Yeah, or if it’s at all targeted, or affects the entire mouth. If they can get a missing tooth or two to regrow, that would help a lot of people. If you start getting teeth sprouting up everywhere that need to be surgically removed, that would be a lot less universally applicable.
Same for whether it only works once, or if it develops new buds. Gotta say, it would be nice to make it to grave with a full set of teeth, since people losing their teeth has a huge impact on their quality of life.
“I see you have a dead root up there. Please sit back and I will just pop all your teeth out, and then this stuff will regrow all of them in no time.”
EDIT: As bad as it sounds, I would go for it unironically. Not just because my mouth is a mess, but also because my teeth grew out quite jammed, and a factory reset may solve that.
The last time this photo was shared, the associated pages noted they had artificially induced agenesis, then used this drug to restart development. It’s why the drug’s first trials would be, as you suspected, on people where dormant buds did not progress.
I’ll trust the nuclear scientists that say that the release is safe, but there should be a transparent international panel, including China which has concerns about the release into fishing waters, that is given access to conduct their own tests with all parties agreeing to release their findings.
The old “trust but verify” position. Agreed 100%. If everything is perfectly safe there should be no reason not to have multiple independent, third-parties with no skin in the game to verify. This is good for everyone as it reassures the fishermen, those buying fish, and really the rest of the world.
china is causing a fuss for political gain. a huge chunk of their fishing practices are illegal and violates international law anyway. their concern is theatrics to drum up their anti-japanese nationalism.
Not only that, but China’s Fuqing power plant also releases 3 times more tritium into the Pacific than the Fukushima plant so they’re also full of shit.
It's a pressurized water plant like Fukishima was. Not quite 3x but still more than 2. Qinshan is a CANDU reactor, so that's why its 10 times more than what they're annually releasing from Fukishma. They release a lot of tritium because they use heavy water as a moderator. Any nuke plant that has a Lithium channel for producing tritium for nuclear weapons will also, of course, release a lot of it comparatively.
Candu are designed to be messy, but the Canadians keep them clean(ish) somehow, never understood how, guess they just watched how much enrichment waste they burned, or they were just careful in reclaiming the tritium, it’s expensive after all.
Cs-137 and other fission and activation products can be largely removed by treatment. H-3 is a bit trickier since it literally is part of the water. Luckily it’s a fairly weak beta emitter with a relatively short half life so causes very, very little long term harm.
All that other stuff was filtered out, but the tritium is near impossible to separate, because it is chemically identical to the hydrogen in normal water.
As for caesium, there are still detectable amounts of Cs-137 in most of the word from the thousands of atomic bomb tests. It’s half life is just 30 years, but it will still be detectable for a hundred years or so because of the huge amount we released.
ignorance and paranoia about radioactivity go hand in hand.
i know so many otherwise smart people who lose it on this issue. because they just think any radioactivity = destroy planet forever . completely ignorant to how it actually works, and just think every power plant must eventually chernobyl and that one barrel of nuclear waste is enough to destroy 1000s of miles or something equally absurd.
I think most reasonable objections to this were that they would be unable to filter out the actual bioaccumulating radioisotopes from the water and it should've been kept in retention. In the end you either trust they will or not. I trust they will.
Nobody's particularly concerned about the actual radiation of the tritium. It's just that it is actively picked up by your body and used like any other water with the same biological half life of water at 7 days. It can cause some problems in that time. It's not really a problem of it getting integrated into anything, since all it'll do is knock itself off of and destroy whatever it gets incorporated into when it decays.
I don’t understand why people think concentrating it and keeping large quantities on-site is preferable to heavily diluting and releasing it. A giant vat of radioactive water sounds like another disaster waiting to happen.
Because they don't believe that they've removed the heavy metals that end up in the food web and sitting in the littoral area seabed until it's picked up by lifeforms again. Tritium dilutes, but fission products do not.
I talked about how water released are usually modeled and risk assessments done in another comment abour the pending release a few weeks ago but I can’t find it.
While I can’t speak for all regulatory bodies, and you could be a shitass and release toxic crap without doing a risk assesmsent, it’s very unlikely that this is the case here, particularly because it’s TREATED water that’s being released. That means they have a treatment system (there’s a fucking rabbit hole and half…) which they are using to treat the water to some acceptable criteria/standard. This mean some sort of modeling and risk calculation has been done otherwise they would have just gone ‘yolo pump the water into the ocean’.
Tritated water is toxic just like heavy water. You'd just have to drink a truly ridiculous amount for it to be toxic, to the point that the radiation is a much bigger problem than the toxicity.
Edit: fully tritated water is actually worse, now that I think about it. The radioactive decay will periodically knock off a hydrogen atom, which makes it very reactive. That's not what this is though.
Water is toxic, if you drink an only mildly ridiculous amount and don’t get some salt too. I say this having been hospitalized for hyponatremia several years back, due to unwisely drinking plain water instead of anything with salts in it when sick.
Oh for sure, I'm a nurse. Heavy water/tritated water is cytotoxic like a chemotherapy drug however, vs just messing up your osmotic balance. Your proteins conformiational structure from hydrogen bonds can't function correctly with it and you can't replicate your DNA/RNA because of the difference in size of the hydrogen and your cells die. Starts with diarrhea, ends with death. You need like a 20% proportion of it to see those effects though, so like I said, truly ridiculous amounts of tritated water. More than the entirety that they're releasing.
Yeah they talk about nuclear waste and how it needs to be stored for so long, without recognizing that fossil fuels spew their waste, including radiation, directly into the atmosphere, where it is causing apocalyptic global warming. Having it in barrels is actually a big plus.
Sample size is critical to get a realistic result of the tritium toxicity. In this case, they sampled only 64 fish! That would not yield a statistically significant result!
Samples of local fish have been collected at two points within a 5-km radius of the discharge outlet, except during rough weather conditions, with the agency announcing its analysis results on an almost daily basis since Aug. 26.
No tritium was detected in 64 fish, which included flounder and six other species, collected since Aug. 8.
I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?
Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?
I remember commenting on a post where China condemned Japan for doing this.
I asked ppl there “is this actually bad or is this kind of par for the course of getting rid of the dangers left behind in Fukushima?” And most of them were like “it’s not a common occurrence but it’s not inherently dangerous and it’s not that big of a deal”
To me it looks like the vast majority of objections to this came from strategic propaganda related to domestic relations of China and/or other nations.
All you said that was humans mess up everything we do, as if that were something meaningful to say. That is not an argument against nuclear. That's an argument against absolutely everything humans do. It's meaningless. Look:
I don’t doubt solar power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
I don’t doubt coal power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
I don’t doubt hydro power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
I don’t doubt steam power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
All of those are exactly as meaningless as what you wrote. So don't go on snarkily about my "great wisdom" like you've made any point at all. Nuclear is safer than oil and coal and gas, which is where the majority of the world's energy comes from right now. Fossil fuels are actively destroying our planet right now, and you're spreading nuclear FUD about things that haven't happened. That's not helpful, and it doesn't match the reality we live in.
I don’t doubt steam power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
Funny they didn’t bother with solar or wind…
It would be a lot cooler if you showed how many meltdowns occurred from solar and wind.
I’d rather not commit future generations with the obligation of dealing with nuclear power. But I guess you like billionaires like Bill Gates deciding that for you.
Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill. Might want to clean the boot polish off your face next time.
I have no facts to give you other then humans are too dumb and fickle to be trusted with something as temperamental nuclear power when solar and wind exist.
Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill.
Lol.
The famous last words of someone who has no point to make but can't even admit it to themselves.
I wrote an honest reply to you and I even bothered to Google some sources for you to refer to. You didn't even reply to what I said and just came back spouting more non sequitur garbage.
It's shameful. You should do better than this. Be better than this.
There’s nothing more capitalist than pushing coal and oil.
And any rational green energy advocate knows it’ll take us decades to build enough solar/wind to fill the fossil fuels gap, but would only take us a couple years to fill that demand with nuclear and also produce fewer emissions. That’s simple numbers.
So are you just irrational or a coal-snorting capitalist yourself?
Best case scenario estimates are a complete replacement by 2050 if energy consumption doesn’t change. This requires aggressive investment in renewable production.
However, that’s unlikely to happen, as energy consumption is increasing, especially as vehicles across the globe abandon oil-based fuel for electricity from the grid.
The largest hurdle to nuclear power is simply regulatory. We could have nuclear plants built by 2030 with a ~30+ year life that would guarantee us the ability to fully phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables by 2050 even as demand increases.
The USSR and Russia were huge players in nuclear technology and contributed a lot to the field. I actually can’t think of an energy source that has a closer connection to communism.
Y’kown we nuclear power plants cant explode like an atomic bomb right. Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.
Also if you bring up the Russian troops who got fucked up, that was caused by not using PPE and then promptly inhaling graphite dust and some randome mildly radioactive materials. It was fine while in the ground but breathing that shi in will do a number, probably still better than going to those old mining towns where the air is now made of asbestos.
And anti-nuclear propagandists who are almost entirely paid by fossil fuel companies?
They’re dastardly clever. They’ve created a narrative that it’s fossil fuels companies who are actually pushing nuclear technology. I suspect they’re also behind the unusual opposition to hydrogen – if hydrogen is ubiquitous, it’s going to be green hydrogen more likely than not. By trying to stop that, fossil fuel companies are able to continue selling and using hydrogen from refinery operations.
I feel like there was enough issues on damn near every level that the term “compounding issues” comes to mind. Seriously its one of those situations where if it wasnt one thing that wrnt wrong it wouldve been something else.
japantimes.co.jp
Oldest