Japan started releasing treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, a polarising move that prompted China to announce an immediate blanket ban on all aquatic products from Japan.

China is “highly concerned about the risk of radioactive contamination brought by… Japan’s food and agricultural products,” the customs bureau said in a statement.

The Japanese government signed off on the plan two years ago and it was given a green light by the U.N. nuclear watchdog last month. The discharge is a key step in decommissioning the Fukushima Daiichi plant after it was destroyed by a tsunami in 2011.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Sure. Because Chinese food regulations are notoriously tight and the populace is so protected from contaminated foods.

    I’m guessing this has more to do with fishing rights in the South China Sea and this is just convenient for them.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wasn’t that virus issue that we just had and continued to have caused from wet markets over there?..or no that was the Japanese who caused it right?

      /S if no one got the joke

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          Unfortunately that shows that it’s probably a bad sample, the paper calls it out at the end. The curious issue here is they found it in Jan 2020 but them March of 2019…but nothing in between. So the odds of the march sample being a false positive are pretty high.

          The medical community is pretty well positive it originally came from the Wuhan lab, that was found to be selling their used animals on the wet market, I don’t think I’ve seen anything for a while now say different. Unless it’s a Chinese source which doesn’t want to take responsibility at all.

  • lasagna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    China has entire towns that are toxic wastelands. This is just a political statement, probably their usual brainwashing of self.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Let them worry about minute amounts of tritium in the ocean - it is political hubhub, nothing more. The tritium is less pollution and will vanish faster than microplastics in the seas.

  • Lil' Bobby Tables@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Dude. It’s the goddamn ocean. Even if your premise was anything but political-- and it’s not-- how would your seafood be any better?

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      No poison acts like a boolean value, it’s all about dosage and exposure. The idea that fish closer to the contamination site will be more contaminated than fish farther away seems pretty obvious.

      If I stand next to you while you fart, I will smell more than if I stand a kilometer away.

      Mind you, I’m not saying China is right, it’s obviously a political ploy. But I disagree with your logic.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Did I say so?

          You’re acting like it’s crazy to say: the further I physically am from something, the less it will affect me.

          Why do we have to pretend reality is not a thing, just because it’s China?

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              OK, I’m not sure if you’re arguing with me, or really aggressively and antagonistically agreeing with me.

              I’m arguing against your initial point. I don’t think I’m being “really aggressive and antagonistic”.

              I’ve been through graduate psychopharmacology and know all about toxicity. I think you should consider reading my post, again, in a different light, and maybe terminating this conversation.

              Please explain to me which light I should read your post in. It seems to me that you said: even if China were right, their fish would be just as contaminated as Japans fish, as you wrote:

              Even if your premise was anything but political-- and it’s not-- how would your seafood be any better?

              This is obviously wrong if you understand that toxicity is based on exposure and dosage, since Japans fish would be closer to the point where contaminated water is poured out.

              Later you wrote:

              They’re not fishing from the damn power plant.

              Nobody stated this. However it’s not like “distance to powerplant” is a boolean value (in powerplant/not in powerplant). It’s a distance. Japans fish are closer to the point where the contaminated water is poured than Chinas fish are. So why is your retort only that they’re not fishing from the power plant?

              How else am I supposed to read your comments?

  • Rand0mA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Just a question here but do you treat radioactive ☢️ water? I thought once it was radioactive that’s it for like 100000 years

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      My understanding is that they can chemically remove damn near everything except the tritium. It’s because the tritium hydrogen atoms aren’t in the place of regular hydrogen in H2O.

      So essentially they can’t filter the water out of the water, if that makes sense.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Which shows one of two things: Either you were fast asleep in physics in school, or your physics teacher was an idiot.

      All that tritium water release is about as “dangerous” as losing 70-80 glow-in-the-dark wristwatches in the ocean. And in comparison to the microplastics issues, the Fukushima water is laughably harmless.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Disappointing. Things like nuclear decay chains was something we had in tenth grade, fourth year of physics in 1985, Germany.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    83
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s pretty bad when China is in the right when it comes to a safety-related topic.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        No. Many people (especially in the US) are completely ignorant about science. This guy knows nothing that would help him (or her) to actually rate the danger.

    • Ryumast3r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s pretty bad when you’re this misinformed and frankly, extremely ignorant on a topic and then make a comment like this.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Then you better don’t eat bananas. Because bananas are more radioactive than the Fukuchima water.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Why would a troglodyte know anything about bananas? It probably subsists off of frozen pizza/hot pockets.