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
    link
    fedilink
    85
    edit-2
    2 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      242 years 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
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          2 years 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
            1
            edit-2
            2 years 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
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              2 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      2 years 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.

      • SolidGrue
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years 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
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          2 years 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.

      • @marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years 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
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          2 years 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.

    • @scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years 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
    682 years 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
        -552 years 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
            -24
            edit-2
            2 years 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
              link
              fedilink
              20
              edit-2
              2 years 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
                  52 years 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 years 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              112 years 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
                -112 years ago

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

                • Roboticide
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  32 years 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
              2
              edit-2
              2 years 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.

        • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years 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.

        • Hypx
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

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

  • @mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    402 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      652 years 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
      222 years 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.

  • @BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26
    edit-2
    2 years 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.

  • roguetrick
    link
    fedilink
    23
    edit-2
    2 years ago

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

    • chaogomu
      link
      fedilink
      192 years 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
    182 years 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
    122 years 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.

    • @mjq07@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years 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
      111 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.

  • Orionza
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 years ago

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

  • @Piers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 years ago

    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…

  • Fr❄stb☃️te
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 years ago

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