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 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.

China is “highly concerned about the risk of radioactive contamination brought by… Japan’s food and agricultural products,” the customs bureau said in a statement.

The Japanese government signed off on the plan two years ago and it was given a green light by the U.N. nuclear watchdog last month. The discharge is a key step in decommissioning the Fukushima Daiichi plant after it was destroyed by a tsunami in 2011.

  • Lil' Bobby Tables@programming.dev
    184·
    1 year ago

    Dude. It’s the goddamn ocean. Even if your premise was anything but political-- and it’s not-- how would your seafood be any better?

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      121·
      1 year ago

      No poison acts like a boolean value, it’s all about dosage and exposure. The idea that fish closer to the contamination site will be more contaminated than fish farther away seems pretty obvious.

      If I stand next to you while you fart, I will smell more than if I stand a kilometer away.

      Mind you, I’m not saying China is right, it’s obviously a political ploy. But I disagree with your logic.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          81·
          1 year ago

          Did I say so?

          You’re acting like it’s crazy to say: the further I physically am from something, the less it will affect me.

          Why do we have to pretend reality is not a thing, just because it’s China?

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              2·
              1 year ago

              OK, I’m not sure if you’re arguing with me, or really aggressively and antagonistically agreeing with me.

              I’m arguing against your initial point. I don’t think I’m being “really aggressive and antagonistic”.

              I’ve been through graduate psychopharmacology and know all about toxicity. I think you should consider reading my post, again, in a different light, and maybe terminating this conversation.

              Please explain to me which light I should read your post in. It seems to me that you said: even if China were right, their fish would be just as contaminated as Japans fish, as you wrote:

              Even if your premise was anything but political-- and it’s not-- how would your seafood be any better?

              This is obviously wrong if you understand that toxicity is based on exposure and dosage, since Japans fish would be closer to the point where contaminated water is poured out.

              Later you wrote:

              They’re not fishing from the damn power plant.

              Nobody stated this. However it’s not like “distance to powerplant” is a boolean value (in powerplant/not in powerplant). It’s a distance. Japans fish are closer to the point where the contaminated water is poured than Chinas fish are. So why is your retort only that they’re not fishing from the power plant?

              How else am I supposed to read your comments?