GenZedong
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
Fukushima was a nuclear disaster, suffering three nuclear meltdowns. The water has become contaminated and radioactive after coming into contact with the nuclear core. No other nuclear plant in the world is doing that. Greenpeace Japan lists other isotopes in Fukushima nuclear contaminated waste water including but not limited to strontium-90, which causes bone cancer
IAEA says "Views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of IAEA member states"
It's safe to say that this is Japanese Govt. decision, IAEA has no bearing the the final decision
How would vapor release have been better? That just sounds like choosing to release it into the atmospheric global commons instead of the oceanic global commons, so people would make the same complaints. Is there any data showing expected radiation dispersal in the air vs the ocean?
I think another part of their concern with different isotopes was the source of the tests. The company responsible for testing is also the owner of the power plant. As shown so many times in the past, we can always fall back on our trust in parties with a conflict of capital interest.
This is quite enlightening, thank you!
I figured out a better search engine term for the topic and found some info on it. Seems to all check out.
I thought that the controversy was because the Fukushima wastewater made contact with the exposed core of the nuclear plant. This introduced — not only more dangerous isotopes — but also greater amounts of it, compared to regular wastewater.
Do you have any evidence of that?
Tepco will monitor the radioactivity of the processed water at various stages as well as the ocean water at the discharge site.
Ah yes because Tepco was never caught lying about measurements in the past. Your security assurances are useless if there is no way to make sure the filtering is actually done. You assume we suddeny forgot about them constantly lying in the past. They are all Samurai with an honor code, there is no way a private company will engage in cost cutting, right?
@traveler@lemdro.id
Pls come back and defend the bbc article
What evidence? You posted some damage control article ("Tepco said trust me bro, so its aight") of the crackerverse countries now ordered to publish everywhere to defend their battle slave. "We need to keep our people's opinion of Japan high, we might need to use them as a second Ukraine later". Wouldn't even surprise me if our Bri'ish gents already banned imports from affected regions lmao
there’s a lot of anti-nuclear bullcrap fearmongering going on here and judging by the ☭ in some names it cant be a coincidence
You must confuse them with Germans, for which nuclear energy is like black magic nowadays. The position of "☭"-enjoyers is actually consistent, as it really makes no sense to leave the filtering and dumping to a well-known lying private enterprise, that's not even that hard to understand. And the IAEA, which received suddenly $1-2 million (alias got bribed) from Japan.
Tritium has a half-life of only 12 years. In 80 years, 99% of it is gone.
I would be more concerned that the filtration system wasn’t sufficient enough to remove more dangerous radioactive contaminants. I believe that’s what the countries around who are opposed or skeptical are concerned about.
Then they can store it for 80 years before releasing it
12 years have already passed, so 50% is already gone.
How much is enough? 1% of a large concentration is quite different than 50% of a small concentration. Shouldn’t we compare this in units of concentration instead of vaguely defined percentages?
Also, why are we focusing on the tritium? Are you confident that everything else is filtered so we don’t have to worry about the rest?
If the radiation from the water is negligible compared to background radiation, then it should be safe for consumption, given that all toxic substances are removed.
The fact that they didn’t provide the evidence showing the lack of radioactivity is indicative that they are releasing it prematurely. The fact that they mentioned a lack of space is indicative of a monetary reason.
They ran out of funding to hold the toxic radioactive water, so they’re dumping it out into the ocean.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says it’s within safe limits, but I do agree that monetary reasons seem to make this release questionable.
Well the problem with that is the stored water would be much more concentrated. A leak would therefore be much more dangerous.
What kind of logic is that.
Your solution is that storing it for 80 years is bad because 1% is left, so let’s dump 100% right now????
Also, why is the talk only about tritium and carbon-14 in this report, ignoring 64 other elements present in the water that potentially contain harmful effects. The IAEA report states they only investigated these two elements by Japan's request, it does not imply that there are no other elements they can or should also investigate, just they didn't because they weren't requested to.
I think you might want to rephrase that. The plan isn't really to "release contaminated water," but rather treated and diluted water.
Leftist spaces are also more likely to express backlash at anything that may contaminate the environment, with good reason. You need to consider your audience, and consequently, your rhetoric.