Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

China declines to join IAEA system to monitor Fukushima treated water

104 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

104 Comments
Login to comment

indeed to this bit:

Worldwide, nuclear power plants routinely release treated water containing low concentrations of tritium and other radionuclides into the environment as part of normal operations, according to the IAEA.

Considering the following, it is no surprises China is boycotting

Fake or misattributed videos have claimed sea life is turning up dead on beaches, that there have been mass protests, and that a Japanese official who drank treated water from Fukushima at a 2011 press conference had died. Some examples collated by an Australian-based China analyst, Han Yang, on X, formerly known as Twitter, included footage of a rally in South Korea reported by Chinese state media as being in Japan, and fake news about a Japanese politician apparently suggesting Chinese visitors should be made to eat shellfish from Fukushima.

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/04/state-backed-disinformation-fuelling-anger-in-china-over-fukushima-wastewater-japan

32 ( +35 / -3 )

China declines to join IAEA system to monitor Fukushima treated water

That make sense, who really approved for Fukushima up and running, IAEA. See what happened during 2011, how they don't count Tsunami factor in the place that suffer Tsunami in the past.

Now we should trust them for those wastewater?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312726600_Recovery_After_Sanriku_Tsunamis_in_1896_and_1933_and_Transition_of_Housing_Location_Before_the_2011_Great_East_Japan_Earthquake_and_Tsunami

-29 ( +6 / -35 )

Nothing to hide China?

27 ( +32 / -5 )

So sounds like they have no concern and can be slapped down by the WTO as being in violation of trade barriers. Easiest case ever.

22 ( +24 / -2 )

It's in the best interest of the CCCP to restrain from joining IAEA because doing so will ignite the citizens of China to revolt against the fascist leader Xi.

17 ( +22 / -5 )

China declines to join IAEA system to monitor Fukushima treated water

Of course they wont. They are milking this issue to distract the population from their own domestic problems. They are even doubling down on misinformation.

https://japantoday.com/category/national/afp-fact-check-fukushima-wastewater-release-spawns-misinformation

25 ( +28 / -3 )

Joining would be the same as admitting that there is no problem with the release.

21 ( +26 / -5 )

We know there's tritium in the water but the way this paragraph was worded it would seem there's other radionuclides present in the water being released that haven't been removed.

All have not been removed but most. Japan uses tritium as the metric for safety, while ignoring the other dangerous actinides in nuclear waste. It’s been 12 years since the accident. Carbon-14, Strontium-90, iodine-129, and plutonium-239 are not measured, are they?

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

One of the arguments for the release has been the last sentence. Those plants that released water are not Fukushima #1. The release plan from what I understand is for at least 30 years in once concentrated area. Have these plants been doing this for 30 years in one concentrated area? Anyone know, does Kishida?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

There you have it!

China has no credibility whatsoever!!

How about the other way around?

Can we have international cooperation with IAEA to monitor the water released from Chinese nuclear plants recently?

20 ( +22 / -2 )

Since early this year, Tokyo has repeatedly asked Beijing through diplomatic channels to participate in the monitoring efforts, but has had its requests rejected by China under the argument that the framework "does not guarantee" independent analysis of the released water, the sources said.

That has got to be one of the most stupid excuses by China. China should state what about the framework "does not guarantee" independent analysis of the released water and propose how to remedy that instead of flat out refusing.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

By joining, China would have an ability to expose their truth about this release, and put forward a real reason to stop it. It would also have a chance to improve strained ties (however it would be a minor improvement) with Japan. But by joining, it would more likely further expose the lies of the Chinese authorities to their populace. They absolutely can't have that.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

All have not been removed but most. Japan uses tritium as the metric for safety, while ignoring the other dangerous actinides in nuclear waste. It’s been 12 years since the accident. Carbon-14, Strontium-90, iodine-129, and plutonium-239 are not measured, are they?

It seems to me all radioactive substances would be examined if China joined the IAEA system. The IAEA has been monitoring all substances from the Daiichi power plant since 2011. So no problem about examination of all other radioactive substances. No one has been suffering from marine lives from Fukushima sea.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

China has been a member of the IAEA since 1984.

Time to throw them out.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Ostrich -- head in the sand

LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa

Nuclear power plants discharge treated water all the time, including China's nuclear power plants

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-plan-to-release-fukushimas-treated-radioactive-water-into-the-sea

Marine radiochemist Ken Buesseler is a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He says every nuclear power plant in the world releases tritium-tainted water.

Ken Buesseler: With 400 or so nuclear power plants around the world releasing tritium, it would be hard to single out this particular site and say, no, you can't, the others are OK. The other 399 sites are releasing it, and the ocean contains tritium already from those atmospheric nuclear weapons testing going back, '50s and '60s.

State-run media in China has led a chorus of condemnation, along with Pacific Island nations and, until a recent election, South Korea.

But Japan says the critique from its regional rivals deliberately ignores the science and is hypocritical. China is the fastest-growing nuclear power producer in the world. Nishimura says just one of its plants discharges about seven times more tritium a year than what is planned at Fukushima.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Look at that wonderful shoal in the foreground! I'd love to go snorkeling there - bet there's lotsa uni. I'd eat it up.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Quelle surprise. The PRC acting exactly as we would expect them to act...

4 ( +6 / -2 )

If anyone needed any more proof that the seafood ban is 100% political, here you are. Japan is offering full transparency with independent, international monitoring, but no: China wants political leverage.

Compare Japan's response here to China's COVID response: denials, obfuscation, lies, threats, and economic coercion. It just shows once again that trying to work with China under the CCP is a lost cause.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

Just behaving like a petulant child at a party aren't you China? You'd have more credibility being at the table than blubbering and moaning from the sidelines. We've just seen Brexit Britain do the same and the act is getting very tired.

China pollutes the ocean with contaminated contents more than anyone else

14 ( +15 / -1 )

quercetumToday 07:37 am JST

All have not been removed but most. Japan uses tritium as the metric for safety, while ignoring the other dangerous actinides in nuclear waste. It’s been 12 years since the accident. Carbon-14, Strontium-90, iodine-129, and plutonium-239 are not measured, are they?

You've already tried this line on another thread, and I've already replied to you. Here it is again:

Cesium and Strontium levels are reduced; other elements (62 nuclides, other than Tritium, according to TEPCO) are removed by ALPS.

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/planaction/alps/index-e.html

TEPCO publishes daily data on its findings. You may say you don't trust TEPCO: my response would be that's precisely what the IAEA is there for (and the endeavor detailed in this article).

https://www.tepco.co.jp/decommission/data/daily_analysis/index-j.html

If the Chinese government ignores all this, that just proves their actions are purely political.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

China is far too smart to join, considering the IAEA are half the problem.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

They have a narrative to maintain, even the slightest chance it could be proven wrong won’t stand

8 ( +9 / -1 )

China doesn’t recognize international conventions or treaties. It violates the law of the seas daily. Ask the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan about how courteous and law abiding Chinese warships conduct themselves in international waters. They sail like organized pirates.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

China is right! Not to trust IAEA as Japan does!

People who die after eating poisoned fish cannot come back to tell IAEA they are WRONG!!

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

With 400 or so nuclear power plants around the world releasing tritium, it would be hard to single out this particular site and say, no, you can't, the others are OK. The other 399 sites are releasing it, and the ocean contains tritium already from those atmospheric nuclear weapons testing going back, '50s and '60s.

It's not about Tritium. That's the Japanese media and you focusing on something that is safe. The issue is not safe radionuclides. Why would you think the protest concerns tritium?

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Cesium and Strontium levels are reduced; other elements (62 nuclides, other than Tritium, according to TEPCO) are removed by ALPS.

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/planaction/alps/index-e.html

You may have missed my response to you in the othere thread....according to TEPCO is the issue. A prisoner cannot be his own parole officer, can he?

You also dismissed the past falsification of data by TEPCO by pointing out it was years ago. That was not convincing to me. A company that has falsified its records cannot produce its own data and accept everyone to not question its validity. I actually believe you would take the position that the jury is still out on TEPCO's crediibility based on your level-headed responses.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

TEPCO publishes daily data on its findings. You may say you don't trust TEPCO: my response would be that's precisely what the IAEA is there for (and the endeavor detailed in this article).

Yes, we may have exhausted this but yes, the issue is trust. IAEA's source is TEPCO. As for trusting China or the CPC and genocide and other irrelevant sewage you spill, you would agree that is off topic. The question is TEPCO competent in carrying out ALPS for 1.3 million tonnes and can you accept data sampling provided by TEPCO as indenpedent.

The former remains to be seen. It has not even been released yet and it will take three decades and so it is impossible to conclude that the future contaminated water claimed to be treated is safe because it has not even been treated yet. They are still cooling the reactors every day. The latter is a clear no. I have my doubts on any findings based on TEPCO sourced samples. The questions are unrelated to IAEA.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

It seems all problems (all posters are just saying conjectures) would be solved if China joined IAEA system to make sure about everything, so better call China should join it again and again.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

quercetumToday 10:37 am JST

On your numerous points about trust (they basically boil down to the same thing), my response is as it was:

You may say you don't trust TEPCO: my response would be that's precisely what the IAEA is there for (and the endeavor detailed in this article).

On your "IAEA's source is TEPCO" point, again, I've covered this in another thread, and what you are saying is untrue:

The IAEA is monitoring TEPCO samples, but it is also using its own equipment and doing its own independent sampling. See section 5.2:

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

If you don't trust the IAEA, doing its own sampling in its own way with its own equipment, that's entirely up to you - don't trust them. But don't post mistruths like "IAEA's source is TEPCO." That is demonstrably and provably false.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

To those who fear Japan's treated water. You people shouldn't even get X-rays or CT scans at the hospital. You will be exposed to dozens of times more radiation than the Japanese treated water.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

well maybe China needs to pipe down.....they've been offered the chance to be a part of the monitoring process and have declined. That7s before we even tackle the hypocrisy of their own polluted water ways and the radiation they have released into the oceans and atmosphere through their nuclear weapons progamme

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The IAEA is monitoring TEPCO samples, but it is also using its own equipment and doing its own independent sampling. See section 5.2:

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

This is from the Section 5.2. I'll bold the part in question. Additionally you're using this report to conclude allowing independent testing and sample gathering when it is only IAEA.

*Review of sampling and analytical methods for source and environmental monitoring related to ALPS treated water at FDNPS used by TEPCO and relevant Japanese authorities. 

This means IAES reviews the sampling and the analytical methods. It does not mean it uses its own equipment and did its own indepedent sampling. At least not according what is written here.

* Corroboration of source monitoring undertaken by TEPCO, including a comprehensive radiological characterization of ALPS treated water samples.

This means the IAEA can confirm that this was undertaken by TEPCO. This does not mean it used its own equipment and did its own indepedent sampling.

*Corroboration of environmental monitoring undertaken by TEPCO and relevant Japanese authorities.

This means the IAEA can confirm that this was monitored by TEPCO. This does not mean it used its own equipment and did its own indepedent sampling.

Here on out I will highlight sentences throughout Section 5.2 of IAEA's corroporation. I believe you are concluding that IAEA took these samples. IAEA is saying we can confirm TEPCO's actions are safe. So bascially your rebuttal is "no, it's not true" or denial but the evidence you provide corroborates the fact that IAEA monitored TEPCO which does not negate the point and contention that TEPCO serves the samples.

*based on the observations of the IAEA, TEPCO has demonstrated that it has a sustainable and robust analytical system in place to support the ongoing technical needs at FDNPS during the discharge of ALPS treated water.

*The ILCs will involve third party laboratories and the IAEA is currently considering additional third-party laboratories to include in these future ILCs.

The third party here is what is to be expected. This checks IAEA but does not check TEPCO's samples as TEPCO serves its own samples, the point is being beaten to death yet I know.

*The IAEA’s corroboration for occupational radiation protection capabilities is comprised of three distinct elements:

This shows IAEA is checking the safety of the workers involved. It does not prove your point of IAEA accessing the water independently.

That's it. It is a very short section, 5.2 Nothing in 5.2 other than the catchy title "Independent Sampling" shows that it accessed treated water NOT provided by TEPCO.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Here is Section 5.2 in digest form.

The activities related to the corroboration of source monitoring, the corroboration of environmental monitoring, and the corroboration of occupational radiation protection; these will continue as described in Part IV above and in previous reports. 

None of these are IAEA or other independent testing of the contaminated water.

1) the corroboration of source monitoring - this shows that it comes from the tanks and not elsehwere. It does not show that it is an independent sample and does not negate that IAEA can not go and collect freely from the tanks.

2) the corroboration of environmental monitoring - this shows they monitored the conditions of the environment in which the water in question was taken. This does now show that IAEA took independent samples but only that IAEA monitored the environment of the source of the water.

3) the corroboration of occupational radiation protection - occupational radiation protection means that IAEA watched and made sure workers were properly protected from radiation.

The above is Section 5.2.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

There is no point in getting into this with IAEA. The IAEA just says there's nothing wrong with TEPCO's method of testing, which again is used to deflect.

A prisoner cannot be his own parole officer. An manager that embezzles cannot produce an independent audit to clear himself.

The manager cannot provide the books for an outside third party auditor to audit and be free from the conflict of interest. The auditor would need to go in independently and do its due diligence.

So when you see the prosecutor raiding an office in Japan carrying out the cardboard boxes after boxes, that is what we want at TEPCO. What we have instead is TEPCO bringing out the boxes to the doorstep and handing the boxes to the IAEA police.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

quercetum,

your argument hinges on several, occasionally severe misinterpretations.

Just get to the part where it says IAEA collected and tested the water themselves in Section 5.2 as opposed to testing the water provided by TEPCO.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If China joins, they won’t have any political strategy when the results show there is no problem.

This makes it even more clear that China has no interest in the actual safety, it’s just a way for them to boycott and pressure Japan.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The IAEA does not just look at samples. They are also monitoring the treatment process, that is, the very mechanics of the process and equipment up to the point of discharging the water. They make sure that there are no problems, both with the sample results as well as the theory, and that there are no inconsistencies between the two. Thus, it makes no sense to delve into ideas only about the sample.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The Government of China is intent on domination/control of the entire Indo Pacific region.

The tragic earthquake/tsunami, the lives lost from the devastating impact from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, is purely a means/method for the Government of China to destabilize and create division, to weaponize a natural disaster to pursue a contemptible political agenda.

The refusal to allow detailed investigations into the origins of a pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 7 million souls globally is evidence enough of a dictatorship that agenda is for despotism through absolute rule.

It is time to wake up and confront totalitarianism head on.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

quercetumToday 01:19 pm JST

None of these are IAEA or other independent testing of the contaminated water.

Dear quercetum: this will be my last post to you here.

It is patently obvious that you have a pro-China/anti-Japan agenda, as can be readily seen by your posting history on both this and virtually any other issue. Other posters/readers can make up their own mind on the veracity of your arguments; I have already made up mine.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Considering that the Chinese Qinshan power plant alone releases 10 times (!) the amount of tritium per year into the ocean than is planned for Fukushima, and that is open-ended (in normal operation), I find it quite understandable that the Chinese government does not want to partake in any investigation and prefers to continue blasting propaganda...

9 ( +9 / -0 )

AndyToday  10:16 am JST

China is far too smart to join, considering the IAEA are half the problem.

China joined in 1984. China is the problem.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The Chinese public should be demanding their leaders join this.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Probably doesn't want the organisation probing their discharge efforts.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

China is right! Not to trust IAEA as Japan does!

People who die after eating poisoned fish cannot come back to tell IAEA they are WRONG!!

Show us some proof!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Of course the CCP declined. If they participated and the science proved Japan correct, it would take away the CCP boogeyman to deflect from its own pathetic governance.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

You’re not wrong Dave.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

China has rejected Japan's proposal that it join an international verification framework for assessing the results of radiation level monitoring in treated water being released into the sea from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, sources familiar with the bilateral relationship said Tuesday

which source?

If Japan really wanted China to join in monitoring the radiation, Japanese spokesperson or Kishida could have announce it via press release? so far, nobody mention about Japan asking China to join.

this misleading news reporting quoting from unnamed sources needed to stop.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I don't believe the question whether IAEA tested the water themselves warrants any further elaboration, given that there are no less than seven independent laboratories involved.

Seven independent laboratories that received samples from TEPCO. Where else would they received the samples from? You think they went and got samples themselves, in which case I would consider that independent samples. ]

It is patently obvious that you have a pro-China/anti-Japan agenda, as can be readily seen by your posting history on both this and virtually any other issue.

Your rebuttal to the points I made in Section 5.2 is that I am biased. That is a non-rebuttal and this too is irrelevant and fails to address the points. Whether someone is pro or anti Japan is not germane to the question of whether TEPCO sourced the samples or not and whether TEPCO allows an independent collection of samples or not.

The issue is that the water provided by TEPCO for independent testing is a conflict of interest. Whether there are 7 laboratories that test water provided by TEPCO or 70 laboratories is irrelevant because the possibly cherry picked water is from TEPCO.

Prisoners do not review themselves for parole. TEPCO testing their tritium is meaningless.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

"Corraboration", likewise, does not mean what you seem to think it means. It means independent examination and then comparison with TEPCO's results. Again, as demonstrated and outlined in the ILC document.

No, my understanding is fine and correct. The meaning of the word to corroborate is not the issue. They all confirmed the water is safe, but the water should not be provided by TEPCO. The IAEA report does not say that IAEA or any of the other laboratories retrieved the water for testing on their own. Instead, it says they did their own separate "independant" tests.

"Independent, does not mena what you seem to think it means. It means separate and independent examination of the water. It does not mean that they got the water themselves independently.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Your rebuttal to the points I made in Section 5.2 is that I am biased.

I said no such thing, that was someone else. But that demonstrably fundamental lack of reading comprehension would explain a lot of your supposed arguments.

I sometimes lump responses together. That was Isabelle. I did not mean to say it was you and no it was not you.

I would agree with you on what my argument hinges on: the sourcing of the water to be tested and the credibility of company. The points I am putting forth is that the contaminated water claimed to be safely treated is provided by TEPCO the company that tainted the water in the first place; this is a conflict of interest. Your citing the IAEA report and your explanation of the word "corroborate" and "independent" was refuted.

Let's move on to your claim and evidence:

"Samples for this ILC were collected on 24 March 2022 from the K4-B ALPS facility at FDNPS, with observation by IAEA staff members. 

In English, this would not mean that IAEA did the collection. The collection of the samples taken on 24 March 2022 was merely observed by IAEA. It does not say the collection was done by IAEA.

The sample containers were assigned and labelled beforehand and were immediately sealed with tamper proof tape under IAEA observation."

Again, it does not say the sample containers were assigned and labeelled and sealed by IAEA but under IAEA observation. It was also done beforehand and what exactly is IAEA corroborating? The only the report is good for is that TEPCO did the process and not someone else. The report does not seek to show that IAEA collected the samples themselves.

If I may help you, the IAEA just observed that TEPCO did the process and that the process was done with consistency of International standards. Whether the 1.3 million tonnes of contaminated water and with more on the way as we tap on our phones is safe is the question.

IAEA directors says the policy of TEPCO and the Japanese government in handling the contaminated water is not recommended or endorsed by IAEA.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

quercetum

Seven independent laboratories that received samples from TEPCO.

Hi quercetum, you got any opinion on the Qinshan power plant in Zhejiang Province and its regular release of radioactive materials into the ocean? Just wondering.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Unless you insist that, for the samples to be valid, the IAEA needs to retrieve the samples with their own hands rather than watching someone else's hands retrieve them, your argument does not (excuse the pun) hold water.

Not quite that far. Not literally their hands in the water, not that they would be willing to do so, but yes IAEA needs to randomly test the water by IAEA and not use TEPCO samples. Prisoneers do not review themselves for parole. Tax evaders do not audit themselves.

IAEA did not test the homogeneity of the water either. That is all 1.3 million tonnes of water are equally "safe" because the water is sourced by TEPCO.

IAEA is merely an observer. It is not the IRS in tax evation and ponzi scheme cases. The IAEA is not an enforcement agency.

It is not unreasonable to require that the water be made accessible for independent assessment. That is the minimum standard.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Hi quercetum, you got any opinion on the Qinshan power plant in Zhejiang Province and its regular release of radioactive materials into the ocean? Just wondering.

The Qinshan power plant was used by METI not as an example of a power plant that releases dangerous radioactive materials but as an example of a plant in China that releases more tritium than that released by Fukushima. The highest is by La Hague 11,400 trillion Bq in France but citing this and other plants in the US, UK, France, Canada and China that all release more is irrelevant because the argument Japan puts forth is that tritium is safe. If it is safe, what's the issue? 22 trillion Bqversus 11,400 trillion Bq. They are both safe.

Japan focused on tritum when the issue and worry is not tritium but others such as Carbon-14, Strontium-90, idoine-129, plutonium-239 and other heavy metals. The best response JT commentators have so far come up with is "it has been removed by TEPCO."

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

That is correct. What is your exact problem with that? Do you believe that the TEPCO engineers that draw the samples pulled a slight of hand, like Las Vegas magicians?

It's not the drawing of the water but the water from which the sample is drawn. TEPCO should not be "auditing" themselves. Whether the water, all 1.3 million tonnes of it is homogenous or not is also an issue.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

At some point you need to ask yourself whether you are willing to trust anyone to give you reliable statements on our shared reality.

So after all this, you also have boiled it down to "trusting TEPCO." That is where we are at, we just have to trust TEPCO, a company that has lied and fasified its data and records to a point that its own country's authorities, the Japanese government forced the executives to resign.

TEPCO's credibility and competence are being questioned. The answers here have not shown water was sampled independently but rather the water was indeed sourced by TEPCO some even "beforehand" making monitoring as a watchdog invalid.

And if you come up empty you should seek out a professional.

Irrelevant and off topic. Commenting on posters does not strengthen an argument at all.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No, it's not. Of course not all 1.3 billion liters are homogenous, nobody claimed that. A major part still has to undergo more ALPS processing. The water will be homogenized in batches of 10 tanks, then tested. Ten by ten, every two months.

That is the point. Something that has not been processed cannot be said to be safe because like you just pointed out it is to undergo treatment.

The homogeneity of the water is to be questioned. Scrutiny and high standards are the points here. Politics, biases and tritium are all deflections.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No, it's not. Of course not all 1.3 billion

Million not billion. 1000 tanks x 1000kg per tank is 1. 3 million kg. 1 ton is 1000kg.

You need to pay attention the details of the IAEA Report instead of just glancing at the title, seeing the word "independent" and concluding that must mean IAEA randomly retrieved the water instead of TEPCO choosing which water to use for sample. And no that is not a linguistic word play.

Independent testing means they, the IAEA and other laboratoies, tested the water themselves. The water to be tested was still provided by TEPCO and that should not be the case.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No, we don't. We have to trust someone though. And I choose to trust the IAEA and the half dozen other monitoring groups around the water release to not be blatantly incompetent.

Trusting in IAEA sounds reasonable but like by law of transitive property in Geometry, the IAEA has no choice but to just trust TEPCO and the world, as a result by trusting in IAEA, has to take TEPCO's word.

- Cracks were detected in a self-imposed inspection in 1993, 1995 and 1996 respectively. But these were not mentioned in the Japanese-version reports for each year. 

The existence of cracks were not reported to MITI. - The signs of cracks were mentioned in the English-version report, but not in the Japanese-version report. - A detailed review was not performed for the cracks detected on the replaced shroud.

 Repairs were carried out in 1993 and 1995 respectively. In the English-version report which was attached to the Japanese-version report, it appeared as if all repairs were carried out in 1995.  

TEPCO asked GE to make the data sheets that show the welding lines were welded in 1995, which was not actually the case. 

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu02_e/images/0917e2.pdf

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

And since you seem to not just off-handedly discard but actually actively ignore any arguments to the contrary, 

I have refuted your claims by explaining to you what the meaning of the words "independent" and "corroboration" are in this context and have shown repeatedly TEPCO sourcing the water is a conflict of interest. You tried to disprove that by claiming the IAEA sourced the water themselves by quoting the IAEA Report. I showed you how your evidence states specifically IAEA merely observed but was not given accessibility to retrieve water randomly and independently. By the sheer number of posts, I have engaged and and have not ignored your arguments. That your arguments failed to persuade me that there is not a conflict of interest with TEPCO is not the same as your arguments being ignored.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Wait. You imagine the tanks holding 1000 liters each? That would make every tank roughly the size of a Japanese vending machine.

No, we are talking cubic meters.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

But that may actually explain why some people think we could just "store the water longer", or "build a big swimming pool", or "pour it into a lake", or "ship it to the arctic and freeze it". That works out if their imagination of the actual volume is off by three orders of magnitude.

There is no way it is 1.3 billion tonnes. That is way too much. It's million.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The plant will need more than 50 million tons of cooling water before the disaster ends.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Are you done digging? This is a bit painful to watch actually.

The plant’s total storage capacity will effectively increase to about 1.4 million tons.

The nuclear plant generates about 140 tons of contaminated water a day.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14360321

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

quercetum

Japan focused on tritum when the issue and worry is not tritium but others such as Carbon-14, Strontium-90, idoine-129, plutonium-239 and other heavy metals. The best response JT commentators have so far come up with is "it has been removed by TEPCO."

These are removed with the ALPS treatment system, as confirmed repeatedly. The only remaining issue is Tritium, which is what all the current brouhaha is about. Interesting to hear that you are not concerned about Tritium now.... I will remind you if you bring that up again.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Are you done digging? This is a bit painful to watch actually.

Show me how you came up with 1.3 billion tonnes.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

These are removed with the ALPS treatment system, as confirmed repeatedly.

I agree we are talking past each other. One side says, all removed and it's safe. The other side, my side, says that is only TEPCO saying it is safe and TEPCO provided the water to be tested. The "safe" water TEPCO provided was "corroborated" to be safe "independently" by IAEA and other laboratories, but the water itself was provided TEPCO itself and not collected by IAEA and the other laboratories.

TEPCO should not be involved at all. There is a conflict of interest. Prisoners cannot be their own parole officers.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

LOL. LOL! Can we all laugh in unison at how pig-headed China has become recently? First Wolf Warrior Diplomacy drove literally EVERY country not named North Korea or Russia into opposition. Then, "Zero COVID" absolutely devastated the domestic market, which led most manufacturers to rethink expanding production in China. This shredded Xinnie The Pooh's "Made In China 2025" plans.

Can we all laugh in derision at how stupidly China has been playing out its Japan-cards recently? This "total Japanese seafood ban" has had the domestic effect of scaring the bejesus out of its own population by an over-saturation of lies and completely false alarmism, so much so that recent polling has found that over 80% of the Chinese people plan to eat NO seafood in the near future, ravishing China's own fisheries and industry (a 100 Billion USD market)!

And can all laugh at China when it has to humiliatingly and unceremoniously SCRAP its ban as a total unproductive failure, just as happened with Covid Zero? lol. Or does the Greasy King of Beijing plan to ban seafood import for the next 30 YEARS, the time in which Japan plans to dump the same levels of treated water annually into the sea? Can't wait to find out!

In summing up the ineptness of President For Life Xinnie The Pooh, one can only be reminded of a Kurt Vonnegut's line: "If his brains were dynamite, there wouldn't be enough to blow his hat off!"

4 ( +5 / -1 )

A Japanese government source pointed out that China likely believes joining the framework would be "tantamount to endorsing the ocean discharge."

This seems very likely.

Imagine being opposed to the death penalty but becoming the chef that makes the last meal of the condemned. On the one hand, you can feel that you did something nice for people in their last moments. On the other hand, you have become part of the system that kills people as a punishment. Its quite the double edged sword.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yup, now they can pollute as much as they want.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No matter any offer the Government of Japan make, any suggestion, conciliation, offers of collaboration to accepting a congenial compromise, the Government of China behavioral agenda is to stoke, cultivate, fan the flames of belligerent oppressive tyrannical hostility.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I remember as a young child in the early 60s, watching TV, when a news anchor, Howard K. Smith often came on to say, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem . . . let's work together!".

I think the philosophy applies here . . . .

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Absolutely, Jtsnose a missed opportunity to work together, to create a new era of trust.

To build bridges,

A squandered chance to take the first steps to repair historic grievances in a show of regional cooperation solidarity to find a joint solution to a devastating natural disaster.

Alas, not to be.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

quercetum

The other side, my side, says...

What other side? You alone here are refusing to accept the fact that Tritium is the only contaminant left in the wastewater after the other 62 radioactive elements have been removed by ALPS. You're doing nothing more than pushing a baseless conspiracy theory. The wastewater being released contains 1/7 Tritium levels approved by the WHO for drinking water at release and even less once diluted by seawater AND THAT'S ALL. It's safe. Period.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

100% agree with Jtsnose and itsonlyrockandroll above. Instead of creating an environment that fosters partnership and cooperation, China, by outright refusing to work with anybody on this, would rather the situation between the two countries deteriorate into one of accusations, finger pointing, and hypocrisy. Quite despicable.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The water has undergone a treatment process that removes most radionuclides except tritium.

Japan has to show the data.

Repeating this over and over in the news does not make it true.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Under the framework, participating countries will compare, analyze and evaluate the results of the monitoring carried out respectively by the Japanese government and the International Atomic Energy Agency on seawater off Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan.

So the framework analyzes the environment after water has been discharged.

More important for the wastewater to be monitored also before discharge

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

dave

Today 10:52 pm JST

Japan has to show the data.

> It did. And given that the respective document is mentioned every. single. time. in. any. discussion. about. Fukushima, one has to assume you are merely pretending not to know that

The data was for the wastewater they tested, not for the wastewater they released into the ocean.

You need to read the report and try to understand it

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

dave

Today 10:58 pm JST

The data was for the wastewater they tested, not for the wastewater they released into the ocean.

> They tested exactly the wastewater they released, from the first group of 10 tanks out of the three group rotation, the first tanks to be discharged.

How much water was in those tanks?

How much water was released into the ocean?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No need for me say anything anymore. You have the paper , you can evaluate for yourself

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How much water was in those tanks?

How much water was released into the ocean?

jfc

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Useful info thanks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tritium is known to be less harmful to human health than other radioactive materials such as cesium and strontium as it emits very weak radiation and does not accumulate in the body, experts say.

Less harmful is not synonymous with being safe .

Tritium indeed emits radiation so all these word play is sounding more and more like the work of scammers..

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Haven't noticed any Chinese anger at North Korea polluting the ocean with burned out missiles. How odd!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

China has rejected Japan's proposal that it join an international verification framework for assessing the results of radiation level monitoring in treated water being released into the sea from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant.

China wouldn't join because then they would have no case for banning all fish from Japan and loose face!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

They are against the dumping of the fukushima nuclear wastewater into the ocean in the first place, of course they will not join in monitoring it after dumping.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

China is accusing Japan of a crime and now Japan is inviting China to be complicit in it =)

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

dave

Today 08:49 am JST

They are against the dumping of the fukushima nuclear wastewater into the ocean in the first place,

> For political reasons.

> of course they will not join in monitoring it after dumping.

> They refused to join before the release. And that makes no sense except ... for political reasons

Whatever the reason, Japan has to make the radionuclides contents of the wastewater known before release.

For the present release for example, there's only data for the wastewater contained in ten 1000 cubic meter tanks, as you said.

What about the rest?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It doesn't matter, china will always look for ways to be disruptive and create instability. Japan probably more so as they still have their tightly whities all bunched up in knots due the Japan's occupation. china is a pariah, does not play by the rules accept when it suits them to do so. It is unfortunate that companies feel the need to sell their soul to this corrupt nation for some short term profits. Cause in the end, china will steal the technology and then create their own cheap knock off, under cut the rest of the free market with slave labor and unfair trade practices.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

dave

Today 09:10 am JST

For the present release for example, there's only data for the wastewater contained in ten 1000 cubic meter tanks, as you said.

> That is correct. It makes no sense to test all the water, a major part of it is still undergoing treatment.

> What about the rest?

> For the rest it happens in exactly the same way: A group of ten tanks is filled, homogenized, tested (by TEPCO and corroborated by the JAEA, both being monitored by the IAEA), and then released.

> At the moment, they are releasing tank group B, while group C is currently being tested, and group A is being prepared. You can follow the rotation and where the tanks are in the process at https://www.tepco.co.jp/decommission/progress/watertreatment/measurementfacility/

It will be exactly the same way if they make the measurements public.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

dave

Today 09:16 am JST

It will be exactly the same way if they make the measurements public.

They do: https://fukushima.jaea.go.jp/okuma/alps/

That's for the first 10,000m3?

Let's see if it will be implemented for the rest

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And again, they need to make it public, in the news, to assure the public first and foremost, not just china

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Anyway, by the info you provided (daily discharge rate) they should be releasing data for the next batch of wastewater before releasing in around 10 more days?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

China is probably concerned that testing might be extended to Chinese nuclear plants, which have been discharging higher levels of radionuclides for many years. And they have 13 of these plants.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

dave

Today 09:46 am JST

That's for the first 10,000m3?

> That is correct. The second batch has not finished testing yet.

> Let's see if it will be implemented for the rest

> I don't see how they could possibly deviate from the process without provoking serious national and international consequences. Contrary to popular belief they are not intentionally and utterly stupid.

Lol okay

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

dave

Today 09:55 am JST

they should be releasing data for the next batch of wastewater before releasing in around 10 more days?

> That I don't know, they don't publish exact schedules. The rotation process is described as taking 6 months in total, meaning a group of tanks being released every 2 months.

I just meant they should be releasing data before releasing more wastewater after the current release which should be done in around 10 more days.

No need for exact sched

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Of course China will refuse. because it does not want the world to find out about its own nuclear waste dumping, which has been going on for many yrs in amounts that make Fukishima's look like a pin drop............which compared to the Chinese waste it is.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Also, "around 10 more days" is coming from you. Their regular rotation schedule is stated as 2 months, which given the 30 year timeframe even seems a bit too fast. We have no idea about the exact schedule yet, and I'm sure they are not running on the final schedule yet either.

You're making too much of that. That estimate based on info you gave is only for the release of the first batch of wastewater, that's it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This means they are testing before release, but it says nothing about when they will be releasing the data. The existence of the JAEA page and its section "latest results" suggests that they will publicize the data, but it does not say when.

I have no doubt they will be testing and measuring.

It's what they will do with the data that's questionable.

It should be clear and transparent in the processes you've been alluding to

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Anyway what I was saying basically about the release of the first batch of wastewater (10k tons) is that after its completion the govt /tepco should assure the public that the next batch to be released underwent the same processes and release the data before releasing the wastewater

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Of course, China won't join the IAEA system, not because it fears being seen as approving the release of Fukushima water but because it is afraid that the IAEA would have a say in China's own release of its nuclear waste water which many people believe China is far more irresponsible. Well, China won't join at least until it can manipulate like it has done with WHO during the COVID-19 to cover up its own flaws.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The fact that China, which is the second largest contributor to the IAEA after the United States, has ignored Japan's request and will not participate in future surveillance activities shows that this incident is a purely political issue.

China and South Korea refuse to accept IAEA inspections and continue to release large amounts of wastewater into the East China Sea and Yellow Sea.

It is ridiculous that China itself is very reluctant to be inspected by the IAEA.

Before blaming Japan, it is necessary to clean up one's own country, which is a major polluter.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Urgh, China is screwing this up for themselves with Japan's relations. If they are staunchly opposed, it should be worthwhile the effort to join the IAEA.

2 ( +2 / -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