No tritium found in fish one month after Fukushima water release (www.japantimes.co.jp)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 26 Sep 2023 23:33
https://lemmy.world/post/5788522

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.

#world

threaded - newest

Scrof@sopuli.xyz on 26 Sep 2023 23:43 next collapse

Unsurprising.

supercriticalcheese@feddit.it on 27 Sep 2023 11:12 collapse

in other news water is wet

mufasio@lemmygrad.ml on 26 Sep 2023 23:49 next collapse

I’ll trust the nuclear scientists that say that the release is safe, but there should be a transparent international panel, including China which has concerns about the release into fishing waters, that is given access to conduct their own tests with all parties agreeing to release their findings.

0110010001100010@lemmy.world on 26 Sep 2023 23:58 next collapse

The old “trust but verify” position. Agreed 100%. If everything is perfectly safe there should be no reason not to have multiple independent, third-parties with no skin in the game to verify. This is good for everyone as it reassures the fishermen, those buying fish, and really the rest of the world.

Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:14 next collapse

china is causing a fuss for political gain. a huge chunk of their fishing practices are illegal and violates international law anyway. their concern is theatrics to drum up their anti-japanese nationalism.

[deleted] on 27 Sep 2023 00:57 collapse
.
InvertedParallax@lemm.ee on 27 Sep 2023 01:06 collapse

I’m not doubting you at all, but can you provide a link for emphasis?

roguetrick@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 02:16 collapse

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/08/8388ba8002bb-tritium-at-13-china-monitoring-points-above-fukushima-water-level.html

It's a pressurized water plant like Fukishima was. Not quite 3x but still more than 2. Qinshan is a CANDU reactor, so that's why its 10 times more than what they're annually releasing from Fukishma. They release a lot of tritium because they use heavy water as a moderator. Any nuke plant that has a Lithium channel for producing tritium for nuclear weapons will also, of course, release a lot of it comparatively.

InvertedParallax@lemm.ee on 27 Sep 2023 02:24 collapse

Thank you for the link.

Candu are designed to be messy, but the Canadians keep them clean(ish) somehow, never understood how, guess they just watched how much enrichment waste they burned, or they were just careful in reclaiming the tritium, it’s expensive after all.

Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org on 27 Sep 2023 01:06 collapse

Is somebody preventing them from catching and testing fish?

CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work on 26 Sep 2023 23:53 next collapse

That’s right.

remotelove@lemmy.ca on 26 Sep 2023 23:59 next collapse

Sample size: 64

Also, are there other things like Caesium-137 that pose a risk?

Canadian_Cabinet@lemmy.ca on 27 Sep 2023 00:04 next collapse

Not really. This video by Kyle Hill does an amazing job at explaining it.

PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks on 27 Sep 2023 00:04 collapse

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

This video by Kyle Hill

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

mjq07@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 00:10 next collapse

Cs-137 and other fission and activation products can be largely removed by treatment. H-3 is a bit trickier since it literally is part of the water. Luckily it’s a fairly weak beta emitter with a relatively short half life so causes very, very little long term harm.

nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de on 07 Jun 2024 17:18 collapse

All that other stuff was filtered out, but the tritium is near impossible to separate, because it is chemically identical to the hydrogen in normal water.

As for caesium, there are still detectable amounts of Cs-137 in most of the word from the thousands of atomic bomb tests. It’s half life is just 30 years, but it will still be detectable for a hundred years or so because of the huge amount we released.

Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:09 next collapse

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.

roguetrick@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:33 next collapse

I think most reasonable objections to this were that they would be unable to filter out the actual bioaccumulating radioisotopes from the water and it should've been kept in retention. In the end you either trust they will or not. I trust they will.

solidgrue@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 02:07 next collapse

Water eats beta- and even alpha particles in a small radius. Ionized water even more so.

The sea is vast. A pond is but a drop to the sea.

It wasn’t a decision to be taken lightly, but it was a good gamble.

roguetrick@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 02:32 collapse

Nobody's particularly concerned about the actual radiation of the tritium. It's just that it is actively picked up by your body and used like any other water with the same biological half life of water at 7 days. It can cause some problems in that time. It's not really a problem of it getting integrated into anything, since all it'll do is knock itself off of and destroy whatever it gets incorporated into when it decays.

marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 02:22 collapse

I don’t understand why people think concentrating it and keeping large quantities on-site is preferable to heavily diluting and releasing it. A giant vat of radioactive water sounds like another disaster waiting to happen.

roguetrick@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 02:24 collapse

Because they don't believe that they've removed the heavy metals that end up in the food web and sitting in the littoral area seabed until it's picked up by lifeforms again. Tritium dilutes, but fission products do not.

Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net on 27 Sep 2023 02:47 next collapse

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’.

PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee on 27 Sep 2023 09:51 collapse

Tritium isn’t toxic, it’s mildly radioactive.

roguetrick@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 19:25 collapse

Tritated water is toxic just like heavy water. You'd just have to drink a truly ridiculous amount for it to be toxic, to the point that the radiation is a much bigger problem than the toxicity.

Edit: fully tritated water is actually worse, now that I think about it. The radioactive decay will periodically knock off a hydrogen atom, which makes it very reactive. That's not what this is though.

fubo@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 18:21 collapse

Water is toxic, if you drink an only mildly ridiculous amount and don’t get some salt too. I say this having been hospitalized for hyponatremia several years back, due to unwisely drinking plain water instead of anything with salts in it when sick.

roguetrick@kbin.social on 28 Sep 2023 18:37 collapse

Oh for sure, I'm a nurse. Heavy water/tritated water is cytotoxic like a chemotherapy drug however, vs just messing up your osmotic balance. Your proteins conformiational structure from hydrogen bonds can't function correctly with it and you can't replicate your DNA/RNA because of the difference in size of the hydrogen and your cells die. Starts with diarrhea, ends with death. You need like a 20% proportion of it to see those effects though, so like I said, truly ridiculous amounts of tritated water. More than the entirety that they're releasing.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 22:13 collapse

Yeah they talk about nuclear waste and how it needs to be stored for so long, without recognizing that fossil fuels spew their waste, including radiation, directly into the atmosphere, where it is causing apocalyptic global warming. Having it in barrels is actually a big plus.

[deleted] on 27 Sep 2023 00:20 next collapse
.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca on 27 Sep 2023 00:23 next collapse

Probably because the octopuses used it all for their science experiments. It’s a scientific fact that octopuses hoard tritium. Source: Spider-man 2.

halfempty@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:26 next collapse

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!

osarusan@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:29 next collapse

Samples of local fish have been collected at two points within a 5-km radius of the discharge outlet, except during rough weather conditions, with the agency announcing its analysis results on an almost daily basis since Aug. 26.

No tritium was detected in 64 fish, which included flounder and six other species, collected since Aug. 8.

I mean... you could have read the article.

Alto@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 01:42 next collapse

But then they wouldn't be able to bitch!

voiceofchris@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 01:51 collapse

I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?
Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?

sethboy66@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 01:55 next collapse

I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?

Given the results, it is significant.

Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?

No, tritium is treated by organisms just like normal H2O, bioaccumulation is no problem.

osarusan@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 01:57 next collapse

I don't know the answers to those questions, as I am not a nuclear scientist. But the nuclear scientists seem to think so.

In any case, I think those are good questions. Those are the kind of good questions we get when people read the articles.

Alto@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 02:49 next collapse

I love when people tell on themselves for not knowing a thing about statistics.

Yes, it's more than enough.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 10:29 collapse

What number, in specific, would be a sample size you would accept?

BolexForSoup@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 01:05 next collapse

they only sampled two fish!

Source?

saltedFish@discuss.tchncs.de on 27 Sep 2023 12:57 collapse

Read the article again, moron

halfempty@kbin.social on 28 Sep 2023 00:05 collapse

From the ORIGINAL article, before the 9/26 edit: "Tritium was not detected in the latest sample of two olive flounders caught Sunday, the Fisheries Agency said on its website." Here is a link to the pre-edit article saying 2 fish: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/09/c798a431682e-no-tritium-found-in-fish-1-month-after-fukushima-water-release.html

roguetrick@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:30 next collapse

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

chaogomu@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 00:58 collapse

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

hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 02:19 next collapse

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 on 27 Sep 2023 02:26 next collapse

Its also classic anti-nuclear power FUD.

blindbunny@lemmy.ml on 27 Sep 2023 03:07 collapse

I don’t doubt nuclear power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

osarusan@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 07:25 next collapse

This here is also classic anti-nuclear power FUD.

blindbunny@lemmy.ml on 27 Sep 2023 09:44 collapse

This here is capitolist FUD, but I’m sure in all your great wisdom think humans can be trusted not to fuck up a 5th time.

osarusan@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 10:02 next collapse

All you said that was humans mess up everything we do, as if that were something meaningful to say. That is not an argument against nuclear. That's an argument against absolutely everything humans do. It's meaningless. Look:

I don’t doubt solar power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

I don’t doubt coal power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

I don’t doubt hydro power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

I don’t doubt steam power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

All of those are exactly as meaningless as what you wrote. So don't go on snarkily about my "great wisdom" like you've made any point at all. Nuclear is safer than oil and coal and gas, which is where the majority of the world's energy comes from right now. Fossil fuels are actively destroying our planet right now, and you're spreading nuclear FUD about things that haven't happened. That's not helpful, and it doesn't match the reality we live in.

[deleted] on 27 Sep 2023 10:57 collapse
.
SARGEx117@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 11:38 next collapse

Methinks the troll doth protest too much.

Your motives are clearly just trying to rile people up, you haven’t provided a single cohesive argument.

It’s so cute how hard you’re trying

blindbunny@lemmy.ml on 27 Sep 2023 11:49 collapse

Aww you caught me 🤭

I have no facts to give you other then humans are too dumb and fickle to be trusted with something as temperamental nuclear power when solar and wind exist.

😳 thanks for noticing

osarusan@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 12:59 collapse

Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill.

Lol.

The famous last words of someone who has no point to make but can't even admit it to themselves.

I wrote an honest reply to you and I even bothered to Google some sources for you to refer to. You didn't even reply to what I said and just came back spouting more non sequitur garbage.

It's shameful. You should do better than this. Be better than this.

roboticide@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 12:00 next collapse

There’s nothing more capitalist than pushing coal and oil.

And any rational green energy advocate knows it’ll take us decades to build enough solar/wind to fill the fossil fuels gap, but would only take us a couple years to fill that demand with nuclear and also produce fewer emissions. That’s simple numbers.

So are you just irrational or a coal-snorting capitalist yourself?

blindbunny@lemmy.ml on 27 Sep 2023 12:05 collapse

Show me this “fossil fuel gap” when it takes a decade for a nuclear power plant to run at full efficiency.

roboticide@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 21:40 collapse

Best case scenario estimates are a complete replacement by 2050 if energy consumption doesn’t change. This requires aggressive investment in renewable production.

However, that’s unlikely to happen, as energy consumption is increasing, especially as vehicles across the globe abandon oil-based fuel for electricity from the grid.

The largest hurdle to nuclear power is simply regulatory. We could have nuclear plants built by 2030 with a ~30+ year life that would guarantee us the ability to fully phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables by 2050 even as demand increases.

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 01:51 collapse

???

The USSR and Russia were huge players in nuclear technology and contributed a lot to the field. I actually can’t think of an energy source that has a closer connection to communism.

vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 09:35 next collapse

Y’kown we nuclear power plants cant explode like an atomic bomb right. Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.

Also if you bring up the Russian troops who got fucked up, that was caused by not using PPE and then promptly inhaling graphite dust and some randome mildly radioactive materials. It was fine while in the ground but breathing that shi in will do a number, probably still better than going to those old mining towns where the air is now made of asbestos.

blindbunny@lemmy.ml on 27 Sep 2023 09:50 next collapse

Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.

It’s happened three other times since then…

Edit: one other time

vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 10:01 next collapse

When, ya know besides Fukishima? Which wasnt even a detonation.

Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 27 Sep 2023 10:35 collapse

Where and when were the 3 other nuclear meltdowns? I wasn’t able to find anything with a quick search, maybe I’m not looking for the right terms.

SARGEx117@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 11:36 collapse

I guarantee other person was referring to 3 mile island like most people do when talking about “nuclear disasters”.

Solet’s review the casualties and damages!

Oh wait, you mean nothing happened to hurt people or cost tons of money in damages?

And it was almost entirely hyped up by media outlets trying to make this their chernobyl?

And anti-nuclear propagandists who are almost entirely paid by fossil fuel companies?

You know, THAT 3MI “Meltdown”.

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 01:48 collapse

And anti-nuclear propagandists who are almost entirely paid by fossil fuel companies?

They’re dastardly clever. They’ve created a narrative that it’s fossil fuels companies who are actually pushing nuclear technology. I suspect they’re also behind the unusual opposition to hydrogen – if hydrogen is ubiquitous, it’s going to be green hydrogen more likely than not. By trying to stop that, fossil fuel companies are able to continue selling and using hydrogen from refinery operations.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 10:26 collapse

It wasn’t even necessarily the design, although that didn’t help. It was the bureaucracy that stopped them from doing anything about the problem.

vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 10:58 collapse

I feel like there was enough issues on damn near every level that the term “compounding issues” comes to mind. Seriously its one of those situations where if it wasnt one thing that wrnt wrong it wouldve been something else.

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 01:43 next collapse

This is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever seen against nuclear energy. “Sure it works, but people are evil!”

I can apply that to everything. Communism? I don’t doubt it works, but humans build and also destroy.

Hypx@kbin.social on 28 Sep 2023 18:16 collapse

Nuclear is way safer than just about any other energy source.

AdamantRatPuncher@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 13:56 collapse

China has released water with higher level of tritium on a regular basis before, from many of its reactors. Hypocrisy 100.

FrostbyteIX@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 03:06 next collapse

I for one would like to try this “nuclear fish”…preferably crumbed, deep fried and doused in lemon juice. With a serve of fries.

luckyhunter@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 04:04 next collapse

Fantastic news! so many people are so afraid of the word “nuclear”, and don’t understand how large of a volume the ocean is. the lethal dose of Fentanyl is like the size of a grain of rice. Put all of the known legal and illegal volume of fentanyl into the ocean and it would be undetectable.

[deleted] on 27 Sep 2023 04:48 next collapse
.
rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 06:21 collapse

Too bad the whole nuclear life cycle involves extraction, refinement, transportation, and yes the small slice of the cycle where it’s used on the sub, then removal, and waste management (a misnomer since there still isnt any really in a lot of cases). And that whole long chain isn’t nearly as concise and clear cut, and safe as looking at just the small slice of time spent on the sub.

arekkusu@discuss.tchncs.de on 27 Sep 2023 11:17 next collapse

now do extraction, refinement, transportation, etc. for diesel

SARGEx117@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 11:31 next collapse

Ooh, and do lifetime emissions, and compare it with actual energy output of the source!

dantheclamman@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 17:39 next collapse

I think that if the environmental movement emphasized how much radioactive material is released by coal and other fossil fuels, we’d have a lot less public resistance to phasing them out.

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 21:54 collapse

what·a·bout·ism

/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/ nounBRITISH noun: whataboutism

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. “the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism”

[deleted] on 27 Sep 2023 15:14 next collapse
.
derpgon@programming.dev on 27 Sep 2023 15:35 next collapse

If you have 100x emissions, but 1000x the efficiency of the fuel (numbers may be overblown), then it’s still better for the environment.

Nuclear waste is probably the biggest issue, as we have to take care of the storage site.

However, we could always either repurpose it or yeet it into space, away from any other close planet collision course.

lud@lemm.ee on 27 Sep 2023 22:06 next collapse

While yeeting things into space sounds cool, I am sceptical of the viability of that strategy.

Putting things into space is very expensive and putting them in a solar orbit is even more expensive.

Isn’t nuclear waste also really heavy? And guess what that means, it’s getting more expensive.

It also isn’t very environmentally friendly to send shit into space and of course even less friendly considering how heavy nuclear waste is.

dgriffith@aussie.zone on 28 Sep 2023 01:09 collapse

In my opinion, they should find a nice, stable continental plate and in the middle of that, drill some relatively small diameter boreholes. Drill them ten or twenty kilometres apart to a depth that exercises our current technology, drop sealed waste into the bottom of said holes, top them off to 200m below the surface with concrete, and then backfill the rest with dirt.

After that, remove all evidence of anything ever being there on the surface.

If you have the technology to drill a hole 3-4km deep then you have also the tech to detect radioactive material.

Small diameter boreholes that kind of distance apart are basically undetectable by geophysical survey with our current technology so nothing in particular would ever be seen.

The quantity of worldwide high level radioactive waste that can’t be reprocessed could easy be disposed of in this manner.

Obi@sopuli.xyz on 28 Sep 2023 07:15 collapse

The high tech equivalent of a cat burying their shit. While I like the idea of yeeting stuff into space, this is also beautifully simple.

I remember talks of building places with the use of symbols or other non-linguistic messaging to keep future populations at bay, I think that was in Finland or something.

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 01:39 next collapse

Nuclear waste is probably the biggest issue, as we have to take care of the storage site.

Newer reactor designs are able to consume nuclear waste and use it as fuel. Look up breeder reactors. If we want to minimize nuclear waste, we need to build more reactors ironically.

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 21:58 collapse

As usual with this sort of calculation you want to not factor the magnitude of risk wich is also significantly higher.

And as for yeeting into space, nuclear is already expensive, add in launch costs etc… now you’re incuring much larger risk at much greater cost.

Also… ever seen a rocket blow up? Wonder what happens to a dedicated shipment of nuclear waste when that happens?

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 22:01 collapse

I do have some research papers that I will pull up on my machine when home.

I’m also not saying don’t use nuclear. I’m commenting on the fanboi risk dismissive misinformation that they like to peddle in here.

And I appreciate the discourse and meant no offense and wasn’t try to say you were implying anything about the rest of the process. I was just pointing out that it’s one of nuke propaganda favorite methods of misinformation by ignoring the life cycle.

Again, I’ll try and send you some of those papers and articles when I’m home. Thanks for the reply.

dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 27 Sep 2023 18:09 next collapse

You were downvoted because you told the truth about nuclear power, not because people thought you were responding to a question that wasn’t asked.

Cethin@lemmy.zip on 28 Sep 2023 01:38 next collapse

They were downvoted for telling a half truth. Technically true, but ignoring the context that makes it a good thing. Sure, it needs to be extracted, refined, and (to be clean) contained. All energy sources need the same, except dirty energy at least doesn’t contain their waste.

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 21:51 collapse

LOL I’m laughing about the huge amount of whatabout-isms in the replies. I appreciate them making my point.

bobman@unilem.org on 27 Sep 2023 22:16 next collapse

Woah, it’s almost like the universe didn’t give us easily accessible energy for doing nothing.

Wow. Let me know when oil doesn’t need to be extracted, refined, and doesn’t produce waste.

fubo@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 18:25 collapse

Hell, coal literally contains trace uranium, and its waste products aren’t accounted as “radioactive waste” even though they are.

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 21:53 collapse

The only reason we burn any coal in the US is bc of politics and West Virgina. There’s no defending coal use at any level.

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 01:35 collapse

Now do solar and wind. What materials are used, what wastes are produced, how much energy is consumed.

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 22:47 collapse

what·a·bout·ism

/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/

noun

BRITISH

noun: whataboutism

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

“the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism”

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 29 Sep 2023 01:23 collapse

If you think it’s whataboutism to ask for information that lets you fairly compare things on an equal basis, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say really.

Hyggyldy@sffa.community on 27 Sep 2023 05:47 next collapse

Dangit, now how am I gonna get my piscine superpowers/fish shaped tumors?

Pfnic@feddit.ch on 27 Sep 2023 07:55 collapse

Lol, I read that as swimming pool

ours@lemmy.film on 27 Sep 2023 12:36 collapse

Found the fellow Romand (French-speaking Swiss for the rest of the World).

Pfnic@feddit.ch on 27 Sep 2023 17:22 collapse

Well I’m sorry to say that I’m a Schpuntz but at least I know what a “piscine” is :D

ours@lemmy.film on 28 Sep 2023 10:51 collapse

Nobody’s perfect ^/s^

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 06:14 next collapse

For people genuinely interested in the nuclear industry, only listening to the cheerleaders and Dunning-Kruger advocates is a bad idea.

Go look at nuclear from extraction of materials, to refining of materials, plant risks and histories of disasters, waste and waste management issues,extraction. (ie There are superfunds sites in Washington state still being cleaned up from WWII bombing materials exteaction.)

Pro nuke shills normally like to just cherry pick a slice of the nuclear energy life cycle to fit confirmation bias and or intentionally do it in bad faith.

Yes Nuclear has a LOT of positive potential, but it’s also got significantly higher risks (many magnitudes larger) as the history of disasters, exteaction, and waste management will show you.

This article like a lot of the comments are just pro nuke propaganda. None of these guys have empirical studies on the propagation rate of contamination through the food web for constant regular radioactive dumping. They don’t have exhaustive studies on all the vectors by which the contaminates enter the food chain. There has not been nearly enough time since they started dumping to make the assertions being made here, and NO–64 fish is not a large enough sample size… and on and on.

What you’re reading here is wishful thinking and either inentional lies, or people who think they know more than they do demonstrating Dunning-Kruger.

stmcld@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 27 Sep 2023 07:16 next collapse

Wtf you’re just stating facts and giving a different opinion, and you’re being downvoted for that. Truly i don’t understand

QuinceDaPence@kbin.social on 27 Sep 2023 13:34 collapse

They're claiming that some "exteaction" [sic] was done improperly during World War II when getting bomb material, and made a mess, and that that should be factored into the environmental effects of modern nuclear power.

That's a dumb argument.

Also telling people to go look it up, is not stating facts.

rivermonster@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 23:53 collapse

Reading comprehension, man, you totally missed the point. Also, the WWII superfunds sites in Washington state were just an example… pick any of the 500+ toxic uranium mines all over and around Navajo land if you prefer. Or any other mines in the US or otherwise.

The actual point of the comment was the disinformation, lies of omission, and ridiculous cheerleaders going on in this thread.

The no tritium found in a tiny sample of fish a little bit after starting to release contaminated water into the ocean presented with a ridiculous implication that it means everything is fine and there’s nothing to worry about. Which you can see is what all the little fanbois here picked up and ran with… even though they’re wrong for reasons I’ve already stated.

I tell people to look it up because it’s not hard to find information, and nobody wants to just trust someone (read me) on the internet.

Honestly, if you need to be spoonfed links and papers chances are you’re just looking to argue, 8gnore, discount, and not learn.

Here’s an epa article on the 500+ (yes FIVE HUNDRED)mines the EPA been trying to remediate and deal with that were operational and poisoning the Najavo nation as late as 1986. At least half of them haven’t been addressed at all and the ones that have are usually mitigation not solutions.

www.epa.gov/…/abandoned-mines-cleanup

I don’t really believe you want to learn or are open to facts so I’m going to stop wasting my time.

saltedFish@discuss.tchncs.de on 27 Sep 2023 12:58 collapse

<img alt="" src="https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/913ce93a-8ad4-48e1-8c8e-6e49f3372476.jpeg">

set_secret@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 09:12 next collapse

they did however find an absolute fuck tonne of microplastics.

Kahlenar@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 2023 10:25 next collapse

Precious tritium

toolCHAINZ@infosec.pub on 27 Sep 2023 13:09 next collapse

The power of the sun… in the palm of my hand

WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 23:24 collapse

Precious spaceship fuel

BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 2023 15:51 next collapse

I live in South Korea and I get really frustrated how so many people(lefties) try to make a big deal out of this to shit on Japan.

Please fucking stop smoking first before you try to talk shit about this. You sound like a complete idiot when you drink and smoke and worry about how filtered water that is probably safer than the seawater now. You’re literally paying to suck on carcinogens and radioactive shit.

You’re just political about this. Not scientific.

bobman@unilem.org on 27 Sep 2023 22:15 next collapse

Why do you specify lefties? Is there something unique about South Korean politics that make their left-wing reject science as much as everyone else’s right-wing?

Cethin@lemmy.zip on 28 Sep 2023 01:30 next collapse

Anti-nuclear has been mostly a left thing in the US at least despite the clean energy movement including many of the same people.

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 01:34 next collapse

Same with the “not in my backyard” mentality. NIMBYs love all these new green technologies, so long as they all happen far away from them.

bobman@unilem.org on 28 Sep 2023 02:15 collapse

Uhh… no it hasn’t.

I’m genuinely curious why you think that’s the case.

Cethin@lemmy.zip on 28 Sep 2023 08:04 collapse

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement

Please read. I’m leftist, but part of that is recognizing these issues. Anti-nuclear has largely been a left thing. The right only does it to protect fossil fuels.

BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 04:53 collapse

Korean left-wing has been constantly making conspiracies and propagandas rejecting scientific evidences.

  • THAAD’s electromagnetic wave will fry people’s brain (they even made a song about it)
  • Importing US beef will kill people
  • US and Israel faked North Korea’s attack for political reason

List goes on and on and on…

bobman@unilem.org on 28 Sep 2023 04:58 collapse

Why do they do this?

Is their right-wing more reasonable, or even more insane?

BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works on 28 Sep 2023 06:27 collapse

Considering how these kind of anti-intellectuallism and nationalism is pretty much left thing in here, yeah

[deleted] on 28 Sep 2023 02:33 collapse
.
dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 27 Sep 2023 18:08 next collapse

Cool! So let’s ramp up disposing of radioactive material into the ocean because this one fish is ok!

zephyreks@programming.dev on 27 Sep 2023 22:36 next collapse

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.

ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Sep 2023 02:41 next collapse

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.

Orionza@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 05:23 next collapse

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

Piers@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 2023 18:40 next collapse

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 on 28 Sep 2023 23:03 next collapse

Welcome back to Fact or Cap

nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de on 07 Jun 2024 17:02 collapse

A banana naturally has has around 15 Bq of potassium 40. Assuming a volume of 100 mL, mashed bananas have around 400 Bq/L.

Currently, the treated water has around 250 Bq/L, around a fifth of mashed bananas. In other words, a banana smoothie could easily be more radioactive then the water as it was released.

The banana’s potassium 40 has a half life of more then a billion years, so it’s not going anywhere, unlike the tritium who’s amount will half every 11 years. Also, potassium is concentrated by many plants and animals, while tritium is not.