> permanent solution
Dispersal to the point where the concentration is inconsequential seems like a good permanent solution.
Dispersal to the point where the concentration is inconsequential seems like a good permanent solution.
Preferably a permanent solution is one that other such calamities could responsibly use as well without eventually ruining the world.
The impact of tossing it into the ocean is negligible , but
1) it sets a precedent unless the rest of the world reacts in a negative way and punishes the guilty (of which it seems TEPCO has plenty)
2) the negligibility of such action is rendered moot if the precedent set allows for such action to be considered a viable clean-up method in the future.
"A good permanent solution" should be one that can be enacted safely by future people confronted by similar issues.
'Out of sight, out of mind' has never been a responsible tactic, look at the ongoing legal struggle between countries behind the cleanup of the Ganges, for one example.
I don't have a better alternative, but I don't like the idea that system operators in the future may now view this kind of action as appropriate anywhere but the most dire of situations.
Although they were detectable, the amounts were insignificant and posed no danger. After all, we're bombarded with background radiation every day.
The carbon 14 in all organic material is radioactive. That's why radiocarbon dating works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
Of course the particulars matter quite a lot, I'm have no idea whether the planned release at Fukushima is comparable to the releases at La Hague.