Japan Today
national

IAEA chief visits Fukushima before radioactive water is released

21 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

The report itself is high quality, well-formatted, nicely written, clear tables and illustrations; but it is not an approval from IAEA, as PM Kishida, his goverment and the nuclear authorities try to make out. The IAEA make it very clear that that is up to the Japanese government and TEPCO.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Risk-averse Japan has created a senseless worldwide panic over a harmless chemical isotope by treating it like it’s really really dangerous when it’s not.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

For people's doubts and concerns, “I must admit I don't have a magic wand … but we do have one thing," Grossi said. “We are going to stay here with you for decades to come until the last drop of the water which is accumulated around the reactor has been safely discharged."

50-100 years. There will be ten times the current amount.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

do not buy fish and salt from japan anymore!

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

Mr Grossi - give that green light now please.

Let's begin the safe release.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

why he emphasize IAEA by "cap""wear".

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This is getting old. Open the taps

2 ( +5 / -3 )

This looks like a kind of "the brutal tactic to push through radical pro-corporate measures".

International organizations are not always independent and neutral.

Especially, IAEA efforts to build safety myth of radioactivity since Fukushima 2011.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

What a con job!

If the release is so safe then why not just dump the water into the sea on the beach?

Why build a pipeline a kilometer long and slowly release the radioactivity into the sea?

Why the facade of safety if the water is so safe already?

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

@Roy Sophveason good catch. AP does this a lot. It is lazy journalism and irresponsible.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

crooks

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

wanderlustToday  04:41 pm JST

The report itself is high quality, well-formatted, nicely written, clear tables and illustrations; but it is not an approval from IAEA, as PM Kishida, his goverment and the nuclear authorities try to make out. The IAEA make it very clear that that is up to the Japanese government and TEPCO.

Of course it's up to the J-govt and TEPCO. But if you read the article, it states " the agency affirmed the safety of a contentious plan to release treated radioactive water into the sea." In other words, the IAEA did not find the plan unsafe and object.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

wallaceToday  04:55 pm JST

For people's doubts and concerns, “I must admit I don't have a magic wand … but we do have one thing," Grossi said. “We are going to stay here with you for decades to come until the last drop of the water which is accumulated around the reactor has been safely discharged."

“50-100 years. There will be ten times the current amount.”

You've been bathing, drinking, breathing, eating and absorbing higher concentrations every day for your entire life.

I can explain it to you again for you, but I can’t understand it for you.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Peter Neil

the quote is from Grossi.

It's highly likely the water cooling requirement will last many more decades until the cerium is removed. There will be more than million tons of water over the coming decades.

”You've been bathing, drinking, breathing, eating and absorbing higher concentrations every day for your entire life.”

that is not correct.

I have not stated whether I agree with the water release or not so you seem to be jumping to your own conclusions. Given the problem it is causing other options might be better.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Duh. So obvious but it took a hippy scientist interviewed by the BBC to point it out. Use the water to make concrete. For sea walls, reconstruction of Tohoku etc. As long as you don’t eat concrete end of problem. And, it won’t take 30 years to get rid of the problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If "Fukushima water" is safe, no need to dump it into ocean, Japan should reuse it to something.

Japan Govt says as if no option except dumping it into the Pacific but they had other options such as building new storage tank.

But present LDP Govt who dislike to spend taxes for health or safe of people just chose cheapest plan.

This time, IAEA approved Japan Govt's plan, on the other hand, IAEA report “document is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement of the water release”.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Nothing less than scoundrels!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

i get the POV of Fukushima fishing industry lobbyists - why would they want anything controversial released into their waters? regardless that it’s offshore 1 km, and it’s 0.06 grams per year tritium into the pacific ocean naturally containing 8.3 kg of tritium, and where tritium is not a significant contributor - even now - to radioactivity in the sea. Seriously I don’t blame them.

What’s driving me nuts is that this is hardly a significant discharge for operating Nuke plants. Not compared to Chinese plants or Korean or many many Nuke plants around the world.

Recently, Japan did a little ‘whataboutism’ and it was largely ignored. It really shouldn’t be - especially with China’s massive media campaign against Japan China has 4 plants discharging at annual rates 4-6.5 higher than planned from Fukushima.

https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/world/asia-pacific/20230623-118053/

Many many other operating station inside & outside of China discharge at rates 10+x what’s planned for Fukushima 1. (Google France’s annual discharges) And the numbers are way higher if you also look at non-water discharges.

It’s part of regular operation of most nuclear power plants. You almost always have to discharge water and you can’t remove tritium. At least Fukushima’s plant can turn off the spigot if anything goes wrong with the treatments system

all that said, it’s a real catch-22 for Japan’s Energy Sector. If everyone thinks these discharges are horrible now, and then everyone realizes they are in fact “better than average”, Fukushima gets the green (blue) light from the public, but…..What is that going to do to the future of Nuclear Power in Japan?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oh. If not obvious by the above I am 100% for safe Nuclear Energy. I was, but am not currently, in the business of water treatment for Nuclear Power generation (the processes runs on water, power is generated via steam ). I’m absolutely convinced TEPCO has the best available technology to treat and release this water with negligible impact on the environment from radioactivity.

1 ( +1 / -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