this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
137 points (98.6% liked)

World News

39034 readers
3075 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

No detectable amount of tritium has been found in fish samples taken from waters near the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, where the discharge of treated radioactive water into the sea began a month ago, the government said Monday.

Tritium was not detected in the latest sample of two olive flounders caught Sunday, the Fisheries Agency said on its website. The agency has provided almost daily updates since the start of the water release, in a bid to dispel harmful rumors both domestically and internationally about its environmental impact.

The results of the first collected samples were published Aug. 9, before the discharge of treated water from the complex commenced on Aug. 24. The water had been used to cool melted nuclear fuel at the plant but has undergone a treatment process that removes most radionuclides except tritium.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ignorance and paranoia about radioactivity go hand in hand.

i know so many otherwise smart people who lose it on this issue. because they just think any radioactivity = destroy planet forever . completely ignorant to how it actually works, and just think every power plant must eventually chernobyl and that one barrel of nuclear waste is enough to destroy 1000s of miles or something equally absurd.

totally sad.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yet one litre of oil can contaminate over a million litres of water.

I talked about how water released are usually modeled and risk assessments done in another comment abour the pending release a few weeks ago but I can't find it.

While I can't speak for all regulatory bodies, and you could be a shitass and release toxic crap without doing a risk assesmsent, it's very unlikely that this is the case here, particularly because it's TREATED water that's being released. That means they have a treatment system (there's a fucking rabbit hole and half...) which they are using to treat the water to some acceptable criteria/standard. This mean some sort of modeling and risk calculation has been done otherwise they would have just gone 'yolo pump the water into the ocean'.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago

The ocean is 1.335 × 10^21 litres. That number is stupid big. There are 7.5 × 10^18 grains of sand on Earth. If every person in Japan flushed a litre of the reactor water down their toilet, it would be diluted to nothing in no time at all.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember commenting on a post where China condemned Japan for doing this.

I asked ppl there "is this actually bad or is this kind of par for the course of getting rid of the dangers left behind in Fukushima?" And most of them were like "it's not a common occurrence but it's not inherently dangerous and it's not that big of a deal"

To me it looks like the vast majority of objections to this came from strategic propaganda related to domestic relations of China and/or other nations.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Its also classic anti-nuclear power FUD.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Orionza@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I like this but would rather see a multi country coordinated oceanic study. We're all in this together.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People have been far more concerned about the efficacy of the ALPS system at extracting other contaminants than they are about tritium contamination. The ALPS system is unproven and the wastewater they're releasing would be pretty toxic as far as other radioactive isotopes is concerned if the ALPS system isn't doing it's job perfectly.

[–] Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev 6 points 1 year ago (20 children)

When I was on nuclear submarines I got less radiation than a single flight on an aircraft. And you gotta know there were less-than-secret competitions on who could rack up the most mrem. Could never get close to significant.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Piers@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Two questions: If it's only tritrium why does anyone really care? Why couldn't they just sell it rather than dump it?

I thi k I just realised those questions both have the same answer...

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Welcome back to Fact or Cap

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If their reporting of the quantity of tritium is accurate, India's candu style plants release more incidentally than this will.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Which is what the experts have been saying since the beginning, but the anti-nuclear propagandists explicitly ignore the experts.

[–] halfempty@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Sample size is critical to get a realistic result of the tritium toxicity. In this case, they sampled only 64 fish! That would not yield a statistically significant result!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›