scrubbedexpat091

This is what the Canadian Gov't has to say about this tritium stuff in drinking water.

The maximum average annual tritium levels, as measured in the municipal drinking water of Canadian communities neighbouring nuclear facilities, are about 18 Bq/l.If an adult drank two litres of water a day with 18 Bq/L of tritium
for an entire year, that person would receive a dose of 0.00027 mSv per year
[18 x 0.000015 mSv = 0.00027 mSv].

If an infant drank one litre of water a day with 18 Bq/L of tritium
for an entire year, that infant would receive a dose of 0.00038 mSv per year
[18 x 0.000021 mSv = 0.00038 mSv].

The amounts calculated in the example above (0.00027 mSv and 0.00038 mSv) represent only small fractions of the regulatory limit of 1 mSv.

Studies have shown that the minimum chronic dose causing negative health effects is 100 mSv. The regulatory limit of 1 mSv is, therefore, equivalent to 1 percent of this amount.

the annual background radiation dose for someone living in Toronto has been estimated at 1.6 mSv per year, but a similar estimate for Winnipeg was 4.0 mSv per year, due to the higher radon concentrations in homes.

Tritium limit for drinking water limits (Bq/L) by select countries or organization (seems to be all over the place)

Australia 76,103

Finland 30,000

WHO 10,000

Switzerland 10,000

Canada (Ontario) 7,000

United States 740 (no a 0 is not missing)

California Public Health Goal (not enforceable) 14.8

The EU tritium indicator value of 100 Bq/L is used as a screening value, automatically triggering an investigation if reached.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Shard

Hmm...somewhat reassured. In any case, don't eat sushi so I should be ok.

abner

But whose fault is that? The view from my Japanese friends is that the decision to dump hasn't been delivered with any substantive, let alone convincing, government information campaign about the relative safety of the radioactive discharge. There is already a considerable social stigma in Japan, "scientifically" deserved or not, concerning anything or anybody from the affected region; this news does nothing to dispel that.[/QUOTE]

And why should they need that? They are well placed to comment on reputational impacts to their product, and therefore to their livelihood.

Pulaski

"Small"!

In easier to grasp terms, those number are 1/2,600th to 1/3,700th of the regulatory limit.

abner

And those numbers, however small, have no relevance to the further reputational damage to the prefecture and its associated industries, sparked by the news of the impending radioactive discharge.

scrubbedexpat099

Sadly a lot of stupid people who don't understand basic science.

Fortunately their attention span tends to have a very short half life

scrubbedexpat091

The Canadian Gov't choice of wording.....

Pulaski

I think we knew that anyway, but 2020 has certainly driven the point home!

abner

You've rather missed the mark on both points, champ.

The Japanese are, for obvious historical reasons, and rather more subtle cultural ones, disposed to be unusually sensitive to radiation-related risks. And, they are similarly disposed to attach stigma to people and products that are associated with those risks, and (in the Fukushima case) with the failures of engineering and governance that led to the TEPCO reactor disaster generally.

For the inhabitants of Fukushima prefecture, that stigma will last a loooong time, however undeserved it may be in any objective sense, for the individual inhabitants involved. And every fresh news event--such as this latest one involving the radioactive waste-water discharge (however minor that is in the grand scheme of things)--will prolong and reinforce the stigma.

Given that the overall TEPCO cleanup will span decades--and create an inevitable multi-year drip-feed of news articles calling the original event to mind at each stage--the remaining citizens of the prefecture will likely have to endure that for the rest of their lives.

In terms of real impact on people's lives, the magnitudes of becquerels and sieverts are irrelevant in this case.

caretaker

It will definitely hurt their bottom line. According to the Guardian article 20% of their former buyers now avoid Fukushima fish, and the survey says 30% will think twice about buying it when the treated water is released.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ioactive-water
"Nozaki said he and other fishermen throughout Fukushima would continue the fight to keep the water out of the ocean. “Releasing the water would send us back to square one,” he said. “It would mean the past eight years have amounted to nothing.”

scrubbedexpat099

What is Fukushima fish?

When I used to buy cod I guess the location had not occurred to me, shown as Alaska but processed in China, could I guess have come from anywhere.

Shard

They can usually be identified by the pulsing green eyes and tail fins.

scrubbedexpat099

Beats Guppies, they are in the wrong market.