean.

Not sure an "ice wall" with no bottom will work. That's what they propose. But, what do I know?

In 1990 my wife took her mother to Whales to visit her homeland. There were places there that had been contaminated by fallout from Chernobyl.

At least it's not that bad in Japan.

The point of an ice wall is that a contiguous barrier does not have to be established under the contaminated site. The freezing of the soil underneath the contamination establishes the contiguous barrier. As the article you cite points out, the ice wall is an interim barrier that can be quickly fabricated as a permanent steel wall to prevent seepage to sea gets fabricated.

Not sure what you're saying here.

First you say, "the point of an ice wall is that a contiguous barrier does not have to be established under the contaminated site".

Then, in the next sentence, "The freezing of the soil underneath the contamination establishes the contiguous barrier".

That one is over my head.

Sorry about that. My better half was getting impatient and I had to be brief.

A contiguous barrier is needed to stop the subsoil migration of contaminated water into the sea. Prior to or in this case at the same time that the soil for a solid, permanent barrier gets excavated the soil up stream of the permanent barrier is getting a series of piping placed. The piping and some massive refrigeration is getting installed to form a contiguous frozen soil dam to stop more contaminated water from reaching the sea. (Who needs an iceberg with this much refrigeration available.) The advantage of the ice dam is that it can be installed relatively quickly. The drawback of the ice dam is that it requires a lot of power to maintain and the contaminated frozen soil cannot be cleaned (is that the correct term?) while frozen. As the Atlantic article explains, this is not new technology. Fukushima will be the most massive scale for this technology.

Well, fact is they are there, smarter than I, and have to do something soon, even if it's wrong.

So ice, in situ, it is.

The reactors have severe leaks in the containment still, right? Am I off base here? I hope I am.

.

If you art pumping in cooling water because it is disappearing somewhere, that suggests that a barrier what doesn't fully seal off the bottom won't have much effect on reducing mobility of the decomposed fuel and fission products.

I'm not sure if this need for a dam is to contain just the contaminated runoff or if the reactors themselves also leak.

If electrical power generation is non-existant at the site due to infrastructure damage from a severe natural incident such as happened at Fukushima and everything in the area was destroyed and/or inoperable, where would the massive amount of electrical power required to operate the refrigeration come from?

I would presume the power would come from the greater power distribution of Japan. After two years of repairs, the on site backup power generation facility might even be the proposed power source.

While not quite addressing the cooling and related water issues, the latest super computer in Perth, West Coast Australia is using GWC or ground water cooling.

Once the SNF in the #4 pool is safely removed and the incursions of contaminated water into the ocean environment controlled -------------------

Would it be possible to use the coolant as a collection medium to remove the various types of nuclide from the containment vessels; where the nuclide population increases through each circulation cycle of the coolant?

Could some type of centrifugal, induction, or filtration system be integrated into a closed cycle cooling system so that it could also serve as a capture and removal process for the various types of solid nuclide?

Could multiple systems for nuclide removal be paralleled so that as one was being "harvested" the others could continue to operate?

Once "harvested" how could the various nuclide be isolated and stored?

As the contamination levels are incrementally reduced by removal through this process could compounds be added to the circulation slurry to further dissolve debris so that it could be harvested out of the circulating coolant until the radiation levels and coolant levels are lowered enough for mechanical removal of solid debris?

Is it possible to build a negative pressure dome over the reactor buildings? Filtering the contaminants out of the air?

Is it practical to harvest Tritium as part of the process?

1 point for good initiative

why todays world such is still a problem e.g. some people can pollute the Pacific at their own like

why they never set the 600km (on land) safety zone

why they didn't built the dam around the leakage area

this is like no1 cares - why shud i

Having limited exposure to nuclear generation I am very timid about commenting however I am curious about a couple of things.

1. Why do nuclear reactors not have the borated water supply or other neutralizing fluid set up so that when a master fuel (emergency) shutdown is initiated for any reason, the reactor could and would be flooded without having to depend on any electrically or fossil fuel operated pumping system?

2. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that once the reactor has been flooded with borated water or other neutralizing fluid, the nuclear reaction stops and the fuel rods become negated/inactive, heat generation stops or is at least minimized, and radiation emissions are minimized.

3. As far as dealing with the stored heat in the steam side, it seems to me that an air cooled system such as a radiator/heat exchanger could be installed so that the water would be gravity drained into the exchanger when an emergency master fuel trip is initiated.

4. If we remove the source of heat generation and dissipate the stored heat in a system that can withstand the elements of nature without leaking, would not the problem be solved?

5. As far as cleanup goes and human radioation exposure; If the reaction is stopped the radiation levels would be contained and minimized so the exposure would be much easier to control, right?

2. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that once the reactor has been flooded with borated water or other neutralizing fluid, the nuclear reaction stops and the fuel rods become negated/inactive, heat generation stops or is at least minimized, and radiation emissions are minimized.

The borated water emergency shutdown is used I believe, but I don't know if it was in Fukushima. Because boron absorbs neutrons, the chain reaction will be stopped, but there is still is plenty-lots of heat in the system that has to be removed. Also there is much radioactive material there that will generate more heat as it decays. This radiation heat generation will continue for a long time.

That's one place where newer (generation IV I believe) reactors will be better; I think convection will offer adequate cooling, partly because they don't have to be pressurized to prevent boiling and also because the coolant temperature can increase many, many degrees before boiling occurs.

'....That's one place where newer (generation IV I believe) reactors will be better; I think convection will offer adequate cooling,....'

.

The tragic thing is that experience with using natural circulation for cooling has been around for a long time. There are numerous well vetted reactor designs that utilize natural circulation for cooling, not merely theoretical but actually produced with cumulatively millions of hours of operation without a major accident.

.

This technology is even applicable to boiling water reactors. Using natural circulation not only can improve safety, it has the potential to improve efficiency as well by reducing the substantial power needed to run reactor coolant pumps.

Gav, I will take a shot since I'm one of the "its really bad" group.

1. Tepco needs to be retired. They have lied about the situation since day one so there is no way of knowing exactly what the conditions are. Tepco is a large part of the problem.

2. Establish an international team who have experience dealing with clean up and containment to do a site survey and get a clear picture of the conditions in building 1 through 4 and surrounding area so we know what we are dealing with and can decided where to start.

until these two things happen it will be very hard to help. I can't fix it if I have no idea how its broken!

Rash,

Please don't take this personally but your last comment condense what I find wrong with this whole thread.

I can't fix it if I have no idea how its broken!

After Solar Eagle collected about a half dozen public links of other international team reports for us to read about the status at Fukushima, if anyone doesn't know the problems then they refuse to look. No matter how hard any of us search out for public information, none of us will be able to waltz in and fix anything there.

I agree with you Red, my statement about transparency is the important one. In situations like this were there is a real, very serious, world altering danger, Only through transparency can we avoid it being blown out of proportion and turned into fear mongering. (one of my favorites)

An international team is my recommendation because this disaster effects us all, its not just Japan's problem. It is easier to trust a coalition on things like this.

We need to be very active in this process too. Why? The prevailing ocean currents and winds turn this into our problem very quickly as we discovered as the debris started washing up on our West coast. Well folks all the contaminated water is also coming our way and those are our fishing grounds.

An international response is called for because, and I can't say this for sure, but I am pretty certain a cleanup of this size could bankrupt Japan.

I am glad you folks find this issue worthy of such attention.

All I can add is that, it may come down to attempting things we can't prove will work. If we wait for perfect answers, we may never resolve any of the problems.

I think we need some desperate tactics, a few Hail Marys, if that makes any sense.

Even if it means failing at the effort.

Failure sucks, but it instructs.

And being wrong is part of the learning process, it would be so much easier if people could admit it and get on with the effort, even if they think it might fail.

The existing failure of the nuclear plant is so profound already, it is hard to imagine making it worse by trying unproven systems.

I do find it curious that our resident experts seem skeptical of those who are on the job right now, talking about ice dams.

No, that does not justify my "ludicrous" ice berg scenario, but it does prove to me some of you think you are smarter than some of the world's best minds, it is not just me you hold in contempt.

I do not think the posters on this site are smarter than the on-site problem solvers. Nor does any of the other posters. We add our 2 cents based on our experience and perhaps on what we picked up over the years. I recently read, Too Hot to Touch, by Alley and Alley. A book that deals with disposal of nuclear waste. It does not make me anywhere near an expert and I am sure any expert will simply come to their own conclusions and ignore this site. I come from a background in hydrogeology (water resource engineering and physical geography) but have very limited experience in Nuclear reactors. I did live quite close to one for several years and my wife thinks I glow, but I think her eyes are getting bad or is that her mind?

IMO. As for adding more water (as ice or liquid) unto the site or simply recirculating what is in the ground, I would opt for recycling and allowing the radioisotopes to accumulate. It is the same question in my mind as dilution or concentrate before disposing. I opt to concentrate simply because it will mean less disposal waste in terms of volumes. I also add the caveat that if the recycled water causes more problems then don't do it. If the area is thermally too hot and cooling with ice allows some work to proceed, then I concur. We wouldn't want a worker to die using machinery to remove parts from the site. Ludicrous ideas are sometimes better than staying in a box.

We are all amateurs, at least no one has come forward to say they are a nuclear expert. But the discussion helps us all understand a little better. Most threads on CR4 will lend someone some added value or at least make you laugh. Just enjoy with an open mind.

All I can add is that, it may come down to attempting things we can't prove will work. If we wait for perfect answers, we may never resolve any of the problems.

I think we need some desperate tactics, a few Hail Marys, if that makes any sense.

Even if it means failing at the effort.

Failure sucks, but it instructs.

And being wrong is part of the learning process, it would be so much easier if people could admit it and get on with the effort, even if they think it might fail.

You said some profound things which are copied above in italics.

I also suspect that some of the people here may BE "the world's best minds." We just don't realize it.

On the 'ice' considerations, and not necessarily for this situation, there was a product developed around the time of WW2, called pykrete, a mix of ice and 14% sawdust. Initially proposed to build aircraft carriers, it was seen as not practical, but might just have a part to play in the immediate situation.

http://enformable.com/2012/03/nrc-transcript-tepco-relayed-information-unit-4-sfp-dry-walls-collapsed-and-incapable-of-holding-inventory-unit-3-everything-else-gone/

Keep on reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25086097#

A second though would be to set up separate room for each reactor building and work each one individually. granted we are all just speculating, but it is interesting and who knows, someone might just have a eureka moment and save us all.

So it appears that since creating the groundwater dam between the reactors and the ocean, groundwater levels have increased enough that water is leaking into the building. Apparently Tepco did not anticipate this possibility and has taken significant efforts to reverse the condition, mainly by pumping large amounts of groundwater out of the ground around the reactors.

.

This might be the chosen path because the ground the reactors stand on (which is fill land/sea reclaimed) dictates this for stability. However, the comments all seem to suggest that the reason for doing this is to keep water from entering the reactor and increasing the volume of contaminated water.

.

If keeping water from entering the building is the real reason, it is yet another amazingly stupid decision by the cast of this fiasco. Tepco is not allowed to dump any water to the sea now as it is, even drinking level purity water, so taking it from wells around the plants doesn't save storage space.

.

More importantly, pumping water out that leaked into the building would be far better for containing contamination. If would minimize leakage out of the buildings and possibly wash some of the already leaked material back into the building instead of out to sea.

.

I would be much more comfortable it I knew that this was a structural concern. I would greatly appreciate it if someone well versed in foundations/hydrology would write a little about the possibility of this being a concern about changes to the foundation affecting building integrity, instead of just mindless reactionary bumbling?

See pykrete suggestion and freeze the contaminated water as a fixed structure until a bit more thinking can be applied for a real solution.

I don't see any advantage in attempting to freeze contaminated water. It is not feasible to freeze the damaged cores and surrounding water. Freezing in situ would be extremely problematic....where does the newly leaking core cooling water go to freeze.

.

Perhaps I am just missing something profound about freezing mixtures of water and saw dust.

My thinking was that pykrete may offer a short to medium term sectionalised containment vessel, that can be added to as is and when/where necessary that unlike a concrete containment structure could be 'installed' without reinforcement structures, and the major technicalities of offsite construction and movement techniques.

As for the newly leaking cooling water, freeze that in previously frozen wall and base 'tanks'. It is akin to slim dumps for tailings retainment in the gold industry where the tailings were used to build the walls and then filled with more runoff.

If what is needed is a quick storage space for contaminated water then quickly modify a super tanker by adding air ballasting so that when it was filled with water it would have the same average density as a loaded oil tanker.

Yes the tanker would be subject to storms; but at least it can run. Earthquakes and related tsunami would not be an issue in deep water.

Unfortunately it would just increase the ease by which this stuff could be carried to some remote location and dumped. Something that is probably going to happen anyway.

Who in there right mind would consider dumping of any of this stuff remote or not? Think about it, the stuff will enter the bio-system and affect us for a virtual forever. Ocean dumping will not be allowed. Siberia has yet to build a repository. Yucca is dead. There will be no dumping, it will be long term permanent temporary storage if that makes sense. A dumping ground for nuclear waste products does not exist unless you count the aforementioned temporary storage. Sooner or later we humans will have to deal with nuclear waste. Disposal of Fukushima waste will be a temporary site in Japan. They need to create or limit the amount of waste created and that likely will involve some sort of entombed chamber built on site. They may as well start building such an on site today. The sooner the better. Meanwhile we are passing the buck to the next generation.

Gavilan,

.

I agree with your sentiments; despite obvious negative consequences, profit motive continues almost unabated to rule supreme in the most damaging places.

.

Because of the sarcasm in your tone, I'm not sure how much was tongue in cheek. So, if I am telling you something you already know, you might view it less as a correction of what you wrote and more of just a side comment or insight into a comprehension deficiency on my part...

.

The cumulative contribution to contamination worldwide by falling satellite and sunken subs is relatively minor in comparison to the big contributors.

.

I don't think 100 lbs total has even reentered (Pu238 is particularly hazardous, even among Pu isotopes, so that is still not a small amount). More than 100 lbs has gone up, but some of this will not be coming back (gone to other planets or leaving solar system), while other amounts won't reenter for thousands of years....I'm sure future generations will just love us for that. Interestingly, there have been a number of 'successful disasters' which have maintained containment of Pu238 and prevented spread of contamination even though most of everything else was incinerated reentering.

.

(As an interesting aside, I started this comment mainly to say that Europium, Eu, was not, to my knowledge, used as a nuclear power source for spacecraft or otherwise. It took me a while to realize you were saying 'EU' meaning Enriched Uranium and not Europium.)

.

The story is a little different for lost nuclear subs mainly in that the amount of material that posses a hazard is not so nearly limited. The materials in the reactors and warheads lost at sea are sizable and potent. The things we have working in our favor are: some containment barriers limit dispersal, cold temperatures and low flow slow the degradation, and sedimentation continues to work slowly to minimize the potential severity of future release.

.

Far and away, the largest human-caused increases in exposure to ionizing radiation fall into the following categories;

.

medical diagnostics and treatment,

.

mining of minerals found with uranium/thorium increasing contact with radon through dispersion, but also speeding transport to the surface of that which remains in the ground (uranium, coal, and phosphate mining all come to mind) (this component is typically accounted exclusively as naturally occurring, as if human activities could not possibly have an effect),

.

creation of occupations with working conditions of increased exposure including workers in coal, uranium and phosphate mines, weld inspectors, and international pilots and flight crews,

.

creation of products that expose users and those in close proximity to ionizing radiation... mainly cigarettes, bricks and foods high in potassium.

.

nuclear weapons tests (China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Israel & South Africa are all complicit, though the United States is responsible for a large portion, and the former USSR responsible for the most...roughly 5 times the US contribution),

.

Intentional as well as accidental release of radioactive waste including well known events like Chernobyl and Fukushima but also less well known events like hundreds of 55 gallon drums of high level waste being dumped by the US in numerous loactions just off the coast or events at Lake Karachay which have lead to the 10+ feel of highly radioactive sediment in the 1 square mile lake, creating doses (even with the shielding effect of the water) sufficient to cause death within one hour standing some places around the shore.

.

Those last two still account for a relatively small amount of average global exposure, but the trend is not good. Mobility of the contamination and possible concentration or ingress into sensitive resources or ecosystems might pose problems that we do not currently anticipate.

.

My guess is that Fukushima likely resulted in an increase in average worldwide annual exposure to ionizing radiation of less than 1/10th OF 1% at its peak (which has passed)...not more than 0.3mrem/yr out of the average global exposure of roughly 300mrem/yr. That is a small increase and suggests any direct effects will be difficult to measure on a global basis (though easier locally).

.

My biggest concerns over Fukushima are unforeseen consequences related to concentration of certain radionuclide up the food chain and the severe damage done by the gross incompetence of Tepco to the perceived ability of anyone to safely use nuclear power. These idiots are likely causing environmental damage far beyond release of from the plant, in the form of steering the future away from nuclear power generation and toward less clean options.

.

.

TINAC:

You stated -

"More than 100 lbs has gone up, but some of this will not be coming back (gone to other planets or leaving solar system), while other amounts won't reenter for thousands of years"

The RORSAT burial orbits, the ones that made it that is, are 300 year orbits. I will suggest that it is probable that the total mass of the Pu and U235 probably exceeds the "100" lb figure by some order of magnitude.

Is "background radiation" a meaningful metric?

Doesn't the type of isotope have some effect on environmental impact beyond that of decay mode and specific activity? If this is the case then shouldn't more emphasis be placed on the "type" of material rather than the increase in "background radiation" related to the release?

An example might be that some materials bio-accumulate within the food chain while others don't - or some type of materials may accumulate in certain tissues of the body while others are rapidly eliminated? How does this effect the environmental impact?

Also; could you explain how Nuclear Energy is "clean?" Other than the waste is collected instead of dispersed.

What are the possible solutions for dealing with the + 70,000 metric tons of commercial SNF and the unknown mass of high level power plant end of life cycle waste that is now the taxpayers responsibility?

Is the taxpayer also responsible for the returned SNF from foreign sales?

Although accidents rarely happen, it seems that when they do they have significant impact economically and environmentally - doesn't centralized storage present a greater risk IF an accident COULD occur? Viewed in this light - is centralized storage really the best way to deal with this challenge?

In light of the fact that the power plant operators no longer contribute to the Nuclear Waste Fund and the interim storage costs are paid out of US Treasury Judgment Fund -------:

Do you see the hidden costs of Nuclear Energy as being significant?

Given the time frames, is it even possible to predict end use costs? Not for the industry because they no longer contribute, but to the taxpayer?

Assuming no further accidents - is Nuclear Energy the most cost effective means of producing electrical energy? Not in terms of producer costs; but in total life cycle economic input?

Gavilan:

I hear your passion and concerns, I do really. However, I believe your passionate outrage is clouding your ability to rationally assess anything involving ionizing radiation. I was originally going to start my reply with a reference to the amount of radioactive material released from burning coal for 300 years and attempt a comparison to the RORSAT total debris that will reenter sometime over the next 300 years.

Then I found this figure in this 1997 USGS paper on the radioactive elements found in coal and thought about your question if background radiation is a useful metric. You should notice that this figure sums all of the ionizing radiation dosage an average US citizen receives from all sources. This figure is clearly a Sievert or rem dosage because of the high dosage the alpha particles of Radon that exist in our air. Without knowing our background radiation dose an informed comparison of any mitigation effort can not be made. Knowing the background radiation is not just a useful metric, it is mandatory to understand it for any meaningful discussion on radiation hazards. The USGS knows this. They included the background levels in their paper on how much of a radiation dose can be found in coal ash. (Figure 3 of the USGS paper shows a nice dose distribution from a fly ash particle.) In contrast, you appear to not understand why this must be known.

You do get many concepts correct. The isotope and possible bio-accumulation of these isotopes does change the tissue dose. This is just part of what makes calculating Sieverts very complicated. The financial and environmental costs of all forms of energy production are just as difficult to calculate. Putting all of our nuclear waste products in one basket focuses the problem instead of resolving it.

However, all of these concerns must be compared with the nominal background dose. Without comparing this to the background dose, one is just irrationally venting like a Luddite.

The average 1GW coal fired plant annually releases 5 tons of natural uranium

Again I need some clarification. I read elsewhere that the annual 5 tons of U (plus other stuff) was from 1 MWe of coal powered generation. Is it MWe or GW? That would make me a factor of 1000 wrong. I don't think it is the conversion from thermal to electrical, because that is something like 3 to 1 by my understanding.

5 tons uranium and 12 tons of thorium annually for the average 1000MW coal fired plant.... so 1 GW. Here is a reference.

TINAC:

Your willingness to share your knowledge is greatly appreciated.

Your talent for kind-natured and informative expression is truly enjoyed.

Thank You.

This is WAY off topic.

I don't understand why the Taxpayer was stuck with the bill for dealing with power production waste and the high level plant infrastructure at the end of plant life-cycle. This, in addition to the responsibility for the Spent Nuclear Fuel from foreign sales has already become a significant economic burden on US Taxpayers, and will certainly increase.

What economic incentive does the nuclear power industry have for addressing the waste issue; or even evolving the technology, when the status quo releases them from any significant liabilities in that regard - in perpetuity? Even if the waste fees are reinstated, the cost to the industry will never exceed 1/10 of one cent per KWH of nuclear power generated.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act appears to have been shaped in such a manner that the industry will never have to face the competition on a level playing field. Since the obligation of the American People was cemented in perpetuity by legal contract; the industry will never have to absorb that very significant "business cost."

Would the 50.8 billion dollars currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund meet expenditures over a realistic timeline of responsibility for JUST the 70,000 metric tons of SNF; excluding all other liabilities? I think not. That's about 329 dollars a pound.

Why is it unreasonable to require the Nuclear Power Industry to absorb this cost of doing business in a responsible manner without US Tax Payer support and liability?

Was the court ruling requiring that settlement payments for interim storage be made from the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund instead of the Nuclear Waste Fund a fair and equitable ruling for the American Tax Payer?

Did suspending Industry contributions into the fund serve the interests of the American People?

Would allowing the Nuclear Power Industry to compete on a level economic playing field be in everyone's long term interest?

I believe passing the responsibility of SNF and HLW to the tax payer gives the Nuclear Power Industry an unfair competitive advantage over other forms of energy production.

Now on these things, Gavilan, you and I are apparently of very similar opinion.

.

Most of what you ask cannot be answered difinitively. I'm not suggesting the questions aren't good ones. Just understand that at best, answers will be mostly opinion and speculation.

.

Your questions are very specific, but I think the big questions that you are getting at can be answered more generally:

.

No. US energy policy is not reasonable, nor of net benefit to the people of the US, nor effective in enhancing the competitiveness of various energy industries. This is not a problem limited to the nuclear industry.

.

It could be of substantial economic, environmental, and national security benefit if energy policy and the DOE were abolished and a new policy was built from the ground up focused on long term net benefit. Of course, once again the devil is in the details here.

.

In my opinion, to avoid the pitfalls currently facing us, a new policy would have to focus more directly on achieving the desired goals and less on catering to various groups.

.

Specifically I mean that regulations for emissions and storage off waste should be the same whether your power source is bio fuel, wood pellets, oil, coal, fission, fusion, solar, or wind. The half life of U235 doesn't change based on its status as ancillary waste or primary fuel, so handling thereof shouldn't change on that arbitrary basis either.

.

Such policy would also require a much high price for drilling and mining rights in the land and sea controlled by the US. The products from mining and drilling are all fungible (so the benefit is not channeled to the US preferentially) and the companies involved are making record profits and have been for decades. We are basically giving away some of the few tangible assets this country still has, for the unenviable reward of a landmine of environmental hazards. This needs to change.

.

Your questions seem to reflect some of the same outrage I feel when I start trying to figure out how things got this out of whack. My opinion on this is that we have a fundamental weakness in our system of government that allows requires politicians to become too reliant upon large donors.

.

Politicians will always suffer from a certain naiveté and delusions of sufficient understanding that will often cause them to implement legislation that has effects beyond or contrary to their initial intentions. I'm not sure that is something we can expect to cure, ever. The best tool available to combat the negative effects is to limit the size of their sandbox. They will undoubtedly continue to make grievous errors, to make the best of the situation, we need to limit the size of their mistakes. I think it was Thoreau who wrote, "Than government is best which governs least".

.

One main obstacle in the way of moving to smaller, less harmful, levels of government, is the influence of industry. Lobbying in its myriad of incarnations, is an expensive endeavor. As any business seeks to maximize returns on investment, one of the great harms done by the reliance of politicians upon large donors is the continual push to increase influence and thereby maximize potential returns on lobbying investment. There probably isn't an organized conscious endeavor to encourage government to expand powers, but the cumulative influence of all the requests and favors is near certain to have this overall effect.

.

It is much easier to see the way others harm themselves than to readily see the harmful mistakes we ourselves are making. This is true on an individual level, on a group level, across cultures or across times. I encourage anyone interested in this idea, if in the United States, to engage a few people in a discussion about slavery. Lead the discussion to consider the relative merits of two different systems: one in which there is just one class of citizen, and one in which there is more than one class, with at least one class enjoying advantaged that the other cannot (also without a means of moving from the lower class to the higher class). Notice how many people defend the system of just one class, believing that it is the system in which they currently live.

.

At least before abolition, the slaves understood they were in a less privileged class. When I suggest the idea today, I get the impression people think I am speaking in hyperbole. If not, where did all that patriotic fervor for freedom go?

.

The simple fact is that for a long time, and recently unambiguously announced through the Citizens United We Stand Supreme Court ruling (talk about duplicitous titles), there has been a two class system in place and strengthening here in the United States. In case you are unsure, if you are considering the meaning of these words in an organic brain, you are part of the subservient lower class. Your masters are complex multifaceted redundant organisms that have evolved at an astonishing pace through fierce competition for limited resources. These corporations enjoy no limit on their life expectancy, a choice of various tax treatments, access to policy makers, the ability to contribute limitless amounts for political reasons, and a kind of investment diode whereby their liability can be limited to just the amount spent on attempting the venture.

.

People are fascinated by the prospects of conscious AI, often with fears about AI waking up with a combative competitive attitude, attempting to wrest control of humanity from organic hands. Most look pensively to the future, but they are looking in the wrong direction. It already happened. The mistake was in assuming that it required sentience or consciousness, but much like an optimization program that uses genetic algorithms to develop highly effective solution, the ecosystem of large competitive organisms organizations has evolved to efficiently control resources without ever giving it (or even being able to give it) a second thought.

.

A bigger consideration is, assume that what I suggest, or some other suggestion, seems to truly explain what is wrong, and how it came about....what can you do with this information? What are you willing to do with such knowledge? How fat/happy/complacent are you right now? What are you willing to trade, not for yourself, but for the chance future generations might have it better?

.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill

.

" I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

If the deep pocket donors are still able to flood the system, then the scheme functions merely as something similar to a certificate of deposit spreading contributions over more than one election cycle.

.

To be of benefit, the contributions per person must be constrained and the contribution per non-person eliminated.

TINAC:

You asked - "How fat/happy/complacent are you right now? What are you willing to trade, not for yourself, but for the chance future generations might have it better?"

What follows is my best answer to that question; hopefully one for which I have the moral conviction and work ethic to support through just, lawful, and humane actions.

When we stand silent in view of injustice we become complicit in it.

When we see a pile of shit that someone is about to step in - we are morally obligated to intervene.

The conscience is a faultless guide and a cruel disciplinarian - to ignore it is the epitome of folly.

You stated -

"Your masters are complex multifaceted redundant organisms that have evolved at an astonishing pace through fierce competition for limited resources. "

My reply - The analogy of the corporation to a self directing organism relieves the men who lead them of their human responsibility and directs them away from enlightened self interest. If their actions are shameful; then it is because my class has bought into their bullshit. The working class is capable of making good decisions when given accurate information. I can see how important working class ignorance is to the very survival of the ruling elite; and how critically important it must seem to them to limit and control access to information; so as to protect that privileged status.

Perhaps many of the elite, those most comfortable with their disproportionate power, hold the view that it is now a race to see if information can be controlled quickly enough in order to avoid working class awareness.

But even if information can be adequately secured and compartmentalized, the bottom line becomes a zero sum game for the elite; where the law of diminishing returns devolves to a social chaos in which all interests come out smelling like a turd.

In the crap hole of political chaos the worst turds always rise to the top. Are those leading our corporation the worst turds? - not a chance - but to continue down the current path they will surely come to know those that are.

My remarks regarding the Winston Churchill quote -

Can the current lobby form of US Government be considered a democratic process in the context in which it is used in the quote? I think not; so I suggest that it is irrelevant to this new and unrelated discussion.

My remarks to your Thomas Jefferson quote.

First off, given only that quote without a thorough understanding of the context in which it was given, leaves me hesitant to support it.

It certainly was not given in the context or consideration of modern times; where "revolution" would cause a level of destruction so great that our nation would never - ever - be capable of rebuilding the liberties for which "Jeffersonian Revolution" is waged.

I really believe our nation and planet has but one possible successful evolutionary path; upon it is both the education of the working class and enlightenment of the ruling elite. Where the conditions of either failure leave ALL of us in a hand to mouth - day to day - existence, unable to further influence our evolutionary process, and playing a waiting game until extinction.

"The right to evolve is earned." - The Great Ape

I hope our sense of collective responsibility, and our power of action or inaction hasn't already screwed that one up.

Your reaction to my analogy suggesting large organization characteristic, influence, and traits that are beyond the individual actions of those that comprise the organization is understandable.

.

The Nuremberg trials set the modern president for denying any source of direction (or influence sufficient for consideration as bearing some responsibility) other than that of a person alive at the time the action was initiated. In the face of the horrors coming to light and the need to have those involved punished for their deeds, while still maintaining the decorum of an orderly return to a civil, just, not-at-war society, this is an understandable and readily defensible position to take. The confirmations of responsibility were important and commendable, even though the argument for the confirmation was fallacious. Men are responsible for their actions, because they have free will, not because nothing else can be a source of direction or influence.

.

I realize I have an uphill battle in this discussion. If this idea seems impossible, let that reassure you in the safety of continuing to keep an open mind about what I am suggesting... what harm could it do? On the flip side, if one desires to avoid becoming an ideologue, those beliefs that are held most tightly deserve the most thorough scrutiny.

.

One of the things that makes what I'm suggesting difficult for many people to seriously consider is that the standard belief is seductive in so many ways. To declare that individual men are the only agent of initiative and therefor the only possible agent to which responsibility can be associated, allows a very tidy assessment of what is often a very complicated reality. The idea also plays heavily to our desires to feel in control, self directed, and as a result living in a just world. That is a rather disconcerting thing to give up. Some of the research on split brained people (non-functioning corpus callosum) gives some insight into the effort the conscious mind puts into (and the lengths it is willing to go towards) reinterpreting events in a way that maintains a sense of having made rational decisions from a standpoint of conscious control. Many cognitive biases also seem to stem from this strong drive to see ourselves as the conscious drivers of our fate.

.

Another problem is that those effects that are beyond the singular actions ay person within an organization are more difficult to understand and can happen on timescales difficult for a human to notice.

.

A useful analogy is a consideration of the similarities between your own body and a large organization. It is important first to dispel with the idea that you are overwhelmingly comprised of a monoculture of cells all sporting the same DNA and therefor easily thought of as unified in purpose and singular in identity. The microbes in your body outnumber the cells with 'your' dna easily 10 to 1. If that were not enough, within each of the cells (with the exception of red blood cells) there exist anywhere from 2 to 2000 mitochondria with DNA that is not your own (unless you claim to also be your mother, grandmother, and all your siblings born of your mother). Equally important is the fact that 10 years from now, it is unlikely that you will be comprised to any significant degree by the same cells, they will have been replaced. Yet even after complete replacement, you will have many of the same quirks, many of the same convictions, likes and dislikes. A large organization is similar in many ways. Corporate culture is readily observable phenomena with wide reaching and significant effects. Similar to the way you retain your specific characteristics even after all your cells are replaced, organizations also hold onto some characteristics long after all the people comprising the company have been replaced. As new people are trained, the essential rules and instructions, both formal and informal ('this is how we do it here') are instilled in the replacements.

.

Much like live people, large organizations are a complex collection of rules or instructions along with some claim to possession and possibly even ownership of a least a minimum amount of assets (tangible and intangible). It would be folly to suggest that either an individual person or an individual large organization had generated all (or even most) of the rules it uses to operate. At the outset, neither had much to say about which particular assets it became captain of (don't limit assets to simply monetary/fungible concerns). Both humans and large organization continue to add to and modify their collection of rules/instructions, at first very rapidly and later much more cautiously. Many of the rules are put in place as a reaction to a particularly traumatic experience and often those rules influence events in an unforeseen (possibly never seen) and unexpected way.

.

In one of those less common occurrences when a human is aware of a rule they are purposefully implementing, and they consciously attribute the origin of that rule to some outside figure/hero (live or dead), should that human later cause grievous harm as a result of their interpretation of the rule, rarely would it make sense to attempt to hold the inspirations responsible for the harm. Many of the rules that dictate the functions of a large organization are more specific and discoverable than those governing an individual human, but the majority of the rules that dictate the functioning of a large organization are not written down and as with a human probably not that simple to hash out or have confidence in being aware of all the rules at play.

.

In a large organization both written and unwritten rules can easily outlive the typical human. Reality combines the wide ranging possibilities of the enormous and growing set of written and unwritten rules with the realization of the impossibility or a single human to possibly be aware of (forget having a working understanding of) all the various actions of a large multinational organization at any particular time, and the always present law of unintended consequences. The fact is that there are numerous effects, some with minute effects, others with wide reaching profound influence, that can result from the combined effect of actions taken within an organization with the individuals responsible for each of those actions has little or no knowledge of the other actions or the resulting long term effect.

.

Although the scenario above would occur by chance at first, the resulting combined effect of importance either benefits competitiveness, harms competitiveness. The organizations with combined effects that enhance competitiveness are more likely to squeeze those without such benefits out of existence. This is analogous to random mutation causing expression of different traits, some of which will be more fit than others. It show that organizations need not be conscious to adapt without intentional planning, and that the adaptations might deceptively look very purposeful and 'intelligently designed'.

.

Please take a moment to reconsider the idea that evolution may be occurring in the competitive ecosystem of large organizations. Try to set aside that part inside (as is in all of us) that wants to believe the extent of our comprehension, observation, and understanding in some way defines the limits of reality or what is possible. Allow for the possibility that large organizations might rapidly evolve fitness does not relieve men of their responsibility for their individual actions, but denying the possibility could make it impossible to understand or maintain control upon the further development of society.

.

A strong argument can be made that striking from consideration any ideas about organizations being agents of direction/influence, far from insuring those causing great harm are held responsible, has instead resulted in the responsible parties going unpunished.

.

Where are the prosecutions for the damage done at Fukushima? Do you honestly think that if a corporation were not shielding those ultimately responsible within, there wouldn't be at least some trials? Shouldn't Tepco also subject to close scrutiny with its continuance hanging in the balance? Whatever you want to call the collection of written and written rules that nurtured such dangerous negligence, don't you think a judgement needs to be made about allowing that to continue or not?

" To declare that individual men are the only agent of initiative and therefor the only possible agent to which responsibility can be associated, allows a very tidy assessment of what is often a very complicated reality."

TINAC:

I believe this is a good topic for the "Break Room."

Your in depth thinking and writing style is worth attempting to share in a more proper forum that includes a little higher level of intellect than you now challenge.

I believe vetting your views on individual liability within the corporate structure to a bigger and brighter audience would enhance the evolution of viewpoint for both you and those that participate.

Have you been to the "break room"? I just joined a few minutes ago.

We have always passed the buck to the next generation. The slag piles from mining and a myriad of other industrial processes litter the countryside everywhere. Sometimes we find out generations later that the waste products brought to our surface environment are chemically toxic. Most chemical toxins have no half life and will remain around forever unless active intervention happens.

Again:

Inject a subterranean barrier sealant around and below the structures; that when solidified could be used as containment for the injection of a mitigating slurry at a slight overpressure relative to the water column in the structures. The barrier would be injected several feet below the bottom of the structures, that when cured would allow for slight pressurization between the barrier boundary and the building structure.

The pressurization only needs to be very slightly above that of the water column inside the plant - something that could be accomplished and varied simply by altering the height of a slurry column feeding the slurry injection pipes that would be located between the barrier and the bottom and sides of the structures.