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.

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.

  • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
    7·
    1 year ago

    Radiation levels have decreased since the accident in 2011:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Fukushima_radiation_dose_map_2011-04-29.png

    Note 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.

      • Pseu@kbin.social
        10·
        1 year ago

        Cancer risk from radiation is not just the absolute amount of exposure, but the duration of the exposure as well. Short high-intensity radiation doses carry higher risk than long, low-intensity doses.

        And 100mSv/yr is a rate, which is greater than 44mSv/yr. After 4 years, you will still have not had the dose needed that is linked with increased cancer risk.

        • culprit@lemmy.ml
          39·
          1 year ago

          if you live there for a year it’s 44000 μSv, or 44 mSv

          44 x 3 = 132 which is GREATER than 100

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            11·
            1 year ago

            You can’t compare exposure over 3 years to a limit for one year.

            Radiation damage depends on time period of exposure.

            • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
              31·
              1 year ago

              Though I still wouldn’t want to live there; the area has been evacuated for good reason.

            • culprit@lemmy.ml
              28·
              1 year ago

              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

              • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
                71·
                1 year ago

                Sure, just pick a completely different location to suit the conclusion you already made.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                71·
                1 year ago

                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.