this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
26 points (86.1% liked)
GenZedong
8 readers
1 users here now
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.
Serious posts can be posted here and/or in /c/GenZhou.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.
Rules:
- This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
- No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
- No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
- No dogmatism/idealism (Trotskyism, Gonzaloism, Hoxhaism, anarchism, etc.)
- Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People love overreacting to any high-profile nuclear energy news, especially when it has a political character. The IAEA has a comprehensive report on this (https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge) and, while I'm not a nuclear energy expert, just an enthusiast, it's all predictably mundane and low-risk and there's many, many far more dangerous sources of ocean pollution that never get nearly this amount of attention.
However,
For one thing, dumping into the ocean wasn't the only realistic option, vapor release was also an option. More expensive and harder to monitor, yes, but in the event of some kind of unlikely cataclysmic fuck-up (which has never happened in the history of nuclear energy, as we all know), the fallout would likely be more contained to Japan rather than distributed to every nearby country's seafood supply.
That Japan chose the option that saves money but, in an incredibly improbable worst case scenario, results in maximizing contamination to it's neighbors, was either extremely short sighted and stupid or intentionally inflammatory. Of course people in China were going to react this way. In all likelihood it's an overreaction but it's also a reaction that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of nuclear energy history could have predicted. Throw in the history of shit Japan has done to China and it's no wonder that they're furious for being expected to trust a Japanese corporation with their best interests.
That's the real issue here, and arguing over the technical details of safety doesn't address it. Japan had multiple options here, and chose self interest and cost cutting over cooperation with and consideration for it's neighbors, and China is perfectly justified in being unhappy with that outcome.
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
Correct, but the water is processed to remove all the other radionuclides first. The really nasty stuff that causes all the horrible cancers and radiation burns and stuff is separated and stored/disposed of through other processes. That's the theory anyway, and based on the IAEA report seems to be the current practice as well. But this process is going to take years and since TEPCO is a publicly traded for-profit enterprise, concerns that cut corners and lax safety measures could lead to either untreated water or dangerous concentrations of tritiated water being released in the future aren't unfounded.
It makes me think of hydraulic fracturing. Pretty safe when done correctly, but profit-motivated corporations absolutely cannot be trusted to do things correctly. We can only hope that the ongoing IAEA oversight is enough. Or that the economic backlash is enough to convince the Japanese government to change course to a plan that it's neighbors can feel confident about.
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
Yes. IAEA is monitoring the situation and compiled a report based on their findings, but it isn't their decision nor does the report represent an endorsement of the plan. I don't think I ever said that it was?