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.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    A banana naturally has has around 15 Bq of potassium 40. Assuming a volume of 100 mL, mashed bananas have around 400 Bq/L.

    Currently, the treated water has around 250 Bq/L, around a fifth of mashed bananas. In other words, a banana smoothie could easily be more radioactive then the water as it was released.

    The banana’s potassium 40 has a half life of more then a billion years, so it’s not going anywhere, unlike the tritium who’s amount will half every 11 years. Also, potassium is concentrated by many plants and animals, while tritium is not.

  • FrostbyteIX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I for one would like to try this “nuclear fish”…preferably crumbed, deep fried and doused in lemon juice. With a serve of fries.

  • mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll trust the nuclear scientists that say that the release is safe, but there should be a transparent international panel, including China which has concerns about the release into fishing waters, that is given access to conduct their own tests with all parties agreeing to release their findings.

  • BeanCounter@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I live in South Korea and I get really frustrated how so many people(lefties) try to make a big deal out of this to shit on Japan.

    Please fucking stop smoking first before you try to talk shit about this. You sound like a complete idiot when you drink and smoke and worry about how filtered water that is probably safer than the seawater now. You’re literally paying to suck on carcinogens and radioactive shit.

    You’re just political about this. Not scientific.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do you specify lefties? Is there something unique about South Korean politics that make their left-wing reject science as much as everyone else’s right-wing?

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anti-nuclear has been mostly a left thing in the US at least despite the clean energy movement including many of the same people.

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

        Korean left-wing has been constantly making conspiracies and propagandas rejecting scientific evidences.

        • THAAD’s electromagnetic wave will fry people’s brain (they even made a song about it)
        • Importing US beef will kill people
        • US and Israel faked North Korea’s attack for political reason

        List goes on and on and on…

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why do they do this?

          Is their right-wing more reasonable, or even more insane?

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

            Considering how these kind of anti-intellectuallism and nationalism is pretty much left thing in here, yeah

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If their reporting of the quantity of tritium is accurate, India’s candu style plants release more incidentally than this will.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is what the experts have been saying since the beginning, but the anti-nuclear propagandists explicitly ignore the experts.

  • halfempty@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sample size is critical to get a realistic result of the tritium toxicity. In this case, they sampled only 64 fish! That would not yield a statistically significant result!

    • osarusan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Samples of local fish have been collected at two points within a 5-km radius of the discharge outlet, except during rough weather conditions, with the agency announcing its analysis results on an almost daily basis since Aug. 26.

      No tritium was detected in 64 fish, which included flounder and six other species, collected since Aug. 8.

      I mean… you could have read the article.

      • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?
        Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?

        • osarusan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know the answers to those questions, as I am not a nuclear scientist. But the nuclear scientists seem to think so.

          In any case, I think those are good questions. Those are the kind of good questions we get when people read the articles.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I love when people tell on themselves for not knowing a thing about statistics.

          Yes, it’s more than enough.

        • sethboy66@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?

          Given the results, it is significant.

          Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?

          No, tritium is treated by organisms just like normal H2O, bioaccumulation is no problem.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably because the octopuses used it all for their science experiments. It’s a scientific fact that octopuses hoard tritium. Source: Spider-man 2.

  • remotelove@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sample size: 64

    Also, are there other things like Caesium-137 that pose a risk?

    • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      All that other stuff was filtered out, but the tritium is near impossible to separate, because it is chemically identical to the hydrogen in normal water.

      As for caesium, there are still detectable amounts of Cs-137 in most of the word from the thousands of atomic bomb tests. It’s half life is just 30 years, but it will still be detectable for a hundred years or so because of the huge amount we released.

  • zephyreks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People have been far more concerned about the efficacy of the ALPS system at extracting other contaminants than they are about tritium contamination. The ALPS system is unproven and the wastewater they’re releasing would be pretty toxic as far as other radioactive isotopes is concerned if the ALPS system isn’t doing it’s job perfectly.

  • Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The ocean is 1.335 × 10^21 litres. That number is stupid big. There are 7.5 × 10^18 grains of sand on Earth. If every person in Japan flushed a litre of the reactor water down their toilet, it would be diluted to nothing in no time at all.

  • Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    ignorance and paranoia about radioactivity go hand in hand.

    i know so many otherwise smart people who lose it on this issue. because they just think any radioactivity = destroy planet forever . completely ignorant to how it actually works, and just think every power plant must eventually chernobyl and that one barrel of nuclear waste is enough to destroy 1000s of miles or something equally absurd.

    totally sad.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think most reasonable objections to this were that they would be unable to filter out the actual bioaccumulating radioisotopes from the water and it should’ve been kept in retention. In the end you either trust they will or not. I trust they will.

      • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Water eats beta- and even alpha particles in a small radius. Ionized water even more so.

        The sea is vast. A pond is but a drop to the sea.

        It wasn’t a decision to be taken lightly, but it was a good gamble.

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nobody’s particularly concerned about the actual radiation of the tritium. It’s just that it is actively picked up by your body and used like any other water with the same biological half life of water at 7 days. It can cause some problems in that time. It’s not really a problem of it getting integrated into anything, since all it’ll do is knock itself off of and destroy whatever it gets incorporated into when it decays.

      • marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand why people think concentrating it and keeping large quantities on-site is preferable to heavily diluting and releasing it. A giant vat of radioactive water sounds like another disaster waiting to happen.

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because they don’t believe that they’ve removed the heavy metals that end up in the food web and sitting in the littoral area seabed until it’s picked up by lifeforms again. Tritium dilutes, but fission products do not.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah they talk about nuclear waste and how it needs to be stored for so long, without recognizing that fossil fuels spew their waste, including radiation, directly into the atmosphere, where it is causing apocalyptic global warming. Having it in barrels is actually a big plus.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet one litre of oil can contaminate over a million litres of water.

      I talked about how water released are usually modeled and risk assessments done in another comment abour the pending release a few weeks ago but I can’t find it.

      While I can’t speak for all regulatory bodies, and you could be a shitass and release toxic crap without doing a risk assesmsent, it’s very unlikely that this is the case here, particularly because it’s TREATED water that’s being released. That means they have a treatment system (there’s a fucking rabbit hole and half…) which they are using to treat the water to some acceptable criteria/standard. This mean some sort of modeling and risk calculation has been done otherwise they would have just gone ‘yolo pump the water into the ocean’.

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Tritated water is toxic just like heavy water. You’d just have to drink a truly ridiculous amount for it to be toxic, to the point that the radiation is a much bigger problem than the toxicity.

          Edit: fully tritated water is actually worse, now that I think about it. The radioactive decay will periodically knock off a hydrogen atom, which makes it very reactive. That’s not what this is though.

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

            Water is toxic, if you drink an only mildly ridiculous amount and don’t get some salt too. I say this having been hospitalized for hyponatremia several years back, due to unwisely drinking plain water instead of anything with salts in it when sick.

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

              Oh for sure, I’m a nurse. Heavy water/tritated water is cytotoxic like a chemotherapy drug however, vs just messing up your osmotic balance. Your proteins conformiational structure from hydrogen bonds can’t function correctly with it and you can’t replicate your DNA/RNA because of the difference in size of the hydrogen and your cells die. Starts with diarrhea, ends with death. You need like a 20% proportion of it to see those effects though, so like I said, truly ridiculous amounts of tritated water. More than the entirety that they’re releasing.