No tritium found in fish one month after Fukushima water release
No tritium found in fish one month after Fukushima water release
Tritium was not detected in the latest sample of two olive flounders caught Sept. 24, the Fisheries Agency said.
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.
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.
79they did however find an absolute fuck tonne of microplastics.
71I’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.
45The 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.
17Is somebody preventing them from catching and testing fish?
8
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.
41Too 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.
-44
Permanently Deleted
28Why 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?
5JOKE /dʒəʊk/
noun
a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.
We get you've got some personal issues going on behind closed doors, but you don't need to exert it out on people who are curious about things that cause concern to others. It makes you look like a bigger idiot than the ones you claim "sound like".
Thoughts and prayers to you for a speedy recovery on your troubles. Next time, keep it to yourself ok?
-8
Precious tritium
23The power of the sun..... in the palm of my hand
21Precious spaceship fuel
1
Probably because the octopuses used it all for their science experiments. It's a scientific fact that octopuses hoard tritium. Source: Spider-man 2.
21Unsurprising.
17in other news water is wet
1
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.
15Sample size: 64
Also, are there other things like Caesium-137 that pose a risk?
11Not really. This video by Kyle Hill does an amazing job at explaining it.
18Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
7
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.
9All 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.
1
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.
11People 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.
7I like this but would rather see a multi country coordinated oceanic study. We're all in this together.
7ignorance 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.
4Two 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...
3I for one would like to try this "nuclear fish"......preferably crumbed, deep fried and doused in lemon juice. With a serve of fries.
2A 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.
1Happy to pay the bills, Otto
0That's right.
-2Cool! So let's ramp up disposing of radioactive material into the ocean because this one fish is ok!
-13For 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.
-26
5Wtf you're just stating facts and giving a different opinion, and you're being downvoted for that. Truly i don't understand
-15