Re:Scientists OK plan to release one million tonnes of waste...
by jdjkckfkrrn on Monday May 10, 2021 @08:27AM
(#27105219)
Remember when the Monsanto lobbyist/scientist said that their glyphosate pesticide Roundup is so safe you can drink it? To his surprise, he was offered a glass of it, and refused it, saying "I'm not stupid", and "I'm not an idiot", while insisting it's harmless to humans:
How about we release this waste water in Japan's rivers, upstream of their purification plants, if it's so safe. Surely it will be thoroughly diluted by the time it ends in the tap water, below the radioactivity of a banana.
Re:Scientists OK plan to release one million tonnes of waste...
by baryphonic on Monday May 10, 2021 @08:36AM
(#27105298)
> How about we release this waste water in Japan's rivers, upstream of their purification plants, if it's so safe. Surely it will be thoroughly diluted by the time it ends in the tap water, below the radioactivity of a banana.
I understand and am sympathetic to the skin-in-the-game argument here. But it seems to me there are a couple problems: First, releasing waste water into an ocean would dilute it much more than in a river or stream. A back of the envelope calculation would show that the concentration at a waste water plant on some river would be much higher than the concentration in the ocean. Second, it's not clear that the people making the decision (like the Monsanto guy) wouldn't refuse to drink as well, whereas less wealthy Japanese would be subjected most likely to toxic water.
I get the argument, and maybe there is some way to enforce some skin in the game, but this is not it.
Re:Scientists OK plan to release one million tonnes of waste...
by Nicksil on Monday May 10, 2021 @11:07AM
(#27106738)
>Remember when the Monsanto lobbyist/scientist said that their glyphosate pesticide Roundup is so safe you can drink it? To his surprise, he was offered a glass of it, and refused it, saying "I'm not stupid", and "I'm not an idiot", while insisting it's harmless to humans:
This is such a strange call-out. Yes, it's safe for humans, but who in their right mind would voluntarily drink it? "I'm not stupid", and "I'm not an idiot" are among the most reasonable replies in this instance.
Re:Scientists OK plan to release one million tonnes of waste...
by emteycz on Monday May 10, 2021 @08:52AM
(#27105429)
Yes, uranium is naturally in seawater and I would have no objection to releasing it into the ocean in amounts that won't change anything, similarly to this case of tritium.
https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA
How about we release this waste water in Japan's rivers, upstream of their purification plants, if it's so safe. Surely it will be thoroughly diluted by the time it ends in the tap water, below the radioactivity of a banana.
I understand and am sympathetic to the skin-in-the-game argument here. But it seems to me there are a couple problems: First, releasing waste water into an ocean would dilute it much more than in a river or stream. A back of the envelope calculation would show that the concentration at a waste water plant on some river would be much higher than the concentration in the ocean. Second, it's not clear that the people making the decision (like the Monsanto guy) wouldn't refuse to drink as well, whereas less wealthy Japanese would be subjected most likely to toxic water.
I get the argument, and maybe there is some way to enforce some skin in the game, but this is not it.
This is such a strange call-out. Yes, it's safe for humans, but who in their right mind would voluntarily drink it? "I'm not stupid", and "I'm not an idiot" are among the most reasonable replies in this instance.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26773398