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

Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#61

Post by sooheon »

freetime2 wrote: post #58
sooheon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 ca…

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.

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#62

Post by sooheon »

Prickle wrote: post #52
sooheon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#63

Post by hoseja »

freetime2 wrote: post #2

> 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.…

Latching onto any possible controversy.

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#64

Post by lifthrasiir »

freetime2 wrote: post #54
implements wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 …

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.

> 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.

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#65

Post by Prickle »

dirtyid wrote: post #56
yabatopia wrote: post #7

The reaction of China and South Korea is hilariously hypocritical. Both countries have been dumping nuclear waste water in the ocean for years - and continue doing that. Geopolitics at it's worst.

So why not dump this very safe water on Japanese soil? There's lakes and reservoirs a short drive away. A few tankers a day over 30 years to clear up 1.25 million tons is cheap to losing 600M of fish exports per year to PRC and barely impact local enviroment on time scales involved. Maybe inspire some new Godzilla movies. Oh wait, it's because Japanese domestic politics wouldn't allow it. So gov would rather internat…

Because that's not how dilution works? That part should be incredibly obvious.

I keep seeing this nonsense about "why not dump it into the dirt", as if that ever made any sense. The answer is always simple, there is already a massive amount of Tritium in the ocean.

The water, is also literally sea water. It is salt water taken from the ocean, now with some radioactive isotopes of hydrogen (H20 remember?) which is called tritium. The dilution process literally takes sea water, and mixes it.

Dumping salt water into a local lake or river, or the dirt is literally what starts ecological disasters. But you didn't even do basic research did you?

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#66

Post by defrost »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #64
freetime2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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, w…

> 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.

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#67

Post by Prickle »

sooheon wrote: post #62
Prickle wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

For the former point, fair enough.

For the latter, obviously yes. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) has done it's own independent tests, as well as actively monitored japanese tests while on site.

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#68

Post by freetime2 »

ammo1662 wrote: post #59
Prickle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Nuclea…

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 f…

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...

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#69

Post by sasoon »

ipaddr wrote: post #16
freetime2 wrote: post #2

> 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.…

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.

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.

Re: Japan starts release of Fukushima’s treated radioactive water

#70

Post by lifthrasiir »

defrost wrote: post #66
lifthrasiir wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, w…

> 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 bindin…

> [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.

Post reply on HN