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
    128
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      32
      arrow-down
      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’.

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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
        12
        arrow-down
        72
        ·
        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
            2
            arrow-down
            29
            ·
            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.

            • osarusan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

                • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                • osarusan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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
                1
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                • Roboticide@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              ???

              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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    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.

    • Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          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.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
              1
              ·
              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
                2
                ·
                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.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      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
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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.

      • BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why do they do this?

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

          • BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

  • remotelove@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sample size: 64

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

    • mjq07@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 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.

  • zephyreks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    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.