this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
60 points (94.1% liked)

worldnews

3142 readers
17 users here now

Welcome!

We strive for high-quality standards on the latest world events.

The basis of these standards comes from the MBFC, which uses an aggregate of methodologies, including the IFCN and World Freedom Indices, to rate the Bias and Factual Reporting of News.


Does your post fit the standards? Check this thread!


Rules:


Rule 1: No Further Gaza/Israel war posts

Rule 2: No US internal news/US politics

Rule 3: Editorials, opinions, analysis, blogs, gifs, memes, etc non-serious news sources

Rule 4: Non-English articles require a translation in the post or comments (mark the title with the source language eg. [FR] for French)

Rule 5: Petitions, advocacy, surveys

Rule 6: All-caps titles

Rule 7: Old news (≥ 1-Month-old) articles

Rule 8: Unlabeled NSFW images/videos

Rule 9: URL shorteners

Thank you.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LazerFX@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

So I googled what the background level of Tritium is in seawater. The general consensus is that this various based upon where in the world you are, but it's typically around 500 - 750 becquerels of tritium per m^3^. The amount they're releasing is 190 becquerels of tritium per m^3^, or in other words, they're reducing the average tritum radioactivity of the water...

So why is this news? Why haven't the journalists gone, "Stupid people don't understand how radioactivity and volumetrics work, and are complaining about the Japanese releasing water that is so highly treated it's cleaner than the ocean average."?

--edit-- Not going to edit the above, but @zifk@sh.itjust.works correctly pointed out I'd got my units wrong... and then they got their units wrong replying. And that's why we need good journalism who can actually look into this fucking stuff properly, and give reasoned responses!

[–] zifk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Actually we both screwed up by a factor of 1000, the article states 190 becquerels of tritium per litre, not cubic meter.

~~Seems like you have the right order of magnitude, but~~ the sources I've seen gives the ocean close to 0.5-2 TU, or "Tritium Units" which correspond to 180 Bq/m^3. ~~So I wouldn't call the water being released as cleaner, just basically on average with the ocean already.~~

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/etg.tmp/text/woce_method.html https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718348034

[–] LazerFX@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why I should stick to computing ;) Thanks for the update.

[–] baked_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Still the comment should be and stay top because it's far more informative than most of comments usually

[–] LazerFX@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Thanks - I did edit it to say whoops, but it's still pretty informative I'd say. People get silly about radiation and then go out and tan in the sun for a few hours :P