edit: changed title from 'False Fukushima Fears' to 'Exaggerated Fukushima Fears', sacrificing my lovely alliteration as others have pointed out that it would be too much to say that the fears of radiation leakages are unfounded, but merely to say that this is the least bad option given previous precedent as cynesthesia has pointed out.
Image is of the large array of water storage tanks holding the tritium-contaminated water.
This week's preamble is very kindly provided by our beautiful poster @[email protected], with some light editing. In periods where not much of earth-shattering importance is happening in the news, I hope to do this more often!
In 2011, the Fukushima nuclear incident occurred. Since then, water has been used to cool radioactive waste and debris, which contaminates the water with radioactive isotopes. Currently, TEPCO, the Japanese energy company that is reponsible to Fukushima, is storing about 1.3 million m^3^ of contaminated water (equivalent to about 500 Olympic swimming pools for our American friends) in about 1000 tanks. Approximately 100,000 m3 of contaminated cooling water is generated per year to this day. TEPCO doesn't want to store escalating volumes of nuclear waste for decades until half-lives are spent. This would mean adding substantial storage capacity every year at increased cost and risk of tank spills.
The contaminated water includes heavier isotopes like caesium as well as hydrogen's isotope, tritum. Caesium is a big atom at 137 molar mass (we love our tremendous atoms, folks) while tritium is heavy hydrogen and has only a molar mass of 3 (pathetic, low energy). The TEPCO people are using water treatment to remove heavy isotopes from water, but not tritium. The large adult isotopes are easy to remove with treatment but tritium is incorporated into water, so it blends in with the others. The treated Fukushima water contains low levels of the big isotopes but still contains tritium.
Isotopes release radiation that damages the body's cells. The longer an individual molecule containing an isotope is in a body, the more likely it is that the isotope will go BRAZAP and release radiation that fucks up the cells. Bioaccumulation is a toxicology term for how certain contaminants can accumulate in the food cycle. For example, algae eat contaminants, then the algae is eaten by bugs, then bugs by fish, then fish by people. Isotopes that are bioaccumulative like our large adult son caesium are more hazardous. Tritium is not bioaccumulative because it is effectively part of water. Water cycles through bodies quickly - that's why you sweat and pee and get thirsty. 
Fukushima water would be treated and then then mixed with seawater at a ratio of 1:800 before it is pumped 1km offshore. Each year approximately 166,000 m3 of treated water will be released, which will draw down the volume of contaminated water being stored over a few decades. Real-time stats associated with the release are found here. At the point of discharge, water contains about 207 Bq/L of radioactivity, about 16 times greater than the 10-15 Bq/L background level in the ocean overall. Drinking water guidelines for tritium radioactivity range from 1,000-10,000 Bq/L, if one were to drink seawater.
In wastewater treatment terms, this is a small amount of dilution in a very large body of water. It is unlikely to have any measurable impact per the terms of Western science. In the context of mother nature taking yet another one for the team and environmental distress, this sucks. In the context of making the best of a shitty situation, the Fukushima water release is peanuts compared to the many other environmental liabilities that are not addressed. For example, the Hanford Site is an example of a nuclear wastewater storage facility gone/going wrong in Oregon.
Ending note by 72: By far the biggest impact of the release of this water won't be its direct effects, but those on commerce and international relations. Almost half of Japanese aquatic exports go to China, comprising 8% of all Japanese firms shipping goods to China, and they have now been cut off due to their anger at Japan. Perhaps this reaction and the cancellation of imports was inevitable, as nuclear power and radiation in general is a poorly understood, frightening, and thus easily exploitable topic in every country. China is not the first country to use a misunderstanding of radiation risk to try and achieve a goal - Germany seems very pleased with itself - and they will not be the last.
In all: it is unequivocal that China is massively exaggerating the risks of this water's release. However, the bellicose rhetoric and actions of Japan, South Korea, and America are a much greater danger to the region, and none of the three seem to be in any hurry to try diplomacy instead of increasing military budgets and gearing up for war.
It's that time again - every two months I give myself a week off, to rest and recalibrate. Your regularly scheduled programming will resume next week.
Here is the map of the Ukraine conflict, courtesy of Wikipedia.
Links and Stuff
The bulletins site is down.
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Add to the above list if you can.
Resources For Understanding The War
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Telegram Channels
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
Pro-Russian
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
Last week's discussion post.
To improve the title’s accuracy and alliteration, I think it should be: “Fukushima Fears Founded, Frighteningly, For Fair-minded Folks”
Except that title is completely false.
have they been? not a hint of heightened radiation as far as I can see
I've said my piece a couple times now, so all I have left to say is that I will unequivocally take the L if something goes awry and I am wrong.
What I'm completely unworried about is the direct radiation effects forming something like the infamous (and fake) plume from around the time of the disaster, as we're talking a high degree of dilution over a very long timespan; TEPCO would have to be incorrect in their readings by several orders of magnitude. What I'm a smidgen more worried about is bioaccumulation, but again, long timespan, very diluted. What I'm second-most worried about actually is that an earthquake and/or tsunami will hit the facility within the 30 years as they're doing it this slowly and cause an uncontrolled release right on land or on the shore. And what I'm most worried about is the economic, political, and energy policy impacts from it entirely unrelated to anything the radiation will actually do.
I think that it isn't so much that there will be some sort of immediately threatening problem by what they say they are doing, it is that both Japan and TEPCO have a very big incentive to find any means necessary to unload as much waste as possible (reduce the large cost of maintaining and securing large quantities of radioactive waste) and this gives them a "legal"/"legitimate" avenue to do so. I have no doubt that they could theoretically do all of this in a relatively safe and relatively environmentally friendly way, and I am sure it will look like that on paper (at least for 10 years or so). But I think TEPCO has an incentive to circumvent monitoring and Japan's government has an incentive to look the other way or deny impropriety. This reminds me a lot of the debate over fracking and it's effect on the watershed. Industry people and contractors (anybody making money from it) will say "look, if you understand the science and engineering behind fracking, you will see that the correct procedure for drilling will never allow proprietary drilling fluids or petrochemicals to leak into the aquifer/water table." But the truth is that contractors nearly always either cut corners or make errors that allow for all kinds of problems with the water supply. Errors always exist regardless. Regulators always seem to look the other way. And the environmental "concerns" are always outweighed by the profit motive.
So, the form of the plan to dispose of some of the waste seems like it might be okay (although I am somewhat unconvinced)... I am skeptical that the function of this isn't so much to safely dispose of the waste, but that its true function will more likely be to create legal justification and public relations cover to reduce costs and increase profit, which is profoundly different and paints a much more concerning picture. They can cut corners or release waste in a dishonest way, and then say later blame errors, individual wrongdoing, or miscalculations to deflect from behavior that ultimately serves to increase profit... which was the true intention all along and always will be as long as we live under the law of value. Another poster put up this paper that I think adds more nuance and caution than fears being unfounded or even exaggerated, really.
As marxists, it is important to look at the science and engineering of purported solutions to social problems through the lens of the social system they operate under. Japan is not a worker's state, and the nuclear industry seems to have a lot of influence within Japan's political economy. Otherwise, Fukushima would likely not have been as grave a disaster. Regular, working-class people have every right to be fearful of the whims of capital and the environmental fallout from those whims, because working-class people are subject to those decisions, and there is a proven track record of betraying public safety in the name of profit. Working people have little say, as these decisions are made for them. The only input is generally a few technocrats who are often connected to the industry itself. In this case, the track record is recent, and involves the very parties that are responsible for the extent of the disaster. People's fears are grounded in reality, and as marxists we shouldn't carry water for a billion dollar industry that has already unleashed environmental disaster on the larger world.
Just want to add that this isn't intended to be antagonistic, or an indictment on anyone's judgment. I just think that often times the potential of nuclear energy makes a lot of socialists downplay its negatives, because its most negative aspects are often tied to oppressive systems like capitalism/racism/imperialism/colonialism... but nuclear isn't a perfect solution (there will never be one), even if it were operating in a communist world, which it isn't... yet
First off, thanks for engaging in good faith - anything revolving around the nuclear industry tends to be very controversial even in socialist circles and it's easy to descend into thought-terminating cliches or even 'Once upon a time I heard this factoid from some youtube channel and it latched into my mind without context or veracity so now I have strong opinions about it.' Not excluding myself from this - I'm always looking to improve my understanding and clear up brainworms.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you've said. What cynesthesia and I are concerned about is - what is the real alternative? And not "Well, we need to create a communist Japanese government, then we need to dissolve TEPCO and replace it with a worker's led nuclear soviet, then we should..." but like, the actual options available right here, right now. Holding it in tanks indefinitely isn't a risk-free option, and it could even be more risky than what they're currently doing. We brought up the example of the Hanford Site, where hundreds of gallons of contaminated water are leaking from the tanks every year, and this is leaking onto land and not into the sea. When I see people talk about how there's leakages from the Fukushima tanks and how that's sussy and bad for TEPCO, it's like - yeah, exactly! This is why we need to put it out in the ocean to dilute it! And, as I said, god help us if another earthquake or tsunami hits the tanks over the next 30 years, like what happened with Fukushima in the first place. A big earthquake might not hit, of course, but given that it's Japan... I suppose you could try and move all that water, to somewhere more stable, but where? Who would take it? What are the logistics of doing so without risking even bigger leakages?
Is this the more profitable of the two choices for TEPCO? Absolutely, yes. I won't pretend that doesn't inform their decision making, because of course it does. Is it the least risky option of the two? I think so.
I don't think this is a unique problem for nuclear energy. Harvesting fossil fuels has those same problems. Mining the copper and lithium and cobalt and rare earths from the ground for renewable energy also has those problems. Any resource extraction is problematic from an environmental standpoint, as well as an imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, and racist one. Not for a single second do I think that Niger or Gabon or other countries should be exploited the way they are for their uranium, you correctly point out that as Marxists we must oppose exploitative imperial relationships. Fueling the green transition, with or without nuclear energy, will involve mining resources from somewhere, though, and unless the world revolution happens tomorrow, the capitalists will make that an imperialist relationship. Hell, even in a fully socialist world, it's a difficult choice - if the world's largest deposit of rare earths, easily accessible and which, when refined, could create enough solar panels or wind turbines or power wires to supply 5 billion homes; if that deposit lies underneath an uninhabited but biodiversity-rich section of the Amazon rainforest, should we mine it? Or should we look for deposits elsewhere, even if exploiting them would move already-existing communities and take more time and energy to extract because it's lower grade? Even if we compensate them adequately for moving, is it the right thing to do? What if some outright refuse due to their connections to their land? Do we just hope that asteroid mining and space elevators are plausible and aim for those?
While recycling is possible, we first need to build all the solar panels and wind turbines in the first place so that they can be recycled later on, which is what we're currently concerned with. So right now, the alternatives are anarcho-primitivism or burning the rest of the fossil fuels buried in the ground and then all of us dying of heatstroke. What do we do about it? I don't know. I hope that big powers like China and Russia can help develop these nations so they aren't exploited, and that their own people can unite to bring down their comprador governments, but all I am is a dude on the internet in a western country, and the best I can do is nudge things in my local area.
Is there much legitimate monitoring or is all that from TEPCO and IAEA?
Still couldn't be worse than coal though