Japan Today
national

U.N. atomic agency chief reassures residents treated wastewater discharged from Fukushima nuclear plant is safe

22 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

Here's the problem, the IAEA, if it was really doing its job independently, should have identified organizational, institutional and technological problems in Fukushima before the disaster. I don't know how you solve this problem, but the residents are right to be skeptical when someone in authority tell them everything is OK.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

As the article mentions:

Grossi stressed the importance of “transparency, technical accuracy and wide open, honest dialogue and consultation.”

Otherwise, you are just spitting out garbage.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

the IAEA, if it was really doing its job independently, should have identified organizational, institutional and technological problems in Fukushima before the disaster.

Is that actually the IAEA's job, though? Randomly, constantly, and uninvitedly Inspecting and analyzing each and every of the world's 440-something power plants' internals to the point where they can find flaws in structural features like the one that led to the Fukushima disaster?

I would argue that it's not. That job should have been done by the then-NISA and the JNES. They are the institutions that failed their oversight as safety authorities.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Somehow, "first time" after over half year passed from start to dump it into pacific ocean, not before dumping.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Somehow, "first time" after over half year passed from start to dump it into pacific ocean, not before dumping.

What do you mean by that?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

People who should take responsibility will be in nowhere, when long term harm will surface.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Don't know that I can take the assurance seriously when the guy in the navy blue suit is flicking a "V" at us!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The need to wear mask and protective gear in an area were hazzarous material is being handeled does not necesary mean that the resulting product (in this specific case, water with residual Tritium) is harmful.

Just thinking by 5 seconds, you sould understand that despite being in a radioactive hazzard area, the "protective gear" is minimum... just protective glasses, a mask and pair of cloath globes. The other items like a helmet and the blue garment are more for general head protection and identification.

It is clear that wide skin areas are unprotected, so there is very little concern forn contamination where the inspection is being held.

A food producing industry worker has far less skin area exposed than the people in the picture.

And the suggestion of drinking the water directly from the source... shows how little this persons knows about the whole process.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The entire site is radioactive, and the level of protective clothing required depends on location and task.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Radiation comes from the ground up. Proper protective footwear is required.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Daniel Neagari

Today 02:21 pm JST

The need to wear mask and protective gear in an area were hazzarous material is being handeled does not necesary mean that the resulting product (in this specific case, water with residual Tritium) is harmful.

Water with residual tritium?

Are you being transparent saying that?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Grossi last visited the plant in July after issuing an IAEA review predicting only negligible impact from the discharges. An IAEA comprehensive report later concluded that the discharges meet international safety standards.

I think first time I've seen predict used regarding impact of the discharges.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Water with residual tritium?

Are you being transparent saying that?

Well, yes. I haven't specified any amount of Tritium in drinkng water... and Tritium is a natural ocurring isotope

... So yes i am being clear "transparent"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057633/

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Grossi last visited the plant in July after issuing an IAEA review predicting only negligible impact from the discharges. An IAEA comprehensive report later concluded that the discharges meet international safety standards.

Maybe in past discharges they claimed that it meets international standards. But for the 4th release

They merely said:

As in the previous rounds, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. will discharge 7,800 tons of treated water over about 17 days, having confirmed that the radioactivity level of the latest batch of water meets the standards set by the government and the utility.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/02/7b89da33fd65-4th-release-of-fukushima-treated-radioactive-water-begins.html#:~:text=The%20operator%20of%20the%20crippled,the%20fiscal%20year%20ending%20March.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

As for the original iaea approved plan same article cited says

From this round on, the operator will forgo the step of temporarily storing the treated water in a large tank to check the tritium level before release. It will check the level as the water flows through pipes, as it did in the past three rounds.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Only obvious reason for foregoing that final check is they don't want to disclose the results or the expected results of that final check

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

And now they asked grossi to come back to give reassurances again but in this article all he's done so far basically is look at tepco staff diluting and discharging the wastewater

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Daniel Neagari

Today 04:53 pm JST

Water with residual tritium?

> Are you being transparent saying that?

> Well, yes. I haven't specified any amount of Tritium in drinkng water... and Tritium is a natural ocurring isotope

> ... So yes i am being clear "transparent"

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057633/

I just want to be clear you're saying that's the only rafionuclide present in the discharged wastewater, or at least that you know of.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Japanese authorities betrayed formal agreement with fisher people, disregarded option that can avoid dumping treated but still contaminated water, ignored that many kinds of radioactivity contain after even filtering, and escaped to consider about bioconcentration risk.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Maybe in past discharges they claimed that it meets international standards. But for the 4th release

They merely said:

["meets the standards set by the government and the utility"]

There are no "international standards". That term is a shorthand for the standards of countries around the world. Standards are always set by the individual governments.

I think first time I've seen predict used regarding impact of the discharges.

Then you didn't look closely. This prediction (in fact the result of environmental models) was in the first comprehensive IAEA report of last year.

Only obvious reason for foregoing that final check

It was not the "final check".

is they don't want to disclose the results or the expected results of that final check

What do you believe would the check have shown that was not in the detailed analysis of the same water, just in a different tank before?

And now they asked grossi to come back to give reassurances again but in this article all he's done so far basically is look at tepco staff diluting and discharging the wastewater

What else is he supposed to do?

Sidenote: You have a slightly irritating habit to ask the same questions over and over again, regardless whether they have been answered multiple times before.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I just want to be clear you're saying that's the only rafionuclide present in the discharged wastewater, or at least that you know o

Well if you are asking that I am somewhat involved in the analysis of the discharge water, I am not.

That is why technicians of TEPCO and the IAEA are there for.

I asume you are saying that neither TEPCO nor IAEA are to be trust, but that only leads to turst noone (a ruse that a lot of kids and conspiracy theorist love). But trust is a pilar of civilization.

No doubt that some people and organizations abuse of that trust, but usually there are backups that detect those abuses.

In this case, any one (with the means) can get samples and look for the result. Until now, noone has being sounding the alarm, at least noone with hard evidence and trustworthy.

And if you say that "the government and IAEA and the US are supressing the...so and so" that is just conspiracytheoristy talk

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Good to see this reassurance, showing the validity of the plan, and Japan's transparency. It still won't be enough to stop China's seafood ban, though, as we all know that's 100% politics and 0% science.

ianToday 05:08 pm JST

And now they asked grossi to come back to give reassurances again but in this article all he's done so far basically is look at tepco staff diluting and discharging the wastewater

The IAEA has many other staff, doing many other tasks, you know? Grossi's statements are the culmination of their work.

Or perhaps you already knew that, and are just scaremongering.

wallaceToday 03:51 pm JST

Radiation comes from the ground up. Proper protective footwear is required.

Actually, radiation protection is only needed in the yellow/red zones, per the link I posted the other day:

https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/rhm/basic-info/2021/06-03-04.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

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