Tanks containing contaminated water are seen at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Photo: AP/Hiro Komae/File
national

TEPCO files for approval of Fukushima plant 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

I bet if China intended to do something like that, half the world would jump to the roof.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

@Mirchy

Both China and Korea have done it with their nuclear reactors.

It's all war of words.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Of course they will , not like other parties have a say or there is any real science behind it….dump it all.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The photo gives a good indication of just how much tainted water they intend to release. It’s far beyond a ‘drop in the ocean’.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

TEPCO and especially it's owner should be bankrupted with fines!!!... But we all know who pays the politicians bills . ...

0 ( +5 / -5 )

They should continue to build storage tanks until the entire planet is covered. Then bankrupt TEPCO and stop producing electricity. These ideas are logical and rational.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I don't care if radioactive water has been treated. Releasing it into the ocean is insane.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Ban ALL Japanese marine products.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Titrium was used in many Russian guns (SKS etc) for the sights. = Gives off a nice green glow for 30yrs etc.

You could put up a ton of solar panels for all the money being spent on these nuclear plants.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I will enjoy Pacific Blue Fin otoro before it becomes uneatable after Fukushima water release.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

I don’t think I approve…

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Titrium was used in many Russian guns 

Somewhat different from tritium.

The release of water from a functioning nuclear plant can not be compared to this major nuclear disaster,

I think it can if the water to be released is much the same in terms of tritium content.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Nuclear power plants do not release millions of tons of water.

But is the question not how much tritium there is in the released water?

While looking around, most data seems to focus on the amount of radioactive material per liter and not the total amount of radioactive material released. I'm not sure which is more significant.

I read the following at the link below.

According to the policy document, the tritium will be diluted to 1500 becquerels per liter, which is 1/40 of the concentration permitted under Japanese safety standards and 1/7 of the World Health Organization's guideline for drinking water. 

The total annual amount of tritium to be discharged "will be at a level below the operational target value for tritium discharge of the Fukushima Daiichi plant before the accident.” These discharge amounts are well within the range of the amounts from any nuclear power station around the world, even in Japan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/12/japan-will-release-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/?sh=43b1010674c4

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It’s far beyond a ‘drop in the ocean’.

Not really. The ocean contains 352 quintillion gallons of water

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So much for the fishing industry when people start turning sick and marine life starts dying.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Their is something about TEPCO that gives me the stomach cramps.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It is a measure of last resort and doesn't pose a threat to human health. Compared to all the nuclear tests, the wars we have had and will have, the atomic bombs, Agent Orange, the fertilisers used in agriculture, the oil spills, the sea dumps from large ships, seabed mining, global land mining and farming runoffs, effluent, rubbish, the highly radioactive nuclear waste from Fukushima Daiichi and other plants, the water in those tanks isn't an issue. But it will keep SK/JP and CH/JP politics boiling merrily for another year.

An underground tunnel does seem like a very expensive and quake-vulnerable solution compared to piping it into a container vessel and piping it off at sea. Presumably they are expecting Fukushima Daiichi to be a serious hazard for many years to come.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Eating all the maguro laced with mercury and other things is probably more dangerous than the plan to release this water over time.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The AvengerDec. 22 06:22 pm JST

I don't care if radioactive water has been treated. Releasing it into the ocean is insane.

The question remains however what else can be done instead of releasing this radioactive water into the ocean.

I see no other way out of this situation. To release it slowly away from the coast and to disperse it into the ocean starting with the oldest water in these 1000 storage tanks is maybe the only realistic solution.

2 ( +2 / -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