Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "The science behind the Fukushima water release" video.

  1. @BluBarry1215 They already clearly stated, the nuclear waste water from Japan is in DIRECT contact with the radioactive molten core, unlike other nuclear waste water that arent in direct contact with the radioactive core. When in direct contact, there are MANY more radionuclides as stated. They just brushed it off as "oh Japan says its clear so lets just trust them". Literally the source is living example of "trust me bro".
    4
  2.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Hasnt releasing radioactive waste into the seas been banned since 1993?
    3
  3. ​ @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Treated water is still radioactive waste. Moreover, what do you mean by "just like nature"? Tritium in nature is 0.4–1.2 Bq/L. Japans nuclear waste water is 190 Bq/L.
    3
  4. 2:31 This should be confirmed by a 3rd party agency, not Japans. Also, there hasnt been any comprehensive studies on these radioactive isotopes to determine whats considered a "safe level". And all these "green lights" being given are all based on unconfirmed estimations not from any real life scenario. Everything unprecedented. Nothings "confirmed" to be safe. Take their "green lights" with a grain of salt.
    2
  5. Hasnt releasing radioactive waste into the sea been banned since 1993?
    2
  6. "ALPS removes all but the tritium" YOURE the one thats I yying. Read the report. There are STILL radionuclides in the water.
    1
  7. "ALPS removes all but the tritium" YOURE the one thats I yying. Read the report. There are STILL radionuclides in the water. This is an excerpt straight from IAEAs comprehesive ALPS report: "Then, when the water is no longer intended to be used for cooling the fuel debris, it is sent for ALPS treatment where 62 additional radionuclides are removed (see Figure 1.4). It is important to note that the ALPS treatment process does not remove all radioactive material. Small amounts of different radionuclides remain in the water (although they are well below regulatory limits) even after treatment, and tritium is not removed by the ALPS system at all". As for whats considered "regulatory limits". Like I said, in another comment Ill say it here again because you dont seem to understand. 'There has been NO long term comprehensive study on the effects of radioactive isotopes on marine and by extension human life to determine what levels are to be considered "safe" levels. Only ESTIMATES. And ESTIMATES on something thats NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE is NOT to be taken as the "gold standard". Until there actually has been comprehensive long term radioactive tests done ON HUMANS and passed ALL the green lights, THEN theses IAEA, TEPCO, international nuclear organisations etc words might have weight. Until then, all these "benchmarks" or "regulatory limits" are merely just UNCONFIRMED ESTIMATES with NO human studies to back these numbers up.
    1
  8.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  ^ cannot tag you
    1
  9.  @TheBleggh  You missed the point. Im not talking about tritium at all. My point was about the other radioactive isotopes that Japans nuclear waste waters have that others countries nuclear cooling water doesnt have.
    1
  10.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Cant tag you
    1
  11. danadurnfordkevinblanchdeb5467 cant tag you here for some reason
    1
  12. You need to remove the word debunked in your name if you want to be tagged properly and not get censored by YT algorithms
    1
  13.  @TheBleggh  "Treated water is not radioactive waste" It is still radioactive waste. "There is a clear legal definition of radioactive waste" Care to shed light on what this "legal definition" is? "Every nuclear power plant in the world would have to shut down (for no reason) if we defined tritium as radioactive waste" No? All they have to do is not release it in the worlds oceans. 'Also, there is literally no difference between "tritium in nature" and "Japan's tritium." They are the same molecule. It's like saying American oxygen is heavier than Mexican oxygen: That's not physically possible' Im not talking about the molecule. I was specifically referring to his sentence him saying "trace amounts" "just like in nature". In other words, the amount or concentration is not same as nature.
    1
  14.  @TheBleggh  "lol, you're trying to lecture me when you don't even know what the legal definition of radioactive waste is" Am I lecturing you? Quote me where I supposedly "lectured" you. Go on. Im waiting. Im also still waiting for you to shed light on the legal definition of radioactive waste. "Also: Every nuclear plant on the coasts releases tritium into the ocean. Every. Single. One. And most nuclear plants are on the coasts for cooling" I know water is used for cooling. My question was, isnt releasing radioactive waste water into the sea banned in 1993? I have still yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
    1
  15.  @hm8723  You just justified that is indeed NOT safe.
    1
  16. ​ @hm8723  "the fact base and emotion is seperate matter, and dont mix it when you debate something" Really? Since when did I "mix it" when I "debated" something? I just said you just justified its indeed NOT safe. Wheres the "emotion"? Wheres the "mix"? Can you answer that? Moreover, since time immemorial, humans have been using human and animal waste to used on farmland. This is also "waste". Yet its been used. Only when the "waste" is used on farmland means its truly "safe". If its not, then its not "safe". Also, one of your ministers Sonoda drank half a cup of the treated waste water to "prove" its safe. Where is he now? Hes apparently now dead according to Palau. So much for being "safe".
    1
  17.  @hm8723  "IF NOT, what do you mean Ive justified its not safe. Please explain it" Its based on this: "This is not debatable. No one would like to use the waste water to irrigate the farmland, no matter where the waste water is coming from". Moreover, it is Japan that claims this water is "safe". Other countries and China dont claim their nuclear waste water as "safe". "Do I have to repeatedly make a refering subject clear for you ?" Your line "no matter where the waste water is coming from" negated that "very clear" subject you are speaking about. "Funny thing, Minister Sonoda himself responded to that fake news and denied" Do provide a credible source to that. I would like to see the evidence thanks. "You need to distinguish truth and fake information. Dont belive all information on Internet and check the source wheather the source is enough for the evidence" You dont need to tell me that. Thats why I specifically used the word "apparently".
    1
  18.  @madmax2069  You clearly dont know what youre talking about. Firstly, desalination is part of the treatment process for Japans nuclear waste water. Secondly, tritium is not the main issue here, but the amount of tritium we are talking about here is at a concentration level MUCH MUCH higher than what is found in nature. So when its released, the concentration levels of surrounding waters will be MUCH higher than whats found in nature. And lastly, the most important point, when the water is direct contact with the molten nuclear core, the water will be contaminated with MUCH MORE radioactive isotopes (over 60). The report specifically says it cannot filter all of it. So dont tell me its "no different than all the other sea water", its not.
    1
  19.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Theres no need to keep repeating yourself saying the same things over multiple comments. As mentioned earlier, these "international industry safety standards" mean nothing if theres literally no comprehensive study on the long term effects of these "safety levels". Everythings unconfirmed and unprecedented.
    1
  20. ​ @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Its YOU that keeps repeating the same copy paste message. You only need to answer ONCE. For me, I repeated for you because you didnt get the point of what Im saying. Listen carefully again, Ill spell it out for you again. ​There has been NO long term comprehensive study on the effects of radioactive isotopes on marine and by extension human life to determine what levels are to be considered "safe" levels. Only ESTIMATES. And ESTIMATES on something thats NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE is NOT to be taken as the "gold standard". Until there actually has been comprehensive long term radioactive tests done ON HUMANS and passed ALL the green lights, THEN theses IAEA, TEPCO, international nuclear organisations etc words might have weight. Until then, all these "benchmarks" or "regulatory limits" are merely just UNCONFIRMED ESTIMATES with NO human studies to back these numbers up.
    1
  21. Its YOU that keeps repeating the same copy paste message. You only need to answer ONCE. For me, I repeated for you because you didnt get the point of what Im saying. Listen carefully again, Ill spell it out for you again. ​There has been NO long term comprehensive study on the effects of radioactive isotopes on marine and by extension human life to determine what levels are to be considered "safe" levels. Only ESTIMATES. And ESTIMATES on something thats NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE is NOT to be taken as the "gold standard". Until there actually has been comprehensive long term radioactive tests done ON HUMANS and passed ALL the green lights, THEN theses IAEA, TEPCO, international nuclear organisations etc words might have weight. Until then, all these "benchmarks" or "regulatory limits" are merely just UNCONFIRMED ESTIMATES with NO human studies to back these numbers up.
    1
  22.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  ^
    1
  23. danadurnfordkevinblanchdeb5467 Cant tag you here as well
    1
  24.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Again, you keep talking about tritium. There are more dangerous radioactive isotopes than tritium you are conveniently ignoring. Something you have yet to address in my other comment
    1
  25. ​ @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  "I don't ever copy and paste my comments" Lies. I have seen you copy pasted the lines "Four countries have tested the water and the Japan water release plan meets all international industry safety standards" AND "IAEA Review of Safety Related Aspects of Handling ALPS Treated water at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station the First Interlabratory Comparison on the Determination of Radionuclides in ALPS Treated Water" both AT LEAST twice.
    1
  26.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  I keep asking because I have yet to receive a proper answer. And I have STILL yet to receive a proper answer. And like I said: 'there hasnt been any comprehensive studies on these radioactive isotopes to determine whats considered a "safe level". And all these "green lights" being given are all based on unconfirmed estimations not from any real life scenario. Everything unprecedented. Nothings "confirmed" to be safe. Take their "green lights" with a grain of salt.' So all these "international industry safety standards" mean nothing if theres literally no comprehensive study on the long term effects of these "safety levels".
    1
  27.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  ​ If you keep repeating yourself, then Ill also need to repeat my answer to you: 'Like I said, in another comment Ill say it here again because you dont seem to understand. 'There has been NO long term comprehensive study on the effects of radioactive isotopes on marine and by extension human life to determine what levels are to be considered "safe" levels. Only ESTIMATES. And ESTIMATES on something thats NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE is NOT to be taken as the "gold standard". Until there actually has been comprehensive long term radioactive tests done ON HUMANS and passed ALL the green lights, THEN theses IAEA, TEPCO, international nuclear organisations etc words might have weight. Until then, all these "benchmarks" or "regulatory limits" are merely just UNCONFIRMED ESTIMATES with NO human studies to back these numbers up'
    1
  28.  @danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk  Ever since the creation of nuclear powers, humans health also have declined. Now, Im not saying correlation is causation, but dont say "nothing in world history has ever been harmed by this practice" when theres literally been no scientific study of radioactive isotopes on humans and humans health has been on the decline.
    1
  29. @whywhy6706 You mean "why not"?
    1