It is inherently a human-based concept as to whether something should be considered safe or not safe. Complete safeness does not exist. In this case you’re trying to compare Japan dumping radioactive waste water, with implied alternatives. What happens if Japan doesn’t dump the water? It’s not like there’s some alternative where the water simply becomes non-radioactive on its own.
So in the end the question is about who should have to deal with the effects from these decisions, and some of these decisions were made a long time ago (i.e. the decision that caused Japan to have nuclear / radioactive waste in the first place). It’s not so much a safety question as it is a morals/ethics/values question at that point – I think most people can agree that individual people should have to deal with the consequences of their actions, but this is somewhat about the consequences of *other people’s* actions.
Latest Answers