Water Containing Radioactive Materials Spills Over at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Due to Earthquakes

STOP nuclear fear mongering.

Coal power plants kill more people than nuclear ever has, thanks to fear mongering countries like germany are opening up those dangerous kind of power plants that also emits a ton of greenhouse emissions.

By spreading fearmongering you're killing people.

And coal ash spews a ton of radioactive material in the air as well.

10l and 4l from two distinct pools seem like a rather small amount to spill.

And water that is shielding mildly radioactive material and is not radioactive it's self no less. You could swim in that water safely.
Oh God. Did the kettle boil over?

The fossil fuel industry will jump on these events like crazy.
- No. No they don't. Oil and gas was supporting and were going to cornerstone the construction of a nuclear plant in our area some fifteen years earlier and environmental groups along with public outcry got it shut down.
Apparently someone still believe TEPCO...
Hey friend, it's 2024. Please leave the r-slur in the past where it belongs.

The Japan Times reported that at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings' (Tepco) Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant officials "confirmed Monday that water from a spent fuel pool spilled over due to the earthquake, but that no abnormalities in operation had been detected". In an update issued on Tuesday, Tepco said: "At the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the readings on the stack monitors and monitoring posts installed at the power plant site boundaries are within normal fluctuation ranges, and there is no radioactivity impact on the outside world. The spent fuel pool cooling system is in operation at all units, and there are no abnormalities in fuel cooling. As of 12:25 pm on 2 January, all patrols had been completed and no abnormalities caused by this earthquake were confirmed."

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/No-abnormalities-reported-at-Japanese-nuclear-plan

So what your saying is that the title is technically correct, becuse the water spilled was containing nuclear materials, but written in such a way that anyone reading it would come to the wrong conclusion that radioactive material contained in the water left the plant.
- No actually, the water in spent fuel pools does not contain radioactive material. The water provides shielding. You could hypothically swim in that water just dont dive and also they would never let you do that because it would contaminate the pool.

This is a stupid article. Relevant XKCD

There is always an XKCD.

The thumbnail just so happens to show the sea lol. It was easy to jump to the wrong conclusion already!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-japan-news/ They're not too bad apparently, but there is a lot of misinformation coming out of Japan asking for money: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20240102_11/

I tapped/slashed/exed through all the pop-ups and other ads that are docked to one or more edges of the screen on that site so other readers don’t have to:
Overall, we rate The Japan News Right-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the right. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
- Thanks for taking one for the team, I have an adblocker on so I didn't even know it did that.

Karma's a removed, huh?

Karma for what?
what's karma about this?
No damage or leaks were confirmed.

After Fukushima, there was a reddit comment to the effect of, "You mean it took an earthquake AND a tsunami to make a nuclear plant dangerous? Nuclear sounds pretty safe to me!"

There is a specific kind of nuclear simp who will go to any length to ignore its dangers. I hope we can leave that on reddit and keep Lemmy a place of honest appraisal. I'm not even knocking nuclear's benefits. They are many. But it's crazy that every 10 years we have one of these disasters and every 10 years the simps come out to reassure us that it's nothing, really

The act of nuclear fission is not safe. What is safe is how we design the systems that contain the reaction and protect the workers, the public, and the environment. We should never ignore the potential dangers of nuclear power, lest we become complacent and really screw up. Instead, we should continue constructing, operating, and maintaining nuclear power plants with the highest appropriate levels of safety.
The reason people have to come out of the woodwork to "go to any length to ignore it's dangers" is that the "dangers" reported in the media almost always pose absolutely zero risk to the public, and only serve to inflame anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Take this case: 14L of liquid spilled inside a closed and sealed containment building. There is zero chance of any of that radioactivity encountering the public or the environment. The operators noticed the problem, and are (as far as we know) taking appropriate recovery actions. Really, it shouldn't even be news. But it is, because nUcLeAr bOgEyMaN sCaRy.
I don't know that I can say anything to really convince anyone otherwise, especially not without sounding like the nuclear simp you mention (even more than I'm sure I already do), but truly, (given the facts at hand) there is zero danger to the workers, public, or environment from this isolated incident.
- Agreed. The biggest drawback of nuclear power isn’t radiation, it’s cost.
- Even better, the water in a cooling pool like that is less radioactive than the normal background radiation level outside the pool. (That's one reason they use water to begin with, it absorbs radiation and doesn't easily become radioactive itself)
- maintaining nuclear power plants with the highest appropriate levels of safety.
  There's your problem right there.
  Nuclear power generation can probably be safe, in theory.
  Nuclear power generation in our current late-stage capitalism where corporations, and even governments, will cut corners for the sake of profit and politics, is not.
  It's a cool technology, but I personally don't trust the world with it right now.
Calling them "simps" detracts from your argument. If you can't argue your point without resorting to name-calling, perhaps your position isn't as strong as you think it is.
- Yeah. I stopped reading their post at that word and read yours instead.
It's not nothing but compare the amount of radioactivity released in all nuclear accidents against the amount of pollution, including radioactive particles, released by burning fossil fuels. The scale is so heavily skewed that the amount of harm caused by nuclear might as well be zero compared to the alternative.
Not only did it take a tsunami to make a nuclear power plant unsafe but also more people died from the evacuation than from radiation.
No, we don't have a nuclear disaster every 10 years because there's only been 2 and one of them was from the Soviet Russia era.
Spilling 10 litres of irradiated water is not a disaster.
- I'm sure everybody is aware but to add to point 2, the Chernobyl accident was mostly caused by bypassing safety procedures and lockouts
Fukushima is not over.
This is water you could literally swim in (provided you don't get close to the fuel) and only 14 litres was spilled, within the containment building. Relax
If you're looking for anti-neuclear skeptics and fear mongering, I don't think this is any more the place than reddit was. I hope rather than seeking out those echo chambers you look into this a bit more. I don't have any good stuff to link you too off the top of my head, but maybe someone else in the comments will
- I'll post some while we wait:
  six cases of workers who developed cancer or leukemia due to radiation exposure
  There would have been more cases, but people were evacuated