S Korea seeks scientific analysis before Fukushima water release

Unless an external 3rd party does that it's not going to be any sort of scientific.

Need scientific ground for that? Simple just drink it and see what will happen. Korea is not the only one who raises objection.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Micronesia-slams-Japan-s-plan-to-release-Fukushima-water-into-sea

Many scientific analysis have been done, by Japan. Only one team of international representitives have been allowed in the plant and they were only shown a very select area. If Japan is so positive that the release of this water is not going to create a huge environmental disaster why don't they let third party international investigators to make their own findings?

The scientist have analysed the problem and their opinion was to release the extremely low level contaminated water.

From 2010 to 2020, nuclear power plants in South Korea discharged a total of 4,362 TBq of tritium, which is more than 5 times the total amount of tritium stored in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Has Japan ever requested "scientific analysis"???

Thank god

That water it's been used to cool down the naked core of a melted nuclear reactor.

It's an unprecedented level of radiation.

OK, let's at least be honest, South Korea. You don't actually want "scientific analysis". You don't want the water to be released regardless of the results of the analysis. If Analysis A doesn't give you the answer you want, you'd want Analysis B.

If we are all more honest with what we want without trying to put everything in paint, the world would revolve a lot smoother.

for Japan to conduct a scientific analysis before releasing treated radioactive water into the sea

They can't because they don't know how much water will be released so impossible to make a study.

Japan would have to collect all the water and store it until the entire cooling process is finalized until they could feasibly make a realistic scientific assessment of the environmental impacts the released water would cause.

Even then we wont know for decades the consequences .

Regardless of their so called scientific study of what hasn't actually happened yet !

Kazuaki Shimazaki: "OK, let's at least be honest, South Korea. You don't actually want "scientific analysis". You don't want the water to be released regardless of the results of the analysis."

How about we flip that, Kazuaki? "Let's be honest, Japan. YOU don't actually want scientific analysis. You just want the water to be released regardless of the results of any analysis (which would be conducted by an organization with vested interests in the tech that caused the disaster, and a nation desperate to cover it up)". Now, keeping in mind we're talking about the same nation that said methylmercury having been discharged into the water was not a problem and not the cause of Minamata, as well as thousands of other cases of denial and corruption, and that TODEN said there was no fault line they built on to begin with and suppressed warnings this would happen, is it more likely Japan just needs this water to be released regardless, or that South Korea, China, Taiwan, and others concerned have no valid reason to be?

If japan releases, japan should be sanctioned. This is not just a human crime, but an environmental one two. Once committed there is no going back.

OssanAmerica

From 2010 to 2020, nuclear power plants in South Korea discharged a total of 4,362 TBq of tritium, which is more than 5 times the total amount of tritium stored in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Has Japan ever requested "scientific analysis"???

While obviously Korea is again being a pain for the sake of being a pain, looking at the history of incidents, lackluster (risk) management, cover-ups and data forging in and around the nuclear industry of Japan, one can not say that the the industry (and the government that is prepping them up) were ever big on trivial things, such as security, facts, reality or evidence, scientific, common sense or other...As such, Japan asking "scientific analysis" on anybody's nuclear policies, installations or security would amount to nothing more than a kettle/pot thing...

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8E%9F%E5%AD%90%E5%8A%9B%E7%99%BA%E9%9B%BB%E3%81%AE%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85%E9%9A%A0%E3%81%97%E3%83%BB%E3%83%87%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF%E6%94%B9%E3%81%96%E3%82%93%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%AC%E9%9B%BB%E5%8A%9B%E5%8E%9F%E7%99%BA%E3%83%88%E3%83%A9%E3%83%96%E3%83%AB%E9%9A%A0%E3%81%97%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E5%8E%9F%E5%AD%90%E5%8A%9B%E7%99%BA%E9%9B%BB%E6%89%80%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85

I’m sure that the South Koreans and the Japanese fisherfolk are concerned about the ingestion of Tritium and other radionuclides.

Lets have an independent analysis on it-why not?

the first South Korean president to visit Japan in four years

Is this 4 years now? Reuters says 12 years, and I think I saw the number 14 years in another article...

A nuclear plant in Minnesota is now reporting that 400,000 gallons of water contaminated with tritium leaked in November of last year. The concentration level is reportedly "millions of times higher" than the maximum for drinking water, but are still saying it is "safe."

Neither the company nor the government thought it was important enough to report when it happened. Or were they just trying to keep a lid on the news?

The concentration to be released from Fukushima every year will actually be less than the concentration released every year of normal operation before 3/11. The concentration released every year will be less than half of the amount released every year from the Kora reactor in S. Korea.

Maybe Japan isn't as evil as people like to think.

From what I have read, the treated water is indeed safe. Perhaps the political leaders could do more to personally demonstrate how safe the water is.

Perhaps the political leaders could do more to personally demonstrate how safe the water is.

I'm not sure they are qualified. I would much rather prefer the measurements to be done by scientists, not by politicians.

The IAEA has not finished the report on this subject yet.

We have no scientific reports on safety.

Who did say that the water is safe? Do you have names and sources?

Counterarguments include releasing the "contaminated" water into lakes and agricultural areas IN JAPAN, instead of releasing it into the ocean. I find this hard to dispute.

Counterarguments include releasing the "contaminated" water into lakes and agricultural areas IN JAPAN,

Why in the world would anyone want to do that?

It's salt water...

It's salt water...

Is not salted anymore. The ALPS system filtered out the salt.

Should be released in Kasumigaseki for all the politicians to drink and shower with.

lunaticMar. 18  11:38 pm JST

It's salt water...

Is not salted anymore. The ALPS system filtered out the salt.

Should be released in Kasumigaseki for all the politicians to drink and shower with.

Nope.

The water is desalinated then recycled as reactor coolant.

The waste is then processed through the ALPS system to remove the radioactive isotopes, but it does not desalinate.

By the way, the final concentration will 1,500 Bcq/l.

The WHO recommends a maximum of 10,000 Bcq/l for drinking water.

The math is left as an exercise for the reader.

The Kori reactor in Korea has releases more than double the amount of tritium in one year than the total of all to be released at Fukushima. Canada, UK and France have released hundreds of time more for 40 years.

Politics and brewing up falsehoods are contaminating the world.

That would be and ideal situation where TEPCO does his job right.

The fact that there's no scientific institutions allowed to get any near the tanks arises many eyebrows.

Who said that the water is safe? Do you have names and sources?

Another false statement.

The IAEA has been there and is very clear it will be safe.

I like your screen name, by the way.

lunatic:

noun

A person who is affected by lunacy; a mentally deranged person.

A very foolish person.

In the official page the IAEA states that they are not allowed in the installations. They can only rely on what the Japanese tell them.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge/press

In the official page the IAEA states that they are not allowed in the installations.

Sorry, but where do you read that? In their latest press release they state that, quote, "the Task Force also visited the Fukushima Daiichi site to observe the first of a series of pre-service inspections". In their latest report they distinctly state that they are observing the collection of samples before they are distributed to various laboratories (ILC = interlaboratory comparison):

For each ILC, the IAEA is observing the collection of samples of ALPS treated water from tanks at FDNPS for which the contents have been identified by TEPCO as being ready for discharge, pending the results of final confirmatory analyses. The samples for the ILC therefore comprise ALPS treated water, prior to dilution, and not contaminated water (i.e., water still requiring ALPS treatment or re-treatment).

NB: the IAEA is not a laboratory, but a supervisory body.

In the official page the IAEA states that they are not allowed in the installations.

[Question]

Will the Japanese side allow experts from the relevant countries to sample the nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea on site?

[Answer]

Samples to be analyzed by TEPCO and its outsourcing contractors

src:

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2022/infcirc1007.pdf

Samples to be analyzed by TEPCO and its outsourcing contractors

Yes, and the sentence continues:

... are stored in consideration of reanalysis until the analytical values are determined."

You are quoting part of an answer to a different question, deliberately misreading the document and leaving out answers that actually address the question. You, Sir, are arguing in bad faith.

I summarized a 60 lines answer in one sentence.

Read that document and you'll see.

And, Why are they asking for being allowed to get samples on site?

Just because they aren't allowed to.

Nobody trusts TEPCO taking samples.

In the document the IAEA says there are many inconsistencies on the samples they got from TEPCO.

I summarized a 60 lines answer in one sentence.

No, you quoted half a sentence from an irrelevant part of the answer. An answer where the first two paragraphs read:

TEPCO’s monitoring results will be reviewed by IAEA experts, and cross-checked by third-party institutions, as a means to demonstrate that the analysis has been reliably performed and that the obtained analysis values are appropriate.

For a domestic third-party analysis organization, selection will be made from companies that have no vested interest in TEPCO and have obtained ISO/IEC-17025 and other certifications for analysis of radionuclides.

Combined with the IAEA's statement that they will observe even the collection of samples, that would be the end of it. But sure, go ahead and continue to deliberately misread and misrepresent anything that doesn't support your preconception, you do you. I'll leave you to it.

That words you're quoting are not related to the question asked.

Are we reading the same PDF?

1glenn,drink a gallon and see the results ,about 400 thousands gallons of radioactive water leaked fron Minnesota nuclear plant,it just been reported to the public Google Minnesota Nuclear Plant Water Leak