Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

civilbeat.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 184 posts

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#131

Post by MomoXenosaga »

yandrypozo wrote: post #124
janmalec wrote: post #4

Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible c…

Thank you for saying that, I still don't get how so many people who claim to take decision based on science are so against nuclear tech.

Science is irrelevant. There still hasn't been a political decision in my country on where to store nuclear waste.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#132

Post by mrguyorama »

belter wrote: post #68
boomboomsubban wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster you asked is not that Japanese official. They just said dumping it was not a concern. Posting someone else's claim and asking them if they're ready to "back their claim" is disingenuous.

I realize that, and I would imagine everybody else in this thread. That was why, to try to avoid sounding disingenuous, I tried to apologize upfront for the question, and recognized and appreciated the poster qualifications. I was trying to qualify what safe means in this context. A bit like when talking for example to an aircraft manufacturer CEO, for example as in: 1) "This new airplane model is perfectly safe to f…

This argument is not useful. #1 and #2 differ based on the disposition of the CEO. A stupid, or not good at thinking about statistics and risks, CEO will happily get on a plane to get a bigger bonus, even if it's not that safe.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#134

Post by makeitdouble »

clarionbell wrote: post #13

Before anyone responds or makes a judgement, they should give a single minute of their lives to reading about tritium, the isotope ONE of the scientist is concerned about. Wikipedia[0] will do the trick if you have no other options. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Health_risks

4 years ago (2018/8/20’s public hearing)[0], one of the subject was how that “Tritium water” also contained strontium and cobalt, and what to do about that before releasing the water. To this day, the answer is “nothing”

[0] https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/chiji/kaiken20180820.h...

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#135

Post by teawrecks »

janmalec wrote: post #4

Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible c…

> Tritium is already present in the ocean

Would that be like saying "carbon dioxide is already present in the atmosphere"?

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#136

Post by teawrecks »

WithinReason wrote: post #84
janmalec wrote: post #4

Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible c…

Also, for another bit of comparison, there's 4.5 Billion metric tons of uranium in the ocean already: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6191296

That number doesn't mean anything on its own. How about a ppb ratio?

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#137

Post by yandrypozo »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #131
yandrypozo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for saying that, I still don't get how so many people who claim to take decision based on science are so against nuclear tech.

Science is irrelevant. There still hasn't been a political decision in my country on where to store nuclear waste.

I would say science is only relevant for political agendas.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#138

Post by exabrial »

Oh ffs... The water has been filtered and metals removed if I'm reading correctly. It contains a higher amount of tritium.

Side note, seems like this could be sold to some research labs, no? Seems like if you need tritium using this rather than ocean water would be a good thing.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#139

Post by yandrypozo »

jerf wrote: post #127
yandrypozo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for saying that, I still don't get how so many people who claim to take decision based on science are so against nuclear tech.

Well, one reason is that a lot of people casually assume that the baseline level of radiation in the natural environment is 0.0000000...., but it's not. Uranium has been extracted from seawater before. It's not economically practical, but it can be done, because seawater has uranium in it already. Tritium is also already in there. Issues of concentration at the point where it is put into the ocean can be an issue, bu…

Awesome, that's truly great to know, makes total sense in fact nothing is 0.00% pure or safe in nature and that's beautiful.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#140

Post by pvaldes »

ceejayoz wrote: post #118
pvaldes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863967/

https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article/62/4/557/6256015 > Because some people are concerned about biological accumulation of OBT in the environment, we briefly summarize the behavior of OBT in the ecosystem. Scientific data about the environmental behavior of OBT are still limited, however, it is clear that biological accumulation is not the case for tritium including OBT.

"A factory worker ingested tritium over 7.4 years. His exposure dose was estimated at 3–6 Sv. He developed isochromic anemia, and subsequently died of pancytopenia"
Post reply on HN