Japan said on Tuesday it will start releasing more than 1 million metric tonnes of treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant on Aug. 24, putting into motion a plan that has drawn strong criticism from China.
  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    25·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    TOKYO, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Japan said on Tuesday it will start releasing more than 1 million metric tonnes of treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant on Aug. 24, putting into motion a plan that has drawn strong criticism from China.

    The plan, approved two years ago by the Japanese government as crucial to decommissioning the plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) (9501.T), has also faced criticism from local fishing groups, who fear reputational damage and a threat to their livelihood.

    “I promise that we will take on the entire responsibility of ensuring the fishing industry can continue to make their living, even if that will take decades,” Kishida said on Monday.

    Foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in July that Japan had shown selfishness and arrogance, and had not fully consulted the international community about the water release.

    South Korean activists have also protested the plan, although Seoul has concluded from its own study that the water release meets international standards and said it respects the IAEA’s assessment.

    The water was used to cool the fuel rods of Fukushima Daiichi after it melted down in an accident caused by a huge tsunami in 2011 that battered Japan’s eastern coast.

    The original article contains 552 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    223·
    1 year ago

    On one hand, I’m sure they’ve thought this through and calculated the radiation levels to be manageable.

    On the other hand, pretty much every decision regarding Fukushima has ended up resulting in a disastrous worst-case scenario.

    • nbafantest@lemmy.world
      58·
      1 year ago

      Very very small amounts of radiation is not bad. Your body is exposed to this every day.

      Japans plan is to dilute the “water” so much that it should be at safe levels while it decays. They’re also not going to release all of it at once, which might not be clear to some readers.

      I believe their plan is widely recognized to be safe, but obviously there is a lot of fear around nuclear and radiation.

      I believe the worry is that this amount has never Been released before, and that while we might consider it safe, there is a chance it accumulates somewhere to harmful levels.

      And obvious consumers of fish are already reacting. Would you buy “safe” fish from Chernobyl if you could just as easily buy the same fish from South Korea?

    • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
      305·
      1 year ago

      You don’t trust Reuters? Reuters is about as trustworthy and unbiased as you can get. They’re like the gold standard for non-editorialized journalism.

      • Hogger85b@kbin.social
        31·
        1 year ago

        I’ve always heard it as Reuters is what the markets use to make their “bets” so has to be true enough to inform them.

    • xep@kbin.social
      11·
      1 year ago

      Here’s the IAEA report: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

      The discharge limit for tritium is pre-defined in the Government Policy for discharges of ALPS treated water as 22 TBq per year, which is equivalent to the pre-accident discharge limits at FDNPS.

      I’m also curious about how much discharge nuclear generators normally produce. If they discharge a certain amount as part of normal operation then it seems to me to also become a function of how many nuclear generators are being operated globally.

    • nachobel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      102·
      1 year ago

      The IAEA approved the release, so it’s unlikely to be catastrophic. I can’t imagine radioactive tritium is great for fish, but what do I know.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        172·
        1 year ago

        It’ll dilute so quickly and thoroughly into the ocean that it might as well not be there. This is a classic case of the public panicking over the word “nuclear.”

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        3·
        1 year ago

        Nor is pissing in an Olympic pool, but at some point you’re at homeopathic levels and while it “sounds wrong” is actually totally fine.

    • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      137·
      1 year ago

      I don’t trust this article or China for that matter.

      Then I guess it’s a good thing that this is Japan we are talking about.

      • pastaq@lemmy.ml
        163·
        1 year ago

        I’m fairly confident they were referring to the criticism from China FTA, but you’d need to read past the headline for that context so…

        • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          1 year ago

          Yes that was it. Chinas comments have been over the top for a bunch of issues in the past, there’s no reason to just presume their stance has merit.

          Especially since they are starting fires again rn regarding Taiwan and Japan in different context.

    • 🆑🅰️🅿️🅿️ℹ️🆖🔙@lemmygrad.ml
      924·
      1 year ago

      China: bro… radioactive waste should not be dumped into the ocean, the fuck? Are you serious?

      Me: 😡 stfu tankies

      IEAE: it’s just radioactive tritium, how bad can it be? Surely the impact will be negligible

      Me: ayyyy fuck them fishes 🤪🖕

      • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
        22·
        1 year ago

        China’s Hongyanhe power plant releases 4x as much radiation lol. It’s fake, unscientific concern being published for geopolitical reasons. I say this as someone who otherwise agrees with most of what the Chinese government has to say.

        • jcit878@lemmy.world
          21·
          1 year ago

          what sane reason would someone have to agree with literally anything that genocidal corrupt government would say

          • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
            12·
            1 year ago

            They usually accomplish the goals they set out to do and have greatly improved the well-being of their people. Egregious corruption has been dealt with - that’s old news. And there’s no genocide in China. To say that is actually soft genocide denial as it trivializes the word.

            • jcit878@lemmy.world
              11·
              1 year ago

              Egregious corruption has been dealt with - that’s old news.

              lol

              And there’s no genocide in China

              LOL

              mate theres no way to think either of those things without being cooked

              • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
                11·
                1 year ago

                You’ve based your perception of China on fundamentally incorrect axioms, so there’s no discussion to be had here. We can talk about radiation if you want.

    • fajitahornet@beehaw.org
      10·
      1 year ago

      yeah everybody just ignore the actual important bit of information:

      That water will contain about 190 becquerels of tritium per litre, below the World Health Organisation drinking water limit of 10,000 becquerels per litre, according to Tepco. A becquerel is a unit of radioactivity.

      china and south korea beeing shocked is a political and cultural thing…because its always cool bashing thr neighbor to feel better about your self.

      I’m no expert nor do i aprove atomic waste dumping in the ocean. just trying to bring up a.talking point here.

      peace and love

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        1·
        1 year ago

        While the reported tritium levels may be below the World Health Organisation’s drinking water limit, it’s important to note that tritium’s potential risks depend on various factors such as the quantity released, dilution rates in the ocean, and potential bioaccumulation in the aquatic ecosystem.

  • possessedfaxmachine@lemm.ee
    6·
    1 year ago

    Over the last three decades and especially the last decade (the Fukushima accident) TEPCO has a history of missteps, reprehensible neglect, denial, and most of all creative work with their own documents or even more creative backdating of already existing documents to make everything look okay on paper so they can continue to get funding from the government here (sorry, actually just a bunch of LDP gerontocrats and 日本会議 members) to cover their fuckups. They have shown nothing but a series of lies and utter incompetence over the past decade. Anything they say should be taken with a very large grain of salt. They seem to want to forget that even for days and perhaps weeks afterwards they claimed that nothing actually happened and that it was a fraction compared to XYZ. And actually there was no problem, they claimed there was no problem even when people started moving. And then they pretended that they never said there was no problem and were transparent. But people here are not used to question or check whatever they are being told

  • HowMany@lemmy.ml
    41·
    1 year ago

    “Treated” radioactive water… soooo many movies.

    Or is this where we give a boost to the next dominant species - octopus / dolphin sapients.