there is no recourse to be able to remove it once it does. there s no way of getting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. so what else would you suggest that the japanese government to do if not to release into the pacific? because as we mentioned, they are running out of storage space. yeah, and that s a very important question. first and foremost, this was a tragedy, and our hearts go out to the people who were affected by it. it was a totally preventable tragedy. and all one has to do is google, was fu kushima preventable? and the answer is absolutely yes. tepco is irresponsible. they missed many opportunities to do the right thing to prevent this in the first place. we can t go back. we can only go forward. but our group actually did a very detailed analysis and calculation on an alternative that we think is much better, and that is using the accumulated water to make concrete to be used on site, to raise that seawall against future large tsunamis, to be able to replace th
to be able to replace the ice barrier that s underground trying to keep the ground water out of the melting down reactors and to be able to stabilise the radioactive soil that surrounds the area as well. they re planning, the japanese, are planning to release this water over the next 30 years. so this is not only transboundary, which is an issue legally, but it s also transgenerational. that s my generation, my daughter s generation and any grandchildren that might come along if we go with this concrete option number one, it takes away the biological concerns immediately. there s no way for this getting into organisms or to the food chain. numbertwo, it s a way of being able to store it for periods of time where the half life in the case of tritium is 12.3 years. over 50 years, you ll be down to less than 6% of the original ionising radiation. and it s also one that will take away concerns of having to go on for 30 years. they would use up that water in a fraction of the time. in the u