national

IAEA: Science, objectivity key to Fukushima water release

26 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

This is why I try to avoid Fukushima food products whenever possible.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

1 km offshore. I'm not an oceanographer, so my question is at what point does the Oyashio current flowing from the north take the waste water out to the Pacific? Or is it the Kuroshio current? OR does the waste water not flow out to the current and just meanders around in the area because 1 km is not far enough? Has TEPCO conducted tests with non-polluting dyes to check the flow from 1 km out? More questions than answers, anyone know? Zichi?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It’s a crap shoot that requires ‘monitoring’…

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The International Atomic Energy Agency's business is the promotion of the use of nuclear energy.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The continuing announcements of the release of radioactive water into the ocean sounds more like a warning than anything else.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"The idea has been fiercely opposed by fishermen, local residents and Japan's neighbors, including China and South Korea."

And I as well.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@dbsaiya, I'm not a betting man but I will stake my mortgage on TEPCO not doing jack like that.....I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Tepco-Oyaji himself came up with the 1km length

@Kyo wa heiwa dayo ne this is just J-Politics 101......drip drip the idea into people's consciousness over time so that the public outrage is way BEFORE the actual event. Then when the populace is suitably habituated to the idea, they do it and there is very little outrage left

5 ( +5 / -0 )

What Alfie said.

The IAEA will go to any lengths to protect the use of nuclear energy. That is more troublesome than the water.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Science? objectivity? In dealing with nuke energy??

Um.. this is Japan

3 ( +5 / -2 )

All countries do it. It is safe. Nature does it naturally as well.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No country releases tritium water in the quantities prosed by TEPCO.

dbsaiya

The local tides will bring it back again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

zichi

No country releases tritium water in the quantities prosed by TEPCO.

We do not know the quantities, as the article does not describe the speed of release, and Tritum decays relatively quickly.

dbsaiya

The local tides will bring it back again.

Bring what back? Whatever you refer to is highly diluted by then.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Zaphod

zichi

No country releases tritium water in the quantities prosed by TEPCO.

We do not know the quantities, as the article does not describe the speed of release, and Tritum decays relatively quickly.

The half-life of the tritium is 12 years. I am not arguing about whether it's safe or not. Currently, there are more than one million tones that they will start to release in 2023. The quantity will be higher than a normal nuclear power station. More water is accumulating every year and will continue until TEPCO can work out how to recover the melted fuels. Until then, they require constant cooling.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

IAEA to send experts to Japan in December to review plan for release of radioactive Fukushima water into Ocean:

They should have dealt with this radioactive water years ago, not wait till end of year.

One is extremely perplexed by IAEA's inapt attitude toward Fukushima so far..

1 ( +2 / -1 )

zichi

Currently, there are more than one million tones that they will start to release in 2023.

One million tons of what? Of tritium water? Or of clean water that contains very small amounts of tritium water, which can not be separated from normal water?

The quantity will be higher than a normal nuclear power station.

Obviously. However, as you admit, nuclear power stations release trititum in normal operation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

WilliB

no need to play games. One million tons of water containing tritium. TEPCO promises to dilute the contaminated water further. TEPCO also said that all other isotopes had been removed. Then it said, actually that wasn't 100% correct and the water needed further filtering. Can TEPCO be trusted?

If you have been following my posts are this issue, I have not posted it was a dangerous action to take.

I did post several times that TEPCO does a very bad job on PR since before the nuclear disaster. They have not been 100% transparent on all of the problems.

I think there are concerns from the local fishermen, you probably have less understanding of these technical matters. They have also caught contaminated fish, raising their concerns.

Under all of the circumstances, probably not the best solution to release the water into the ocean.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Perhaps first culture some fish and other sea life,, within the tanks containing the diluted water solution, and study what happens to them before releasing the water... if Godzilla suddenly bursts out of one of the containers, then I guess dumping the water may be not such a good idea.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Objective, science-based monitoring is the key to safely carrying out the planned release of treated but still radioactive water at Japan's wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, an International Atomic Energy Agency official said Thursday.

Question - That objective, science-based monitoring, that is the key to safely carrying out the planned release, will be monitored by whom? Directly by the IAEA? Or TEPCO or the Japanese side will supply the materials (probably, as before, "modified" to be less "crude") and the IAEA will somehow assess them? Because our offices and government are known for closed doors and lots of red tape. You want to know something and it's not a completely positive situation? You'll get an ambiguous and indirect answer. At worst, ignorance. Alternatively, someone will apologize and bow several times instead of answering, but that still doesn't answer the question posed.

She said her team "will listen to all concerns expressed" and will provide answers by conducting a "science-based review" carried out in an objective and transparent way.

And will the questions go directly to them, or through some intermediary who will try to soften them up so they're not so "rough edged"?

Government and TEPCO officials say tritium, which is not harmful in small amounts......................

It depends on the quantity. Tritium used to be in wristwatches. There was so little of it that it wasn't dangerous, and even as a beta emitter, the distance from the cover glass stopped the radiation from endangering the user.

And what amount of tritium will be released I have not found anywhere yet. And in three decades of living here, I have found that if any information or number is inappropriate, then it better not be mentioned. If, on the other hand, it is a positive news or situation, the number or information is highlighted several times.

Given that the government and TEPCO are somehow not trying to make the situation transparent and are rather releasing information only in small chunks, I have my doubts.

Even if our government and TEPCO were releasing huge amounts of news with completely false information, it would still look a little better than the whole "quiet situation" now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OK, so what do big brain experts propose be done with the water?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The water could have been used for making the concrete for the many hundreds of kilometres of new sea walls in Tohoku. Could be used in road building.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The water could also be used for those millions of tetrapods around the coast.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

no idea as to the safety level of all this.... but.... if it's 'safe', why have they been storing the stuff all these years rather than just letting it run into the surrounding sea and/or land?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever terms, any one like to use doesn't matter. Those that said, it is safe, please take the water hom2e and drink that water.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Robert Cikki

Tritium used to be in wristwatches. There was so little of it that it wasn't dangerous, and even as a beta emitter, the distance from the cover glass stopped the radiation from endangering the user.

Err, what?? Tritium is fundamentally just Hydrogen. How would that be used in wristwatches? Reference please!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Headline: "IAEA: Science, objectivity key to Fukushima water release"

Transition: "If it does not both us, dump all the radiated water you want."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The water could have been used for making the concrete for the many hundreds of kilometres of new sea walls in Tohoku. Could be used in road building.

Just what Japan needs, more cement! Haha. I'm afraid the public would go nuts over that too.

"I don't want my road to glow!! Think of all the people being exposed to all of that deadly radiation!"

0 ( +0 / -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