Do you agree with Japan's pouring the nuclear water into the sea? Is it safe? What means "safe"? Why not Japan's prime minister drink a glass of that water to demonstrate its safety and healthiness?
Do you have a link to a relevant news article or something, so readers can get some background on what, exactly, Japan is doing?
(July 5, 2023) Japan can release Fukushima water from tanks with radioactive material, UN says https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2023/07/05/fukushima-water-release-2023/70382604007/ Twelve years after an earthquake and tsunami destroyed parts of the Fukushima nuclear plant and contaminated water supplies, the United Nations has approved Japan's highly anticipated waste disposal plan, which includes slowly discharging treated, radioactive water into the ocean. - - - - - - (July 9, 2023) Backlash builds as Japan prepares to release wastewater from nuclear plant https://www.npr.org/2023/07/09/1186677021/japan-fukushima-nuclear-plant-wastewater-release South Korean opposition lawmakers sharply criticized the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog on Sunday for its approval of Japanese plans to release treated wastewater from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant. - - - - - - (July 14, 2023) AP gets rare look at nuclear plant as it prepares to release radioactive water https://apnews.com/article/japan-fu...ater-release-cf6f2b99df9cea91abc7b2ad2d23d9fd At Japan’s tsunami-wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, giant blue pipes have been constructed to bring in torrents of seawater to dilute treated, radioactive water under a plan to discharge it gradually into the Pacific Ocean. Workers were making final preparations as Associated Press journalists received a rare opportunity Friday to get a look at key equipment and facilities for the release, expected in coming weeks or months. - - - - - - (July 7, 2023) BBC News: Plans for Fukushima water release approved
As long as the concentration of radioisotopes is low enough - yes. Unlikely to harm anyone. Because you can't drink seawater.
Safe means "unlikely to cause harm" "Quantify" as in level of radiation. There is a certain amount of back ground radiation the human body can tolerate on a daily basis with no consequences. Certain environments that risk increases.
It means it's not likely to harm you. Prove what? The definition of a word? You can do that all by yourself.
There is a table listing the output of radiation I one go (acute) or hourly yearly giving examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation) A “safe” level is unlike to cause harm, cellular damage. Cells are able to repair as per a normal burn but acute does of high radiation can oblate the cell and/or damage DNA. These techniques are used in radiotherapy for targeted doses. I would google the accidents involving the "demon core" and also what happened at Chernobyl.
In the spirit of the mathematical version, it is philosophical rationalism that demands or seeks the level of "proof". But that degree of certainty is usually not possible, since reality as encountered is not a formal system or intellectual game of strict rules and values where all data concerning _X_ can be perfectly acquired/known and abstractly represented/manipulated "on paper". OTOH, rival empiricism (or endeavors descended from it) is satisfied with good probabilities that _X_ is the case. It is practical minded rather than fixated with absolute assurance. Granted, however -- ambitious administrators, politicians, and lawyers may sometimes take liberty with what was placed on the table and present it as utter certitude to the public. And take heads later to deflect responsibility from themselves or implement litigation on the expert sources. Fukushima’s Radioactive Water Is Going to Be Pumped Into the Ocean—and That’s Fine https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-radioactive-water-release EXCERPT: In the years since, workers have had to constantly pump water into Fukushima’s stricken reactors, which still contain hot nuclear fuel. [...] it has become irradiated in the process ... Workers have kept the used cooling water on-site, building tank after tank in which to store it. All the while, they have known that they will eventually have to dispose of it. Today, there are 1.3 million metric tons of contaminated water on-site. And no space for any more tanks. The time to do something about it is here. It has taken years of research, modeling, and sampling, but earlier this month the International Atomic Energy Agency gave its approval for a discharge plan. [...] to begin slowly releasing the water into the ocean via a 1-km-long underwater pipe. Some aren’t happy. Local fishers are strongly opposed to the plan, and there have been street protests in South Korea. Yet many scientists are highly confident that the discharge will be perfectly safe. The contaminated water, enough to fill more than 30,000 fuel-truck semi-trailers, contains a mix of unstable chemical elements [...] To keep these radioactive components to a minimum, Tepco has installed special water purification technology that treats the water before storage. In essence, it involves passing the contaminated water through a series of chambers containing materials that can adsorb radionuclides. The isotopes stick to those materials and the water flows on, a little cleaner than before. However, it is not 100 percent effective [...] There are also some isotopes the system can’t remove at all... Despite this, the water is extremely safe because the concentrations of radionuclides are so low, explains Jim Smith, a professor of environmental science at the University of Portsmouth. “I’m not concerned,” he says of the plan to discharge the water. Many of the above radioactive isotopes were released into the ocean at the time of the disaster in 2011—and some traveled. (MORE - missing details)
Do I agree? If the water is so radioactive that it will fry anyone visiting the beach, no. If the water is just radioactive enough to raise the background radiation a little, yes. I can understand local fishermen not liking the water release. Even if the fish they catch nearby remain perfectly safe after the release, some markets and food processors might be reluctant to buy it. So I hope some consideration has been given to helping them with that. The whole process will have to be carefully monitored.
It's as safe as all the EM radiating devices that people are surrounded by, the chemical additives routinely placed in their food, and the city air they breathe. Who knows, it might even be safer than ubiquitous PFASs and numerous microplastic particles passing through one's GI tract right now, some of which enter the bloodstream. But this release is not without social impact, just as people believing that 5G was causing the coronavirus provoked them to react negatively. For instance, back in 2020 mobs attacked and burned down 4G towers by mistake. https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7q...e-towers-over-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories _
Sampling check on sea water samples does not mean it is safe. If you are unlucky you may consume fish contaminated with Ce-137 isotopes, or Sr-90 isotopes.
As has been pointed out it is the levels that are important. There are isotopes that are naturally occurring and present on the earth in rocks and soil, that are emitting very low levels of radiation all the time. I would google India and Australia for these hot spots and closer to home for me at least Cornwall.
Was there any discussion of them pumping it to a low depth, like 2 to 5 km down? Couldn't that give it many years to decay and disperse?
There are many examples in history where scientific activity has cost the environment and humans more directly in the longer term. Lithium, lead, Uranium, Coal, oil etc. Just recently I was reading about the history of Lead and how it was used and the side affects especially lead poisoning in children and the destruction of the ozone layer etc. where only "discovered" or acted upon after the fact rather than preemptively. The saying "better of two evils" comes to mind. No increase in background radiation could be considered safe until decades if not centuries have passed, time being the greatest test. However one has to ask: How safe is having all that contaminated water stored in tanks on land in the long term? (Rhetorical) Are we all going to have to double up on the adding of more iodine to our food (in the longer term)? (Rhetorical) I think the greatest concern not mine) is how the release is going to effect fishing stocks not only for Japan but China and others in an ever increasingly populated world that is slowly choking itself to death. A large percentage of the global population relying on fishing stocks to feed themselves. I have confidence that the science has been done and that the water is as safe as it can be, but this confidence does not suggest that it is "safe" but more that it is the best of a bad deal or "better of two evils". A compromise that a cost of which we may yet discover over the next few decades or so...
Sorry about my post above, the meds I am on make it difficult unfortunately. I think that the points I wanted to make are fairly obvious even if my post was some what convoluted.
