• @nbafantest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      58
      edit-2
      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
      link
      fedilink
      251 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
        link
        fedilink
        21 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
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 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
        link
        fedilink
        151 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
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        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.

      • @pastaq@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        131 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
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          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.

    • 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
        link
        fedilink
        01 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
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

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

          • Bloops
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            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
              link
              fedilink
              01 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
                link
                fedilink
                01 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.