No tritium found in fish one month after Fukushima water release

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.

hoshikarakitaridia,

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.

Unaware7013,

Its also classic anti-nuclear power FUD.

blindbunny,

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.

osarusan,
osarusan avatar

This here is also classic anti-nuclear power FUD.

blindbunny,

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.

assassin_aragorn,

???

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.

osarusan,
osarusan avatar

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.

blindbunny,

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.

Funny they didn’t bother with solar or wind…

It would be a lot cooler if you showed how many meltdowns occurred from solar and wind.

I’d rather not commit future generations with the obligation of dealing with nuclear power. But I guess you like billionaires like Bill Gates deciding that for you.

Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill. Might want to clean the boot polish off your face next time.

SARGEx117,

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

blindbunny,

Aww you caught me 🤭

I have no facts to give you other then humans are too dumb and fickle to be trusted with something as temperamental nuclear power when solar and wind exist.

😳 thanks for noticing

osarusan,
osarusan avatar

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,

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,

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

roboticide,

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,

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,
Hypx avatar

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

vaultdweller013,

Y’kown we nuclear power plants cant explode like an atomic bomb right. Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.

Also if you bring up the Russian troops who got fucked up, that was caused by not using PPE and then promptly inhaling graphite dust and some randome mildly radioactive materials. It was fine while in the ground but breathing that shi in will do a number, probably still better than going to those old mining towns where the air is now made of asbestos.

blindbunny, (edited )

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

vaultdweller013,

When, ya know besides Fukishima? Which wasnt even a detonation.

Xtallll,
@Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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,

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,

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.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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,

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.

AdamantRatPuncher,

China has released water with higher level of tritium on a regular basis before, from many of its reactors. Hypocrisy 100.

stevedidWHAT,
@stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world avatar

Welcome back to Fact or Cap

Piers,

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…

Orionza,
@Orionza@lemmy.world avatar

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

ArmokGoB,

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.

zephyreks,

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.

dangblingus,

Cool! So let’s ramp up disposing of radioactive material into the ocean because this one fish is ok!

BeanCounter,

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,

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,

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

assassin_aragorn,

Same with the “not in my backyard” mentality. NIMBYs love all these new green technologies, so long as they all happen far away from them.

bobman,

Uhh… no it hasn’t.

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

Cethin,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement

Please read. I’m leftist, but part of that is recognizing these issues. Anti-nuclear has largely been a left thing. The right only does it to protect fossil fuels.

BeanCounter,

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,

Why do they do this?

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

BeanCounter,

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

Kahlenar,

Precious tritium

toolCHAINZ,
@toolCHAINZ@infosec.pub avatar

The power of the sun… in the palm of my hand

WolfhoundRO,

Precious spaceship fuel

set_secret,

they did however find an absolute fuck tonne of microplastics.

rivermonster,

For 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.

saltedFish,

https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/913ce93a-8ad4-48e1-8c8e-6e49f3372476.jpeg

stmcld,

Wtf you’re just stating facts and giving a different opinion, and you’re being downvoted for that. Truly i don’t understand

QuinceDaPence,

They're claiming that some "exteaction" [sic] was done improperly during World War II when getting bomb material, and made a mess, and that that should be factored into the environmental effects of modern nuclear power.

That's a dumb argument.

Also telling people to go look it up, is not stating facts.

rivermonster,

Reading comprehension, man, you totally missed the point. Also, the WWII superfunds sites in Washington state were just an example… pick any of the 500+ toxic uranium mines all over and around Navajo land if you prefer. Or any other mines in the US or otherwise.

The actual point of the comment was the disinformation, lies of omission, and ridiculous cheerleaders going on in this thread.

The no tritium found in a tiny sample of fish a little bit after starting to release contaminated water into the ocean presented with a ridiculous implication that it means everything is fine and there’s nothing to worry about. Which you can see is what all the little fanbois here picked up and ran with… even though they’re wrong for reasons I’ve already stated.

I tell people to look it up because it’s not hard to find information, and nobody wants to just trust someone (read me) on the internet.

Honestly, if you need to be spoonfed links and papers chances are you’re just looking to argue, 8gnore, discount, and not learn.

Here’s an epa article on the 500+ (yes FIVE HUNDRED)mines the EPA been trying to remediate and deal with that were operational and poisoning the Najavo nation as late as 1986. At least half of them haven’t been addressed at all and the ones that have are usually mitigation not solutions.

www.epa.gov/…/abandoned-mines-cleanup

I don’t really believe you want to learn or are open to facts so I’m going to stop wasting my time.

Hyggyldy,

Dangit, now how am I gonna get my piscine superpowers/fish shaped tumors?

Pfnic,

Lol, I read that as swimming pool

ours,

Found the fellow Romand (French-speaking Swiss for the rest of the World).

Pfnic,

Well I’m sorry to say that I’m a Schpuntz but at least I know what a “piscine” is :D

ours,

Nobody’s perfect ^/s^

Snipe_AT,

deleted_by_author

    •
    rivermonster,

    Too 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.

    assassin_aragorn,

    Now do solar and wind. What materials are used, what wastes are produced, how much energy is consumed.

    rivermonster,

    what·a·bout·ism

    /ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/

    noun

    BRITISH

    noun: whataboutism

    the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

    “the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism”

    assassin_aragorn,

    If you think it’s whataboutism to ask for information that lets you fairly compare things on an equal basis, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say really.

    dangblingus,

    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,

    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.

    rivermonster,

    LOL I’m laughing about the huge amount of whatabout-isms in the replies. I appreciate them making my point.

    arekkusu,

    now do extraction, refinement, transportation, etc. for diesel

    SARGEx117,

    Ooh, and do lifetime emissions, and compare it with actual energy output of the source!

    dantheclamman,
    @dantheclamman@lemmy.world avatar

    I think that if the environmental movement emphasized how much radioactive material is released by coal and other fossil fuels, we’d have a lot less public resistance to phasing them out.

    rivermonster,

    what·a·bout·ism

    /ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/ nounBRITISH noun: whataboutism

    the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. “the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism”

    bobman,

    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.

    fubo,

    Hell, coal literally contains trace uranium, and its waste products aren’t accounted as “radioactive waste” even though they are.

    rivermonster,

    The only reason we burn any coal in the US is bc of politics and West Virgina. There’s no defending coal use at any level.

    Snipe_AT,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    derpgon,

    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,

    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.

    dgriffith,

    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,
    @Obi@sopuli.xyz avatar

    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.

    assassin_aragorn,

    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.

    rivermonster, (edited )

    As usual with this sort of calculation you want to not factor the magnitude of risk wich is also significantly higher.

    And as for yeeting into space, nuclear is already expensive, add in launch costs etc… now you’re incuring much larger risk at much greater cost.

    Also… ever seen a rocket blow up? Wonder what happens to a dedicated shipment of nuclear waste when that happens?

    rivermonster,

    I do have some research papers that I will pull up on my machine when home.

    I’m also not saying don’t use nuclear. I’m commenting on the fanboi risk dismissive misinformation that they like to peddle in here.

    And I appreciate the discourse and meant no offense and wasn’t try to say you were implying anything about the rest of the process. I was just pointing out that it’s one of nuke propaganda favorite methods of misinformation by ignoring the life cycle.

    Again, I’ll try and send you some of those papers and articles when I’m home. Thanks for the reply.

    luckyhunter,

    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.

    FrostbyteIX,
    @FrostbyteIX@lemmy.world avatar

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

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • ethstaker
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • mdbf
  • tacticalgear
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • Durango
  • tester
  • everett
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • khanakhh
  • provamag3
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • megavids
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •