Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Prospero
Your points are well taken. However, I believe you misread and your calculations are "too big" by a factor of 10. (I was having a very hard time imagining a leak of roughly 500 gal / minute going undetected after the 1st alarm! (Even 50 gal / minute of contaminated water is a pretty good "leak"!)

From the article:

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says 100 tons of water containing record high levels of radioactive substances overflowed from a storage tank.

Also:

... the leaked water contained... ...230-million becquerels per liter of beta-ray emitting substances, consisting mainly of strontium 90.

The level is about 7.6 million times the government's permissible standard for the nuclide level of water allowed to be released into the sea.

...they also detected 9,300 becquerels per liter of cesium 137 in the water.

Is "100 metric tons" of contaminated water "less favorable" to Tepco than "26,407 gallons" of contaminated water?

Checking Tepco's website, it turns out that "100 tons" is straight from their press release:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2014/1234394_5892.html

17 posted on 02/20/2014 10:37:09 PM PST by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Paul R.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2014/1234394_5892.html


18 posted on 02/20/2014 10:37:56 PM PST by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson