Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
politics

Japan defends neutrality of IAEA report on Fukushima water release plan as minister visits plant

64 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


64 Comments
Login to comment

Japan defends neutrality of IAEA report on Fukushima water release plan

Because the best interest of Japan not to oppose those decision, unlike Japan neighboring country.

-7 ( +14 / -21 )

agree with all 3 posters above.

-10 ( +14 / -24 )

Seems to me that the IAEA is not at all neutral.

You can just see and feel it in the way things are being done.

Show me the money. Follow the money.

-4 ( +15 / -19 )

Japan defends neutrality of IAEA report on Fukushima water release plan as minister visits plant

The most concerning point is the release of the radioactive water that has ‘risk’

All the rest:neutrality, pipe length, number of years,world opinion, baseless rumors etc are just a one trick pony show distracting from the main event which is ‘the dumping of radioactive pollution into the marine environment’

I get it…

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

All THOSE who support the release of radioactive water should have a bath in it to show how harmless the water really is.

 

And those who oppose the plan should be asked to come with a viable alternative.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

 Seems to me that the IAEA is not at all neutral.

You can just see and feel it in the way things are being done.

Show me the money. Follow the money.

 

And of course your feelings towards Japan are  neutral ?

2 ( +11 / -9 )

The claim that cites Japanese funding and staffing at the IAEA to question the neutrality of the IAEA final report is not only completely missing the target but also shakes the significance of the existence of international organizations,”

 

Exactly! Moreover both China and South Korea have staff at the IAEA and also gives funds to IAEA.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Just another mouthpiece fo the people that pay the bills! Same as the WHO etc!

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

which is ‘the dumping of radioactive pollution into the marine environment’

I get it…

And every country does the same thing. And there is no other way.

Do you get it?

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

kurisupisu

what about the 90,000 TBq of Tritium released at the UK Sellafield? And at La Hague, 500,000 TBq of Tritium was released. The Pacific Ocean contains 8,000 grams of Tritium.

TEPCO wants to release 25 TBq/year.

Did you read the two very extensive reports published by the IAEA?

9 ( +14 / -5 )

IAEA Review of Safety-Related Aspects of Handling ALPS-Treated Water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

First Interlaboratory Comparison on the Determination of Radionuclides in ALPS Treated Water

72 pages

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

 IAEA COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE SAFETY REVIEW OF THE ALPS-TREATED WATER AT THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION

140 pages

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

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@anicerainbow

> And every country does the same thing. And there is no other way.

Do you get it?

Name one country that has, is and will continue to dump water that has been in contact with ‘corium’ please

Theres your difference…

Hope you get it

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

There are bigger fish to fry when it comes to dumping water, e.g. industrial waste, forever chemicals, PFAS, BPA, microplastics, fertilizer runoff, pharmaceuticals runoff.

Some of these endocrine-disrupting materials need more focus.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The truth starts showing up.

The IAEA it's not neutral.

We should find a neutral 3rd. party organization that supports the spilling of wastewater into the biosphere.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

The radiation dose to people is measured in sieverts, or millionths of sieverts (microsieverts), where a dose of 1,000 microsieverts represents a one in 25,000 chance of dying early from cancer. The maximum estimated dose from Fukushima’s discharged water will be 3.9 microsieverts per year. This is much lower than the 2,400 microsieverts people receive from natural radiation on average each year.

Fukushima to release contaminated water – an expert explains why this could be the best option

https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/fukushima-to-release-contaminated-water-an-expert-explains-why-this-could-be-the-best-option

5 ( +8 / -3 )

There are no further treatments. Just dilution to equal 25 TBq/year of Tritium.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And of course your feelings towards Japan are neutral ?

Yes. You are correct. But you are again missing the point of the story. This is about the IAEA. Focus.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I find this entire saga to be such a sad reflection on politics and how it has prevailed over science.

The IAEA has got the science under control. The nation most affected by it is USA due to the 黒潮 (gyre), but USA is silent, deferring instead to science. Whilst nations on the other side of Japan, not even the same ocean, China, SK are totally politics driven, despite their own previous actions affecting Japan directly.

Has Chinese, and South Koreans even looked at a map recently?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

What ol' Jack Burton always says

Honestly who in thier right mind thinks that the release of contaminated radioactive water into the Pacific ocean is safe.

what about the 90,000 TBq of Tritium released at the UK Sellafield? And at La Hague, 500,000 TBq of Tritium was released. The Pacific Ocean contains 8,000 grams of Tritium.

TEPCO wants to release 25 TBq/year.

Did you read the two very extensive reports published by the IAEA?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

one_consciousness

I have read the two very long reports from the IAEA. Complicated and it took time but I accept what it states. Have you read them?

New Zealand has said it accepts the reports.

BTW you have no archives.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

And those who oppose the plan should be asked to come with a viable alternative.

Why is recycling the water not a viable alternative?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

What exactly do you mean by "recycling"?

Well, it's been used once to cool down the reactor. Why can't it be used again to cool down the reactor? If it can be treated to make it safe to release into the ocean, safe enough to drink even, isn't it safe to recycle through the reactor, multiple times?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

one_consciousness

No only did I read the full report, I also read all reports that were critical of the report (ten in total).

Then provide links to them all.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

cleo

   What exactly do you mean by "recycling"?

> Well, it's been used once to cool down the reactor. Why can't it be used again to cool down the reactor? If it can be treated to make it safe to release into the ocean, safe enough to drink even, isn't it safe to recycle through the reactor, multiple times?

Because the water for cooling the corium needs to be pure clean water not with Tritium. Some of the water is recycled back into cooling.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

wallace

one_consciousness

so what did you disagree with in the two IAEA reports?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Fukushima’s Radioactive Wastewater Dilemma

https://hakaimagazine.com/article-short/fukushima-radioactive-wastewater-dilemma/

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If you value science so much, you need to assess all scientific perspectives, not just the official one created in cahoots with Japan.

If you refuse science, then you're playing politics, that's what 'different perspectives' is POLITICS.

Now, what about geography, have a look at where China and SK, and their litoral territory is, now look at where Fukushima is, where the release point is, AND tge currents, it flows away from Japan Eastward. Persoectives, sigh...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If you care to have a non--official biased view do your own research.

...and you think you're not biased? China's industrial pollution has been drifting east over SK, and onto Japan for over a decade, where's the unbiased outrage about that?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

TEPCO shouldn't have constructed nuclear power plants in Fukushima for starters, cajoling people to think that nuclear power was the energy of the bright future.

What is the income statement of TEPCO after all this disaster?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

All nine power companies on built nuclear power plants not just TEPCO.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Japan fishing communities up and dawn the country are financially/economically dependent on the quality and independence of these reports.

Would I open a fish and chip shop 500km near the vicinity of the release of treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Concrete production contributes significantly to greenhouse gases and particulate pollution. There’s a cost in non-monetary ways to alternative disposal ideas.

I’m pretty sure the fish and chip shops in the UK have been using fish for decades caught within 500km of their reactors, with more concentration of tritium, which is still the thing many are fixated about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Peter Neil,

I have eaten seafood and fish n chips, less than 20km ish, Rye East Sussex. even bathed within site of The Dungeness nuclear power stations, at the five star rated Camber Sands beaches.

The tragic environment consequences ......

A massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi plant’s cooling systems, causing three reactors to melt and contaminating their cooling water, which has leaked continuously. The water is collected, treated and stored in about 1,000 tanks, which will reach their capacity in early 2024.

This statement rightly or wrongly just doesn't inspire confidence in the whole process of Fukushima water release plan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't understand all the angst other than an emotional over reaction. Tritium is naturally occurring in both the air and water. If it formed naturally in the upper atmosphere through cosmic ray-induced spallations of nuclides and particle capture reactions of nitrogen and oxygen. It is absorbed into bodies of water and as a result the oceans have a background level of tritium. Because of this fact every reactor in the world disposes of excess tritium by dumping it into whatever body of water, whether a lake, river or the ocean, is nearby. The amount of tritium that has to be disposed of at Fukushima is comparatively small and won't spike the amount of tritium in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. It really is a non-problem but people do not seem to react rationally to anything concerning nuclear energy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The tragic environment consequences ......

A massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi plant’s cooling systems, causing three reactors to melt and contaminating their cooling water, which has leaked continuously. The water is collected, treated and stored in about 1,000 tanks, which will reach their capacity in early 2024.

This statement rightly or wrongly just doesn't inspire confidence in the whole process of Fukushima water release plan.

And if the auxiliary generators and their fuel had been located on the bluff above the reactors there never would have been a melt down.

Engineers study problems and learn from mistakes. The public seems less inclined to approach problems rationally like engineer do, weighing the costs and benefits of different options. preferring an emotional response. The problem for the public is there is literally no other way to dispose of tritium. There is no proven way to remove it from water once dissolved and adding it to water that already has naturally occurring tritium in it does not create additional harm.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise

I really don't have enough knowledge behind the process of Fukushima water release plan possible future risks

The political necessity to complete this procedure is clear and urgent.

Such a tragedy is always going to provoke an emotional public response.

The Government of China has wasted little time in politically weaponizing the situation to harm or restrict regional trading in some sectors, fishing as well as agricultural products.

China urges ASEAN regional forum to oppose Fukushima water release

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230710/p2g/00m/0in/041000c

I know this is going too sound ruthless, sometimes how a Government presents what many could question the logic/risk factors to the health and safety of the people need skilled PR management.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And if the auxiliary generators and their fuel had been located on the bluff above the reactors there never would have been a melt down.

..hindsight is good, but we don't live in a 'hindsight' world. Engineers design to comply with relevant codes, period. There's a thing called economics.

IMHO, this guy nailed the issues involved.

https://youtu.be/4z7OwfwoPzA

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm not sure what China or anywhere else has to do with this as we are talking about Japan not China.

China is a complainant in this story is it not? 17,000 deaths from air pollution.

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20190408000819

Now if you want to be neutral, how about present facts about deaths from released irradiated water.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Just watched the full press briefing by the panel of Korean-led detractors at the Foreign Correspondents Club. ( its on YouTube although the comment section is unfortunately turned off ) They were stating their case for opposition to the water release and I was hoping to hear a well-informed sophisticated and scientifically grounded argument as to why the plan needs rethinking or even to be halted. Instead, we got a low-resolution, vague emotional plea from non-experts, zero alternative plans or suggestions for an alternative solution, nor any compelling evidence that the danger is as grave as they say it is. Disorganized tunnel vision activism.

If this is all they have, then this is just a political action from Koreans who still harbor deep anti-Japanese sentiments and are using the issue to try and get a cheap boot in. When pressed on the science of their claims no one could answer, it was an absolute shemozzle a rather awkward one as well. No doubt there were some serious journalists in attendance. 2/10 for effectiveness in changing anyone's mind panel, you may wanna get your points in line if you want to appeal to the world.

Having said that Japans communication skills on the issue could also do with improvement. A sharp scientific base and wit should be able to finish this one quite easily. But as usual, no one steps to the line and then you have to deal with misinformed opposition. As with many problems, its a messaging problem at the base.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Desert Tortoise

Please understand the theory of bioaccumulation and you will be able to comprehend the dangers of adding more to the radioactive pollution already present in vast quantities around the plant and beyond

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Pacific Ocean contains 8,500 grams of Tritium.

1 ( +1 / -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