national

IAEA officials say Fukushima's ongoing discharge of treated wastewater going well

57 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.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.


57 Comments
Login to comment

"Going well".

My thoughts exactly when I flush my toilet.

-17 ( +6 / -23 )

So, dumping radioactive substances into the sea is something that we should be proud of?

Amazing!

-28 ( +8 / -36 )

i feel bad for the fisherman's hard work.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

While it’s not ideal, at least they seem to have been honest about the radiation levels. If South Korea’s independent team also gave the thumbs up, at a time they could have used it for political points, that says a lot…

20 ( +26 / -6 )

People have a lot to say about how bad this discharge is, but do they know the particulars? I don't. Two things seem to be overlooked: 1.) The type of water being discharged. How bad is it really? I don't know and I doubt very many of the naysayers do either. 2.) If the discharge thins out in the ocean, which it will, the discharge itself will dissipate rapidly. All I'm saying is that we don't know what steps were taken in the discharge by the scientists involved. It seems to be much ado that quite probably is, if nothing, not a serious issue.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, in his policy speech Monday, renewed his call for China to immediately lift its ban on Japanese seafood imports.

How exactly does such a call work. I it the kind you make with a phone? Or is it the kind you make in the shower when no one else is around?

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

The Pacific Ocean is the LARGEST ocean on Planet Earth. When ANY water is discharged into the Pacific Ocean EVERY DROP of THAT water BECOMES the Pacific Ocean.

Has the IAEA tested EVERY drop of water in the Pacific Ocean after the Radio-Active water was discharged into the Pacific Ocean BEFORE making this statemant?

IF the IAEA has tested every drop of water in the Pacific Ocean after the Radio Active water was discharged into it, I declare I am ready to believe that statement of the IAEA.

NOT BEFORE.

-25 ( +6 / -31 )

Rather eat Japanese seafood than drink Chinese beer.

25 ( +31 / -6 )

Brought to you by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The same org that say nuke power plants are safe.

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

IF the IAEA has tested every drop of water in the Pacific Ocean after the Radio Active water was discharged into it, I declare I am ready to believe that statement of the IAEA.

Making these kind of irrational claims is what most clearly shows that the opposition is not based on logical concerns or evidence of risks but on fanatic beliefs and and irrational desire to oppose something no matter what the evidence may say.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

Just out of curiosity -

If given the choice at the same fish market, would you buy a

A -fish from Fukushima (+ sign)

B- fish from an area where nuclear waste water wasn't just released? (-sign)

Try to avoid liking or disliking this comment. It will ruin the survey

-31 ( +3 / -34 )

I agree ! with you ! Ask Trade !!*
-19 ( +5 / -24 )

Every Word !

-20 ( +4 / -24 )

Definitely B.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

Ask Trade -I think most people honestly would choose option A. To make it more poignant, change the question to purchase fish for you children.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Of course it's going well for IAEA, Tepco and Japan.

However not for the ecosystem and human beings.

Can you post the results of your highly scientific tests that you have been conducting to monitor the radioactivity of the ecosystem and human beings to conclude that things are not going well for either......there's a good lad

14 ( +18 / -4 )

Gene Hennigh

People have a lot to say about how bad this discharge is, but do they know the particulars?

I think that the problem lies in that no one trusts any of the responsible agencys to know the particulars.

I mean what do you do with the byproducts - uranium and or plutonium. The "experts" still have no idea. Yet, we keep producing with no end or solution in sight, just waiting for the nest disaster.

So, give a break to us laymen, we only know and for some suffer the results because of the "experts" who all shout out "Move on folks, nothing to see here."

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Good - but completely expected - news.

Of course, the haters like China and supporters will refuse to believe the IAEA and make up their own propaganda to suit their "Japan = bad" narrative.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Fumio Kishida, in his policy speech Monday, renewed his call for China to immediately lift its ban on Japanese seafood imports.

Never, don't believe a word from him or IAEA!

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

Never, don't believe a word from him or IAEA!

And who should we believe instead?

You? China? You, in China?

14 ( +17 / -3 )

kurisupisuToday 06:49 am JST

So, dumping radioactive substances into the sea is something that we should be proud of?

Releasing IAEA-verified safe substances into the sea - which is what is happening here - is fine.

She said China has been involved in the IAEA safety task force since the beginning of the review that began two years ago and has participated in corroboration activities. The IAEA is aware of China’s concern and engaged with its authorities, Evrard said.

Japan is handling this correctly, the IAEA is fully on-board, and the release is (as expected) causing no problems whatsoever. China's opposition is (also, as expected) purely political.

15 ( +17 / -2 )

elephant200Today 09:05 am JST

Fumio Kishida, in his policy speech Monday, renewed his call for China to immediately lift its ban on Japanese seafood imports.

Never, don't believe a word from him or IAEA!

I would believe Kishida and the IAEA over the Chinese government every single day of the week.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

Larr FlintToday 06:57 am JST

However not for the ecosystem and human beings.

The IAEA says otherwise:

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

Based on its comprehensive assessment, the IAEA has concluded that the approach and activities to the discharge of ALPS treated water taken by Japan are consistent with relevant international safety standards. Furthermore, the IAEA notes the controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water to the sea, as currently planned and assessed by TEPCO, would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

IAEA officials say Fukushima's ongoing discharge of treated radioactive wastewater is going well

I guess if having China stop buying fish from Japan is going well, then, all the power to ya.

-17 ( +2 / -19 )

Some people never trust the science.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Chinese people eat far more "tainted fish" from their own waters. But that doesn't seem to bother them. LOL

"at least 10 nuclear plants in China in just a year discharged liquid effluents containing more than 4.5 quadrillion becquerels of tritium—more than 200 times the self-imposed annual limit for Fukushima’s wastewater release."

https://time.com/6311984/china-japan-nuclear-wastewater-science-politics/

9 ( +13 / -4 )

"Chinese people eat far more "tainted fish" from their own waters. But that doesn't seem to bother them. LOL"

Guess they don't want to eat more tainted fish from other countries as well then , since they have enough of their own " tainted "ones. Fair enough, their choice.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

elephant200Today  09:05 am JST

Fumio Kishida, in his policy speech Monday, renewed his call for China to immediately lift its ban on Japanese seafood imports.

Never, don't believe a word from him or IAEA!

China has been a member of the IAEA since 1984.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

IAEA, also stakeholder of nuclear industries, seems to do not consider even long term risk of bioconcentration.

This "solution" that dumping contamination into the oceans may be repeated when next nuclear disaster.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Hideomi KuzeToday 11:35 am JST

IAEA, also stakeholder of nuclear industries, seems to do not consider even long term risk of bioconcentration.

Except it did consider the long-term effects/risk. So, your comment is nonsense.

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

*This is an important fundamental safety principle given the long-term approach currently envisaged for*

discharging ALPS treated water at FDNPS. Through its work the IAEA has noted that the REIA produced

by TEPCO and reviewed by NRA has demonstrated that the dose to representative persons in neighbouring

*countries will be undetectable and negligible.*

*In order to ensure the proper protection of future generation, the Task Force decided to corroborate that the*

dose commitment, rather than the dose incurred, is the fundamental quantity for determining compliance

with the international safety standards. The fundamental quantity for assessing doses shall be the dose

due to external exposure in a year plus the committed dose from intakes of radionuclides in that year.

*This means that the total annual dose calculated is that received over a lifetime (assumed to be until the*

age of 70) from intakes of radionuclides due to the ALPS treated water that is discharged to the sea in an

assigned year.

It should be noted that the total amount of tritium, 14C and 129I to be released each year in the discharge of

*ALPS treated water will be *well below the amount of these radionuclides produce

...

TEPCO

*must apply safe, practicable, and environmentally acceptable solutions for its *long-term management of

*ALPS treated water.** The IAEA notes that the existing assessment and controls conducted for the planned*

*discharge of ALPS treated water from FDNPS *appear to satisfy this principle.

...

Also, a programme for workers’ health surveillance is

conducted in the FDNPS, consisting of medical checks every 6 months with necessary record keeping

*arrangements based on the “Health Monitoring Manual” and the *“Long-term Healthcare Manual”.

...

etc. etc. etc.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Have you seen it on TV news? Although the filtered Tritium water maybe isn't such a big issue, but what are those strange big white gel-like structured clumps and other more solid 'ingredients' ? Watching that I surely would refrain from eating nearby caught seafood from now.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Apologies for the strange formatting of the above post. This site seems to get confused when both italics and emboldened text are used at the same time.

@mods: can anything be done about this? Everything looks fine in the preview, but goes wrong upon posting.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The agency acknowledging that Japan had consulted with the international community, and its decision was based on a comprehensive and transparent process remains questionable.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Most tritium in the environment is in the form of tritiated water, which is dispersed throughout the environment in the atmosphere, streams, lakes, and oceans. Tritium in the environment can enter the human body as a gas or as a liquid by ingestion and inhalation and through the skin by absorption. Once entered into the body, tritium tends to disperse quickly, Tritium is all around us, even in the rain, and even if you test the Atlantic Ocean, or whatever ocean, it will be found in small amounts. So, all you naysayers and doomist's, next time you go on holiday to some exotic beach, it will be in the ocean you are swimming in.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

IAEA, also stakeholder of nuclear industries

Are you implying that IAEA is paid by the nuclear industry?

seems to do not consider even long term risk of bioconcentration.

There is no risk of long-term bioconcentration. Tritium does not bioaccumulate or biomagnify in organisms in any appreciable way.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Knowledgeable people have been saying this will go well for years. IAEA is really trying to convince people who can't be convinced because they "heard something else" and have a death grip on it. The air you breathe every day has more radiation than the water being discharged from Fukushima. I'm curious whether the South Korean, Chinese, and Russian representatives to IAEA think of this report.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Japan’s government and TEPCO say the discharge is unavoidable because wastewater storage tanks at the plant will be full next year. They say the water produced by the damaged plant is treated to reduce radioactivity to safe levels,

They should publish measurements data so public know what radionuclides are present and what amounts

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

They say the water produced by the damaged plant is treated to reduce radioactivity to safe levels,

Show it

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

IAEA, also stakeholder of nuclear industries, seems to do not consider even long term risk of bioconcentration.

Still waiting for a reference where bioconcentration happens without having to use water with half a million times more tritium to be able to detect it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

During the Oct 16-23 visit, the IAEA sampling team collected seawater, sediment and fish from near the plant and visited a marine laboratory near Tokyo that makes fish specimens for radiation analysis by institutions in and outside Japan, including the IAEA.

Iaea should analyze water before dilution and before discharge, not just the seawate long after the discharge

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Show it

Again?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

They should publish measurements data so public know what radionuclides are present and what amounts

https://japantoday.com/category/national/iaea-team-gathers-marine-samples-near-fukushima-as-treated-radioactive-water-is-released-into-sea#comment-3902462

5 ( +6 / -1 )

There is no risk of long-term bioconcentration. Tritium does not bioaccumulate or biomagnify in organisms in any appreciable way.

Rubbish.

Also, as the article below indicates, this has barely been looked at at all. This is hardly the first time in history humans took a cursory look at things and declared all was well. Asbestos is a good example.....makes great fire protection. I touched and didn't die. Therefore, its NO PROBLEM.

Well the world is a complicated place, and people who speak in terms of absolute certaintly tend to be about smart as a bag of hammers.

I think you have no idea of the complexity of ecosystems and the life forms in them. Different species have vastly different capabilites and processes. This article says that some phytoplanktons transform tritiated water into organically bound tritium.

Ignorance is not a llicense to be reckless except on your own damn time. Well the ocean isn't the private property of TEPCO.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X12001890

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Roy

Today 01:23 pm JST

Show it

> Again?

?!

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Roy

Today 01:25 pm JST

They should publish measurements data so public know what radionuclides are present and what amounts

> https://japantoday.com/category/national/iaea-team-gathers-marine-samples-near-fukushima-as-treated-radioactive-water-is-released-into-sea#comment-3902462

What's that?

Quote it

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Japan’s government and TEPCO say the discharge is unavoidable because wastewater storage tanks at the plant will be full next year. They say the water produced by the damaged plant is treated to reduce radioactivity to safe levels,

News just keep saying govt and tepco say wastewater is treated to reduce radioactivity to safe levels.

They must show the data/info with the news .

Have they?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

This article says that some phytoplanktons transform tritiated water into organically bound tritium.

Correct. When it spends its whole lifecycle in a laboratory in water containing 500,000 times more tritium than the undiluted Fukushima waste water. And then it still poses no health threat in the food chain, it only causes the biological half-life to increase from a few days to a few months.

You need to read the study, not just its title.

people who speak in terms of absolute certaintly

That's why I qualified: "not in an appreciable way".

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@Ask Trade,

Are you not missing an answer choice in your survey?

C - From an area of ocean that contains nuclear waste released from somewhere other than Fukushima.

And then we'll be asking where the ocean areas covered by Answer B are.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Correct. When it spends its whole lifecycle in a laboratory in water containing 500,000 times more tritium than the undiluted Fukushima waste water.

And here you assume the wastewater will stay diluted. Because that it what ignorance and reckless does...it assumes.

Also no idea where such a round figure of 500,000 comes from but its obviously too round to be taken at face value. Who knows what math you used?

You are also neglecting the limits of the study or the limited research done on this in general. Only two types of photoplankton were studied. Only 5000 types are known, but there are surely many more. And that is just phytoplankton! Other bacteria also matter and are consumed and much goes up the food chain.

I repeat, this is all little researched and not well known. Go gamble with your own health in a contained fashion. We want no part of this mass experiment you advocate.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

We want no part of this mass experiment you advocate.

Tough toenails. Whether you like it or not, you have been part of this "mass experiment" called "man-made radiation" since the 1950s.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

They must show the data/info with the news .

As it was proved the data is terribly easy to find for those interested in it, that you have to pretend not being able to see it so you can ask for it again in no way proves this is something hidden or difficult to find out.

And here you assume the wastewater will stay diluted

No, the fact is that the study used tritium at half a million times more concentration than the UNdiluted discharged water in order for it to accumulate enough in the plankton to be detected, that means the results have absolutely no relationship with the actual situation, even if the discharged water remained undiluted in the ocean.

Who knows what math you used?

The study clearly mentions the amount of tritium they used is 10 MBq/100mL (that would be 100 million becquerels per liter) how much tritium the undiluted water have? you can do the math by yourself, that is the whole point of bringing a primary source, you can use it to find out for yourself things without having to trust anybody, if that completely contradicts your point that would be too bad but you are the one that brought that reference.

The argument that "you never know" is worthless, because it could be used for opposite purposes with the same value (zero). The fact that they had to use levels so high of tritium to get detectable levels clearly indicates this is not realistically possible to happen at the levels observed for this discharge.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

UN Agency Observes as Fish Samples Prepped for Testing Near Fukushima Plant

The IAEA team included independent scientists from China, South Korea and Canada, who observed at Japan's Marine Ecology Research Institute, in Chiba prefecture. Samples were sorted and prepared to be sent to laboratories in different countries for independent testing.

https://www.voanews.com/a/un-agency-observes-as-fish-samples-prepped-for-testing-near-fukushima-plant-/7319482.html

5 ( +6 / -1 )

People believe anything

True. For example that a suspension cannot be diluted.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Business as usual. Just dump it in the ocean when nobody knows what to do with it or in this case wants to save money. Everyone who is involved in this process of further adding to the degradation of the oceans and life is an as$ho#× !!! Shame on these jerks!! We will see in 30 or 40 years how things are after this colossal continuous dump is completed if ever. It may take years for the serious impacts of these actions to start showing up but they will. There's no telling what's actually coming out at the discharge point at all times and does anyone honestly think the IAEA would tell the truth about any of this. They are not to be trusted. We need some third party orgs on Site aside from tepco japan govt and IAEA who claim this is perfectly safe. They are poisoning Earth!!

-4 ( +0 / -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