Radioactivity in Fukushima. Business & Marketing Essay.
The Final Project provides students with an opportunity to select a problem that is of direct interest
to them, to research and study that problem, and to develop a new company or organization that provides solution
ideas for that problem. In the Final Project, students are expected to describe the problem clearly, point out the
benefits of solving the problem, offer a realistic and cost-effective solution, provide detailed cost-benefits analysis
information (to the best of their ability), address anticipated objections to their solution, and convince their
audience to act. Students are required to conduct research on their own using at least 5 sources. This assignment
should be 12-15 pages in length. Throughout their document, students should quote and cite their sources as
needed. This will demonstrate the capacity to directly engage research materials at a level that is appropriate for this
course. Students are also welcome to use some images, charts, and diagrams in their projects. Please see the table
below for further details on required components for this assignment.
ENGL 202D: Business Writing Fall 2020
Final Project
Style: MLA/APA/Chicago Style (except title page), Times New Roman 12pt font, 1” margins, double-spaced
Total Point Value: 100 points
Due: Thursday, December 17th (by end of day)
Description: The Final Project provides students with an opportunity to select a problem that is of direct interestto them, to research and study that problem, and to develop a new company or organization that provides solutionideas for that problem. In the Final Project, students are expected to describe the problem clearly, point out thebenefits of solving the problem, offer a realistic and cost-effective solution, provide detailed cost-benefits analysisinformation (to the best of their ability), address anticipated objections to their solution, and convince theiraudience to act. Students are required to conduct research on their own using at least 5 sources. This assignmentshould be 12-15 pages in length. Throughout their document, students should quote and cite their sources asneeded. This will demonstrate the capacity to directly engage research materials at a level that is appropriate for thiscourse. Students are also welcome to use some images, charts, and diagrams in their projects. Please see the tablebelow for further details on required components for this assignment.
Learning Objectives:
• To employ problem-solving skills in application to a real-world issue
• To utilize ingenuity and creativity to communicate solution ideas to others
• To acquire practical experience with proposal writing, research, and source evaluation
• To put your skills and talents to work for the greater good by speaking to environmental and social concerns
Required
The Final Project assignment fulfills the main objectives of the proposal and serves as the culmination of theresearch and work done on the problem chosen. The Final Project assignment must be structured according tothe following criteria, all of which must be included in the document.
1. Title Page (Page 1): Students are required to begin their document with a formal title page.
2. Abstract (Page 2): In 200-250 words, provide a formal overview of the problem you have chosen. Here,you should establish context (i.e., “paint the big picture”) and identify the problem that you are workingon and explain to your readers why this problem needs to be addressed.
3. Table of Contents (Page 3): Students are also required to include a table of contents page that identifiesthe major and minor sections of the project and that provides accompanying page number information.
4. Problem Statement (Starting Page 4): In no more than 1-2 sentences, provide a succinct statement of theproblem on which you are working. Think of this as the “thesis statement” for your Final Project.
5. Proposed Solution: Identify in detail your proposed solution for the problem you have chosen and theidea for your new company or organization. This section should demonstrate significant developmentfrom the proposal in that a clearer timetable for implementation of the solution and the forecast ofspecific costs involved should be quantified and documented. Students are required to provide thenecessary numeric information (the hard numbers, estimated figures and timelines, etc.) to the best oftheir ability. Feel free to approach this section as a detailed “action plan.”
6. Benefits: Identify the benefits of resolving this problem for your reader, making sure especially to takeinto account your organization’s proposed solution and ideas. This section should also demonstratesignificant development from the proposal and should incorporate as much quantifying (i.e., numeric)information and data as possible.
7. Historical and Ethical Perspectives: Identify and discuss any historical precedents, ethical issues, andeconomic concerns for the issue you are working on and the solution idea(s) you are sharing. Explainhow mistakes and/or successes from the past and/or present are informing your work.
8. Conclusion: In closing, be sure to reinforce the need to address your problem area. Remember, part ofyour objective is to persuade and convince your reader that the problem is significant and that it needs tobe resolved. Feel free, also, in closing to identify any lingering questions that still remain for your readers,who may wish to take up those questions in their own work.
9. Glossary: Select and define at least 10 terms used in your document. The glossary should be its own page.10. Bibliography: Append your bibliography page, in which you identify at least 5 sources used in yourproject. Sources can include articles, books, chapters from books, documentaries, websites, etc. Ideally,you will conduct your research using the online databases that are available to you through the Penn Statelibrary and you will assemble a “mixed bag” of diverse source types. Note: annotations are not requiredfor this assignment.
Also Required
1. Remember, your Final Project must also show how your company will have a positive social andenvironmental impact, and so your proposal should reflect this. Examples include a company that seeksto recycle old materials to build a recreation park for children in an inner-city neighborhood or anorganization dedicated to helping homeless veterans in ways that are environmentally sustainable.
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Abstract
Since the Fukushima Disaster in 2011, Japan has struggled with managing nuclear waste and assuring the world that it can and will clean it. Many people have been concerned about the fate of the contaminated water held in tanks at the site of the disaster. Though the TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) has been able to filter and remove about 62 radioactive contaminants, not all contaminants have been removed. The water still has tritium, a hydrogen isotope, and it is a costly affair to remove it from water. Secondly, the water issue at the site is still getting worse. The company tasked with managing the former Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant claimed that nearly 160 tons of rain and groundwater finds its way into the station per day throughout the year. Therefore, storing the water in tanks is not a feasible solution as eventually they would be filled. The ballooning problem of the increase in water is the primary problem that prompts the Japanese government to dump the water into the ocean. Thirdly, while scientists had given the water a clean bill of health and established that its radiological impact on fisheries and marine life will be very small, similar to when the Fukushima reactors were operating under normal conditions, the Japanese people and the world is still concerned.
Problem statement
With the management of the Fukushima Daiichi contaminated water increasing becoming difficult, what is the best way for the Japanese government to address the problem?
Introduction
Japan is on the brink of an international meltdown following their decision to dump millions of radioactively contaminated gallons of water into the ocean. Japan’s struggle with managing radioactive material in recent times can be traced back to 2011 when the nation experienced an earthquake that destroyed its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. While the incident was unfortunate, it indulged Japan into local and international struggles in managing the materials. The concerns currently are rooted in preserving the environment and maintaining a good fishery and international image while also safely disposing of the contaminated liquid. The half-life of nuclear fuel is thousands of years, and therefore safe disposal of nuclear waste is paramount. It can go to affect the environment for thousands of years and destabilize the ecological balance of the affected area. This research will explore Japan’s decision to dump Fukushima’s radioactive materials into the ocean amidst concerns of dangers to the aquatic, human, and environmental health. The Japanese government’s analysis into the disaster should trigger deeper exploitation of strategies, including treatment of the material, evaporation, storage, or all the above strategies to address the concerns.
Japan recently announced its resolve to dump gallons of radioactive materials into the ocean. Over 1.2 million tons of radioactive Cooling water from the Fukushima Nuclear Plant will be released CITATION Ada20 \l 1033 (Vaughan). Through Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, the government of Japan insists that the water will be treated first before it is released into the ocean. The process is scheduled to start in 2022, and it is designed to remove more than 62 radioactive contaminants CITATION Ada20 \l 1033 (Vaughan). This happens after Japan indicated that its management strategy is currently overwhelmed. All the storage facilities are full, and they lack the capacity to develop more facilities. TEPCO, the company managing the site, claimed that rainfall and groundwater entering the site caused 60 tons a day being added last year CITATION Ada20 \l 1033 (Vaughan). The only strategy that they feel appropriate will be releasing the material into the ocean. The decision has attracted mixed reactions from international players. Concerns over environmental health have been raised. Issues have also arisen on Japan’s fishing industry that has been affected since the end of the Fukushima incident. China has threatened to ban Japanese seafood imports if the country proceeds with the plan CITATION Ada20 \l 1033 (Vaughan).
Much of the existing water has already been filtered by a process designed to remove more than 62 radioactive contaminants CITATION Ada20 \l 1033 (Vaughan). The water is supposed to undergo secondary treatment to reduce tritium, which is an isotope of hydrogen. Because water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, it is hard to reduce the radionuclide isotope, tritium. However, many other nuclear sites release this isotope, and it is considered to have a low impact on the environment. The Japanese government is seeking ways to carry out secondary filtration of the water, and it expects the radiological impact on fisheries and marine life will be very small, similar to when the Fukushima reactors were operating under normal conditions CITATION The201 \l 1033 (The Subcommittee on Handling of the ALPS Treated Water). Allowing Japan to dispose of its contaminated waters will effectively contaminate the waters, bearing radioactive materials’ half-life. Allowing the decision to be implemented means that Japan will be threatening human, aquatic, and environmental health in Fukushima and its surroundings, save for the image that has been destroyed for the fishing industry in the affected area.
Proposed solution
To address the issue of increasing contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, the Japanese government needs a multifaceted approach. At first, the Japanese government responded by storing the water at the site. It was the immediate solution to the problem to prevent further radioactive impact on the environment and cool the reactors. Japan’s primary strategy in managing the material was the storage of the contaminated material. On-site storage was conducted at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. The Japanese have indicated that the storage is almost full. Thousands of tons of water have got into the station since it was shut down in May 2011, and though it may not have been pumped through the reactors, it also needs to be treated before it is released into the environment. It is estimated that Japan will lack a proper storage facility for radioactive materials by 2022. The Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings has indicated that they cannot build more storage tanks whose numbers are approaching the set limit of 1000. Additionally, building more tanks is not a long-term solution since rain and groundwater are continually getting into the site. A long-term solution would need TEPCO to find ways to treat the water and release it into the environment. At the moment, TEPCO has built about 1000 tanks, and the water is still finding its way into the site. However, while storage is a short-term solution to this problem, it remains a viable one bearing the limited impacts that it bears to aquatic life, humans, and the environment.
The second solution that has been proposed in the wake of this problem is the evaporation of the contaminated water. The strategy involves converting tritiated liquid water to tritiated water vapor, which would be emitted into the air at Fukushima. Tritium is considered less radioactive and has a shorter half-life. Scientists and experts claim that this approach has a low environmental impact. Through evaporation, a large amount of the materials could be eliminated. Evaporation, however, bears some challenges that could trigger even bigger concerns. Primary among the concerns is that evaporation does not destroy the radioactive elements, and it can be evaporated and spread across Japan and beyond. Tritium is a Hydrogen Isotope that is very light and will always escape with the water vapor. It could expose the region to the downwind of the plumes. Aerial emissions could be more dangerous and could lead to widespread short and long-term adverse effects compared to other solutions. Before implementing evaporation, proper emphasis must be put on addressing its potential impacts on the environment and proper measures taken to ensure that the process is safe and does not leak any radioactive elements. However, evaporation has its upsides, and key among them is that it is a continuous operation that can be carried out in the long term. Water that enters the site can continually be evaporated and released into the environment.
TEPCO has also considered releasing the treated water into the ocean. This approach has received global backlash though the government seems to be determined to take it. Some countries like China have threatened to ban seafood imports from Japan. However, this strategy seems viable because of several reasons. First, since storage tanks are limited and do not offer a long-term solution to the problem and evaporation compromises the area’s weather pattern, releasing the water to the ocean seems to be a viable alternative. Evaporation would increase precipitation in the Fukushima area and eventually find its way into the site again, either as ground or rainwater. It also poses the risk of contaminating the area surrounding the plant as some elements may still escape into the atmosphere. To avoid affecting Fukushima’s weather patterns, treating and releasing the water into the ocean is a viable alternative. The water has already undergone filtration, and nearly 62 radioactive elements have already been removed from the water. The major remaining element is tritium, which is considered nearly harmless and has a short half-life of about 60 years. Other nuclear sites around the world release water with tritium to the environment, and so far, it has not shown adverse ecological and biological impact. Secondly, the water to be released into the ocean will undergo secondary filtration. Secondary filtration is designed to remove any traces of radioactive elements not caught in the first filtration and reduce tritium levels. This approach does not compromise the weather patterns of the area and utilizes the existing natural water cycle in the area to reintroduce water to the environment. However, proper precautions must be taken to ensure that the process eliminates any chances of contamination or environmental destruction.
Benefits of Proposed Solutions
As indicated above, Japan has three options that could help deal with the problem at hand. However, the pr...