[freetime2]

> Japan says all radioactive elements have been filtered out except tritium, which is hard to remove from water. The hydrogen isotope is also discharged – at higher levels – by operational nuclear power plants, including in China and France.

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

> Monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has backed the plan, will be on-site for the discharge, and samples of water and fish will be taken.

Umm, what's the controversy here?

[implements]

> Umm, what's the controversy here?

Fear of radiation, fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will. Personally it seems safe to me and I’m confident the IAEA’s monitoring will be effective, but then again I’m living on the other side of the planet, so …

[Prickle]

To be fair, TEPCO is completely and absolutely untrustworthy. There is evidence of severe miss-management, as well as 2 cases where they deliberately ignored safety warning from government agencies.

As a Japanese citizen, I would feel safer seeing the TEPCO corporation dismantled, and it's leadership behind bars. But the courts declared them not guilty.

A late addition, but I should also add info about Onagawa Nuclear Powerplant. It survived the exact same disaster with no melt down, only because the manager staunchly refused to back down on constant safety training and disaster drills. Of course, to the frustration and chagrin of upper management.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[ammo1662]

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230824/k10014172021000.ht...

and also

https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi...

They seems to be more willing to put money on propaganda instead of actually dealing with the problem. Just check the page 7.

- Discharge into the sea: 3.4 billion yen

- Vapor release: 34.9 billion yen

- Hydrogen release: 100 billion yen

- Underground burial: 243.1 billion yen

And for propaganda, 70 billion yen

[freetime2]

Japan has spent more than ¥4 trillion on the decontamination effort so far. So it's definitely not true that they have spent more on propaganda than "actually dealing with the problem".

> Total decontamination costs have exceeded 4 trillion yen as of the end of December. Going forward, additional costs are projected to grow by trillions of yen. [1]

Is ¥70 billion a lot? Sure. But to put it in perspective, more than $14 billion (¥2 trillion) was spent on federal election campaigns in the US in 2020 [2]. Gaining public favor is expensive in a democratic country. And misinformation is a real problem with real costs (e.g. to Japan’s fishing industry) - so it makes sense economically as well as politically.

[1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United...

[freetime2]

So people don't trust the Japanese government or TEPCO. That's fine, and that's why the IAEA is there monitoring. Don't trust the IAEA? I feel like anyone should be able to conduct independent testing on water and fish samples from the area.

[lifthrasiir]

> Don't trust the IAEA?

You can trust the IAEA to actually do monitoring, and also believe that monitoring might be not effective enough. The IAEA failed to effectively monitor the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade, so why should we expect the opposite?

> I feel like anyone should be able to conduct independent testing on water and fish samples from the area.

You have to tap into the wastewater source, which is much more hard to do independently and also why the IAEA had to show up. The wastewater will then be subject to the ocean currents, so the actual effect would be inconsistent and delayed (up to 10 years, according to simulations). At that point nothing could be done about the year-long dump.

[defrost]

> The IAEA failed to effectively monitor the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade,

Wwhich decade was that then (more to the point why did they fail to monitor if they were montoring?)

There's a big difference between easy monitoring of peacetime allied country nuclear reactors and monitoring the enrichment program of a country actively attempting to develp weapons grade material in the absence of any binding agreements.

[lifthrasiir]

> [Which] decade was that then (more to the point why did they fail to monitor if they were montoring?)

2009--2019 if my understanding is correct. Note that this period does overlap with major sanctions against Iran, and since the IAEA itself later acknowledged the breach of agreements in this period, it's fair to say that the IAEA monitoring was not as effective compared to Western intelligences.

> There's a big difference between easy monitoring of peacetime allied country nuclear reactors and monitoring the enrichment program of a country actively attempting to develp weapons grade material in the absence of any binding agreements.

This doesn't matter, because it does show that countries can hide (or more accurately, delay the detection of) evidences if they are really willing to do so. And the absence of any binding agreements actually gives Japan more incentive to do that.

[freetime2]

> The wastewater will then be subject to the ocean currents, so the actual effect would be inconsistent and delayed (up to 10 years, according to simulations).

Do you have a source for these simulations?

[lifthrasiir]

Sure, see Yi Liu, et al. (2021) [1] and Kim, Kyeong Ok, et al. (2023) [2]. AFAIK they all predict a rapid initial diffusion into the Pacific ocean with a much delayed inflow back to the Korean waters among others.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr...

[2] https://sciwatch.kiost.ac.kr/handle/2020.kiost/43977 (no actual paper available, I inferred its details from [3])

[3] https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_internatio...

[freetime2]

So it might take years for the treated water to reach South Korea, but in water samples taken in the vicinity of the East coast of Japan a higher than expected dose of radiation would show up almost immediately after release. And of course the concentration will always be strongest off the coast of Fukushima, so if concentrations are higher than expected off the coast of Japan, they could immediately stop releasing the treated water, and the concentration by the time it reached Korean waters would be orders of magnitude lower (note the colors on the dispersion graphs represent exponential changes in concentration) than what was detected near Fukushima.

That’s what I mean when I say anyone who really wants to can conduct their own tests and sound the alarm. Hell, if the Chinese government wants to pay me I’ll go take a boat off the coast of Fukushima and collect some water samples for them myself.

[lifthrasiir]

> [...] fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will.

Especially given the fact that Naoto Kan, the prime minister of Japan at the time of the Fukushima accident, had to go to the TEPCO HQ to force them to continue the response instead of giving up and watching a full meltdown. Japan has a lot to do in order to regain the lost trust.

[Prickle]

Regaining trust is IMO, impossible with all current politicians.

The government has basically designated the nuclear agency seat as a "Send the guy we don't like there" seat. Only incompetent idiots have been placed there since Fukushima.

Add in all the BS red-tape that the government made up, the notoriously slow bureaucracy, and sometimes even sabotage? (Combine that with the new nuclear regulation agency created after Fukushima, which complicates it further) It's not happening without a strongman leading the charge and really forcing it.

Would be great if we could copy-paste France's setup. But Japan is obtuse and inflexible.

[minebreaker]

So sad that many Japanese saw it as a micro management and blamed him

[wdutch]

China are making a fuss about it but it's just an excuse for geopolitics.

[ghusto]

This was exactly what I thought when I first started hearing about this, and is even more what I think now after hearing statements from China.

China's statements are sleazy in my opinion. The way they word things makes it sound like Japan is irresponsibly doing whatever they like without oversight, and the world should be doing something about it.

[ohgodplsno]

None, groups like Greenpeace and various green parties throughout Europe are being China's useful idiots. Fukushima-Daishi is going to release 900 TBq in a whole ocean over multiple years, and that dose is already estimated by taking the worst numbers we could imagine.

La Hague's retreatment plant puts out 13000 TBq per year, and no one ever cared, nor did anyone see changes in the environment.

Not to mention that humans do not metabolize Tritium, it'll never stay in the human body for more than a few hours. You're more likely to die from the salt in that water than the tritium.

[the-dude]

La Hague, not The Hague ( Dutch city )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site

[ohgodplsno]

Serves me right for wanting to properly translate my own language, forgetting some other countries have the same names. Thanks.

[the-dude]

Pas de probleme!

[yieldcrv]

The countries over there don’t like each other and are looking for any excuse to point that out

[ipaddr]

10,000 is very high and this level will be lowered hopefully in time.

In Ontario Canada:

20 Bq/L limit proposed by the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC)

190 is 10 times that limit.

This isn't only about drinking water it's about eating seafood that has absorbed these chemicals (or eaten many fish who have absorbed them). I could understand the caution around seafood in that area for a period of time.

[freetime2]

This isn't drinking water, though. This is the concentration in water that is going to be discharged into the ocean and rapidly diluted even further (1 - 2 Bq/L within a few km of where it's being discharged, and difficult to distinguish from background levels in the ocean beyond that [1]).

And as the article notes, there are active Nuclear power plants in France and China (and South Korea [2]) that discharge even more tritium per year than is planned at Fukushima. Should people also be cautious about eating seafood from those regions as well?

[1] https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi...

[2] https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/17/173%EC%86%A1%EA%B7%9C...

[ohgodplsno]

I regret to tell you the ODWAC is made up of unqualified morons preying on your fears then.

The ocean's average radioactivity is 12Bq/L, and there's a _lot_ of water. A single banana is 20Bq already.

Dump a few million litres of 10000Bq/L water in the ocean over a few years, and the average radioactivity goes to... Still 12Bq/L

[cornholio]

It depends on the exact elements that are causing that emission level. Heavy metals such as those present in nuclear waste tend to bio-accumulate in marine organisms, that then find their way into the food chain.

This is unlike, say, naturally radioactive carbon or potassium isotopes, that have a relatively constant concentration in the animal's body over it's life time - if a fish eats some high potassium food, it will excrete an equivalent of his own equally radioactive amount to maintain homeostasis.

It's for this exact reason the net "banana dose" of radiation, unless you are potassium deficient, is in fact zero.

[ohgodplsno]

TW: French

https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1694248709180084514

TEPCO did not detect any iron 55 or selenium 79, yet they are included in their estimates, at the worst possible doses, explcitly for safety. The amounts rejected and the radiation it exposes you to is about as harmful as living a few floors higher up that what you do. It's nothing.

[fomine3]

Tritium does not become concentrated, that's why it's hard to collect and many countries drop it to ocean.

[sasoon]

Your body now emits 5000 becquerels, which is around 70 becquerels per liter of your body. So that Fukushima radioactive water is only 2-3 times more radioactive than you. That is why 20 Bq/L limit proposed by the ODWAC does not make much sense.

[dirtyid]

Napkin math of 1.25 million tons of water is about 34,000 tanker trailers, or 3 a day over 30 years. So why doesn't JP just dump it in Lake Inawashiro a couple hours drive west? It's safe after all. Cost seems trivial. Except no one trusts TEPCO. Least of all the Japanese. Why would region trust JP any more? Dumping is offloading a domestic political problem to an international one because radiation + Japan + politcs = bad time. Enough that they're willing to give up to 600M in fish exports per year instead of dumping this very safe water on Japanese soil.

[MagnumOpus]

Why don't you just drink bleach instead of wiping down your countertop with it?

Seriously, I have a hard time assuming good will from your post if you do not try to differentiate the amount of dilution happening in a 100km2 50m deep lake vs a 100,000,000km2-sized 5,000m deep ocean.

[mirekrusin]

If it's under drinkable thresholds, they should bottle them and see how their "San Tritiurino" "energy water" / "water with a kick" sells in shops.

[Prickle]

You realize water is distilled right? "Drink-able water" is different from "One item is below safe drinking thresholds".

Drinking salty sea water is generally not recommended.

[mirekrusin]

They can distill it and even flavour if they want.

[ammo1662]

They are trying to mislead you about the difference of "nuclear waste water" and "nuclear polluted water".

The waste water of nuclear plant will not directly touch the nuclear materials. However, the water Japan released did.

[blablabla123]

This seems also the only real problem left to me. I have no doubts that they get the concentration low enough. But I wonder how likely it is that there are still particles left in the water that in isolation might have unacceptable radiation/toxicity levels.

[fomine3]

Regardless of source, it's same thing if what govt/IAEA checked is correct.

[hoseja]

Latching onto any possible controversy.

[Prickle]

China and South Korea are making a big fuss about it, despite producing and releasing more tritium than Japan.

Just a few minutes ago, The CPC (Communist Party of China) stated that it is suspending all imports of Japanese seafood to protect consumers.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-66599189

> As expected, China has imposed a blanket ban on all Japanese seafood.

> Beijing announced some restrictions last month, but they were limited to 10 prefectures in Japan, including Fukushima and Tokyo. Earlier this week, Hong Kong announced a similar 10 prefecture ban on ‘aquatic produce’.

> South Korea, too, still blocks seafood imports from the Fukushima area. It's a ban that's been in place since 2013 and, although the government's political stance has softened, it is one that it has no intention of lifting.

> These are major customers for Japan and represent a lot of lost business. Nowhere buys more Japanese seafood than mainland China, which imported more than $600m worth last year. Remarkably, Hong Kong is only just behind - spending $520m on marine produce from Japan.

> Given China's consistent and vocal opposition to the wastewater release, it's a scenario that Japan's government probably envisaged. In the short-term, it admits businesses will take a 'significant' hit.

> In this sense, China understands the economic leverage it has over Japan and the question is whether Hong Kong will follow the mainland’s lead with another all-out ban.

> Either way, we're talking about major disruption for Japan's seafood industry and for restaurants in Hong Kong and China.

[sooheon]

Source for claim that South Korea releases more than Japan?

[Prickle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water...

Annual release of tritium:

2020: South Korea Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant and others Total: 365tbq or 1,022mg

The total amount currently stored at Fukushima is around 860tbq, intended to be released over the course of 30 years.

So divide by 30 and that is around ~28tbq a year.

Either way, the halflife of tritium is around 14years, and it's everywhere in the ocean. This is actually a nothing burger.

[sooheon]

Why does this only compare tritium, which is the supposedly safe material? What about "cesium, cobalt, lithium, and strontium" which are supposedly more dangerous?

[freetime2]

Those elements have already been filtered out [1]:

> Radioactive materials such as cesium, strontium, iodine, and cobalt are purified by ALPS through co-precipitation treatment using solutions and adsorption on activated carbon and adsorbents. Almost all radioactive materials are removed through repeated treatment by ALPS, but tritium, which is a radioisotope of hydrogen, exists as a part of the water molecule and cannot be removed through treatment by ALPS and other equipment.

It's only tritium that can't be removed (and that is why it is released by other nuclear power plants - in larger quantities that is planned here - as part of normal operation).

[1] https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/rhm/basic-info/1st/06-03-05.h...

[sooheon]

Gotcha. "as of January 2023, approximately 70% of the water stored in tanks still contained radioactive materials at concentrations exceeding the regulatory standards, in addition to tritium, due to such reasons as failures in purification equipment" -- so what's left is a matter of trust that they have got their equipment working and the actual water released isn't still contaminated.

Bottom line point stands, more is released regularly and this is nothing compared to the initial deluge of untreated material from the accident itself.

[Prickle]

Because it is filtered out by every nuclear power plant that has an inkling of basic morals?

The only materials that aren't filtered out are Carbon14 and Tritium, if I remember correctly.

[sooheon]

I never expect morals from large agencies. Have they allowed independent testing at the release point for the more dangerous isotopes?

[fomine3]

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100521833.pdf

[colordrops]

Good, the oceanic ecosystem is being destroying by fishing.

[kortilla]

China will just illegally fish it itself

[killjoywashere]

That is definitely true.

[Akronymus]

It is water that qas involved with a nuclear reactor.

Yes, people are that afraid of nuclear.

[echelon]

The greens of the 80's did so much more harm than good.

If we'd built the capacity then, we'd have a whole lot less carbon in the atmosphere today.

[the-dude]

The anti-nuclear stance of the Greens can't be judged in isolation and must be seen in the context of the Cold War and the impeding Nuclear Armageddon.

I don't necessarily agree with the Greens but I remember this perilous time very well. And it was the incumbent non-Green powers who created this situation.

Furthermore, this is not the only theme the Greens pressed on and I must admit our country is already much much better for it ( cleaner air, cleaner waters ).

[CalRobert]

Not sure shutting down nukes and extending the life of coal power plants (or going all-in on Russian gas) was great for the air or water.

[the-dude]

I wish your comment was better.

[CalRobert]

How can I improve it?

[killjoywashere]

> cleaner air, cleaner waters

How much? Of what?

[the-dude]

Trolls

[CalRobert]

There needs to be a distinction between greens who can and cannot add.

Same for the classic "look at that ugly city, so bad for the environment!" Bay area types who forced suburban sprawl.

[mxmbrb]

The management of the establishment was what killed the vibe for fission energy. And in this regard the greens where right.

Many facilities (back then and now) where unsafe (e.g. Ukranie) and are still a threat (e.g. France)

Add to that the short sighted actions by everyone involved. (DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location (germany))

For me that's enogh to loose trust in governments and companies beeing able to run such an operation. Fukushima beeing the final nail to this coffin for many.

Maybe when we can proof the reliability, safety and waste efficiency of modern reactor systems, we can rebuild this trust. But either way, we are surely talking 20-60 years. It's scorched earth.

[MagnumOpus]

> DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location

And this is a massive political issue with which the Green parties collect millions of votes. Meanwhile "of 265 US power plants that monitor groundwater, 242 report unsafe levels of at least one pollutant derived from coal ash" - so instead of the small potential of ground water contamination from a small number of nuclear plant waste barrels, people passively chose the almost certainty of ground water contamination by leachate containing arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and thallium - a chunk of it radioactive.

But it got votes.

[RetroTechie]

Maybe that's the biggest problem, really.

The design, deployment, regulatory/political hurdles, and the long operational lifetime of nuclear power plants, make that any improvements take a loooonng time to bear fruit.

Inertia of the installed base with its problems (and history), makes new development near-impossible.

That situation propably won't improve until newer designs accumulate a multi-decade track record of safety, or fusion power gets commercialized.

[hulitu]

> Umm, what's the controversy here?

Did you see Godzilla ? /s

[mr_mitm]

These facts won't convince people who believe in homeopathy, of which there are plenty. Of course there shouldn't be a controversy, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that there is, considering the amount of anti-scientific sentiments in the general population.

[lionkor]

If I shit in the ocean, does the ocean become highly potent and poisonous because its highly diluted shit?

[RetroTechie]

Shit breaks down into food.

In the ocean: bacteria food -> plant food -> fish food.

[mr_mitm]

According to homeopathy, it does become potent, yes, but not poisonous, because it will magically heal whatever disease ingesting shit causes.

With one caveat: homeopathy says that the water has to be diluted by a certain process which involves tapping it ten times during full moon or some non-sense like that.