Water from the fuel pools at the top floors of the No. 7 and No. 2 reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture spilled over due to strong earthquakes, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc. announced Monday. No damage or leakage out of the buildings was confirmed.
      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        21·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      51·
      10 months ago

      And water that is shielding mildly radioactive material and is not radioactive it’s self no less. You could swim in that water safely.

  • Renegade@infosec.pub
    25·
    10 months ago

    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

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      11·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Renegade@infosec.pub
        4·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
    101·
    10 months ago

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

    • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.mlEnglish
      51·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          I have an ad blocker in my desktop browser, but when I tap a link in Voyager, it opens in the app (without ad blocking). I can usually work around it by toggling Reader Mode, so it’s no biggie.

  • mulcahey@lemmy.world
    1555·
    10 months ago

    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

    • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
      303·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • davidgro@lemmy.world
        102·
        10 months ago

        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)

        • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
          3·
          10 months ago

          While technically accurate, the water could still transport entrained fission daughter products, so there still might be a significant spread of contamination outside the pool, even if the water itself isn’t activated.

          But here is the scenario I think you’re referencing!

          • davidgro@lemmy.world
            11·
            10 months ago

            Indeed I was thinking of that one. Love the final paragraph.

            I thought of mentioning the possibility of corrosion/leaks, but I’m pretty sure they monitor for that, and (though I hadn’t remembered this) even in the What If, it says that the levels likely wouldn’t be serious.

    • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
      243·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • ashok36@lemmy.world
      203·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • Melonpoly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      112·
      10 months ago

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

      3. Spilling 10 litres of irradiated water is not a disaster.

      • Nommer@sh.itjust.works
        111·
        10 months ago

        I’m sure everybody is aware but to add to point 2, the Chernobyl accident was mostly caused by bypassing safety procedures and lockouts

    • Phillip J Phry@lemmy.world
      62·
      10 months ago

      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