Here
and
Now

opinions

Understanding the plan to release treated Fukushima water

7 Comments
By Kyoko HASEGAWA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

.

Disposing radioactive water into the sea is categorically insane.

{There are better ways to dispose of it - that will cost more, true- but which are environmentally safer.}

Radioactive water will destroy sea life, as well as the sea eco-system, and will translate into the weather system thru evaporation winds/ clouds/ rain .

This short-term "solution" will have broad ranging devastating effect that will impact peoples and eco-systems around the whole world for generations to come.

Smarten up Japan !!!!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Just a thought. If the water was safe to be released, they would have done it since the beginning. Without the need to build thousands of tanks. How can they bluntly lie so callously that the water is safe, when obviously is far from it.

Do those people have absolutely no conscience???

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When people around the world read that "radioactive" water is to be released into the ocean, it is an immediate red flag. Perhaps if Tepco could change the announcement to something like "Treated water that is no longer radioactive to be released into the ocean," there would be less concern.

A thought: if the water is indeed safe, use it for irrigation of crops, or bottle it and sell it in supermarkets.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Dilute it until it is safe by government standards, then use it to supply drinking water to Tokyo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A thought: if the water is indeed safe, use it for irrigation of crops, or bottle it and sell it in supermarkets.

It's possible. Note that radioactive materials do exist in nature. We are exposed to radiation in our daily food. If 1L of the drinking mineral water contains 50 mg of potassium, etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But for Fukushima produce, the level is set even lower, at just 50 Bq/kg, in a bid to win consumer trust. 

But clearly not winning the confidence of many posters here.

Sorry folks, but there seems an irrational element to some opinions. To me, having the water stored as it is now on land, close to production and distribution systems, and in an earthquake prone area seems far riskier than dumping it in the Pacific where the level of dilution will be massive.

Meanwhile, be careful when you next eat a banana.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If the water was safe to be released, they would have done it since the beginning. Without the need to build thousands of tanks. 

Politics has been procrastinating the decision for years though many experts and regulatory bodies like the IAEA already recommended the water discharge back in 9 years ago.

The storage is also in the operational process of removing radioactive elements, all but trillium remains.

A thought: if the water is indeed safe, use it for irrigation of crops, or bottle it and sell it in supermarkets.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites