“If people eat this kind of contaminated food, it will affect the health of millions and millions of people, for many, many years.” Observers say Japan’s discharging of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean may pose long-term threats to human health and the marine environment.

    • Darkerseid@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fukushima was a nuclear disaster, suffering three nuclear meltdowns. The water has become contaminated and radioactive after coming into contact with the nuclear core. No other nuclear plant in the world is doing that. Greenpeace Japan lists other isotopes in Fukushima nuclear contaminated waste water including but not limited to strontium-90, which causes bone cancer

    • iridaniotter [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would vapor release have been better? That just sounds like choosing to release it into the atmospheric global commons instead of the oceanic global commons, so people would make the same complaints. Is there any data showing expected radiation dispersal in the air vs the ocean?

    • Life2Space@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought that the controversy was because the Fukushima wastewater made contact with the exposed core of the nuclear plant. This introduced — not only more dangerous isotopes — but also greater amounts of it, compared to regular wastewater.

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tepco will monitor the radioactivity of the processed water at various stages as well as the ocean water at the discharge site.

          Ah yes because Tepco was never caught lying about measurements in the past. Your security assurances are useless if there is no way to make sure the filtering is actually done. You assume we suddeny forgot about them constantly lying in the past. They are all Samurai with an honor code, there is no way a private company will engage in cost cutting, right?

              • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What evidence? You posted some damage control article (“Tepco said trust me bro, so its aight”) of the crackerverse countries now ordered to publish everywhere to defend their battle slave. “We need to keep our people’s opinion of Japan high, we might need to use them as a second Ukraine later”. Wouldn’t even surprise me if our Bri’ish gents already banned imports from affected regions lmao

                there’s a lot of anti-nuclear bullcrap fearmongering going on here and judging by the ☭ in some names it cant be a coincidence

                You must confuse them with Germans, for which nuclear energy is like black magic nowadays. The position of “☭”-enjoyers is actually consistent, as it really makes no sense to leave the filtering and dumping to a well-known lying private enterprise, that’s not even that hard to understand. And the IAEA, which received suddenly $1-2 million (alias got bribed) from Japan.

        • 🏳️‍⚧️ 新星 [she/they]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tritium has a half-life of only 12 years. In 80 years, 99% of it is gone.

          I would be more concerned that the filtration system wasn’t sufficient enough to remove more dangerous radioactive contaminants. I believe that’s what the countries around who are opposed or skeptical are concerned about.

            • 🏳️‍⚧️ 新星 [she/they]@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              12 years have already passed, so 50% is already gone.

              How much is enough? 1% of a large concentration is quite different than 50% of a small concentration. Shouldn’t we compare this in units of concentration instead of vaguely defined percentages?

              Also, why are we focusing on the tritium? Are you confident that everything else is filtered so we don’t have to worry about the rest?

              • Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the radiation from the water is negligible compared to background radiation, then it should be safe for consumption, given that all toxic substances are removed.

                The fact that they didn’t provide the evidence showing the lack of radioactivity is indicative that they are releasing it prematurely. The fact that they mentioned a lack of space is indicative of a monetary reason.

                They ran out of funding to hold the toxic radioactive water, so they’re dumping it out into the ocean.

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

                What kind of logic is that.

                Your solution is that storing it for 80 years is bad because 1% is left, so let’s dump 100% right now???

        • Blinky_katt@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, why is the talk only about tritium and carbon-14 in this report, ignoring 64 other elements present in the water that potentially contain harmful effects. The IAEA report states they only investigated these two elements by Japan’s request, it does not imply that there are no other elements they can or should also investigate, just they didn’t because they weren’t requested to.

    • comradecalzone@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you might want to rephrase that. The plan isn’t really to “release contaminated water,” but rather treated and diluted water.

      Leftist spaces are also more likely to express backlash at anything that may contaminate the environment, with good reason. You need to consider your audience, and consequently, your rhetoric.