9 ms·
Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water
- freetime2 3y ago> Japan says all radioactive elements have been filtered out except tritium, which is hard to remove from water. The hydrogen isotope is also discharged – at higher levels – by operational nuclear power plants, including in China and France. > That water will contain about 190 becquerels of tritium per litre, below the World Health Organization drinking water limit of 10,000 becquerels per litre, according to Tepco. A becquerel is a measure of radioactivity. > Monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has backed the plan, will be on-site for the discharge, and samples of water and fish will be taken. Umm, what's the controversy here?
- Akronymus 3y agoIt is water that qas involved with a nuclear reactor. Yes, people are that afraid of nuclear.
- echelon 3y agoThe greens of the 80's did so much more harm than good. If we'd built the capacity then, we'd have a whole lot less carbon in the atmosphere today.
- the-dude 3y agoThe anti-nuclear stance of the Greens can't be judged in isolation and must be seen in the context of the Cold War and the impeding Nuclear Armageddon. I don't necessarily agree with the Greens but I remember this perilous time very well. And it was the incumbent non-Green powers who created this situation. Furthermore, this is not the only theme the Greens pressed on and I must admit our country is already much much better for it ( cleaner air, cleaner waters ).
- killjoywashere 3y ago> cleaner air, cleaner waters How much? Of what?
- the-dude 3y agoTrolls
- CalRobert 3y agoNot sure shutting down nukes and extending the life of coal power plants (or going all-in on Russian gas) was great for the air or water.
- CalRobert 3y agoThere needs to be a distinction between greens who can and cannot add. Same for the classic "look at that ugly city, so bad for the environment!" Bay area types who forced suburban sprawl.
- mxmbrb 3y agoThe management of the establishment was what killed the vibe for fission energy. And in this regard the greens where right. Many facilities (back then and now) where unsafe (e.g. Ukranie) and are still a threat (e.g. France) Add to that the short sighted actions by everyone involved. (DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location (germany)) For me that's enogh to loose trust in governments and companies beeing able to run such an operation. Fukushima beeing the final nail to this coffin for many. Maybe when we can proof the reliability, safety and waste efficiency of modern reactor systems, we can rebuild this trust. But either way, we are surely talking 20-60 years. It's scorched earth.
- MagnumOpus 3y ago> DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location And this is a massive political issue with which the Green parties collect millions of votes. Meanwhile "of 265 US power plants that monitor groundwater, 242 report unsafe levels of at least one pollutant derived from coal ash" - so instead of the small potential of ground water contamination from a small number of nuclear plant waste barrels, people passively chose the almost certainty of ground water contamination by leachate containing arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and thallium - a chunk of it radioactive. But it got votes.
- RetroTechie 3y agoMaybe that's the biggest problem, really. The design, deployment, regulatory/political hurdles, and the long operational lifetime of nuclear power plants, make that any improvements take a loooonng time to bear fruit. Inertia of the installed base with its problems (and history), makes new development near-impossible. That situation propably won't improve until newer designs accumulate a multi-decade track record of safety, or fusion power gets commercialized.
- wdutch 3y agoChina are making a fuss about it but it's just an excuse for geopolitics.
- corethree 3y ago[flagged]
- ghusto 3y agoThis was exactly what I thought when I first started hearing about this, and is even more what I think now after hearing statements from China. China's statements are sleazy in my opinion. The way they word things makes it sound like Japan is irresponsibly doing whatever they like without oversight, and the world should be doing something about it.
- Prickle 3y agoChina and South Korea are making a big fuss about it, despite producing and releasing more tritium than Japan. Just a few minutes ago, The CPC (Communist Party of China) stated that it is suspending all imports of Japanese seafood to protect consumers. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-66599189 https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-66599189 > As expected, China has imposed a blanket ban on all Japanese seafood. > Beijing announced some restrictions last month, but they were limited to 10 prefectures in Japan, including Fukushima and Tokyo. Earlier this week, Hong Kong announced a similar 10 prefecture ban on ‘aquatic produce’. > South Korea, too, still blocks seafood imports from the Fukushima area. It's a ban that's been in place since 2013 and, although the government's political stance has softened, it is one that it has no intention of lifting. > These are major customers for Japan and represent a lot of lost business. Nowhere buys more Japanese seafood than mainland China, which imported more than $600m worth last year. Remarkably, Hong Kong is only just behind - spending $520m on marine produce from Japan. > Given China's consistent and vocal opposition to the wastewater release, it's a scenario that Japan's government probably envisaged. In the short-term, it admits businesses will take a 'significant' hit. > In this sense, China understands the economic leverage it has over Japan and the question is whether Hong Kong will follow the mainland’s lead with another all-out ban. > Either way, we're talking about major disruption for Japan's seafood industry and for restaurants in Hong Kong and China.
- colordrops 3y agoGood, the oceanic ecosystem is being destroying by fishing.
- kortilla 3y agoChina will just illegally fish it itself
- killjoywashere 3y agoThat is definitely true.
- sooheon 3y ago
- implements 3y ago> Umm, what's the controversy here? Fear of radiation, fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will. Personally it seems safe to me and I’m confident the IAEA’s monitoring will be effective, but then again I’m living on the other side of the planet, so …
- lifthrasiir 3y ago> [...] fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will. Especially given the fact that Naoto Kan, the prime minister of Japan at the time of the Fukushima accident, had to go to the TEPCO HQ to force them to continue the response instead of giving up and watching a full meltdown. Japan has a lot to do in order to regain the lost trust.
- minebreaker 3y agoSo sad that many Japanese saw it as a micro management and blamed him
- Prickle 3y agoRegaining trust is IMO, impossible with all current politicians. The government has basically designated the nuclear agency seat as a "Send the guy we don't like there" seat. Only incompetent idiots have been placed there since Fukushima. Add in all the BS red-tape that the government made up, the notoriously slow bureaucracy, and sometimes even sabotage? (Combine that with the new nuclear regulation agency created after Fukushima, which complicates it further) It's not happening without a strongman leading the charge and really forcing it. Would be great if we could copy-paste France's setup. But Japan is obtuse and inflexible.
- Prickle 3y agoTo be fair, TEPCO is completely and absolutely untrustworthy. There is evidence of severe miss-management, as well as 2 cases where they deliberately ignored safety warning from government agencies. As a Japanese citizen, I would feel safer seeing the TEPCO corporation dismantled, and it's leadership behind bars. But the courts declared them not guilty. A late addition, but I should also add info about Onagawa Nuclear Powerplant. It survived the exact same disaster with no melt down, only because the manager staunchly refused to back down on constant safety training and disaster drills. Of course, to the frustration and chagrin of upper management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- yieldcrv 3y agoThe countries over there don’t like each other and are looking for any excuse to point that out
- ipaddr 3y ago10,000 is very high and this level will be lowered hopefully in time. In Ontario Canada: 20 Bq/L limit proposed by the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC) 190 is 10 times that limit. This isn't only about drinking water it's about eating seafood that has absorbed these chemicals (or eaten many fish who have absorbed them). I could understand the caution around seafood in that area for a period of time.
- ohgodplsno 3y agoI regret to tell you the ODWAC is made up of unqualified morons preying on your fears then. The ocean's average radioactivity is 12Bq/L, and there's a _lot_ of water. A single banana is 20Bq already. Dump a few million litres of 10000Bq/L water in the ocean over a few years, and the average radioactivity goes to... Still 12Bq/L
- cornholio 3y agoIt depends on the exact elements that are causing that emission level. Heavy metals such as those present in nuclear waste tend to bio-accumulate in marine organisms, that then find their way into the food chain. This is unlike, say, naturally radioactive carbon or potassium isotopes, that have a relatively constant concentration in the animal's body over it's life time - if a fish eats some high potassium food, it will excrete an equivalent of his own equally radioactive amount to maintain homeostasis. It's for this exact reason the net "banana dose" of radiation, unless you are potassium deficient, is in fact zero.
- ohgodplsno 3y agoTW: French https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1694248709180084514 https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1694248709180084514 TEPCO did not detect any iron 55 or selenium 79, yet they are included in their estimates, at the worst possible doses, explcitly for safety. The amounts rejected and the radiation it exposes you to is about as harmful as living a few floors higher up that what you do. It's nothing.
- 3y ago
- ammo1662 3y agoThey are trying to mislead you about the difference of "nuclear waste water" and "nuclear polluted water". The waste water of nuclear plant will not directly touch the nuclear materials. However, the water Japan released did.
- blablabla123 3y agoThis seems also the only real problem left to me. I have no doubts that they get the concentration low enough. But I wonder how likely it is that there are still particles left in the water that in isolation might have unacceptable radiation/toxicity levels.
- fomine3 3y agoRegardless of source, it's same thing if what govt/IAEA checked is correct.
- mirekrusin 3y agoIf it's under drinkable thresholds, they should bottle them and see how their "San Tritiurino" "energy water" / "water with a kick" sells in shops.
- Prickle 3y agoYou realize water is distilled right? "Drink-able water" is different from "One item is below safe drinking thresholds". Drinking salty sea water is generally not recommended.
- mirekrusin 3y agoThey can distill it and even flavour if they want.
- ohgodplsno 3y agoNone, groups like Greenpeace and various green parties throughout Europe are being China's useful idiots. Fukushima-Daishi is going to release 900 TBq in a whole ocean over multiple years, and that dose is already estimated by taking the worst numbers we could imagine. La Hague's retreatment plant puts out 13000 TBq per year, and no one ever cared, nor did anyone see changes in the environment. Not to mention that humans do not metabolize Tritium, it'll never stay in the human body for more than a few hours. You're more likely to die from the salt in that water than the tritium.
- the-dude 3y agoLa Hague, not The Hague ( Dutch city ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
- ohgodplsno 3y agoServes me right for wanting to properly translate my own language, forgetting some other countries have the same names. Thanks.
- the-dude 3y agoPas de probleme!
- mr_mitm 3y agoThese facts won't convince people who believe in homeopathy, of which there are plenty. Of course there shouldn't be a controversy, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that there is, considering the amount of anti-scientific sentiments in the general population.
- lionkor 3y agoIf I shit in the ocean, does the ocean become highly potent and poisonous because its highly diluted shit?
- mr_mitm 3y agoAccording to homeopathy, it does become potent, yes, but not poisonous, because it will magically heal whatever disease ingesting shit causes. With one caveat: homeopathy says that the water has to be diluted by a certain process which involves tapping it ten times during full moon or some non-sense like that.
- RetroTechie 3y agoShit breaks down into food. In the ocean: bacteria food -> plant food -> fish food.
- dirtyid 3y agoNapkin math of 1.25 million tons of water is about 34,000 tanker trailers, or 3 a day over 30 years. So why doesn't JP just dump it in Lake Inawashiro a couple hours drive west? It's safe after all. Cost seems trivial. Except no one trusts TEPCO. Least of all the Japanese. Why would region trust JP any more? Dumping is offloading a domestic political problem to an international one because radiation + Japan + politcs = bad time. Enough that they're willing to give up to 600M in fish exports per year instead of dumping this very safe water on Japanese soil.
- MagnumOpus 3y agoWhy don't you just drink bleach instead of wiping down your countertop with it? Seriously, I have a hard time assuming good will from your post if you do not try to differentiate the amount of dilution happening in a 100km2 50m deep lake vs a 100,000,000km2-sized 5,000m deep ocean.
- hoseja 3y agoLatching onto any possible controversy.
- hulitu 3y ago> Umm, what's the controversy here? Did you see Godzilla ? /s
- yabatopia 3y agoThe reaction of China and South Korea is hilariously hypocritical. Both countries have been dumping nuclear waste water in the ocean for years - and continue doing that. Geopolitics at it's worst.
- Mantequilla_ 3y agoI was reading that article earlier this morning https://hongkongfp.com/2023/07/31/radioactive-seafood-complaints-from-beijing-and-hong-kong-about-fukushima-wastewater-scream-of-hypocrisy/ https://hongkongfp.com/2023/07/31/radioactive-seafood-compla... that indeed corroborate your saying.
- hedgehog0 3y agoSource?
- ghusto 3y agoLast 50+ years of history especially, but pretty much as much history as you can find for the region.
- colordrops 3y agoOr at its accidental best. Anything to reduce fishing or animal farming is a tremendously good thing for the environment.
- fomine3 3y agoTo be fair, current Korean regime is calm.
- nonsense_stream 3y agoYou do realize that neither South Korea nor China has ever dumped any nuclear POLLUTED (directly in contact with core) water into the ocean? I do not know where you come from, but blind trust in the Japanese government or TEPCO could also be geopolitics at it's worst. Especially if you consider that many of the families influential of Japanese politics during WW2 when they did horrible things in Korea and China still have influence today (unlike the case in Germany), taking the point of view from those who got invaded and lost tens of millions of lives, many in horrific massacres comparable to the holocaust, perhaps merely distrust is itself already very generous. I would favor the stance to demand more transparency and even more independent international investigation before measures are taken than to brush it off as no issue, even if only just for the peace of mind to the people of Korea and China. EDIT: Typo
- CalRobert 3y agoWorth noting that coal plants release radioactive air without making the news. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- Prickle 3y agoUnfortunately, humans generally don't care about what they can't see. We can see pollution in water, on land, but not in the air.