Correct me if I'm wrong please. I seem to recall reading that this waste water is below background radiation levels in the Pacific Ocean?
Am I missing some info here, or is the "nuclear scary" folks just being vocal?
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
48 points (88.7% liked)
World News
32509 readers
421 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That is correct.
I thought that as well. I have nothing against nuclear energy and thought the whole thing was just being blown out of proportion. Then I looked into it again and learned that it's not just trace amounts of tritium, but likely a bunch of other much more long-lived isotopes. TEPCO and Japanese regulators aren't processing the water appropriately, and they aren't testing for many common radioisotopes. This is genuinely concerning.
if that was the case, why would the Korean government and iaea be saying its fine as the article says?
I'm not quite sure. The whole situation is really strange.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Hundreds of people in South Korean took to the streets of Seoul on Saturday to protest against Japan's contentious plan to release treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.
Choi Kyoungsook of activist group Korea Radiation Watch said radioactive substances in the water "will eventually destroy the marine ecosystem".
Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), published a report endorsing Japan's plan.
A few days later, South Korea released its own assessment that found that discharging the water should "not have any meaningful impact on our ocean areas," according to government minister Bang Moon-kyu.
US President Joe Biden is due to meet his South Korean counterpart Yoon Suk Yeol and Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida next week for a trilateral summit, where the controversial plan will be discussed.
"The governments of South Korea, the US, and Japan should view it an environmental disaster, rather than a political issue, and agree to block it for future generations," Ms Choi said.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Choi Kyoungsook of activist group Korea Radiation Watch said radioactive substances in the water "will eventually destroy the marine ecosystem".
I got news for you, bud, there's about four billion tonnes of uranium dissolved in the ocean already. Plus however many other radiation sources.
There’s not many solutions, and they all go from bad to worst, really.
Always nice to see the discussions about throwing waste into the ocean.
- Plastic waste: Oh no, we can't do that.
- Chemicals: Oh no, we can't do that.
- Old tires: Oh no, we can't do that.
- Household waste: Oh no, we can't do that.
- Raw sewage: Oh no, we can't do that.
- Nuclear waste: It's save, ignore the nuclear scary folks.
Technically, throwing any waste in the ocean is save. We started doing it decades ago, as it seemed a good plan. It gets diluted below appreciable levels as the ocean is large.
Yet our current plans are to reduce and not do it, as rivers, lakes, oceans are no trash cans. We learned that over the last decades, as once allowed and accustomed, it just gets more and gets accepted as common practise. Everyone starts doing the same, as it's such an easy way out.
The problem now is the reverse on that intend – obviously due to the lack of a better or any good alternative at all. But just because all options are bad, it doesn't make this one good. No officially declared waste disposal strategy should involve throwing it in the water.
It's nuclear wastewater, not spent nuclear material. It's more benign than bathwater.