is still leaking highly radioactive water into the ocean. an effort to plug the leak with concrete over the weekend failed. yesterday tepco disclosed it had found the bodies of two missing workers in the basement of the number 4 reactor s turbine plant four days earlier. the utility is facing a growing backlash, though, for its handling of the crisis and for the hlavac transparency. cnn s kyung lah joins us now from tokyo. and in hong kong michael friedlander, a former senior nuclear power plant operator for more than a decade. so michael, is dumping so many tons of radioactive water into the ocean really the best option available? well, anderson, i have my doubts about that. you know, over the course of my career i ve seen some pretty amazing things done in similar circumstances where there s large volumes of water such as bringing in temporary 100,000-gallon tanks, storage bladders, building evaporation basins and things like that. it s certainly the most expedient, but i m not sur
the utility is facing a growing backlash, though, for its handling of the crisis and for the lack of transparency. cnn s kyung lah joins us now from tokyo. and in hong kong michael friedlander, a former senior nuclear power plant operator for more than a decade. so michael, is dumping so many tons of radioactive water into the ocean really the best option available? well, anderson, i have my doubts about that. you know, over the course of my career i ve seen some pretty amazing things done in similar circumstances where there s large volumes of water such as bringing in temporary 100,000-gallon tanks, storage bladders, building evaporation basins and things like that. it s certainly the most expedient, but i m not sure that it s exactly the most prudent thing to be doing. so what do you think? i mean, is it that they re not creative? or they re just completely fried? i mean, they ve been working so much they re kind of not exploring other ideas?
and in hong kong michael friedlander, a former senior nuclear power plant operator for more than a decade. so michael, is dumping so many tons of radioactive water into the ocean really the best option available? well, anderson, i have my doubts about that. you know, over the course of my career i ve seen some pretty amazing things done in similar circumstances where there s large volumes of water such as bringing in temporary 100,000-gallon tanks, storage bladders, building evaporation basins and things like that. it s certainly the most expedient, but i m not sure that it s exactly the most prudent thing to be doing. so what do you think? i mean, is it that they re not creative? or they re just completely fried? i mean, they ve been working so much they re kind of not exploring other ideas? that they re not asking for input and help from others? you know, it s difficult to say. there s no doubt that everything that you just said is true.