A member of a youth group wearing a cutout of Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga denounces his government's decision to release treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, in Seoul, South Korea, on Tuesday. Photo: AP/Lee Jin-man
politics

Japan's neighbors react strongly to Fukushima water release decision

80 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

80 Comments
Login to comment

"The sea is not a trash can. The Japanese government has no right at all to dirty the waters," said one member of a group at the rally.

Sea is not only belong to Japan, so far only US that support Japan decision.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-disaster-fukushima-usa/u-s-expresses-support-for-japans-release-of-fukushima-nuclear-plant-water-idUSKBN2C004C

-1 ( +18 / -19 )

@sakurasuki

*The foundation is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982). It says that a country may claim an area extending 12 nautical miles from its coast as its own territorial sea.*

But I do unstand your meaning that will impact globally.

Unfortunately there is no easy other solution.

The idea is to dilute the waste material to reduce the contaminated water.

Putting underground will have also negative impact (happened in the past)

5 ( +15 / -10 )

This may be a first when I actually agree with China and South Korea on something.

4 ( +26 / -22 )

That’s an impactful photo. - To bad Mr. Abe didn’t stick around ‘for all the fun’ to which Mr. Suga’s face is now permanently attached. - Yet, can’t feel sorry for either.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Sadly, the sea is a trashcan. As a diver, I'm quite aware of this.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

These are the "reconstruction Olympics" meant to symbolize how the Tohoku area has recovered. Right. This unilateral move just set the area back decades if not more. No one will trust the Japanese government's claims of safety and local industry will lose significant revenue.

12 ( +22 / -10 )

China is the greatest polluter of Asia with dangerous levels of air quality and frequently blows in our direction. The air belongs to everyone.

10 ( +30 / -20 )

The water in question has had all of the radioactive materials except tritium removed from it. Unlike other nuclear particles that remain in suspension in water and thus can be filtered out, tritium bonds with the hydrogen in water and is chemically indistinguishable from water. It is "radioactive", yes, but the radiation is very low with most standard setting agencies permitting 100 times more tritium than cobalt under their safety standards.

Tritium occurs naturally in the environment. It is generated by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere. About 4 million curies is produced per year and because of its twelve year half life it is believed there is about 70 million curies in the environment at any given time with about 45 million curies in the worlds oceans. Tritium does not collect in tissues or sediments. The amount of tritium TEPCO proposes to dilute in the sea is a vanishingly small proportion of the tritium that occurs naturally in ocean water.

Because of this every coastal reactor in the world dilutes and releases tritium waste water into the ocean.

5 ( +19 / -14 )

I've heard normal nuclear power plants located by coast all over the world are releasing a lot of tritium from plants into sea because no one can get rid of tritium out of cooling water. S Korea, Canda, France, Britan,,,etc., are releasing tritium into sea. That's why IAEA admits release of tritium into sea.

13 ( +24 / -11 )

Can't really blame 'em, right!

Remember the saying of a native (US) Indian:

the earth (including the ocean) doesn't belong to us!

We only borrowed it from our children!

Wise words, not being obeyed!

2 ( +13 / -11 )

Here are comments by a vice president of a company that is currently involved in removing all the other radioactive nuclides from the water stored at Fukushima and who has a proprietary technology for removing tritium.

"And there is at least 400,000 cubic meters of tritiated water now in storage at Japan’s wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex, which suffered multiple meltdowns after the 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami. A suite of technologies there filter out 62 different radioactive particles created by the Fukushima meltdowns—leaving out only tritium, largely because it is difficult and expensive to separate water from water. Companies such as Kurion, which already helps filter out radionuclides like cesium, suggest that they have a solution if the Japanese want to eliminate the tritium as well. "It's up to TEPCO [the utility] and the Japanese people to decide what they want to do with that water," says materials scientist Gaetan Bonhomme, vice president of strategic planning and initiatives at Kurion. "It is a radionuclide and it does cause public concern.

The Kurion process concentrates the radionuclide in a small volume of water. A proprietary material then captures the tritium and stores it—and will not release it until heated above 500 degrees Celsius. "It's stable in an accident," Bonhomme notes.

 The technology could be applied wherever tritium is produced, including aging nuclear reactors in the U.S. It is the hope of Bonhomme and others that by offering a solution for tritium and other nuclear wastes, they can help ease fears of fission as a source of electricity. But any treatment will be more expensive than simply dumping tritiated water. "If it was really all about science, we would be releasing most of tritium from nuclear power in the water stream, because that's the best way to dilute it," Bonhomme admits.

3 ( +14 / -11 )

I've heard normal nuclear power plants located by coast all over the world are releasing a lot of tritium from plants into sea because no one can get rid of tritium out of cooling water. S Korea, Canda, France, Britan,,,etc., are releasing tritium into sea. That's why IAEA admits release of tritium into sea.

That is correct. Same for reactors on rivers or lakes. It is also released from the cooling towers of landlocked nuclear power stations. The Palo Verde power plant in Arizone releases about 2000 curies per year from the cooling towers of the three reactors there. Not pica curies but curies. Again, the global inventory of tritium is about 70 million curies at any given time so these are small potatoes in comparison to what is generated through cosmic radiation. And obtw, there was a huge spike in global tritium when nuclear weapons were being tested in the atmosphere, far more than all the tritium released from nuclear reactors that has pretty much all decayed since the beginning of the ban on atmospheric tests. It didn't kill us. In fact it wasn't even noticed.

1 ( +15 / -14 )

Don't know why Japan is suprised, you can't infect the entire world!

-10 ( +10 / -20 )

Such a bad solution to throw that poisoned water in the ocean.

This clearly shows that Fukushima is at least as catastrophic as Cernobyl in the long run.

-1 ( +16 / -17 )

sakurasukiToday  06:57 am JST

"The sea is not a trash can. The Japanese government has no right at all to dirty the waters," said one member of a group at the rally.

Sea is not only belong to Japan, so far only US that support Japan decision.

Wrong, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does as well and is providing support.

-1 ( +14 / -15 )

Expected that Japans enemies South Korea and China would protest. But most people would be shocked that Taiwan would protest, in light of current regional conflict. I hope they realize they may soon be in big need of Japans military.

The region is In 100 times more danger from a war started by China, than this radioactive water (which is far from ideal admittedly).

3 ( +18 / -15 )

Sadly, the sea is a trashcan. As a diver, I'm quite aware of this.

That makes two of us.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Wrong, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does as well and is providing support.

Well, this makes the dumping completely acceptable and risk free.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

Desert Tortiose - you're fully right, of course. The water Japan plans releasing is already treated, and the biggest pollutant would be tritium. The amount is insignificant, compared with what is already present in the ocean naturally.

Still, for most people is far easier to understand and believe in conspiracy theories, as opposed to scientific theories and explanations. In order to understand the science behind, one must be intelligent and willing to learn. Something most people aren't.

"Shout" Korea and communist china leaders understand this and see it as a very good chance of grabbing some political credit. Still, the air and water radioactivity levels are 2-3 times higher in both countries when compared with Japan, as a result of them polluting it with coal based thermal plants. More, china is the biggest polluter in Japan, as measured clearly with air quality sensors.

6 ( +19 / -13 )

Such a bad solution to throw that poisoned water in the ocean.

As I posted above, even a scientist who leads a company with a technology they claim can remove tritium from water says that the process to remove tritium is very expensive and if the decision was driven only by science (as opposed to emotion), diluting the tritium in the water stream is the best way to dispose of it.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

some other countries with nuclear power plants, including South Korea, have released treated radioactive water from the plants into the environment

This may very well be so. However, only Japan intends to release tens of millions of tons into the ocean over a few weeks. ‘Two Wongs don’t make a White!”

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

Always wanted to catch a two headed fish.

On the other hand, its a bit rich of China complaining after what they just dumped on the world.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The government and TEPCO have been very poor with their PR over the nuclear disaster. At times denying the truth. Many people have little trust in their word, whatever the science might say.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

But Japanese government officials pointed out some other countries with nuclear power plants, including South Korea, have released treated radioactive water from the plants into the environment.

Oh that’s OK then Others do it, so we can do it too.

Let’s just pause and think what happens if we all did it...

4 ( +9 / -5 )

A greater problem and concern, is the amount of plastics getting into the oceans, especially micro plastics which have even been discovered on the sea floor of the Antarctic.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

This may very well be so. However, only Japan intends to release tens of millions of tons into the ocean over a few weeks.

No. It would be released over a period of many years. There will be a quantity of tritium contaminated water generated at the site over the duration of its decommissioning so this will go on for decades.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Always wanted to catch a two headed fish.

An old girlfriend used to fly LC-130 cargo planes in Antarctica every Austral summer. She and some work mates once ate some prehistoric fish, fish that were tens of thousands of years old, that had popped up through the ice and were exposed at the surface. She said they tasted good.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Many people have little trust in their word, whatever the science might say.

One wonders why that could possibly be?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishandegnarain/2020/12/12/japanese-owner-of-wakashio-oil-spill-ship-continues-to-hide-behind-corporate-secrecy/?sh=101f0c082231

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Let’s just pause and think what happens if we all did it...

It seems to me thousands of normal nuclear power plants located nearby coast, lake, and river all over the world are already releasing tritium into environment for a long time, because they technically can't remove tritium only from cooling water, but can remove most other substances.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It will take more than 50 years resolve the nuclear dsaster site. 5-10 millions tons of radiated water produced.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Fighto

I hope they realize they may soon be in big need of Japans military.

Didn't know Japan had a military. My bad, they have a military but they don't have an army.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Only people illiterate in science can object to this release of hazard-free water.

Oh, and China kicking up a stink?! Seriously?! We all know how lovely and clean the rivers and seas of China are!

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

Deputy Prime Minister of Japan advocates the decision to release "it's okay to drink contaminated water"

Let him drink it!

https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-04-13-deputy-prime-minister-of-japan-advocates-the-decision-to-release-%22it-s-okay-to-drink-contaminated-water%22.BJ85xvX8_.html

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Unfortunately Japan has legal precedent on their side because suprise, suprise, every nuclear energy country have been doing that discreetly and quietly without any funfair (South Korea included). Japan has the honor of getting the headline due to Fukushima

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

This "protest" mostly lead by South Korea is far more political than scientific. And the media are running with it cause they love it. So damn tired of everything being turned political.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Fact :

Most of radioactive contamination has been and/or will be removed by ALPS by means of filtration or absorption.

The amount of remaining contamination of purified water will be cross checked by third parties.

This is called "treated" water, which includes certain amount of Tritium and negligible other contamination.

If the contamination is under a pre-defined threshold, the purified water will be further diluted by factor of 100.

Final Tritium level will be below 1/40 of Japanese drinking water standard or below 1/7 of WHO drinking water standard, both of which are far below the effluent standards.

Tritium level in environmental water will be continuously checked at many fishing grounds and beaches.

These processes have been confirmed and affirmed by IAEA, and affirmed by US.

Total amount of Tritium emitted from Fukushima-1 will be similar to that from Korean Wolsong nuclear electric power plant (6-years equivalent), Chinese Daya-bay nuclear electric power plant (20-years equiv.), England

Heysham nuclear power station (2-years equiv.), Canadian Bruce nuclear generating station (0.5-year equiv.), Japanese all nuclear power plants before 2011 (2-year equiv.).

The amount is below England Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant (0.5-year equiv.) and below France La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (0.06-year equiv.).

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Too bad they can't just load it onto a rocket and shoot it into space.

Or can they?

Paging Elon Musk.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Dilute = same amount.

Mid I drink a whole bottle of whiskey with ice, or I drink with ice and coke, I still have drunken a bottle of whiskey.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@ Joe Blow

Japanese H-IIB rockets could bring stuff at most 8 tons for geostationary orbit.

Fukushima-1 has 1.2 million tons now...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ Goodlucktokyo

How about stopping at one Single?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Is it possible for them evaporate most of the water in those containers, then figure out a way to dispose the rest of it without having to throw it into the ocean? Heard someone suggest something like this.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Here is the view from Deutsche Welle:

https://www.dw.com/en/north-south-korea-oppose-japans-plan-to-release-radioactive-fukushima-water/a-50400161

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Dilute = same amount.

Mid I drink a whole bottle of whiskey with ice, or I drink with ice and coke, I still have drunken a bottle of whiskey.

With these kind of lack of scientific knowledge we wont go far as a species.

As the scientist points out, the threat exists only theoretically, under the impossible conditions. “If one person consumed all this C-14 (these 63 GBq), they would receive a dose of about 37 Sv, which is several times the lethal dose. But how to quickly drink hundreds of millions of litters of water?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

China and S.Korea complain because it is politically advantageous to do so. Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with release of anything unnatural in to nature, but unfortunately nature became a cesspit!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Fighto!

But most people would be shocked that Taiwan would protest

Remember, this is about contaminating Taiwan's food source for generations. Of course Taiwan would strongly condemn Japan.

I hope they realize they may soon be in big need of Japans military.

Japan has no plan of getting involved in Taiwan's war.

Heck, Japan refuses to grant US the pre-authorization to use Okinawan bases to launch military operations to rescue Taiwan due to fear of Chinese missile strikes, because China has threatened to declare Japan an enemy combatant and bombard bases on Okinawa and Japan if Japan granted US the pre-authorization.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

@ Samit Basu

How do you and your Korean neighborhood think about emitted water from Kori, Wolsong, Hanul and Hanbit?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I am not a big believer in what TEPCO says. Not to mention that it was the United States helped bringing various nuclear power plants across Japan in the 1950s-80s. There is a vested interest for the US to help out Japan here.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/07/injustice-at-sea-the-irradiated-sailors-of-the-uss-reagan/

Despite the fact that 84% of the treated contaminated water contained radioactive materials other than tritium that exceeded the standard (20,000 times higher than the standard in some tanks), TEPCO continued to lie that the radioactive materials other than tritium were removed below the detection limit or the standard. TEPCO has been doing many other things that have betrayed people's trust, so I think it's natural that people feel uneasy. According to TEPCO, there is a possibility that radioactive materials exceeding the standard value will be detected in the future.

https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/243012 https://hbol.jp/174094/2

TEPCO would have had to make an industrial scale device to remove the tritium from water, at this moment they have taken zero out, and in the time being have invested no money into tritium removal so its likely the plan was to release it to the ocean from the start.

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/12/jp-gov-no-drastic-technology-to-remove-tritium-was-found-in-internationally-collected-knowledge/

There is no technology to effectively remove tritium and other pernicious radioactive materials in the water. Even if there is one, then Japan can't afford it.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

@ Septim Dynasty

There is no technology to effectively remove tritium and other pernicious radioactive materials in the water. Even if there is one, then Japan can't afford it.

This is partially wrong.

There is no effective removal measurement against tritium.

There IS effective removal measurement against other radioactive substances.

Despite the fact that 84% of the treated contaminated water contained radioactive materials other than tritium that exceeded the standard (20,000 times higher than the standard in some tanks), TEPCO continued to lie that the radioactive materials other than tritium were removed

This is partially wrong.

ALPS, the radioactive substance removal facility, has been upgraded for years. Now ALPS is able to remove those substances effectively and remaining 16% other than 84% (this number was in 2019) is increasing.

Remaining 84% (obsolete number, as mentioned above) which was processed by older, less effective ALPS, or was not even processed at all in 2011, will be reprocessed by the latest ALPS facility.

These numbers have been continuously reported by TEPCO.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@ Samit Basu

By the way, why did Korean change the name Yongwang to Hanbit and Uljin to Hanul?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

TEPCO over the years has held several competitions to develop a method to remove the tritium in the waste water at Fukushima but so far nothing has been shown that removes the particular concentration of tritium present in the tanks and is scalable to the amount of water to be dealt with. They investigated a Russian technology that looked promising at first but didn't go anywhere. They invited western firms to offer solutions but nothing came of it. There is one firm offering something they are reluctant to talk about in too much detail they claim will work, although it creates its own stream of mildly radioactive solid waste that must be stored. But even the scientist who led its development said that if the only consideration is what is scientifically sound, just diluting the tritium in a lot of water is the best course of action. Their proposed solution is apparently hideously expensive and, like I said, leaves a solid waste to store for some years.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@ Samit Basu

How do you think about Korean ruling party complained about Wolsong plant?

https://news.naver.com/main/ranking/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=shm&sid1=001&oid=011&aid=0003856056

(which was accused by Korean scientists though, of course)

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Desert Tortoise - No. It would be released over a period of many years. There will be a quantity of tritium contaminated water generated at the site over the duration of its decommissioning so this will go on for decades

This is an absolute load of made up rubbish! The reason they are dumping it is because after decade they have no more space to store it. They have to dump it and dump it quickly to give them space to store more contaminated water that is growing every day. I have no doubt that within a few months all the water will be disposed of into the ocean. Then, they will do away with the storage tanks and just pump the water straight into the ocean unchecked.

A few facts that seem to be eluding many posts. Tritium can be and has been successfully removed from water. However, it is expensive and time consuming. It is easier for the J-Gov to lie and tell people it can’t be done so they can just dump it all into the ocean. The second and most alarming fact missing is the report last year stating that a lot of this water has not been properly filtered and contains many heavier and more dangerous isotopes. Just another thing the J-Gov is lying about.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

How many nuclear power plants are there in the world? And how are they disposing of contaminated coolant water? Don't they dump it onto oceans. Some may dump it into rivers, but rivers flow into oceans. So, it's all the same. Oceans are the dumping grounds for ccontaminated radioactive water.

What then will happen to oceans? It's not simply the matter of "a drop in oceans" as some may claim. Human beings should seek alternative energy to fossile fuel and nuclear energy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Desert Tortoise

There are many successful techniques to remove tritiated water in laboratory level not even in Russia but in Japan as well, which have the similar issues about size and waste.

I agree to discharge filtrated, re-processed, diluted water.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The are no available commercial processes to remove tritium from that much water in a shorter time. Store or release are the only ways. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@ voiceofokinawa

Tritium is also generated by spallation by cosmic ray and the rate is about 10^17 Bq per year.

Tritium generated in all power plants and reprocessing facilities is about 10^16 Bq per year.

Nature is stronger than Human.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Anyone who knows the facts about radiation knows it will do not harm to dilute this slightly radioactive water into the ocean. The level of radiation will be 5 times lower than that required for the drinking water in your home. A banana has more radiation than 500 liters of the water they will release. This is an entirely safe plan. But, it is an emotional and therefore irrational issue that adversary countries are seeking to take advantage of. I feel sorry for the fishermen who have to deal with the marketing issues this will cause.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Putting underground will have also negative impact (happened in the past)

When? / Where?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

TEPCO and the government have been saying that the best way to dispose of the water is to simply release it into the ocean. They claimed that contaminated water had been cleansed by a so-called advanced liquid processing system to the point that virtually all the radionuclides had been reduced to "non-detect" levels. 

> Leaked TEPCO documents, however, showed that varying amounts of 62 radionuclides — including strontium, iodine, cesium and cobalt — have not been removed from the water. 

They already lied about the radioactive level of the contaminated water. We simply do not know how dangerous it is!

The company has also refused to permit independent organizations to test the water that is being stored at the site.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@ Numan

What you pointed out were not lies or secrets or something.

It just means that you are blind to the public record.

Third party measurement is also already determined.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Here’s an idea: you know that starch you put in the used tempura oil to congeal it? Well, dump a whole desert’s worth in the tritiated water until you have wobbly jell-o mounds which could then be used as the main feature of a nuclear-themed amusement park.

That’s bound to be a winner amongst the locals!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If it's that safe, why not use it to water vegetables grown in this country

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If it's that safe, why not use it to water vegetables grown in this country

You often water your vegetables with salt water, do you?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Blaming China on every topic they're related and now who to blame? Yes, Your Japan! Their mentality on this decision is more dangerous than the virus created by Chinese or whoever.

Not feeling bad for humans but for all poor fishes. Tsunami II Karma? Japan must stop!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Bamboo

What you pointed out were not lies or secrets or something.

It just means that you are blind to the public record.

Third party measurement is also already determined.

How about you provide some evidence from these third parties that show reports showing that the water was not cleaned properly contrary to what TEPCO was telling the public are wrong.

Once again, TEPCO has refused to let outsiders inspect. Their actions are no different than China's response to the COVID-19 investigation!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ Numan

You are self inconsistent.

You wrote that "The company has also refused to permit independent organizations to test the water that is being stored at the site."

For this case, "some evidence from these third parties that show reports showing that the water was not cleaned properly contrary to what TEPCO was telling the public are wrong" cannot happen.

About the third party inspection, again, it is already decided. Check the plans how the stored will be discharged.

Your are far a way from public records now, and then feel that things are covered.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Build a nuclear reactor by the sea they said. It's will be great they said.

Government shouldn't interfere with science. Scientists get paid by the government so they have to bow down to them even if they warm of the dangers. Money is what matters in this age, not intelligence or the pursue of knowledge and wisdom.

We wouldn't even have this problem if priorities were in correct order as a species. Home-sapien is still just an ape with clothes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The water is treated at a processing facility on the premises to remove most contaminants but the process cannot remove tritium, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear reactors

I'm not a nuclear experts but a simple google search turned out that in 2018 in Osaka a team of researchers from Kindai University has developed a new filter enabling the removal of water containing radioactive tritium.

Perhaps the government officials involved should give a call to Kindai University?

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180828/p2a/00m/0na/013000c

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China has no say in anything pollution-related. They are the world's biggest polluter and almost all of their food is unsafe for human consumption.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

But Japanese government officials pointed out some other countries with nuclear power plants, including South Korea, have released treated radioactive water from the plants into the environment.

Bulls eye! And I certainly trust the Japanese government more than whatever the CCP and NK regimes are claiming to do.

In the event, releasing Tritium water into the open is standard practise around the world, as Tritium is a) pretty much impossible to remove and b) safe.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The reason this becomes a problem, is not a problem of ok or no.

The Japanese government does not show that the management of contaminated water and purified treated water is accurately separated.

Currently, it is known that 30% has been purified by reprocessing.

So, 70% is left, and how many years will it take to purify, dilute and release? (For example, At the end of eight years Greenpeace announced that 80% of purified water treated with Alps was not properly treated.)

2.The Japanese government has consistently refused to ask a third country maritime expert to measure the pollution level of Alps-treated water in order to relieve the anxiety and opposition of neighboring countries, and to allow someone from neighboring countries to participate in it to check the pollution level.

Unlike in the past, we know very well how much corruption, corruption, and conspiracy come and go in government, regardless of country. 

In addition, I learned many international events created by the cases in which politicians in each country meet their needs for understanding regardless of the will and damage of the people of each country.

So, in these days, if you want to convince people, proof! In other words, isn't it natural that you have to confirm it and give it faith?

They say that they are treated fairly and thoroughly so that there is no concern from neighboring countries, and they ask you to believe based only on the letters and numbers written on the paper handed out by the Japanese government. How would you believe?

And I don't know the reason for what the US said, but... If you're so trusting and thankful, you can help Japan by discharging treated water together off the coast of Hawaii.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is interesting to read all the comments and point the finger to Japan. China is polluting much more and already areas are inhabitant.

Not long time ago nuclear waste was already being disposed in sea by France and England and even the USA. There is enough nuclear was on the bottom of the ocean already which are more concentrated in steal barrels. In Germany a whole village had to move because the cave where the nuclear waste is stored and sealed with concrete is cracking due lack of maintenance.

There is no right way to dispose the waste unless we all want to use fossil fuel again or go back to the dark ages.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@rlaalswls

Currently, it is known that 30% has been purified by reprocessing.

Not correct.

29% is processed by fully equipped ALPS. Reprocessing has not be done yet.

So, 70% is left, and how many years will it take to purify, dilute and release? (For example, At the end of eight years Greenpeace announced that 80% of purified water treated with Alps was not properly treated.)

How many year to purify is not yet decided but in order of decades as reported.

What happened from the 80% to 70% is that the ratio of water which was not purified fully or at all decreased,

as total amount of water increased.

This might have led your misunderstanding of reprocessing.

2.The Japanese government has consistently refused to ask a third country maritime expert to measure the pollution level of Alps-treated water in order to relieve the anxiety and opposition of neighboring countries, and to allow someone from neighboring countries to participate in it to check the pollution level.

Measurement by third party has already been decided. In order to check contamination level, who to be

asked is not maritime expert, but physicists.

For about anxiety, I don't think Korea or China will agree even if other countries agree.

They complains since it's related to Japan. They ignore tritiated water discharging by themselves now.

So, in these days, if you want to convince people, proof! In other words, isn't it natural that you have to confirm it and give it faith?

Proof. Funny word. Is it different from measurement result? Who's result do you think as proof?

Do you think IAEA just read the number and said OK?

They say that they are treated fairly and thoroughly so that there is no concern from neighboring countries, and they ask you to believe based only on the letters and numbers written on the paper handed out by the Japanese government. How would you believe?

Letters and numbers, what do you need else? Special care for your feeling?

If you go data web-page of all measurement, you can check by yourself.

I know that Green Peace says doubtful numbers are shown, but they points are also doubtful.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Totally oppose the decision.

Their claim as far as l know is only "there is no more space. The water is safe enough." No place? What about running a duct to elsewhere? It should be technically possible. Safe? 100%?? Why has it been stored so far then?

If radioactive contamination is found in some decades, intentional criticism would be way harsher than the comfort woman thing and Japan has to compensate it. The government's short sighted decision to get through for now would ruin Japan.

For Japan's own benefit, be patient and come up with a hustle but safe way out.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What's that? A lecture about not polluting from one of the world's biggest polluters? P1ss off China

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A few facts that seem to be eluding many posts. Tritium can be and has been successfully removed from water.

There are three problems with this statement. Number one, what works on a small scale in a lab doesn't always scale up successfully to handle the quantity of water stored at Fukushima. Second, the removal processes create their own waste stream of solid, mildly radioactive waste that has to be stored. Third is the cost, both of the tritium removal and storing/disposing of the solid wastes. However, if the tritium contaminated water is diluted and released in the sea, you do not face those problems. The oceans already have tritium in them from natural processes. The amount proposed to be disposed of is a vanishingly smaller amount of tritium than nature already puts in the sea.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tritium in the Irish sea:

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/radiation/RPII_Tritium_Seawater_Rep_13.pdf

Plenty of similar papers around. The emission of tritium water from nuclear plants is a well-known situation, and nobody makes big deal about it outside of the politically charged fog of propaganda around Fukushima.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tritium in the Irish sea:

There is tritium in all of the world's oceans and its presence has absolutely nothing to do with water released from nuclear reactors. Reactions in the upper atmosphere with cosmic radiation creates tritium in the atmosphere that reacts with ocean water, causing ocean water to carry some of the tritium present in the world. Tritium is ubiquitous. The amount of it in our environment from natural sources dwarfs the small extra amount added by nuclear power. In any event in decades past when nuclear weapons were being detonated in the open air there was far more tritium circulating in the air and ocean water than there is today more than two tritium half lives after the last atmospheric nuclear test. Atmospheric and ocean tritium levels have dropped. Did anyone notice any difference? There are other things doing far more harm to the world's environment than tritium. I am more concerned about the half million or more barrels of DDT sludge dumped in the ocean off California or the plastic trash in the mid Pacific than I am about tritium.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The top ten countries that run nuclear power plants are, in order, as follows:

U.S.A (99), 2. France (58), 3. Japan (42), 4. China (35), 5. Russia (30), 6. South Korea (25), 7. India (21), 8. Canada (19), 9. Ukreine(15), 10. U.K. (15).

The total number of nuclear power plants possesssed by these ten countries are an appalling 359. Are they all absolutely safe and accident-free, by force majeuer or not? I hope so

I think all nuclear power plants should be dismantled and scrapped as Germany has decided. The future shouldn't be dependent on nuclear energy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The total number of nuclear power plants possessed by top ten countries are an appalling 359. I hope they are all absolutely safe and accident-free, by force majeure or not.

I think all nuclear power plants anywhere in the world should be dismantled and scrapped as Germany has decided and is doing. The future shouldn't be dependent on nuclear energy. There's not only the problem of how to dispose of tritium-tainted water but also how to dispose of spent nuclear fuels.

When former Prime Minister Hiroyasu Nakasone embarked on his government's new nuclear energy policy, he propagandized how bright future his new policy promises for Japan. At the time, critiques criticized him by saying building nuclear power plants is like building a house with no sewage equipment (toilets). Has these problems been solved universally in all the countries mentioned above?.

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