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.

  • Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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’.

    • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

  • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Roboticide@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

  • mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Uhh… no it hasn’t.

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

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Dave.@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.