Japan exported about $600 million worth of aquatic products to China in 2022, making it the biggest market for Japanese exports, with Hong Kong second. Sales to China and Hong Kong accounted for 42% of all Japanese aquatic exports in 2022, according to government data.
They still can’t come up with anything other than “it’s not safe!” And “you’re so irresponsible”?
Previous articles on this say the water is less contaminated than that which comes out of some of China’s plants.
This article: IAEA says 10,000 becquerels per liter is the safe limit. Japan’s output will be 63 per liter.
China are the ultimate projectionists with this stuff. No transparency for themselves, and very quick to scream blue bloody murder about everyone else.
And that’s probably the figures China allows the international community to know. If the reports on that are anything like their emissions reports, it’s not even worth the time it took to generate them.
So true. In China, all the nuclear reactors are as radioactive as the elephant’s foot. They say solar is expanding really quickly, but actually it’s all a lie. Did you know under the Xi regime, absolute poverty has increased tenfold? It’s very sad. China lies about Japan’s nuclear safety for political reasons, so everything they say is wrong and actually my own dreams about them are reality.
anyone know a better radioactivity monitoring site than this one?
https://map.safecast.org/?y=37.527&x=140.969&z=10&l=0&m=2
Fukushima sure is lit up like a Christmas tree on this one.
Radiation levels have decreased since the accident in 2011:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Fukushima_radiation_dose_map_2011-04-29.pngNote that on Safecast, you can enable “Crosshair” in the hamburger menu to see the actual numbers.
The central blob area is currently around 5 μSv/hr, so if you live there for a year it’s 44000 μSv, or 44 mSv. The xkcd chart says 100 mSv is the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk.
So 3 years there equals measurable increased cancer risk.
Read it again. Not what they said.
if you live there for a year it’s 44000 μSv, or 44 mSv
44 x 3 = 132 which is GREATER than 100
You can’t compare exposure over 3 years to a limit for one year.
Radiation damage depends on time period of exposure.
the graph on the map is μSv/h
using the crosshairs shows 29.88 μSv/h at the waterfront by the plant
that is 0.02988 μSv/h = 261.7488 mSv/a
so not a place I’d want to get food from to say the least
That’s on land. Where a whole bunch of various radionuclides have concentrated and remain fixed in place.
This “wastewater release” that’s being discussed is the release of low-intensity tritium that will immediately dilute into the whole ocean. You’re comparing apples to moonrocks. Completely different things.
“Lit up like a Christmas tree” - yeah, at 4 µSv per hour. So you’d have to swim there for just about 4000 hours to get the equivalent of a full body CT scan.
I guess camping at Chernobyl is no big deal now as well.
https://map.safecast.org/?y=51.384&x=30.078&z=12&l=0&m=2
There were tourist trips into the exclusion zone around Pripyat (closest town to the plant) all the time until Covid. I’m guessing they haven’t restarted because of the war now, but plenty of people visited with no ill effects.
Visiting, sure. Eating products grown/harvested there seems ill advised.
