Over 900 tons of radioactive sludge from Fukushima sold for cement

[Barrett808]

After Koriyama City's sewage treatment center was tested positive for high level of radioactive cesium in the sewage sludge and slag and the sludge had been already sold (my post here and here), Fukushima Prefecture ordered the testing in other 19 similar treatment centers in Fukushima. 18 out of 19 centers were found to have high concentration of radioactive cesium.

What a surprise.

At one facility in Horikawa-machi in Fukushima City, 446,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium were found. At Koriyama, it was 26,400 becquerels per kilogram. ...

Koriyama alone sold 928 tons of radioactive sewage sludge in 50 days to Sumitomo Osaka Cement. I hate to think how much total that these treatment facilities in Fukushima may have sold. ...

Now, Radioactive Sewage Sludge from #Fukushima City

[Poll_Blind]

1. ^ This

Is making me mad.

PB

[tk2kewl]

2. dont buy any glow in the dark pokemon cards

[no_hypocrisy]

3. China would have done this in a heartbeat.

[flamingdem]

4. Imagine how China, India, Iran? will handle a nuclear disaster ..

just another reason to turn away from nuclear power.

[FBaggins]

5. Because China/India/Iran will give up nuclear power

if we stop building reactors?

Let me know if there's any left when you're done smoking. :)

[flamingdem]

6. Always ready with an unpleasant comment aren't you nt

[FBaggins]

7. Sorry... there's no gurantee that reality will be pleasant.

Not that it will be convenient for your positions.

The simple fact is that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. They aren't going to end their "civilian nuclear power" (sic) program even if we destroy every bomb and reactor we own and swear to never build another one.

The way that other nations might use nuclear is not, in fact, a reason why we should end nuclear power here in the US.

[kristopher]

8. Actually it is a very good reason...

The US is still a world economic leader, and we are able to set trends that strongly influence what the rest of the world does. And it isn't just a case of leading by example, either. The influence often flows from the effect we have on world markets for goods and services.

A strong commitment by the US to transition to a renewable energy economy would have a huge impact on the choices that the rest of the world makes. Especially if we focus investment to drive down the costs of renewable energy technologies. As hard as it is to finance nuclear here, it is equally difficult to do it for poorer countries. If we withdraw support for a world bank that supports developing nuclear and simultaneously help develop more affordable renewables, the future path of global energy use would shift significantly.

[FBaggins]

9. Ridiculous. Not unexpected... but ridiculous.

Yeah... Iran really looks to us as a leader when they form their policy decisions.

A strong commitment by the US to transition to a renewable energy economy would have a huge impact on the choices that the rest of the world makes. Especially if we focus investment to drive down the costs of renewable energy technologies.

Absolutely true.

So?

As hard as it is to finance nuclear here, it is equally difficult to do it for poorer countries.

You think Iran has a private company developing nuclear power that will fail because they can't get financing or insurance? This isn't a private company (though they might pretend so)... it's the state itself.

[flamingdem]

10. I agree. The US can lead the way, at a minimum we must stop pushing nukes globally for profit nt

[txlibdem]

16. The US also "leads" in free and open trade

While their goods flow into our country free and clear, our trading partners to this day have a plethora of tariffs against goods imported from America. Why aren't they following the world economic leader???

The only thing the US will "lead" in if we get rid of all our nuclear power plants is coal pollution and coal power plants to make up for the 20% of America's electricity that nuclear power now provides.

[Heywood J]

11. What would have helped the article is a relative idea of dose.

Absolute numbers don't help. 446,000 of anything sounds like a huge number to most people and obviously less is better, but there's no scale. The measurement isn't so useful.

[FBaggins]

12. It's (very roughly) the equivalent of 3-4 ounces of natural uranium

per kilogram of "sludge".

Natural uranium isn't particularly dangerous... but this is still an unusually high reading.

I wouldn't be too concerned if they paved a road with it, but what if it ended up as someone's pool deck? I wouldn't want to lay out on it all summer long.

[txlibdem]

13. But it's okay when radioactive coal ash is sold for concrete...

Even treehugger sometimes has the facts wrong on coal ash being anything other than hazardous waste:
"Yes, it could reduce the need for fly ash disposal sites--like the one that burst open in Tennessee last December and spread toxic byproduct over hundreds of acres. There are now some 600 coal ash dump sites around the US--and that could all theoretically be turned into perfectly safe concrete."
... from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/new-concrete-coal-plant-waste-last-10-times-long.php

"Perfectly safe concrete?"

But then they write this:
EPA Reveals Locations of 44 Potentially Deadly Coal Ash Dumps - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/epa_reveals_loc.php

Once again the "nightmare scenario" of Fukushima selling toxic crap to be put into concrete. Fear, *fear* FEAR!!! Meanwhile, coal does it each and every day, and I hear only crickets from the anti-nuke crowd. I wonder why that is...

:shrug:

[diane in sf]

14. Nonsense, radioactive coal ash is not ok. You are making that no nukes equals coal conflation

so dear to nuke nuts. Most people who are pro renewables don't like coal or nuclear power and support ending both.

[txlibdem]

15. How many anti-coal posts have you made in the past 6 months?

I'd hazard a guess that it's a pretty darn low number versus the number of anti-nuke posts.

People decry what they do not like. They remain silent on that which they either like, love, make money off of, or are completely ignorant about. Which is it for you, DSF?

[robinlynne]

17. Thank-you.