Releasing of Fukushima Nuclear Contaminated Water

https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/why-japan-should-stop-its-fukushima-nuclear-wastewater-ocean-release/#:~:text=TEPCO%20plans%20to%20discharge%20treated,set%20before%20the%20Fukushima%20accident. 

    We watched the Godzilla movie last week, and as I began to think about what to blog about, one of last year's top news came to mind, the nuclear wastewater discharge issue in Fukushima, Japan.

    When this news appeared last year, it caused an uproar in Asian countries, especially led by neighboring countries such as China, South Korea and North Korea, which raised fierce objections. China's news was full of stories about the effects of nuclear sewage on marine life, and some radicals even suggested that “Godzilla” might actually appear in the ocean as a result of nuclear wastewater contamination.

    In fact, since the commencement of the discharge on August 24, 2023, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has independently sampled and measured the seawater in the vicinity of the Fukushima nuclear power plant and confirmed that the tritium level meets the safety standard. This is the same report that the Japanese government has claimed to the public that the tritium level meets the safety standard, and therefore the discharge of nuclear wastewater is not likely to cause serious harm to people's health or the ecology of the ocean. 

    So what is tritium? Why does Japan and the international community place so much emphasis on tritium in nuclear wastewater? And what are the serious problems caused by excess tritium?

 

 

    Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, is a soft beta ray, and a layer of plastic or human skin can block most radiation.

    Scientists said that when tritium is diluted and slowly discharged into the sea, it poses no threat to humans or the environment. So there's really no need to be scared about it. Tritium is arguably part of the water and is quickly excreted by the body.

Tritium does not re-accumulate. It is not like mercury that accumulates in tuna. Tritium is radioactive in the form of water molecules, so it will continue to be diluted.

    However, neighboring countries such as China and South Korea are still questioning this. They say there is a lack of sufficient experience and scientific data to support Japan's claim. Meanwhile, the Japanese side says that the concentration of tritium in the water will not cause any harm to human beings, but there are still questions about the fact that although human skin is able to block tritium B-rays to a certain extent, if people eat seafood contaminated with tritium, etc., the cells in their bodies will be exposed, which can lead to cell deaths and DNA damage and mutation, among other things. At the same time, radioactive elements are able to build up step by step in the marine food chain. The biological nature of the oceans weakens the effect of chemical dilution. What the future consequences of continued emissions will be is anyone's guess. Some radicals have even suggested that mutant monsters such as Godzilla may actually appear in the future.

    

    But is tritium the only threatening radioactive element in nuclear effluent? Not really.

 

    Strontium-90, cesium-137 and other radioactive elements that are more dangerous than tritium are also present in nuclear waste water. Strontium can be absorbed into the bone structure, and once it is incorporated into the crystalline structure of the bone, it cannot be removed from the body.

   

 Bissell, the American oceanographer, points out that in addition to tritium, there are other radioactive isotopes, some with longer half-lives, that are more likely to remain in marine life or become marine sediments. In contrast to tritium, these substances pose a potential threat to humans and the environment through complex pathways.

    Nowadays, the understanding of the nuclear issue is still very limited, therefore, we do not yet know whether the discharge of nuclear effluent will really cause negligible harm to human beings and marine organisms and ecology as described by Japan, or whether Godzilla may really become a reality in the future.

Reference:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00340-6/abstract

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683921000183

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4588827

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2608/1/012058/meta

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.23.23288984v1

Plastic to Electricity? The Pros and Cons of Burning Plastic

    Ways to deal with the ever-growing amount of plastic have been discussed for decades now. While the only effective solution is to completely shut down the production and use of plastics, that is not feasible because they've become an essential part of everyday life. Due to this unwillingness, many ideas have been proposed on what to do with all this plastic. Recycling first comes to mind and has been an active strategy in the battle against plastic waste. However, in recent decades, it has actually become more expensive to recycle materials than it is to simply send them to a landfill (Romuno, 2021). Additionally, plastic industries did not help this effort by making their resin identification codes (RICs) look like the already established recycling symbol, which briefly muddied the waters on what can or cannot be recycled.

RIC vs. Recycling Symbol (Sam, 2019)

    Burning plastic for energy is another option and the topic of discussion. The most common plastics in the world, polyethylene and polypropylene, are essentially long chains of greasy hydrocarbons that can, in theory, be converted into petroleum/crude oil and used for fuel. Waste-burning plants exist in many Asian countries where waste is usually exported, with the idea that plastic can be converted into usable energy. 

    Electricity can also be a byproduct of plastic combustion. In a paper published in 2022, pyrocycling was proposed to be a useful alternative. The plastic was burned in a vacuum chamber and the steam byproduct was used to move a turbine in which the mechanical energy was transformed into electrical energy (Jawale et al., 2022). The researchers found that combusting 2kg of plastic produced 300 kW-hr of electricity. 

Chemical Structures of Polyethylene and Polypropylene

    However, unlike the pyrocycling example, most plastics are not burned in an oxygen-free vacuum. Instead, plastic fumes react with the air and form noxious byproducts like dioxin and furan derivatives (Wirsig, 2022). Additionally, because of the fact that the majority of plastics are just solid forms of fossil fuels (petroleum/crude oil, natural gas, etc.), burning them would release more gaseous fossil fuels into the environment, something we are actively trying to mitigate. 

    All of these factors would suggest that burning plastic is not an effective method of utilizing our massive amounts of plastic. Moreover, this push to burn plastic can be seen as a greenwashing tool: a way to mask the actions of industry giants as "green" while using plastic combustion as a quick fix to promote single-use plastics (Tachev, 2022). As stated at the beginning of this post, the only way to fix our plastic problem is to stop using plastic, or at least minimize its use. Producing less plastic should be the main goal, and until that is achieved, our plastic crisis will always remain. 

Plastics and other materials being burned

References 

Agency, G. (2022, July 28). What is the difference between polyethylene and polypropylene?. MDI. https://www.mdi.org/blog/post/what-is-the-difference-between-polyethylene-and-polypropylene/

Jawale, R., Umredkar, S., Khode, S., Kumbhare, H., Sharma, B., Deshpande, A., & Dutta, A. (2022, October 31). Pyrocycling-the technique to generate electricity from plastic waste. AIP Publishing. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-abstract/2494/1/070011/2827033/Pyrocycling-the-technique-to-generate-electricity?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Recycling questions answered. Tangletown Neighborhood Association. (n.d.). https://tangletown.org/recycling-questions-answered/

Romuno, J. (2021, May 11). Is recycling worth it? costs and benefits of recycling: RTS. Recycle Track Systems. https://www.rts.com/blog/is-recycling-worth-it/

Tachev, V. (2022, May 17). Burning plastic: A real waste-to-energy solution or a greenwashing tool?. Energy Tracker Asia. https://energytracker.asia/burning-plastic-a-real-waste-to-energy-solution-or-a-greenwashing-tool/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Burning plastic can affect air quality, public health (environmental factor, August 2022). National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2022/8/science-highlights/burning-plastic

Wirsig, K. (2023, June 16). Burning plastic is a terrible idea. here’s why. Environmental Defence. https://environmentaldefence.ca/2022/03/18/burning-plastic-is-a-terrible-idea/

CBD is Stampeding Its Way Through the Animal Kingdom

        Cannabidiol, more widely known as CBD, has been making strides within the pharmaceutical industry for nearly a decade now. This molecule is derived from marijuana, and is one of many active cannabinoids that cause the overall effect of that drug. CBD users have given anecdotes that it has helped to treat anxiety and chronic pain, but there isn't enough research to prove whether it is effective at doing this long term. Studies have shown that the drug is an effective anti-inflammatory agent, reducing the amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines produced in the body. Because of this, many companies have taken to extracting CBD and selling it for medical use among humans. However, there has been research for CBD's use among cats and dogs, which has proven that it can help calm them when anxious and help manage pain. After common use was found safe and effective among house pets, some veterinarians decided to move onto more exotic species.

CBD molecule from https://aquasolrx.com/cbd-101/

        Dr. Quetzalli Hernández, a veterinarian at a wildlife park in Mexico, was faced with a big problem. She was caring for an elephant that was refusing to eat. This particular elephant, Nidia, had developed chronic foot pain; a frequent problem among her species in captivity. This pain seemed to have lowered her hunger, and she was rapidly losing weight. As a culmination of all of this, she was often in the worst mood of her fellow elephants. Dr. Hernández was getting desperate for a solution. She reached out to ICAN Vets, a company that studies the applications of cannabis in the veterinary field, asking for help treating Nidia with CBD. 

        Despite using a very low dose, about one fortieth the dose often prescribed to cats and dogs when compared by weight, the drug was a major success in helping the elephant. Within just a few days of beginning treatment, Nidia was back to eating whole meals again. This led to her gaining 555 pounds in a span of five weeks. Her foot injuries had begun to heal as well. This is likely in part due to CBD's anti-inflammatory qualities. After about a week of treatment, Dr. Hernández noticed that Nidia was in a much better mood than she used to be.

A dog very excited for their CBD dose.

        The craziest thing about this story is that it's one of many in the veterinary field these days. Many desperate veterinarians are turning to CBD and finding out that it works wonders. This isn't just in Mexico either; many vets in California and Colombia are adopting a wider use of CBD. Capybaras, parrots, jaguars, ferrets, lions, bears; you name it, they've tried it. Overall, they've seen a resounding success in controlling inflammation, pain, and osteoarthritis. CBD was also able to increase the efficacy of treatments that the animals were already undergoing, like cancer therapy. These kinds of positive results around the globe show a positive future for the use of CBD among animals of all kinds, and it seems like they'll be all the better for it.

References: 

Atalay, S., Jarocka-Karpowicz, I., & Skrzydlewska, E. (2019, November 25). Antioxidative and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Cannabidiol. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7023045/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20it%20has%20been%20suggested,of%20immune%20cells%20%5B66%5D.

Nuwer, R. (2024, February 6). Mammals with the munchies: Curing animals with cannabis. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/science/animals-veterinary-cannabis-marijuana-cbd.html

Riney, R. P. (2024, January 19). CBD: What you need to know about its uses and efficacy. Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments/riney-canine-health-center/canine-health-information/cbd-what-you-need-know-about-its-uses-and-efficacy

Wikimedia Foundation. (2024, February 14). Cannabidiol. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

Stanley Cups: Potential Lead Exposure?

Stanley cups are a brand of reusable tumblers that have been exploding in popularity online. Many TikTok users like to post their collections and people are willing to line up and wait for limited edition ones in various stores, like at Target. Stanleys have become more of an accessory than an environmentally friendly alternative to water bottles. There are consumers who have multiple Stanley cups solely because they want to own them and "fit in". 

Figure 1: Stanley cups in various colors.

With this popularity, some videos emerged of people testing their Stanleys for lead with at-home kits. There were various posts made on all social media platforms, including Youtube, TikTok, Reddit, and more of people with positive test results from their cups. This caused lots of concern from Stanley owners, with some wondering if they needed to stop using their cups all together. The company did confirm that lead is in their products, claiming that there is an "industry standard pellet to seal the vacuum insulation at the base of [our] products", but insist that the lead is not accessible to consumers.

Figure 2: TikToker testing their Stanley cup for lead. Reddish orange indicates a positive test. 

The inclusion of lead in products has been a concern for many years. According to the CDC, lead exposure in children could lead to:

• Damage to the brain and nervous system
• Slowed growth and development
• Learning and behavior problems
• Hearing and speech problems

Which in turn, causes:

• Lower IQ
• Decreased ability to pay attention
• Underperformance in school

Because of the negative effects that lead may cause to all humans, Stanley users are rightfully concerned about the potential of being exposed. However, health experts are backing Stanley and saying that consumers do not need to worry about the lead. In an article posted by The New York Times, NYU public health professor Jack Caravanos tested different Stanley cups with an x-ray fluorescence detector and did not find any lead on the surface of the cups, which is where exposure would be. When asked about testing the area where the company claims the lead is, which is under the stainless steel, Dr. Caravanos said he was not able to take apart the cup to test. This would mean that it would be very difficult for the lead to get exposed to the consumer. He also claims that at-home lead tests "are not considered reliable" and that those kinds of tests are not approved by the EPA.

Despite there not being a risk of lead exposure, Dr. Caravanos still believes that the company should not have included lead in its products in the first place, because of how well known its toxicity is.  Stanley also claims they are trying to improve their design by looking for alternative materials.  

References

1. Bjella, Braden. “‘It’s Trash Now’: Woman Says Viral Stanley Water Bottle Allegedly Tested Positive for Lead.” The Daily Dot, 12 Aug. 2023, www.dailydot.com/news/stanley-cup-water-bottle-testing-positive-lead/.

2. CDC. “Health Effects of Lead Exposure.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 Sept. 2022, www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health-effects.htm.

3. Deb, Sopan. “A Lead Scare Strikes Stanley Tumblers, but You Don’t Need to Worry.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Jan. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/health/stanley-cups-lead.html.

4. “Do Stanley Products Contain Lead?” Stanley 1913, support.stanley1913.com/en/support/solutions/articles/69000850923-do-stanley-products-contain-lead-. Accessed 14 Feb. 2024.

5. Giordano, Medea. “Is There Lead in Your Reusable Water Bottle?” Wired, Conde Nast, 13 Feb. 2024, www.wired.com/story/stanley-cup-lead-soldering/.

6. II, Moises Mendez. “Why a New Stanley Cup Is Causing a Frenzy at Target.” Time, Time, 5 Jan. 2024, time.com/6552422/stanley-cup-craze-target/.