World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Dilution is always the solution baby. Something so simple, yet still so impossible to explain to people who believe in chem trails.
Tbf, that's kinda what people thought about leaded gasoline, or greenhouse gas emissions.
In this case, yes, everyone seems perfectly fine, but dilution isn't the solution to everything when the body you're diluting into is finite.
Dilution would technically still be a solution for both of those problems, the issue is just user input error. If you don't have the reagents to dilute a proper solution then you have too many solutes.
No...
For those it turned out we weren't adequately diluting it. And we know a lot more about radionuclides than we knew about those back then.
Well yeah, that's because the science of homeopathy tells us that diluting things makes them stronger! /s
This entire disaster is a great lesson in why when your engineers say "This site isn't suitable for a reactor" or "this seawall is insufficient to prevent a tsunami from overwhelming the reactor" you really should listen to them.
The real solution to nuclear disasters is not having them to begin with.
Not necessarily. There are concerns about the wastewater still contains radionuclides which are heavier than tritium and tend to bioaccumulate. As such, it’s possible even if they are not highly concentrated in the release water, they could reach unsafe levels in marine life.
So take a sample of fish from each catch and test them for those levels. This isn't that difficult.
I agree that testing catches may be a solution here. However, I don’t see why it’s incumbent on China to create such a testing infrastructure especially when they aren’t the only ones with concerns. If Japan wants to negotiate and work something out I’m sure they can. In fact I’d be willing to bet that’s what they’re doing at this very moment.
That's the thing, the infrastructure already exists, and tests were performed, and the UN atomic council certified the results that the water was clean.
China is saying the fish are unsafe in spite of that. It's on them to prove that the test is incorrect.
No, that’s just not true. There is no infrastructure for Japanese fishing companies to show that each catch is free of contamination.
Also, as far as I’m aware testing to see if fish have been affected by the initial release of wastewater has only just begun. I don’t even think the results are publicly available yet. To add to that scientists have found contaminated fish from the Fukushima area containing unsafe levels of radionuclides prior to this release of wastewater.
Hmmm. Well I'm interested to see what testing shows.
Here's the thing, Uranium is already present in seawater at concentrations far above what you would get if you dumped the entirety of Fukushima's corium straight into the ocean.
See, there's a common form of uranium oxide that's water-soluble. A large part of the world's free uranium is already in the ocean in solution.
What’s your point? Uranium is not the only fissile radionuclide that can make its way into the contaminated wastewater. Also nuclear fuel contains a much higher concentration of fissile Uranium isotopes than what is found in nature. Lastly, the radionuclides in the wastewater are not going to be evenly mixed across all of the worlds oceans so that’s not exactly a useful thought experiment.
Let me put it this way, you could dump ten thousand Fukushimas straight into the ocean and given time to diffuse a bit, not notice a difference in oceanic uranium content.
The Oceans contain 1000 times more uranium than the known terrestrial deposits. This naturally includes the fissile isotopes.
But the real point is that it's actually fairly easy to filter that shit out via reverse osmosis. Thus, the only thing that the Fukushima water contains is tritium, which is impossible to filter out of water.