Storage tanks for radioactive water are seen at Tokyo Electric Power Co's tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Photo: REUTERS file
national

Japan tells embassies risk of contaminated Fukushima water 'small'

56 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

I know that on this website I'll get thumbed down, but I stand by my beliefs. I believe in Abe and I believe in his government.

-27 ( +5 / -32 )

What does that even mean?

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Small? Depends on the scale you use. I'm guessing their scale is inordinately huge thus the small.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

I believe in Abe and I believe in his government.

Ok, please do us all a favor and have a drink of that water, while you eat some fish from the ocean caught around Fukushima, along with some veggies and rice from there.

20 ( +21 / -1 )

We keep hearing the government says this, Japan says that. What day are really doing is slowly attempting to hypnotize those who aren't already so

10 ( +13 / -3 )

How does this work if the half life is greater than 1 year (more like 30 for cesium)???

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Small, much like this actually being true.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

the health risk to humans of water contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear disaster would be "significantly small"

The fake propaganda media will jump on that poor choice of words. It it de facto zero, and they should have said that.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

The ocean is vast. It will dilute the Fukushima water with significantly low radioactivity even further.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

If there's truly no danger, then why not bring in some outside nuclear experts to offer their assessments and opinions? Dumping this water into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is a decision which concerns all nations, isn't it?

If it's so harmless, why not just make a lake of the stuff?

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Government officials explained the health risk to humans would be "significantly small,"

The probability that we believe anything you say is even smaller.

On the subject of Fukushima, the LDP and its PM have 0 credibility.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Instead of reading "Japanese Government Offices said" I would love to hear from the International Nuclear Agencies.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

stormcrowToday 07:50 am JST

If there's truly no danger, then why not bring in some outside nuclear experts to offer their assessments and opinions?

Well, they tried bringing in malleable propagandists like Prof Geraldine Thomas but her spin was quickly exposed and her notorious BBC piece filmed in Fukushima was actually deleted from the BBC website.

https://nuclear-news.net/2016/03/14/nuclear-propagandist-prog-geraldine-thomas-comfortable-but-incorrect-spin-on-fukushima/

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Both TEPCo and team Abe have been less than open and honest since day 1.

why would anyone believe them now?

11 ( +11 / -0 )

At the meeting, one embassy official asked whether other radioactive materials besides the relatively non-toxic tritium could be removed from the water before being discharged into the water.

A Japanese government official responded that it is possible if purification equipment is used, the officials said.

These two paragraphs are quite alarming. There was a report released by TEPCO only a few months ago stating the water had not been adequately filtered and contained stronium and cesium. Then, on the above paragraphs a J-Gov official states ‘if’ purification equipment is used. Using ‘if’ points towards another cover up and they are just gonna pump straight into the ocean as is.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

If the risk is so small then why not just drive it up the road and pour it into Lake Inawashiro?

Japan's problem, Japan's solution.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

TEPCO claimed all radionuclides had been removed from the waste water except for tritium which can't be released.

"Leaked TEPCO documents, however, show that varying amounts of 62 radionuclides — including strontium, iodine, cesium and cobalt — have not been removed from the water. The company has also been criticized for refusing to permit independent organizations to test the water that is being stored at the site."

https://www.dw.com/en/japan-environmentalists-say-fukushima-water-too-radioactive-to-release/a-51331676

"One recent study by Hiroshi Miyano, who heads a committee studying the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi at the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, said it could take 17 years to discharge the treated water after it has been diluted to reduce radioactive substances to levels that meet the plant’s safety standards."

Nothing will happen before the Olympics. An international group should be granted access and give their opinion on any release.

Even if considered safe, the Fukushima fishermen will most likely suffer further losses just from the rumors spread, just as with other Fukushima food produce. Some of which is now being exported, including rice.

The nuclear site is still releasing radionuclides.

In 2018,  released amount of Cs-137 and Cs-134 reached over the double compared to the previous year.

According to the report, from January 2018 to January 2019, 933,000,000 Bq of Cs-137 and Cs-134 were release from the buildings of reactor 1, 2, 3 and 4 in total. It was 471,000,000 Bq during the corresponding period of the previous year.

Japanese only

http://www.tepco.co.jp/decommission/information/newsrelease/emission/

5 ( +7 / -2 )

to end doubts have Abe and entire cabinet and TEPCO's use the water exclusively a while to prove its harmlessness

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Use purification equipment, changing the filters regularly under IAEA third party supervision, and release to the ocean.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don’t know. If you told me that there was a teaspoon of poo in a hotel reservoir. I won’t even touch it. Similarly, contaminated water is still contaminated water.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

A lot of the anti-nuclear hysteria in Japan is unfounded but people are right to not believe the Abe government or Tepco. They’ve shown that they can’t properly regulate nuclear energy. Tepco executives should be in jail for their negligence. Bring in outside scientists for these evaluations.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I doubt the data. There’s a 67% chance that it the waters can still make it to human consumption, and 83% adversely impacting the environment. See? And I just made up all that claim just right now. Who’s to say the claims above have been manipulated? Or worse, tolerance/standard levels loosened enough to have the green light to have these contaminated waters released. They were collected up for a reason.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The Government can be trusted and is doing the right thing. The very small traces of tritium and other nucleids will quickly disperse in the Pacific Ocean to concentrations far below any risks. The anti-nuclear hysteria need to stop..

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

hokkaidoboy:

I know that on this website I'll get thumbed down, but I stand by my beliefs. I believe in Abe and I believe in his government.

'small'?

Of course, it will be small if you keep increasing the minimum safety levels as has happened many times in the past. I mean, what's the point of having these safety levels any more?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Bottle that water up for all the Diet sessions and I will believe it!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

'If' it was only tritium and 'if' it was released in small amounts over an extended period of time, the environmental impact would be minimal. The facts that the water has not been adequately filtered and still contains many other heavier isotopes and they intend to release millions of tons over a short period of time means, this will be an environmental disaster on a massive scale.

It is so disgusting that they even consider this as an option. Tritium can be removed from water but it's expensive and time consuming. They have had over 8 years to resolve this issue and have done nothing about it. They have just sat on their hands waiting for the inevitable day that they have no choice than to dump it in the ocean. Now, they are covering up the fact the water is tainted with more isotopes than just tritium. They will irradiate the whole east coast of Japan and the eastern half of the Pacific. But! The J-gov say it's safe! Yeah! Like truck it's safe!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

They have had over 8 years to resolve this issue and have done nothing about it.

Maybe this was there plan all along; allow the problem to become so intractable that eventually the only option is to make it everyone's problem.

The fake propaganda media will jump on that poor choice of words. 

If you prefer to believe what Tepco or the government have been telling you for the last 9 years then I think it's your choice of information that is the poor choice.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The chance that any of these countries believe a word of this is "significantly small".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's a bad idea. Just wait till those disgruntled American's start finding high levels of radiation on their coast and food. Watch out for those lawsuits.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I know that on this website I'll get thumbed down, but I stand by my beliefs. I believe in Abe and I believe in his government"

ROFL...yeah, ok then, right.

On the subject of Fukushima, the LDP and its PM have 0 credibility."

Spot on brother, and not just on Fukushima.

TEPCO claimed all radionuclides had been removed from the waste water except for tritium which can't be released.

"Leaked TEPCO documents, however, show that varying amounts of 62 radionuclides — including strontium, iodine, cesium and cobalt — have not been removed from the water. The company has also been criticized for refusing to permit independent organizations to test the water that is being stored at the site."

This.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Alfie,

Well, they tried bringing in malleable propagandists like Prof Geraldine Thomas but her spin was quickly exposed and her notorious BBC piece filmed in Fukushima was actually deleted from the BBC website.

https://nuclear-news.net/2016/03/14/nuclear-propagandist-prog-geraldine-thomas-comfortable-but-incorrect-spin-on-fukushima/

From what I can recall of the video, at most it shows the ill-advisedness of doing mental maths on the spot.

From your link, based on Dr Chris Busby’s piece on Russia Today, let’s look at his maths - not done on the spot, and using a calculator:

“Now anyone with a calculator can easily multiply 3 microSieverts (3 x 10-6 Sv) by 24 hours and 365 days. The answer comes out to be 26 mSv (0.026Sv), not “about 1mSv” as the “leading expert on the health effects of radiation” reported.”

But the problem is, Dr Busby makes this calculation because Professor Thomas says:

“At one point, Rupert pulled out his Geiger counter and read the dose: 3 microSieverts per hour. “How much radiation would it give in a year to people who came back here,” he asked. Thomas replied: “About an extra milliSievert a year, which is not much considering you get 2mSv a year from natural background”.”

So, when Prof Thomas is talking about an extra microSievert on the natural background, Dr Busby takes the total and multiplies it by 24 x 365.

Prof Thomas may have made a mistake in her mental maths, but Dr Busby has made a mistake with something he had much more time to work on.

And to finish off, here’s some maths on Prof Thomas’ point:

1 microSievert x 24 x 365 = 8760 microSieverts = 8.76 milliSieverts extra

Certainly not as striking as 26 milliSieverts extra

Of course, people will not be standing outside for 24 hours every day of the year: in fact, I would hazard a guess that 2 hours in total would be a reasonable number (given that farming is suspended).

That would give 730 microSieverts extra = 0.73 milliSieverts - less than Prof Thomas’ quoted extra dose.

If we go for 3 hours outside, it matches well - just under 1.1 milliSieverts extra dose.

So, if tl/dr: Dr Busby’s maths is much worse than Prof Thomas’ math - and that’s if Prof Thomas’ is bad at all.

Prof Thomas may have made a mistake in her mental maths, but Dr Busby has made a mistake with something he had much more time to work on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article indicates that it will not harm humans. But am I wrong when I say that humans eat fish and things that live in the Pacific Ocean? Seems over time, and correct me if Im wrong, a human may be affected by the damage that pouring un-natural water into our eco-system may cause? And if the fish and the little things in the ocean as well as the big things plus a human or two are damaged by what the Japanese Government wants to do with this [ water-ish poison ], can Global Governments and International Individuals take the Japanese Government to the International Courts? Or can we do it now if it is done? Where is Green Peace on this?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The maximum allowed radiation external exposure for all of the country, except Fukushima is 1 millisievert per year above normal background levels. For Fukushima the maximum allowed radiation exposure is 20 millisievert per year above normal background levels. Maybe government thinks Fukushima people are more resistant to radiation.

Workers on the nuclear disaster site are limited to a maximum exposure of 50 millisievert per year but also a maximum of 100 millisievert over five years when they can no longer work in the nuclear industry.

1 millisievert is 1,000 microsieverts. 365 days/year/8,760 hours. Hourly radiation limit 0.114 microsieverts per hour or 114 nanosieverts per hour.

20 millisievert is 20,000 microsieverts. What equals 2.2 microsieverts per hour.

Outside of the nuclear disaster site with radiation levels near the reactor buildings @ 15 microsieverts per hour there are not location which exceed the 2.2 microsieverts per hour limit.

Before the accident residents in Japan (and the U.S.) were living with background radiation that averaged 3.1 mSv a year.

There are still hot spots with radiation levels above the allowed limits and they have been called difficult to return areas.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residents-return-despite-radiation/

Only about 8% of Fukushima land mass was contaminated with radiation. More than one million tons of top soil was removed helping to reduce radiation levels.

The allowable radiation levels are measured 1 meter above ground level.

The government considers these levels to be safe even for children and young babies but there are other experts who disagree with that.

Receiving an annual environmental dose of 20 mSv is similar to having a single annual whole-body CT scan for medical diagnostic purposes. Epidemiological evidence indicates that the lifetime cancer risk from a single whole-body dose of 20 mSv is about 0.1 percent (or odds of 1:1,000). Put another way, if 1,000 people received a dose of 20 mSv, just one would be expected to develop cancer.

Recently I have add about 10 MRI scans including full body.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The risk is so small that it can be dumped at Tokyo Bay

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ok fellow bloggers, we have to remember that with "small" comes "cool and sexy". Got to give it to them TEPCO bigwigs pulling off a huge win for themselves, while not drinking the water or eating the fish from there. Has anyone seen a gov bureaucrat eat or drink the water from there? The veggies, rice? I haven't. Small in comparison to the entire Pacific and body of water around the world, ok I can buy that but it doesn't make it any safer to drink or eat the fish in that "small" contamination zone either. The figures posted by a fellow blogger while great info forgot one "very large" detail. The gov raised the levels of what is "rad" by quite a proportionate milli bars so as not to get hit with so many lawsuits. How many of you out there know how much TEPCO had a push in getting this done very quickly? It happened so fast that the media almost missed it too. But it has slowly phased out.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I may believe this, only when we see everybody at the next few Nippon kaigi meetings eating only Fukushima produce and drinking Fukushima water.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

[...]discharging the treated water into the Pacific Ocean and atmosphere over the course of a year[...]

[...]whether other radioactive materials besides the relatively non-toxic tritium could be removed from the water before being discharged into the water.[...]that it is possible if purification equipment is used, the officials said.

So they possibly plan to remove the rest of the non-toxic material and plan to release something 10 years of water in over 1 year. Taking in account that they are still producing it and need more room.

Even if they are desperate should not they take for granted that they will clean it and that they will not release more than the space needed for storage of the new production starting with the older ones as time have a positive effect on reducing the amount of nuclear waste ?

I quite understand why the documentary was put out.

“How much radiation would it give in a year to people who came back here,” he asked.

Thomas replied “About an extra milliSievert a year, which is not much considering you get 2mSv a year from natural background”.

So at the hypothetical question of bringing back people the reply was that they risked not much just a 50% increase of their annual exposure.

And even in the event of considering 0.73mSv as the increase implying you do not go outside more than 44 minutes*, the building are perfectly hermetic, a decontamination SAS is put in between the outside and the inside, ... out of 2.4, it is still a 34% increase of the annual exposure.

And for the validity of the 50% increase mathematics : If you stay by hour : natural 270nSv/h ; observed 3 000nSv/h. Quick head mathematics 11 times more, or a difference of 2.73 μSv.

By head on spot = So 11 times more for one year is 26.4 mSv

With calculator = So 2.7324365,25 =23931 μSv = 23.931mSv

considering for 1 hour the extra amount is 2.73μSv (3μSv mesured - 0.27μSv natural amount) in order to have a yearly increase (365) of 730μSv : (730/(2.73365.25))60= around 44 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Dose_examples : 2.4mSv/a (270nSv/h avg) Human exposure to natural background radiation, global average

1Sv (Sievert) = 1000 mSv (milliSievert) = 1 000 000 μSv (microSievert) = 1 000 000 000 nSv (nanoSievert)

PS :

Prof Thomas is talking about an extra microSievert

Since I do not found where that came from, I choose to ignore it : the Prof talked about 1milliSievert extra by year and regarding by hour it is 2.73 microSievert

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Its pretty simple really. Let in various radiation testing organisations to confirm the claim. If all's good, dump away. But knowing the secretive nature of the ldp regime, that's a pipedream.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If such protest starts, that means, this is not a small issue.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Zichi,

A comprehensive and informative post, as usual. However, I have to tell you: you don’t have to worry about radiation doses from MRIs - they use magnetic fields, not ionizing radiation.

Ref: https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q10731.html

Flute,

Since I do not found where that came from, I choose to ignore it

It comes from the link in the quote at the top of my post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking

yes thank you. Prostrate cancer.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It comes from the link in the quote at the top of my post.

Is that so ?

They talk about 1mSv (the yearly increase according to the Professor) and 3μSv (the Geiger counter reading). There is 0.1μSv/h natural one in Japan according to the author (I preferred the wkipedia for this one : 0.27μSv). Then there is the mathematics one.

I see no reference of 1μSv. But perhaps, I missed it. Which line ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Okay, so the question that never gets answered is, "What is the alternative, since the bazillions of olympic swimming pools of contaminated water is about to overflow into the ocean?"

Hello? Tap tap. Is this thing on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichi, did you mean CT scans? (I have had my fill of both.)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The water should be permanently stored at TEPCO's expense, and if it takes all executive salaries to cover the costs as well sales of mansions and other luxuries, so be it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As credible as the comment "everything is under control".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Someone should start a change.org petition to have a team from the UN come and test it first, I don't think this is being widely reported in other countries but there'd be a huge outcry

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The problem is the water itself. Even if that would be true that it's OK to dump it to Pacific, isn't it on-going issue? Isn't more water coming everyday?

So it means that it will be constant dumping of water not one time dump.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Russian government to this day still maintains that about Chernobyl. What's the Japanese government going to do, admit the truth like they constantly have thus far on the issue? Don't they still maintain they zero people have died as a result of the nuclear disaster, and that the spike in cancer rates is "coincidence"?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nandakandamanda

zichi, did you mean CT scans? (I have had my fill of both.)

I have been having both.

Satedaya

So it means that it will be constant dumping of water not one time dump.

pre ice wall it was 300-500 tons of waste water pumped out of the reactor basement. Since then down to 100 tons per day. The reactors need constant cooling and covering with water to prevent radiation being release. The level inside the reactors is like 500 SIEVERT/hr. 1 sievert would kill you quite quickly. The reactors are busted and leaking water.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about the beaches are children play on they going to be safe too?Don't we already have enough Pollution in the ocean now we’re going to make a toxic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese government on Thursday told embassy officials from nearly 20 countries that the health risk to humans of water contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear disaster would be "significantly small" even if it is entirely released into the ocean and atmosphere.

depends on what they mean by " significantly small " . it ,s all relative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flute

Is that so ?

They talk about 1mSv (the yearly increase according to the Professor) and 3μSv (the Geiger counter reading). There is 0.1μSv/h natural one in Japan according to the author (I preferred the wkipedia for this one : 0.27μSv). Then there is the mathematics one. 

I see no reference of 1μSv. But perhaps, I missed it. Which line ?

It's possible I made an error (for me, posting in the morning ranks with doing mental maths on the spot as being prone to that). I'll check after the weekend and respond.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the significance is so small, then why risk the ire of other governments and just dump it in Japanese rivers? A show of hands of all who believe the Japanese government officials on radiation issues . . . . .

That's what I thought.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Small" still means dangerous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flute,

I see no reference of 1μSv. But perhaps, I missed it. Which line ?

Apologies, I mixed up my millis and micros, so the yearly dose from remaining outside 24 hours a day, 365 days a year would have been about 26 milliSieverts. 8 hours a day would be about 9 mSv (close to dose from radon in Cornwall).

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