No detectable amount of tritium has been found in fish samples taken from waters near the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, where the discharge of treated radioactive water into the sea began a month ago, the government said Monday.

Tritium was not detected in the latest sample of two olive flounders caught Sunday, the Fisheries Agency said on its website. The agency has provided almost daily updates since the start of the water release, in a bid to dispel harmful rumors both domestically and internationally about its environmental impact.

The results of the first collected samples were published Aug. 9, before the discharge of treated water from the complex commenced on Aug. 24. The water had been used to cool melted nuclear fuel at the plant but has undergone a treatment process that removes most radionuclides except tritium.

  • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember commenting on a post where China condemned Japan for doing this.

    I asked ppl there “is this actually bad or is this kind of par for the course of getting rid of the dangers left behind in Fukushima?” And most of them were like “it’s not a common occurrence but it’s not inherently dangerous and it’s not that big of a deal”

    To me it looks like the vast majority of objections to this came from strategic propaganda related to domestic relations of China and/or other nations.

      • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        71
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t doubt nuclear power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

          • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This here is capitolist FUD, but I’m sure in all your great wisdom think humans can be trusted not to fuck up a 5th time.

            • osarusan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              All you said that was humans mess up everything we do, as if that were something meaningful to say. That is not an argument against nuclear. That’s an argument against absolutely everything humans do. It’s meaningless. Look:

              I don’t doubt solar power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

              I don’t doubt coal power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

              I don’t doubt hydro power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

              I don’t doubt steam power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.

              All of those are exactly as meaningless as what you wrote. So don’t go on snarkily about my “great wisdom” like you’ve made any point at all. Nuclear is safer than oil and coal and gas, which is where the majority of the world’s energy comes from right now. Fossil fuels are actively destroying our planet right now, and you’re spreading nuclear FUD about things that haven’t happened. That’s not helpful, and it doesn’t match the reality we live in.

                • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Methinks the troll doth protest too much.

                  Your motives are clearly just trying to rile people up, you haven’t provided a single cohesive argument.

                  It’s so cute how hard you’re trying

                  • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Aww you caught me 🤭

                    I have no facts to give you other then humans are too dumb and fickle to be trusted with something as temperamental nuclear power when solar and wind exist.

                    😳 thanks for noticing

                • osarusan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill.

                  Lol.

                  The famous last words of someone who has no point to make but can’t even admit it to themselves.

                  I wrote an honest reply to you and I even bothered to Google some sources for you to refer to. You didn’t even reply to what I said and just came back spouting more non sequitur garbage.

                  It’s shameful. You should do better than this. Be better than this.

            • Roboticide@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s nothing more capitalist than pushing coal and oil.

              And any rational green energy advocate knows it’ll take us decades to build enough solar/wind to fill the fossil fuels gap, but would only take us a couple years to fill that demand with nuclear and also produce fewer emissions. That’s simple numbers.

              So are you just irrational or a coal-snorting capitalist yourself?

              • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Show me this “fossil fuel gap” when it takes a decade for a nuclear power plant to run at full efficiency.

                • Roboticide@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Best case scenario estimates are a complete replacement by 2050 if energy consumption doesn’t change. This requires aggressive investment in renewable production.

                  However, that’s unlikely to happen, as energy consumption is increasing, especially as vehicles across the globe abandon oil-based fuel for electricity from the grid.

                  The largest hurdle to nuclear power is simply regulatory. We could have nuclear plants built by 2030 with a ~30+ year life that would guarantee us the ability to fully phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables by 2050 even as demand increases.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              ???

              The USSR and Russia were huge players in nuclear technology and contributed a lot to the field. I actually can’t think of an energy source that has a closer connection to communism.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Y’kown we nuclear power plants cant explode like an atomic bomb right. Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.

          Also if you bring up the Russian troops who got fucked up, that was caused by not using PPE and then promptly inhaling graphite dust and some randome mildly radioactive materials. It was fine while in the ground but breathing that shi in will do a number, probably still better than going to those old mining towns where the air is now made of asbestos.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It wasn’t even necessarily the design, although that didn’t help. It was the bureaucracy that stopped them from doing anything about the problem.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I feel like there was enough issues on damn near every level that the term “compounding issues” comes to mind. Seriously its one of those situations where if it wasnt one thing that wrnt wrong it wouldve been something else.

          • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.

            It’s happened three other times since then…

            Edit: one other time

            • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where and when were the 3 other nuclear meltdowns? I wasn’t able to find anything with a quick search, maybe I’m not looking for the right terms.

              • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I guarantee other person was referring to 3 mile island like most people do when talking about “nuclear disasters”.

                Solet’s review the casualties and damages!

                Oh wait, you mean nothing happened to hurt people or cost tons of money in damages?

                And it was almost entirely hyped up by media outlets trying to make this their chernobyl?

                And anti-nuclear propagandists who are almost entirely paid by fossil fuel companies?

                You know, THAT 3MI “Meltdown”.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And anti-nuclear propagandists who are almost entirely paid by fossil fuel companies?

                  They’re dastardly clever. They’ve created a narrative that it’s fossil fuels companies who are actually pushing nuclear technology. I suspect they’re also behind the unusual opposition to hydrogen – if hydrogen is ubiquitous, it’s going to be green hydrogen more likely than not. By trying to stop that, fossil fuel companies are able to continue selling and using hydrogen from refinery operations.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever seen against nuclear energy. “Sure it works, but people are evil!”

          I can apply that to everything. Communism? I don’t doubt it works, but humans build and also destroy.