• Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know just enough about radioactivity to know that I don’t know enough about radioactivity to form an opinion on this.

    Will there be enough radiation to actually fuck anything up? Or is this just a scary headline sensationalizing something that’s actually benign?

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

      Ehhh, it’s been as cleaned of radiation as possible. My dad did nuclear inspection for a living, including disposal, so I asked him about this when it first hit the news.

      In theory, as long as they follow existing protocols, the water isn’t going to be harmful. But that’s the question, really; have they followed protocols? They have oversight, so it shouldn’t be possible for then to half-ass it.

      There really isn’t a way to remove tritium though. The levels of that should be low enough to be unimportant.

      It’s going to be higher than background radiation, but well under international standards. It isn’t something to be happy about, but it’s as low risk as it gets. Tokyo pumps out way more dangerous things every day just by being a busy city.

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

        It’s sad that nowadays when we read about a limit considered safe by an organization, we have no way of knowing if it came from real studies and analysis or is it just a lobbied value that big players are using to weed out smaller competition because current technology can’t get below the really safe limit anyway

        • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, in the case of radiation levels, the science goes back far enough, and with enough duplication/replication that it is as solid as anything that’s an ongoing endeavor gets.

          Like, everything is unreasonable technically going to be “to the best of current knowledge” because science is a process, and even when there’s mountains of evidence, there could be newer evidence that contradicts previous conclusions.

          But the general dosage limits have been in place and matched predictions for at least my lifetime (around 50 years), since those standards were used by my dad at that time and are still the same. A lot of the nuclear stuff wasn’t done for profit, nor were the standards. So it’s a tad bit better than something like petrochemical data.

          I’d phrase it like this; I wouldn’t want to go swimming in the tank the water is stored in, but I wouldn’t worry about swimming in the ocean a few days later at all. The levels are just so low at that point that any danger is a non issue compared to things like smog.

    • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      That water will contain about 190 becquerels of tritium per litre, below the World Health Organisation drinking limit of 10,000 becquerels per litre, according to Tepco. A becquerel is a unit of radioactivity.