Fukushima treated water released without technical concerns: IAEA

Basically they just doing paper works without actually live what they recommend, eating food products from Fukushima.

Nothing to see here folks. Just move along and keep paying your ever-increasing utility bills so the old boys who let this disaster happen never have to lose a single yen out of their pockets.

I look forward to the IAEA confirming that this release is safe, which I'm sure it will do. Even with the presence of Russian/Chinese experts, however, their governments probably won't lift the seafood bans as those bans are 100% political, and nothing to do with food safety.

Derek GrebeToday 09:02 am JST

so the old boys who let this disaster happen never have to lose a single yen out of their pockets.

Yes, they did. The execs responsible resigned and the entire company took pay cuts. It was originally 30% for management, 20% for normal staff, but I don't know the level, or if this is still in effect, now:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/in-the-wake-of-fukushima-stigmatized-nuclear-workers-quit-tepco/5391437

Calling radioactive contaminated water "treated water" itself is also deceptive despite containing many kinds of radioactivity such as iodine129, strontium90, ruthenium106, technetium99, cesium137, plutonium239, carbon14 or cadmium113 even after filtering.

Yesterday's incident could be considered a "technical concern" due to the pipe malfunction and the exposure to radioactive water.

Hideomi KuzeToday 01:58 pm JST

Calling radioactive contaminated water "treated water" itself is also deceptive despite containing many kinds of radioactivity such as iodine129, strontium90, ruthenium106, technetium99, cesium137, plutonium239, carbon14 or cadmium113 even after filtering.

Still trying this line, huh? Still won't work, I'm afraid.

Per Roy's answer - and for the benefit of other readers who actually want to learn the truth, rather than scaremonger - other radionuclides are removed/reduced to safe levels (by ALPS). The remaining tritium (which isn't removed by ALPS) is somewhere below one-sixth of the WHO's drinking water standard.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66610977

The IAEA, which has a permanent office at Fukushima, said an "independent, on-site analysis" had shown that the tritium concentration in the water discharged was "far below the operational limit of 1,500 becquerels per litre (Bq/L)".

That limit is six times less than the World Health Organization's limit for drinking water, which is at 10,000 Bq/L, a measure of radioactivity.

What else would you like to call water that has been treated?

Partially treated. Fully treated water indicates its safe to drink. This isn't.

Your bones are more radioactive than all those other radioisotopes combined.

Stronium 90 never leaves the bones if it gets in there.

Its not just about levels of radioactivity in a short time frame. Its about repeated exposure to the same place over months and years.

It’s reassuring to know that Japan has the technical capability to dump radioactive waste at sea-I’ll sleep well tonight…

It’s reassuring to know that Japan has the technical capability to dump radioactive waste at sea-I’ll sleep well tonight…

To do it safely? yes it is.

Keepyer InternetpointsToday  04:38 pm JST

What else would you like to call water that has been treated?

Partially treated. Fully treated water indicates its safe to drink. This isn't.

Only because it’s salt water. If it were fresh water, it is safer than tap water. Do a little research.

Only because it’s salt water.

Salt water can be treated to be drinkable. Do a little reseach.

If it were fresh water, it is safer than tap water.

You are permitted to believe whatever you like.

Calling radioactive contaminated water "treated water" itself is also deceptive despite containing many kinds of radioactivity such as iodine129, strontium90, ruthenium106, technetium99, cesium137, plutonium239, carbon14 or cadmium113 even after filtering.

This is top level scientific illiteracy.

ALPS system can successfully remove everything except tritium. Use muddy water as example. Mud is dissolved in water and can be filtered out just like those isotopes. However tritium behavior is the same as hydrogen and it can form a water molecule and that is why it is so tricky to filter out.

I would also like to add that running nuclear power plants are releasing way more tritium than Daiichi one

Keepyer InternetpointsToday  09:12 pm JST

"Only because it’s salt water."

Salt water can be treated to be drinkable. Do a little reseach.

It's going in the ocean, why desalinate it? Takes too much energy to do that.

"If it were fresh water, it is safer than tap water."

You are permitted to believe whatever you like.

That's a cheap non-reply. It's not a belief, it's a fact. You can prove it to yourself with just five minutes of research. Really, just do it. Don't believe me, believe the facts.

You can prove it to yourself with just five minutes of research.

There are two types of research, and the best type will take a LOT more than 5 minutes. It will require specialized expensive equipment and the expertise to use it correctly.

What you are referring to is the type of research where you find and read works published by others, who may or may not be on the take or hired to achieve certain results. This requires trust, and since we are talking about a massive scandal involving a particularly large and powerful company, trust is something I find in very short supply.

Trust= belief. You are free to believe what you want.

Also I just love it when I am told to research by someone who provides no links, as if their own beliefs formed out of the aether.

It's going in the ocean, why desalinate it?

That wasn't the point. The point is what the term "treated water" indicates. Note they are not saying "treated SEAWATER" but rather just "treated water" and of course, the standard meaning is take to be FULLY treated. For example, if I said I repaired your car, you would expect it to start, and not for me later respond, "I didn't mean I repaired the engine, just everything else."

It seems to be that semantics are being intentionally abused here.

This requires trust,

So is the first kind of research you refer, trust that the equipment performs as the sellers say it does, and trust that the people that teach you until you get expertise are doing it properly as well.

Trust is not the same as belief, trust is something that can be based on how people or institutions behave in the past and how the data they produce holds against the opinion of other experts, belief is just something you want to have even in spite of those other reasons.

the standard meaning is take to be FULLY treated.

Which it is, fully means to the extent of the treatment. Water treated for human consumption is also "fully treated" but it can't be used to clean sterile tools for surgery, or to dilute drugs to be applied by injection. That does not make the water "less" treated, it just mean it is treated to the degree it was intended from the beginning.

It seems to be that semantics are being intentionally abused here.

Yes, by people that pretend they can arbitrarily change the objective of the treatment so they can say the water is not.

And let’s dispel something. It’s not about semantics, it’s about tests and data.