Japan Today
national

U.N. nuclear chief tells Japan transparency 'very important' in Fukushima nuclear plant's water discharges

22 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


22 Comments
Login to comment

Fukushima should and will be more transparent than China will ever be (see Covid)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

LDP and transparency in the same sentence! Don't make me laugh !

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Thanks for confirming they no longer do the final check before release

It is still being constantly checked before release. However, without deeper insight, I suppose they could not find any discrepancy in the water's contents between when it is stored in the main tank and after it has been pumped into the temporary tank, and decided that this step was unnecessary.

They can just include a summary in news reports, for transparency.

To all intents and purposes, "the ALPS-treated water meets regulatory standards exept for tritium" is a fitting summary. Noone reads multiple pages of tables of numbers.

You can also post the figures here, for transparency

I posted the sources and trust that you can read them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

/dev/random

Today 03:00 pm JST

So what are the exact contents of the discharged radioactive wastewater?

> Detailed reports are available

They can just include a summary in news reports, for transparency.

You can also post the figures here, for transparency

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

as of the 4th batch of release they no longer do the final check before discharge of wastewater

> Correct. They skip temporarily storing the water in a second tank to measure it before release. The water has been thoroughly analysed before, and is constantly checked as it flows from the main tank.

Thanks for confirming they no longer do the final check before release

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So what are the exact contents of the discharged radioactive wastewater?

Detailed reports are available:

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/decommission/data/analysis/pdf/2024/measurement_confirmation_240226-e.pdf

https://fukushima.jaea.go.jp/okuma/alps/dai3/pdf/analysis-result_details-20231222.pdf

News always seem to imply only tritium

Because it is the only isotope the water contains in noteworthy quantities (i.e. relevant to regulatory limits and guidelines).

as of the 4th batch of release they no longer do the final check before discharge of wastewater

Correct. They skip temporarily storing the water in a second tank to measure it before release. The water has been thoroughly analysed before, and is constantly checked as it flows from the main tank.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I hope they cam resolve this soon thru the Londoj protocol. If Japan is not in violation then it's best established

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And they did not explain why , iirc, as of the 4th batch of release they no longer do the final check before discharge of wastewater

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So what are the exact contents of the discharged radioactive wastewater?

News always seem to imply only tritium

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi also expressed support for increasing Japan's nuclear capacity as the country looks to it as a stable, clean source of power.

Nuclear energy... stable and clean. Yes, of course, Fukushima is the prime example. And there are countless of other examples around the World. When will people understand there's no planet B?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

4123Today 11:11 am JST

Last year, IAEA "We do not endorse the plan or recommend this to be done" at their report.

As virusrex says, that isn't their role. What the IAEA did say about the plan was that it would have a "negligible radiological impact on people and the environment?" (page 7, Director General’s Foreword):

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

...

Grossi has stated several times that the plan is safe. For example:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/06/asia/japan-fukushima-water-iaea-chief-interview-intl-hnk/index.html

...

And the IAEA's monitoring of the releases thus far have shown this to be the case:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-confirms-third-batch-of-alps-treated-water-released-today-has-tritium-level-far-below-japans-operational-limit

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Last year, IAEA "We do not endorse the plan or recommend this to be done" at their report.

Because that is not its role, but still if you recognize the IAEA as an authority then you would also have to recognize they have determined that according to the results of the monitoring, the release do not represent a danger.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Last year, IAEA "We do not endorse the plan or recommend this to be done" at their report.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Japan has been very transparent. Otherwise the IAEA would not have been involved and monitoring from the outset.

Compare that to China's Covid release. Or their radioactive wastewater discharges that exceed Japan's.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

sakurasukiToday 07:38 am JST

Talk is cheap, show us by eating and drinking seafood and agriculture products that being produced from that area. Maybe we might believe after that.

SanjinosebleedToday 08:13 am JST

Now let's go to the Fukushima sushi restaurant...

The US ambassador, amongst many others, did just that.

https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-wastewater-china-57a6ecb7da4e8b0430fa4446fd44d85d

kurisupisuToday 08:41 am JST

Yeh,iIt’s very important to know exactly the amount of radioactivity that’s being dumped and will dumped for many many years to come

Anyone who wants to know that would look at the data that is released (and that is verified by the IAEA).

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/decommission/data/alpsrtmonitoring/index-e.html

Anyone who just wanted to stir up trouble would ignore things like this, and just reflexively post anti-Japan comments on almost every thread.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

and exactly how has japan not been transparent?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Yeh,iIt’s very important to know exactly the amount of radioactivity that’s being dumped and will dumped for many many years to come

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It is “very important to show the transparency of this process,” Grossi told Economy and Industry Minister Ken Saito.

It’s very important to be transparent in any process, even if until now the opposite has been true. It literally is the only way. Own your actions, be forthright and able to explain your methods, reasons, strategy and intentions. The recipe for respect.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Now let's go to the Fukushima sushi restaurant...

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Talk is cheap, show us by eating and drinking seafood and agriculture products that being produced from that area. Maybe we might believe after that.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

U.N. nuclear chief tells Japan transparency 'very important' 

The water is perfectly transparent. It's the isotopes that are the problem.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

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