Talk:Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Unbalanced template

Similar to the original article, there appears to be an emphasis on opinions and polls, selectively using activist articles as sources, and not enough representation of the views of nuclear experts (such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has endorsed the planned method).

My comments:

• (1) Under "Consequences", it lists the consequences of the disaster itself, not of the planned dumping. This is an article for the dumping, so the existing text is not relevant. As an example, the input of Professor Blair Thornton; the "ongoing contamination from the plant" is from groundwater that is not intentionally being released, rather than the planned release of treated water.
• (2) "Reactions" focuses on the views of individuals and trade organizations, with no info from nuclear experts. The reactions of experts needs to be listed.
• (3) In the lead, the text "the Cabinet asserted the radioactive water has already been treated and would be diluted to drinkable standard, it was met with skepticism and opposition especially from the Japanese fishery industry" is specifically worded to nullify what the Japanese cabinet has stated. It may have received "skepticism and opposition" from those groups, but the support from other groups and individuals needs to be stated.
• (4) The article is specifically worded to understate the necessity of the action. "yet TEPCO is reluctant to find land" is only cited with an article that has the aim of activism; if it's true, a neutral article needs to be used instead.

Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Following the restructuring of the article (as laid out in #Structure of the article on this talk page), I addressed the above issues as follows. (1) I rename the paragraph as "environmental effects" and rewrite accordingly (special thanks to User:TuomoS's effort), (2) now two reports of official panels nuclear scientists are included, (3) removed, (4) three more sources added, including Mainichi Shimbun. Do you (@Uses x) still find the article unbalanced (and hence the template)? -- love.wh 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo I'm happy with how the article balance is right now, so I've removed the template. Thank you for your work on it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Structure of the article

This article intends to cover all water discharge of the nuclear plant, including leaks, groundwater seeping and the intended/planned dumping of water tanks in 2011 (already taken place, about 300,000 tonnes) and in 2022 (scheduled, 1.3 million tonnes). Is this structure okay to you (@Uses x)? If you prefer this article only deals with the 2022 dumping, where would you suggest the paragraphs on leaks, groundwater seeping and 2011 dumping to be moved to? -- love.wh 16:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo The article will need to be renamed then, as "dumping" only describes the intentional release of the water. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x Would you be satisfied to the abovementioned article structure if I change the article name from Dumping -> Discharge, i.e. Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichii Nuclear Power Plant? . -- love.wh 16:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo "Management of contaminated water from the Fukushima disaster" would be my choice as it covers a bit more, but it's entirely up to you. Thanks for working with me on this. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x I just alter the structure of the article to reflect my intention to cover different means of discharge (assuming I am going to move the article from Dumping -> Discharge). Do you find the flow of the article better or worse? -- love.wh 16:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo That was better, thank you. I've adjusted it as well - "Consequences" only mentioned those from the leaking, so I've made that a sub-heading of it. The reactions were for the planned dumping, so I've moved that as well. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"in 2022 (scheduled, 1.3 million tonnes)" I don't think that is corrrect . I believe it is 1.3 million ton by 2030. Rmhermen (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Large scary numbers and half-life

The article present a number of "large numbers" but fails to note that radioactive iodine was mainly produced in the initial meltdowns - and has now entirely decayed away to non-radioactive species. In fact all the radio-iodine from the first 8 years after the disaster is already gone. The main issue here is tritium of which almost half of the initial batch is already gone. Tritium is continuing to be produced and cannot be caught in the filters. What we need to know is what the total amount of tritium proposed for discharge and how the concentration of the discharge water compares to the concentration of tritium in ordinary seawater. According to tritium, 400g of tritium are used industrially each year, a single boosted fission bomb required 4 g, 1-2 g flow through the Mississippi River system each year but Fukushima storage water had a total of only 2g tritium in 2016. Are these numbers correct? Rmhermen (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The environmental effect of the discharge, whether safe or harmful, is dealt in detail in a separate article Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. I agree on your point that harmfulness depend on concentration, and I would like to add that it is reasonable to assume the data on radioactive concentration vary widely depending on the sampling location, sampling year, sampling items (different species of fish and plants) and sampling size; hence, any claim of harmfulness/safety is only true to the specific sample time, location and fish (plant), any broader claim than that are unscientific and (intentionally) misleading. -- love.wh 04:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo: According to all sources that I have found, the environmental effect of the water discharge is very small. This article is unbalanced if it doesn't discuss the environmental effects. Readers would get the false image that the discharge was disastrous to the environment. --TuomoS (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer sources that review and summarize the overall opinion, rather than we wikipedians attempting to summarize researches we happen to have read. For example, "Long-term effects of the radiation are a matter of debate." is a succinct description of all sides, as BBC summarized. Basically, international orgnanizations like UN says "there had been no adverse health effects documented", while "But many believe the dangers are far greater, and residents remain wary." (both quoted from the above BBC source). This is the sort of summary source I am looking for. -- love.wh 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I wrote a short text based on the latest UNSCEAR report, which is considered as the most authoritative report about the effects. We could still add something about the reputational damage to the fishermen. --TuomoS (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Amount of Tritium: expressed as bequerals?

Why is the _amount_ of tritium expressed as bequerals?

Shouldn't that be ml or ounces? 159.197.128.78 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I really thought I was logged in. Sennekuyl (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Tritium, like other radionuclides, is measured by the radiation it gives off, which is directly proportional to the mass of tritium present, so it's typical for its amount to be equated to its activity and measured in bequerels. Justin Kunimune (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Korean Nuclear Facilities Discharge Comparison

Is comparing the discharge from 5 Korean nuclear plants to one Japanese plant and then noting that the discharge from Korean plants as a whole is 5 times as much as the Fukushima discharge not misleading? The numbers may be true, but are arguably presented in a way that unfairly suggests that Korean opposition is being unfathomably hypocritical.

If we hypothetically took the carbon emissions from one coal plant in Liverpool (just for example) and 5 in India and then wrote that "Indian plants emitted 5 times as much CO2 as the Liverpool Coal Plant," we would find this obviously misleading. 138.251.233.169 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The detailed table for Korea may not be necessary since the following table is a summary comparison of all data. CurryCity (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Korean Tritium discharge (cited source, p25) is 50% from liquid discharge at Wolseong, at 1.07 * 10^2 = 107 TBq. Might as well just put that one in. --Artoria2e5 🌉 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the whole comparison subsection feels like original research to me. The numbers come from reliable sources, but the implied conclusion of "South Korea releases more tritium than Fukushima therefore South Korea is a hypocrite" does not (not to mention that focusing on tritium ignores all of the high-Z contaminants, which seem to be the main point of concern). I'm going to delete the subsection unless anyone objects. Justin Kunimune (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the table is overly detailed. But I suggest not to remove the entire subsection. Some comparisons help understanding the amount of the releases. There are comparisons to La Hague site releases in reliable sources, such as Wired or The Conversation. --TuomoS (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh that's a good point, I didn't look very hard for other sources. In that case, I wonder if it makes sense to remove the table and the section headers. I feel like the comparison note is worth including but not worthy of a subsection. And the same is true of General opinion; it's only two sentences long now. Justin Kunimune (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to keep the table of international comparisons. The NYT already picked up on Chinese and South Korean nuclear plants discharging more tritium. There may be more coverage to come. The information comes from the Japanese ministry's aggregated data, so it is not original research. CurryCity (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the information comes from a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean it's not original research, if it's being used to make a new point. Though looking at the ministry slideshow again, it does make more of a point than I'd thought on my first look. Nevertheless, I still think the table is too detailed. I am in favor of including some sourced comparisons in the text, but only one or two are needed. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Article missing the biggest reason for criticism

I read the entire article and think the biggest concern is not even mentioned. Also what general opinion? Scientists are more divided because this is not the same situation as France or Canada conventionally discharged tritium water and so a lot is not known. It's an unprecedented scenario where the water had touched the core of a damaged reactor and may be different to normal wastewater. So we don't know what's really there unless we test it properly. Yet there's a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data to assess the potential impact of releasing the ocean contaminated water. The so-called sum of ratios approach is a very lazy and stingy way to assess risks. Fukushima incident started because officials were cutting corners. And after their dirty water is discharged, nobody is going to be able to test it once it's in the ocean. But currently it's not properly tested. [1] This was the main issue raised and yet I see none of it, in the article. Also tritium is focused too much here and very little is said of other radionuclide like strontium-90 that have not been properly assessed and also harmfuly.[2]

specific concerns include the available data’s adequacy, accuracy and reliability. A key safety measure is a risk factor that combines the activities of more than 60 radioactive contaminants. This is known as the so-called sum of ratios approach. However, only a small subset of these radioactive contaminants — seven to 10 of them, including tritium — have been regularly measured. The assumption is that this subset alone will reflect the possible risks, and the other contaminants are at constant levels. We disagree with this approach. The data show wide variability in the contaminant concentrations between tanks and differences in their relative amounts.For example, some tanks low in tritium are high in strontium-90 and vice versa. The assumption that concentrations of the other radionuclides are constant is not correct A full assessment of all 62 radioisotopes is needed to evaluate the true risk factors.

[3] The article should mention that scientists who oppose the discharge, do so by pointing out the questionable testing measures, that produces a lack of reliable sufficient data on the safety. That's the biggest issue yet it's not mentioned in the article even after all these years.SolarDGrayson (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The Japan Times opinion article that you are quoting has a major misunderstanding. It claims that only 7 to 10 contaminants have been regularly measured. In reality, dozens of contaminants have been measured, but only 7 to 10 have been detected. All others are below detection limits. IAEA has confirmed that the detection limits are sufficiently low, less than 1 % of the regulatory discharge limit, for all 30 relevant radionuclides. See section 3.5.2 of the IAEA report. Strontium-90 is one of those few radionuclides that have been detected. --TuomoS (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that's a source we could have used instead of some "People's World" writer by no name other than "Combined Sources". Artoria2e5 🌉 01:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) (Well, looks like the edit was also using a misleading edit summary (and a 2RR). If you're lazy might as well use none...) --Artoria2e5 🌉 02:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Reorganization idea from zh.wp

The Chinese Wikipedia page breaks the treatment-and-dump story into four subheadings:

• ALPS introduced (2013-)
• Japanese government approval and monitoring (2020-) – 2020, because includes the rationale
• International vetting (2022-)
• Dump announcement, dumping (2023)

This might be a better way to tell the story compared to making "government approval" a parent section of ALPS. It's more chronological (thanks in part to my edits) and, by separating Japanese and International actions, offers a sense of independence. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the translation template because some of the editors nominating appear to be involved in that language of Wikipedia. We have enough to work with here already. CurryCity (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@CurryCity: Funny thing is that I didn't add the template, BlackShadowG did. I did a partial translation to match this structure on Aug 27, completing this request already. I agree that we've got enough to work with as-is, especially with all the "alternative scientific opinions" we keep getting shoved with. Artoria2e5 🌉 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Map removed for now at least

It is not clear the difference between some of the categories and how countries that diverge greatly in terms of popular versus government response are represented. It would need to be updated independently of the text and does not add much more to the article. CurryCity (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Too detailed

This edit contains too many details, such as listing specific outlets. Before they were restored, I had reverted once or twice citing WP:OR and COAT. The part about Japan and its allies especially lacks support and is a reaction to a reaction to the discharge. CurryCity (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

CurryCity, I'm very sorry to tell you that Special:Diff/1173709818 also got reverted with Special:Diff/1173718126. And we have similar blurbs in Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant#Environmental effects; it's spreading! (I'm pretty sure 49.195.33.124 is 49.181.162.26.) Artoria2e5 🌉 13:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

IP replaced the source with articles from Middlebury and Inside Water, which are better. I still removed some details and repetitive information. CurryCity (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Carbon-14

Some time between now and a week ago someone added two mentions of carbon-14 to the lead section, complete with a scary-looking half life of 5000 years. The thing is that although ALPS cannot remove 14C, there's not enough to start with to break drinkable standards and that no dilution is ever needed just for 14C. It's a nothing-burger.

The ever-so-useful tank-by-tank data shows that given the discharge limit of 2*10^3 Bq/L, those tanks contain barely over 1.0*10^1 Bq/L of carbon-14. To try to make a point out of it is just silly. Artoria2e5 🌉 13:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)