national

Gov't puts off decision to release treated Fukushima water into sea

23 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

This is the Official line... unofficially however, there's a big leak...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The contaminated water to be dumped into the Pacific ocean contains dangerous levels of carbon-14. It concentrates in fish at a level thousands of times higher than tritium and has the potential to damage human DNA.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They are waiting until the bad press disappears then will announce it very suddenly and act quickly.

They realize that people in Japan have short attention spans. Unlike trump who just adds more nonsense to distract the new cycles, the Japanese government just waits it out. It is a battle of attrition with them. Remember, how they handled the Business Executives and the nuclear power? Remember, how they handled the comfort women and those sterilized by the Japanese government?

It is just a waiting game!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

after approval from IAEA, people will ask for NRA approval, after passing it, people will ask for WHO approval, then WTO, then UNHCR, then God's know what organizations again. After going all through it, lastly people will ask for local community kindergarten's teacher approval. Japan government need to stand firm on its principle

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Now, that is a real smart and correct move -- no release of radioactivity contaminated water at Fukushima. Many more huge water tanks would have to be built. Never mind, better that way till the radioactivity gradually dies down after a couple of half-lives..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The IAEA will of course approve it as their mandate is to promote the safe use of nuclear power. The NRA are part of the nuclear village in Japan, and will follow the government lead after some token objections.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

South Korea, which currently bans imports of seafood from the area, has also repeatedly voiced concern about the environmental impact.

How could the SK possibly remain silent over the real fact that their home nuclear powerplants have kept releasing tons of (what they only call "contaminated") water into the Sea of Japan?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"The International Atomic Energy Agency's Director General Rafael Grossi said during his visit to the plant in February that the release of the treated water into the sea meets global standards of practice in the industry."

Simply put every country does the same thing.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There's a physical limitation so eventually it'll have to be dumped. Then refilled, then dumped again, over and over for how many decades? At least a generation until these non decisions can have a decision

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Translation...- Of course we will dump it in the sea, it's been decided, but we can't do it until the next election is over lest some of our useless LDP deadwood politicians loose their seats due to this. Sincerely Jiminto.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Fish is labelled by where it was landed not caught. Fish caught off Fukushima but landed in Tokyo would be labelled Tokyo.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

What they say and what they do is very different.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Our neighborhood housewives don't buy food from Fukushima or food marked Kokunai (Japan) as they believe that to be a code for Fukushima. If our beloved government dumps contaminated water into the sea off the coast of Fukushima, the fishermen might as well move to Tokyo and get on the dole. Nobody is going to buy seafood marked Fukushima.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@ James

it'll end up well out of sight in Hokkaido in a couple years

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If they had released little by little by evaporation method it wont have accumulated to 12 million ton plus the other solution is electrolysis i dont think its too expensive otherwise its going to be similar to Lebanon Disaster

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The biggest issue is that all politicians are self-serving and no prime Minister ever is going to want to have this decision to release the water as their lasting legacy.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Ok, so the IAEA says that it meets global standards. What about the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) and the NRA (Nuclear Regulatory Comission)?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Railroad the opposing fishermen and release the treated water soon. We cannot make everybody happy. We have to do what we have to.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

the government wants "to make a decision as soon as possible" on how to deal with the water.

The decision has already been made. They are going to dump it into the Pacific regardless of protest. It's only the timing that needs to be decided.

After nearly ten years of watching this water accumulate to the point where they have no choice than to dump it in the ocean. They keep stating that tritium cannot be removed from water, which is a straight up lie. It can be removed from water, but it is expensive and time consuming. It's easier and cheaper just to dump it in the ocean. They also seem to be conveniently forgetting the report from TEPCO stating a lot of this water was not properly filtered and contains many more dangerous isotopes like strontium 90, which is deadly to people and wildlife.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

So the swift decision promised was swift to delay a decision. I bet some fictitious individual will accidental release the water between now and then and will be fired but will be to late as it is already released.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

release of the treated water into the sea meets global standards

The keyword here is treated

Nobody is mad enough to flush radioactive elements in his own sea.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Friday the government has no plan to make a decision on what to do with over 1.2 million tons of treated water as reported.

No plan no decision after a decade no plan no decision, then what? Where have all those experts gone? What happened to high tech Beautiful Japan? Really would be nice to have a monicom of sensible leadership. But we obviously don't pay enough taxes to afford representatives of quality.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The last news was that of a ‘quick decision’

Putting decisions off to decide not to have a ‘quick decision’ is not really a decision, is it?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

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