Handling radioactive waste at Fukushima plant could be improved: IAEA


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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

And the award for Understatement of the Year goes to...

11 ( +12 / -1 )

It took them FOUR years to formulate that conclusion from what they've seen? Wow, the brain power at IAEA, TAKE THE WHOLE THING OF THEM NOW!

8 ( +9 / -1 )

"And the award for Understatement of the Year goes to... "


5 ( +5 / -0 )

“Responsibilities were divided among a number of bodies and it was not always clear where authority lay,”

AND herein lies the problem not only within tepco but 90% of the companies in Japan.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Oh, this title should be written in comic sans!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

You don't say...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Handling radioactive waste at Fukushima plant could be improved: IAEA

Could be improve? I think 'must be' is closer to the point.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OK, so let's get this right.

According to the IAEA, Tepco is doing a good job all round. Clap, clap, clap.

Except, there are areas for improvement in every single aspect of what Tepco are doing...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Lip service to the actual facts, Tepco sugar coats everything and lies

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Could the person who "downthumbed" Zichi please explain why?

I find his (rare) posts on the Fukushima disater to be extremely informative and insightful.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Handling radioactive waste at Fukushima plant could be improved: IAEA

Ah..., diplomacy. Lesser mortals might call TEPCO incompetent f:::wits, but not the unclear industry's lobby, sorry watchdog, the IAEA.

Triple cognac and iodine all round!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yet, that will be an improvement that must be measured against what has already transpired; one cannot in any way derive any comfort from the IAEA statement because from day zero to now and the future it is, has been and will be an utter omnishambles, an unprecedented fall into a world of incomprehensible mistake, amateurism, obfuscation, out and out lies, deceit and WHOLESALE betrayal of the citizens of Japan and the wide international community.

For example during debris removal work conducted in August 2013 at Unit 3 radioactive materials were transported by winds...

As for how foods are sourced for the Elementary school's of Japan through the 'organisation' JA? Well, drives for 'Support Tohoku' are and have been organised, run and delivered. Beautiful, right?


3 ( +4 / -1 )

3 zichiMAY. 15, 2015 - 09:05PM JST By Mar 31, this year, more than 1,000 workers, mostly the temp contract workers but also including about 20 TEPCO workers were exposed to radiation levels higher than 50 millisieverts which means they can't continue to work at the nuclear ground zero. Over the coming decades it will become a problem to find enough workers who have not been exposed to radiation limits.

Was that just this year? Or cumulative?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Over the coming decades it will become a problem to find enough workers who have not been exposed to radiation limits.

This is why it is such a good thing that Japan has shifted from nuclear power to coal generated power, coal being SOOOO much safer both in terms of getting chances of getting killed on the job and for long-term health. Hypocrisy 101.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The problem is the number of temp workers exposed to radiation above the permitted levels which removes them from the work force for at least five years and since the nuclear disaster

That would be a problem if they were actually receiving radiation at a level above permissible levels however based on your brief point across. They aren't.

you are correct on 100 milisievets being the total for five years. Incorrect that it's simply divided by 5 for an annual limit. According to your brief statement then none of them have exceeded the annual limit of 50 a year.

I'm sure that you will be the first to accept this is a huge positive.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The yearly limit for decontamination workers stands at 50 millisieverts, according to the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry.

Same article. No idea why you chose not to paste it though.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@zichi The issue is not that exposure limits are set for nuclear workers, the issue is that radiation exposure is used as an argument against nuclear power, with the result that coal is used instead. Coal miners do not get the same protections and in fact are exposed to more toxic and less easily measurable substances than are nuclear workers. The health risks and effects faced by coal miners are also well documented and scientifically verified, while the risks faced by nuclear workers are not. They are theoretical and based in large part on the LNT hypothesis, and not on any scientifically observed effects of radiation. To claim nuclear power can not be used due to risks to workers health is either hypocritical or effectively means one is saying the lives of foreign coal miners matter less than Japanese lives.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

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