politics

Japan, S Korea at odds over wartime history, radioactive water

38 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

round and round in never ending circles,

12 ( +15 / -3 )

What do you expect? That is absolutely "normal".

8 ( +10 / -2 )

South Korea should be more concerned about its neighbor to the north after its response to Biden’s speech.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

A Korean who lives in Japan said that one plus one is two in Japan but in their country, one plus one becomes three or minus three. They are inclined to extremities.

4 ( +15 / -11 )

First foreign ministerial talks since February 2020? This is a good start within a troubled relationship. They should be encouraged to continue to meet and confer. On a regular basis.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

A waste of time, but talking can't hurt.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

South Korea using Fukushima disaster as another card against Japan to complain and trash the country for the next 40+ years or knowing the Koreas, they will complain forever like with every other Issue they have with Japan! Eternal! Forever!

Japan release of the water will be supervise by IAEA, USA, EU, China was invited to join, South Korea can join too.

Japan is following world order, rules already set on such issues which has happened to other countries before and they did the same.

The Fukushima water release will be the most inspected Water in history of mankind.

5 ( +16 / -11 )

Another day, another bout of anti-Japan hatred from South Korea.

SK would be best off focussing on the far greater and more dangerous radioactive products they release into the ocean themselves, than Japans very small and safe IAEA-supported release. But I guess there is no political advantage in that.

Japan and South Korea will never have any relationship at all until Seoul drops their pettiness, hatred and jealousy.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

South Korea is hammering Japan for every little thing.

South Korea should wake up and realize that we’re living in 2021 in the middle of a pandemic and not in 1935.

But Japan also should realize that deny the history facts and think that just throwing money at them and write a formal apologize letter by a prime minister will suffice.

Both countries are extremely nationalistic and stubborn.

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

We should all be concerned about releasing radioactive water into the sea, don't care if Uk, China, USA does it, doesn't mean it's safe or right. No one has the right to destroy another's habitat

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Motegi told an online press conference after the meeting, "We were able to share the view that we cannot leave the Japan-South Korean relationship as it is."

Interpretation: we have made no progress, no agreement.

South Korea under Moon is a lower priority among Japan's diplomatic agenda. FM Motegi is focused on G7 business. Some media's attempt to draw public attention is biased and futile.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@ReasonandWisdomNippon

Japan release of the water will be supervise by IAEA, USA, EU, China was invited to join, South Korea can join too.

So if Korea finds traceable amount of plutonium, strontium, and cesium from released contaminated water pipe during periodic sampling, will Japan immediately stop the release of contaminated water?

It is already well known that ALPS doesn't work well and so called "treated" contaminated water still contains heavy radioactive elements.

@noriahojanen

FM Motegi is focused on G7 business.

Highest priority G7 business is inclusion of Korea, which Japan alone opposes.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

So if Korea finds traceable amount of plutonium, strontium, and cesium from released contaminated water pipe during periodic sampling, will Japan immediately stop the release of contaminated water?

Are you giving us subtle spoilers, Samit? Taking into account the post you are quoting, it almost reads like only Korea will magically find contaminated water. But, if Korea finds contamination, chances are the IAEA and other participants will find the same.

But if it turns out that only Korea finds contamination, it will say more about Korea than Japan.

Highest priority G7 business is inclusion of Korea, which Japan alone opposes.

What? The inclusion of SK into G7 was never a high priority.

Also, Japan is not opposing it currently as they are not even any talks about it right now - this is a matter from last year. And even then, this statement is false because Germany was also opposed to the idea Trump lightly proposed during the time. Two other states were also proposed.

Setting aside that the matter you're stating is from June/July 2020, there were other reasons like Korea's pro-China politics and the pursuit of deeper relationships with their counterparts to the north. So one may argue that the reasons to oppose the inclusion were perfectly rational. And yet, you're deliberately painting it as if Japan did this out of pure spite. Not to mention that the statement doesn't even hold true when examined.

Really makes you think, huh...

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Japan, S Korea at odds over wartime history, radioactive water

what else is new?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Furan

if Korea finds contamination, chances are the IAEA and other participants will find the same.

Of course they will. TEPCO confessed it themselves in 2018.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/japan-plans-release-fukushima-s-contaminated-water-ocean

But in addition to tritium, more dangerous isotopes with longer radioactive lifetimes, such as ruthenium, cobalt, strontium, and plutonium, sometimes slip through the ALPS process, something TEPCO only acknowledged in 2018. The company now says these additional nuclides are present in 71% of the tanks. 

.

The inclusion of SK into G7 was never a high priority.

It is. This is why both US and UK invited Korea in G7 meetings hosted by them.

because Germany was also opposed to the idea Trump lightly proposed during the time. 

Germany was opposed to Russian inclusion. Germany has absolutely no problem with inclusion of Korea. The only G7 country that opposes Korea's inclusion is Japan.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

As long as they stop the release of radioactive water now, who cares what happened a century ago?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

I once lived in South Korea, still know the language, and am interested in the history and culture of the country...I remember when the ROK was a dictatorship, very much caught up in the Cold War. Schoolgirls would compete to see who could weep and scream and tear her clothes the most dramatically in ferocious speeches denouncing Communism. Of course, hostility to the evil regime in the North was quite understandable, but there was, of course, no freedom of speech, and one had to be very circumspect...There was also intense ethnicism, mixed with a chip-on-the-shoulder mentality. With democracy and affluence, some of that has changed over the years--but unevenly. Hatred of the North has yielded to naïveté toward the North, while loathing of Japan has only intensified, turned into a national myth...Are there Japanese who are insufficiently aware of Japan's dark militarist past? Yes. But there are surely also many Japanese who have concluded, not unreasonably, that wallowing in collective guilt has proved to be worse than useless.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Germany was opposed to Russian inclusion. Germany has absolutely no problem with inclusion of Korea. The only G7 country that opposes Korea's inclusion is Japan.

Even if it is true, a country that does not abide by the treaty between nations would deserve to be opposed.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It is already well known that ALPS doesn't work well and so called "treated" contaminated water still contains heavy radioactive elements.

Japan's treated water has been subjected to ALPS treatment twice to meet WHO standards (drinking water standards), which are stricter than IAEA standards. In short, there is no difference from water that exists in nature.

A few years ago, the Japanese press corps received a sample of the treated water by hand.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The Koreans are just sore that Japan was triumphant. Therefore, there's no need to take away Japan's right to dump the multiple meltdown accident water into our oceans. Why are only the Koreans and Chinese picking on Japan? Next thing you know the Philippines will join in too.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

So if Korea finds traceable amount of plutonium, strontium, and cesium from released contaminated water pipe during periodic sampling, will Japan immediately stop the release of contaminated water?

The IAEA has already checked and confirmed that there is no problem.

Now it is Korea's turn to be checked by the IAEA and prove that there is no problem.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Countries where have opposed or concerned against dumping radioactive contaminated water to Pacific are not only South Korea and China.

People in Pacific Islands countries who had been suffered by radioactive contamination from innumerable nuclear test also demand that Don't dump nuclear waste in Pacific.

Nuclear waste water that Japan's govt and TEPCO and Japanese media call as "treated water" still contains 12 kinds of radioactivity such as Strontium or Ruthenium or Cesium over safe limit

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

William77Today  09:22 am JST

But Japan also should realize that deny the history facts and think that just throwing money at them and write a formal apologize letter by a prime minister will suffice.

Both countries are extremely nationalistic and stubborn.

What denial are you talking about? Both the money and the apology from the PM were South Korea's demands in 2015 to reach the "irreversible and permanent" CW Agreement. Japan complied with South Korea;'s requests but Moon ripped it up.

This is not an issue of stubborness or nationalism. It's the inability by South Korea to abide by any agreements and treaties. That does not sit well in a law based international order.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

@Samit

Of course they will. TEPCO confessed it themselves in 2018.

I do agree that Japan winging this is more than counterproductive. However, I do not agree with political fearmongering.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/04/27/national/south-korea-fukushima-water/

The impact of the water release from Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.'s plant on South Korea would be negligible based on the data disclosed by Japan, the Korean Nuclear Society said.

.

It is. This is why both US and UK invited Korea in G7 meetings hosted by them.

I think what you're talking about is Johnson's proposal to turn G7 into D10 - a proposal that, while it exists, is still not agreed on and facing pushback from the EU. And it's not only South Korea who Johnson invited to join.

So, this is a vision by Johnson - nothing that is "high priority" by a long shot. ATM it's just an idea.

Let's wait until June before jumping to conclusions.

Germany was opposed to Russian inclusion. Germany has absolutely no problem with inclusion of Korea. 

The first sentence is correct.

Never said Germany had a problem with Korea specifically, but it doesn't change the fact that Germany (Maas) was initially against Trump's idea of expanding the G7 altogether (that includes Korea), and AFAIK he still is. He only voiced his support for Korea to participate in the summit as a guest for the 47th summit, not to join G7 as a member.

Thus, Germany AND Japan both were opposed to Korea becoming members of G7, albeit for different reasons. And this is why your point is false.

"The G7 and G20 are two sensibly coordinated formats,” “We don't need a G11 or G12."

And Japan was actively opposing Trump's idea for Korea to join G7 as a member state for valid reasons Japan has not voiced any opinion about the invitation issued by Johnson for the coming 47th G7 summit, which is why I wonder why you make this point at a point in time where Japan isn't opposing anything.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

It is already well known that ALPS doesn't work well and so called "treated" contaminated water still contains heavy radioactive elements.

This guy and the link he added talk only half of the story. Isn't this half part known already well enough? (meaning) Everybody knows already that *these *additional nuclides are present in 71% of the tanks.... and that WHY it ended up like that and that how ALPS would refine them again.

You should come back and claim the same when ALPS fail what it insists it can. you have 2 years yet with IAEA and other countries experts checking together.

 

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Oops I forgot.

IF you are concerned that much about Fukushima, try not to hide what exactly has happened to Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant in SOUTH KOREA and share the info for the world community

4 ( +6 / -2 )

In the eyes of the world, the behavior of the military under Imperial Japan was criminal. Japanese should get used to admitting that, the way the Germans have admitted that the Nazi were inherently criminal.

As for the release of "contaminated water" at Fukushima, if the data from the Japanese government is to be believed, then the water is not only safe to release into the ocean, it is safe to consume. It is cleaner than the water that most people drink on a daily basis.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

1glennToday  07:03 pm JST

In the eyes of the world, the behavior of the military under Imperial Japan was criminal. Japanese should get used to admitting that, the way the Germans have admitted that the Nazi were inherently criminal.

In the "Eyes of the world", including all the Allied WWII victor nations, Japan has apologized and made compensation, and has lead 75 years of a model peaceful country. The only nations that refuse to accept this and use WWII anti-Japan sentiment as a diplomatic and poltical tool are South Korea, which was part of Imperial Japan during WWII and the PRC, which did not even exist until 4 years after WWII ended.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Very normal especially about the water.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The Japanese government has consistently rejected the verification of Alps treated water and participation in neighboring countries by experts from third countries.

They are cooperating only with the US and EAIA. They also analyzed only 29% of purified water and said that the ocean release was reasonable, and that they would monitor it in the future.

The detailed plans and future progress have not been announced at all.

Of course, it hasn't even announced whether neighboring countries will participate.

And the US still bans the import of seafood from Fukushima.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Japan says its neighbors are politically opposed to the polluted water in the ocean, but all countries around the world are reporting on it, but they haven't criticized Korea or China or delivered anything that represents Japan's position.

In other words, since the US and the IAEA agreed, there is no word, but the concern about the discharge of treated water to the ocean is the same.

Think of Japan's accusations against Russia during the Chernobyl accident.

Moreover, it is natural to oppose the fact that as a country next to it, it is refused to participate in the process of discharging treated water to the ocean, and is asked to trust only by providing documents.

Even in the US, opposing articles are being posted.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/04/23/if-fukushimas-water-is-safe-then-drink-it/

https://www.adn.com/opinions/2021/02/05/president-biden-must-protect-and-restore-alaskas-troubled-oceans/

It is also criticized in Scotland.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-japans-plan-to-dump-radioactive-waste-water-in-pacific-ocean-is-cowardly-and-wrong-dr-richard-dixon-3210547

In addition to this, you can find numerous criticism articles.

This is a matter of everything that has life.

So don't make a claim of political opposition.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It really doesn't matter what the iaea has to say. They're coopted because they rely on nuclear for their livelihoods and jobs. The iaea doesn't have a stake in this like countries or people do. From what I understand, the who is not allowed to say anything different than the iaea because of an agreement that was made in the 50s to protect nuclear interests from criticism and to prevent rumors, AKA, the truth from being known. Releasing polluted water from an accident is not the same as best use practices for a reactor so criticism about other countries releases are not the same in that sense because they are controlled, not that it's right I might add.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Chung voiced "deep concerns" that Japan made the decision on the planned discharge of wastewater without sufficient prior consultation with neighboring countries, the South Korean ministry said, according to Yonhap News Agency.

If today's Sankei Shimbun report, "Treated water also released by China, South Korea", is correct, why should the two countries blame Japan only? According to the said article, the Kori nuclear power plant near Busan released 5 billion Bqs of Alps-treated water into the sea in 2018, China's Hockchiang nuclear power plant in Fujian 5.3 billion Bqs in 2020 while Japan's planned release is to be 2.2 billion Bqs over several decades.

I, for one, am opposed to nuclear power plants built anywhere in the world for energy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I, for one, am opposed to nuclear power plants built anywhere in the world for energy and hence for cheep money.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I, for one, am opposed to nuclear power plants built anywhere in the world for energy and hence for cheep money.

Ultimately some form of nuclear power is going to be essential to keep the lights on and generate power for electric trains, cars and the like. I'm an economist by training and this has nothing at all to do with "cheap money". Without electric power life as we know it stops. Is that what you prefer? Solar and wind power are intermittent. There is currently no practical way to store enough power to power a grid when the solar and wind power are off line. That means something has to generate the base load. Hydroelectric dams have lots of their own problems including the little detail that dam failures have killed vastly more people than nuclear power mishaps. Thousands more. Add in their deleterious effects on migratory fish, sedimentation that often deprives river deltas of the sediment necessary to maintain them while filling the reservoir behind the dam, water temperature changes that harm fish, etc. And even if battery power is sorted out to the point it can keep the lights on all night, making and disposing of batteries is terribly polluting and some of the pollutants are highly toxic. As bad as nuclear waste in some cases as it remains toxic forever and always seems to find a way into the groundwater.

Nuclear power is not inherently unsafe. But it does require a very high level of training and a leadership that places safety above other considerations. That is entirely possible to do. Waste can be reprocessed and reused. It does not have to become a disposal problem. Too many people see "nuclear" and react emotionally and not rationally. That has to stop. Every other alternative power source has major problems of their own to overcome and so far none of the "renewables" will keep the lights and air conditioning on during a hot, humid windless summer night. Nuclear power will.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nuclear energy is a failed program with new builds costing about $6500 per kW for a reactor. In more than 50 years, some countries have achieved nuclear energy with France being the biggest generator. But on a world level, it has only managed to achieve about 14% of total power because the majority of countries can't afford it.

Japan is trying to deal with a Level 7 nuclear disaster, second only to Chernobyl. It will cost more than ¥50 trillion before and if it's ever over. The power companies have applied to decommission about 22 reactors over the next 30-50 years.

There will be millions of tons of nuclear waste and the government does not have a location where it can be safely stored for the next 10,000 years.

In Japan, nuclear energy will end by default. No new plants will be built.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan now has 45.5 tons of separated plutonium--8.9 tons at home, and 36.6 tons in Britain and France, where spent fuel from Japanese nuclear plants has been reprocessed and stored because Japan lacks a plant to produce MOX fuel containing plutonium at home. The amount is enough to make about 6,000 atomic bombs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise,

zihchi responds to your post clearly and succinctly.

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