Japan Scraps Mascot Promoting Fukushima Wastewater Dump (theguardian.com) 66
The Japanese government has been forced to quickly retire an animated character it had hoped would win support for its decision this week to release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea. From a report: Although the water will be treated before being discharged, it will still contain tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope represented on a government website by a cute fish-like creature with rosy cheeks. The character's appearance in an online flyer and video on the reconstruction agency's website angered Fukushima residents. "It seems the government's desire to release the water into the sea takes priority over everything," Katsuo Watanabe, an 82-year-old Fukushima fisher, told the Kyodo news agency. "The gap between the gravity of the problems we face and the levity of the character is huge."
Riken Komatsu, a local writer, tweeted: "If the government thinks it can get the general public to understand just by creating a cute character, it is making a mockery of risk communication." Social media users named the character Tritium-kun -- or Little Mr Tritium -- an apparent reference to Pluto-kun, who appeared in the mid-1990s to soften the image of plutonium on behalf of Japan's nuclear industry. The reconstruction agency, which oversees recovery efforts in the region destroyed by the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown, removed the promotional material on Wednesday, a day after it first appeared. Experts say tritium is harmful to humans only in large doses, and that with dilution the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk.
Riken Komatsu, a local writer, tweeted: "If the government thinks it can get the general public to understand just by creating a cute character, it is making a mockery of risk communication." Social media users named the character Tritium-kun -- or Little Mr Tritium -- an apparent reference to Pluto-kun, who appeared in the mid-1990s to soften the image of plutonium on behalf of Japan's nuclear industry. The reconstruction agency, which oversees recovery efforts in the region destroyed by the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown, removed the promotional material on Wednesday, a day after it first appeared. Experts say tritium is harmful to humans only in large doses, and that with dilution the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk.
Already a perfect mascot (Score:5, Funny)
Where's that 3-eyes Simpsons fish when you need it?
Re:Already a perfect mascot (Score:5, Insightful)
I have visions of hypo toad in my head for this one. I have to wonder what made them think of this as a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to understand that Japan has different cultural norms. Prefectures have mascots. Many cities have mascots. Lots of organizations and projects have mascots. Whenever they want to create public awareness for something, they create a cute mascot.
It probably sounds completely bizarre to many of us in the west. But I think for Japanese, it's more about being tone-deaf to a controversial issue. That is, they're treating it just like any other issue, not that creating a cute mascot is somehow weird.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I do not understand is why the fuck they do not get an old oil tanker, clean it out, line it with expoxy. Take the water untreated and go out to where the sea is deep and you already have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that water is already polluted, way more polluted than the waste water they already. Put a long hose over the side, supported at regular internals with oil filed floats, then you cool the water and add salt to ensure when it gets to the bottom it pretty much stays there. Don
Re: (Score:2)
I have visions of hypo toad in my head for this one. I have to wonder what made them think of this as a good idea.
The same process that caused them to release contaminated water into the sea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at TFA and see what the mascot looked like? It's not all that far off from blinky
Wow you are right (Score:1)
Did you look at TFA and see what the mascot looked like?
Amazing, antenna, eyes, what;'s the difference really...
Though the Japanese mascot looks uncomfortably like mutant sperm.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing, antenna, eyes, what;'s the difference really...
Though the Japanese mascot looks uncomfortably like mutant sperm.
Maybe that was a freudian slip, because that can happen.
Tritium Keychains (Score:2)
This isotope is already sold as keychains within many countries:
https://tritiumkeychains.com [tritiumkeychains.com]
As I understand it, separation of deuterium heavy water from normal water is not difficult (compared to uranium hexafloride in a centrifuge). Can't the tritium be extracted from this water in a cost-effective manner?
Re: (Score:2)
It's conceptually easy but it's still expensive when you're talking about depleting millions of gallons of water.
Re:Tritium Keychains (Score:4, Informative)
Can't the tritium be extracted from this water in a cost-effective manner?
There is a million tonnes of water.
There is no way to separate the tritium cost-effectively.
The amount of tritium in the water is very low and is not a danger. Tritium is produced naturally from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. The amount of tritium in the wastewater will not make a significant difference. Tritium is a low-energy beta-emitter and does not bioaccumulate. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, so much of it is already gone.
Instead of spending billions on pointlessly separating the tritium, Japan should invest more in wind turbines in Hokkaido or solar panels in Kyushu.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't the tritium be extracted from this water in a cost-effective manner?
There is a million tonnes of water.
There is no way to separate the tritium cost-effectively.
Well it's pretty obvious that the cheapest solution is to just have an accidental discharge of the water, if spending money is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, separation of deuterium heavy water from normal water is not difficult (compared to uranium hexafloride in a centrifuge). Can't the tritium be extracted from this water in a cost-effective manner?
Everything I find requires electrolysis of the water. That would be insanely expensive.
This is part of the problem with nuc energy. When we end up with a corrective measure, the word goes out that it's too expensive to do it correctly.
Sounds like we're getting close to just saying "we need the electricity, and any problems are too expensive to fix, so full steam ahead."
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium is the 4th most valuable substance in the world, worth $30K per gram. If it could be extracted from this water cost-effectively, they would have done so years ago before nearly half of it decayed away. (Its half life is a bit less than 13 years.)
https://brightside.me/wonder-c... [brightside.me]
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly safe to dump, so... (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I have gather, the argument is that it is perfectly safe to dump these 1m tonnes of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea, because the radioactive contaminants have been filtered out or diluted sufficiently.
OK, sounds good. In that case, why don't Japan just release the water onto its own farm lands, lakes, ponds, and swimming pools? That would remove any international worries and complains.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not diluted enough now. It would be eventually over a decade of dumping in the huge ocean.
Think of it like if someone disposes of their toilet paper on your kitchen floor vs if that's distributed over tens of thousands of houses with nearly unnoticeable scraps. You probably wouldn't even know there's excrement on your floor.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, it's their own waste. They shouldn't be allowed to dump it into the sea, just like oil tankers aren't allowed to dump oil into the sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike oil, the tritium WILL 'just go away' in a reasonable human time scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I just googled the half life of tritium and it's 12.3 years. So not that bad I agree. But still, why can't they just keep it in Japan for 100-200 years instead of dumping it to be everyone's problem?
It's not as if the rest of the world had anything to do with their fukushima failure.
Re: (Score:3)
why can't they just keep it in Japan for 100-200 years instead of dumping it
Because in 100-200 years it will STILL be radioactive.
Of course, the radiation will be insignificant, but it is already insignificant.
The Pacific ocean contains about 100 tonnes of tritium, mostly from cosmic rays.
This dump will add 2.1 grams. That is an increase of 0.000002%.
Re: (Score:2)
So I should also dump all my organic waste in the ocean isn't it? It will only be an increase of 0.00000000000000000002%, and it will disappear faster than tritium.
Re: (Score:2)
Also note that among those protesting release are fisherman. Releasing the tritium-infused waste water directly onto the coast may dilute it at first, but fish have the nasty habit of concentrating pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium doesn't bioaccumulate. The water is being treated to remove the more concerning pollutants.
The fishermen are, understandably, worried about marketing. Consumers are already skeptical of Fukushima fish. The image of eating fish that have been swimming in waste water of a nuclear meltdown won't help their case, regardless of whether there's any rational reason for consumers to be concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
That is my thinking. I don't even see why they are thinking of releasing the water. What happens if they just let it evaporate naturally? Would the contamination get left behind were they could be disposed of in a more sane manner?
Re:It is perfectly safe to dump, so... (Score:4, Informative)
The Tritium, which is the only concern would evaporate as well. It is HTO or T2O, tritiated water, which means it acts and behaves as water. It would be worse evaporated, as it would become a lung contaminate where it could actually hurt people in the quantities it would be released at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If evaporation is a problem, then doesn't that mean that dumping in the sea is the same (maybe worse because the spread would be slower)? Fishes "breath" water, and then we eat the fishes.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
>>If asbestos in your lungs is a problem, then doesn't that mean eating cows that were in asbestos warehouses is a problem?
Nah.
>>If gamma and beta rays are a problem, then doesn't that mean eating bananas is a problem?
Nah.
>>If being bathed with radiation is a problem, then doesn't that mean eating irradiated food is a problem?
Nah.
You eat drink and breath PPMs of doubleplusbad things all the time. You physically handle lung-ruining materials all the time. Name a bogeyman and some of your ca
Re:It is perfectly safe to dump, so... (Score:4, Insightful)
It will evaporate like regular water, form radioactive clouds that will condense into radioactive rain. In addition it will diffuse into the surrounding environment. Probably not radioactive enough to be a problem but not better than dumping everything into the ocean.
Tritiated water will evaporate a bit slower than light water because it is slightly heavier, resulting in log grade enrichment, but not enough to matter in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
What happens if they just let it evaporate naturally?
That is the stupidest thing they could do.
Letting the water evaporate and fall as rain would put it in the biologically active top layers of the ocean.
It is much better to inject it deep beneath the surface.
Re: (Score:1)
It's only safe if it gets diluted by ocean currents carrying out around.
Much of the doubt is over if that will actually happen. It's not usually how ocean currents work.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I have gather, the argument is that it is perfectly safe to dump these 1m tonnes of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea, because the radioactive contaminants have been filtered out or diluted sufficiently.
OK, sounds good. In that case, why don't Japan just release the water onto its own farm lands, lakes, ponds, and swimming pools? That would remove any international worries and complains.
Seems to be a general lack of trust for some reason.
I guess Godzuki (Score:2)
was either unavailable, or too expensive to license.
Missed $$$ opportunity (Score:2)
They should harvest the tritium and sell it in little glowy sticks [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It would be easier and cheaper to harvest tritium from seawater - in fact we already do ... ..the whole point is that it would cost money to filter out the tritium from the waste water than they could every get get back from selling it
Re: (Score:3)
So money wins over our own environment once again.
Hiring Clicky Was a Mistake (Score:3)
Despite the cosmetic surgery, hiring Clicky to do PR was doomed to fail.
Boycott Japan (Score:1)
You send your vote of confidence in USD with every “made in Japan” purchase.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm Canadian, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When was the last time you purchased something with a "made in Japan" label?
Re: (Score:2)
Toyota. Toyota parts 2020
Failed mascot (Score:2)
I'm not surprised their mascot failed to win people over. I can't understand Japanese speach, but the graphics in their video show the little mutant-fish looking tritium thing swimming down the river and coming right out of a house faucet into a glass of water, then swimming around in the guy's stomach. I don't think that would win me over either.
Heavy water (Score:2)
What I do not understand is why they are not isolating the potentially highly useful Tritium. They have been isolating heavy water, deuterium for decades, so why not do the same here? The vast bulk of the water will then be perfectly normal and you have fuel for Tokamaks.
dosis sola facit venenum (Score:4, Insightful)
"Only the dose makes the poison." - Paracelsus
Japan should have chosen Paracelsus as a mascot because it is his message that alleviates unnecessary concern.
With adequate dilution distributed into a sufficiently large volume of ocean that radioactive reactor water is safe.
Radiation exposure is nothing to worry about in low doses. Granite countertops in homes are radioactive. Colorado is more radioactive than lower-altitude states because cosmic radiation passes through less atmosphere.
It is not about fearing radiation or not fearing it. It's about making rational and informed decisions. Have your home tested for radon and conditionally mitigate, if that is a problem in your region. Don't get sunburned with UV radiation, that greatly increases the risk of skin cancer later in life. Do not fear the latest generation of fission reactors in the U.S., those should be inherently safe.
The "radiation good" vs "radiation bad" argument is simplistic.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't the japanese hydrolyse it and release the T2 ? Quantity ? Energy necessary ?
Re: (Score:1)
>Energy necessary ?
Electrolyzing 1Mt of water would take 3.7TWh.
Re: (Score:2)
>Energy necessary ?
Electrolyzing 1Mt of water would take 3.7TWh.
So - build a new nuc plant, and do it. The new plants are perfectly safe and incapable of having any troubles.
Re: (Score:2)
One Funny and two Informative comments on the story? Par?
The information I still haven't found in relation to the story is how much tritium is already in the ocean versus how much they are planning to add. I guess the diffusion rate from wherever they release it to the rest of the ocean would matter, too.
Perhaps noteworthy that the Slashdot discussion has no mention of "cute", though it appears twice in the story summary. The focus of the controversy is that no Japanese think radiation is "cute" or friendly
Tony the Tiger or Mr. Sparkle (Score:1)
I thought they'd lease for 2-years Tony the Tiger "Bring out the Tiger" and have him squatting over Tokyo Bay....with the caption "They'rre Great!"
Either that or "Mr. Sparkle" from the Simpsons being poured into Tokyo Bay....by C. Montgomery Burns with the caption "Excellent..."
JoshK.
Where's "Little Mr. Tritium" Merch? (Score:3)
The stupidity is breathtaking (Score:1)
I'm speechless.
Fools!! Of course it failed ... (Score:2)
it isn't a Cat or Bunny girl, or even a maid!!