World Insights: Science should guide Fukushima wastewater release plan, Pacific leaders say
File photo taken on Oct. 12, 2017 shows huge tanks that store contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan
– Civil society groups in Japan and many international organizations have voiced objections to the Fukushima wastewater release plan, citing a lack of a practical demonstration and its potential threat to society and marine ecology.
– Analysts believe that Japan should not ignore the concerns and livelihoods of Pacific islanders.
SUVA, Feb. 26 (Xinhua) — Pacific leaders on Friday wrapped up the two-day Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Special Leaders’ Retreat in Fiji, where Japan’s Fukushima wastewater release plan was in the limelight.
The PIF rotating chair underlined in a statement that science and data should guide political decisions on Japan’s proposed discharge of treated radioactive wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea.
The outgoing chair and Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, together with other PIF leaders, believes the decision is not as simple as a domestic issue of Japan, but concerns the South Pacific island countries and beyond.
Given that related data and evidence provided by Japan are far from independent or verifiable, the PIF has called on the country repeatedly to delay the discharge plan.
People rally to protest against the Japanese government’s decision to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea, in Tokyo, capital of Japan, April 13, 2021.
CRITICISM FROM INT’L COMMUNITY
Civil society groups in Japan and many international organizations have also voiced objections to the plan, citing a lack of a practical demonstration and its potential threat to society and marine ecology.
Over the past years, fishermen in neighboring countries have staged several rallies, calling for immediate stop to the “grave criminal act” of releasing radioactive water into the sea. Within Japan, local civic groups have organized protests outside the government house of Fukushima Prefecture.
Japan’s unilateral push to discharge radioactive wastewater from its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean is irresponsible and harmful, South Korean green activists have said.
“The Pacific Ocean is not the sea of Japan, but the sea of everybody … Pollutants will flow to neighboring countries in a situation that a lot of radioactive materials have already been released and contaminated (the marine ecosystem),” Ahn Jae-hun, energy and climate change director at the Korea Federation for Environment Movement, told Xinhua.
The Japanese government’s decision to discharge the contaminated water into the sea when there are alternatives such as long-term storage violates the precautionary principle recognized by the international community, Greenpeace Seoul Office has said. Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning network for environment protection.
“We must prevent action that will lead or mislead us toward another major nuclear contamination disaster at the hands of others,” said PIF Secretary General Henry Puna.
Take a look at how Japan proceeded with that.
The Japanese government decided in April 2021 to release more than one million tons of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean this spring.
Three months later, Japan greenlit the discharge plan while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s task force was still conducting the review mission.
Earlier this year, Japan unilaterally announced that it would start discharging the radioactive water in spring or summer, just before the agency’s task force arrives in Japan for review.
A poster to boycott Japanese products is seen in a supermarket to protest against Japan’s decision to dump radioactive wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean, in Seoul, South Korea, April 14, 2021.
PACIFIC OPPOSITION
Pacific island countries unanimously oppose Japan’s release plan for multiple reasons, citing ecological fragility, economic dependence on the fisheries industry, and the devastating effects of radioactive pollution caused by Western nuclear testing.
First, Pacific island countries are concerned that the released radioactive substances will spread with ocean currents and tides, risking contaminating fish. As more than half of the world’s tuna comes from the Pacific Ocean, a potentially contaminated environment could hurt the fisheries that those countries rely on.
Second, the Pacific Ocean’s delicate ecology may come under threat. If the wastewater release leads to an ecological disaster, the vulnerable island residents will leave their homes, causing an ecological and survival crisis that will deal a heavy blow to the entire Pacific region.
Last, Western countries have conducted a dazzling array of nuclear tests in the Pacific since the mid-20th century, resulting in shocking radioactive pollution and ecological disasters. These have left painful memories for islanders, who have been sensitive to the wastewater issue.
Analysts believe that Japan should not ignore the concerns and livelihoods of Pacific islanders. Neither should it dump the wastewater into the sea until disputes are settled over the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of radioactivity data, the effectiveness of purification equipment and the uncertainty of environmental impact, they added.
https://english.news.cn/20230225/1aa34ef7e18444c99e8a1e84a8b691b7/c.html
Academic speaks out against Japan’s wastewater plan for Pacific
At the heart of this special leaders’ retreat is the unity and strength of our one BluePacific, says outgoing forum chair and Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
Feb 24 2023
A leading Pacific voice in academia is speaking out against Japan’s plan to dump contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean.
University of Auckland associate dean Pacific Sir Collin Tukuitonga is vehemently opposed to the decision to release 1.25 million litres of treated wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
“While the science of this issue could perhaps be argued either way, it is completely unacceptable to be dumping contaminated wastewater into our Pacific Ocean,” Tukuitonga said.
“Pacific peoples rely on the ocean for our livelihoods and to feed our families. We are the guardians of the largest and most precious ocean in the world. There is absolutely no way that the Pacific should be the dumping ground for this waste.”
An earthquake in March 2011 followed by a tsunami caused major damage to the plant and knocked out its cooling system.
The nuclear power plant is now defunct but to keep the reactors from overheating hundreds of tonnes of water are pumped through the reactors every day.
University of Auckland academic Sir Collin Tukuitonga has joined the chorus of Pacific voices opposed to a plan to dump treated wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.
As Japan is running out of space to store this contaminated water, it plans to dump the treated wastewater directly into the Pacific.
Despite protests the dumping is expected to start some time this year and continue for 30 to 40 years.
Many Pacific nations have voiced opposition to the plan including Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown, who is leading a delegation to Japan to present the case against the proposal.
Tukuitonga said it was important that larger Pacific nations such as Aotearoa New Zealand use their voices to oppose the dumping.
“New Zealand has a responsibility to its partners in the region to stand up to Japan for its lack of consideration for Pacific peoples living in the region who heavily rely on the ocean for their livelihoods,” he said.
The matter was high on the agenda at the Special Pacific Leaders Retreat in Fiji on Friday.
World dreads Japan’s date with disaster
2023-02-24
Photographs and videos from the site of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northeastern Japan, showing workers preparing to release nuclear wastewater into the ocean, are flooding social networking sites.
Japan plans to start dumping nuclear waste water into the ocean this spring. Twelve years after the meltdown at the plant, caused by a deadly tsunami triggered by an earthquake, Japan is all set to inconvenience the world for its own convenience.
It is clear from developments how Japan prepared for this move. Although Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, which owns the now defunct nuclear plant, promised in 2015 that it would not dump nuclear waste water into the ocean, it “found” evidence of new radioactive contamination amid the ruins in March 2021. A month later, TEPCO claimed the tanks in which it was collecting nuclear contaminated water would get filled up by the autumn of 2022, necessitating its dumping into the ocean.
The Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority, a highly “independent “agency, approved TEPCO’s plan in July 2022. On Feb 22, it approved the reviewing documents for the plan, which will officially pass after soliciting public opinion.
But the seemingly legal procedures do not make Japan’s move legitimate. On the contrary, if the nuclear waste water is “safe” after processing, as it claims, why can’t Japan find a use for it? Its leaders make apologetic gestures, but don’t want to prevent more damage from being done.
Maybe the countries and regions that are going to be affected should sue Japan in international courts, sanction the companies responsible, and even boycott products from Japan for safety’s sake. And do it while being polite all the time.
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202302/24/WS63f7f644a31057c47ebb08c4.html
Japan not only dumps wastewater but also morality
Illustration: Chen Xia/Global Times
Feb 23, 2023
Although Japan’s plan to dump nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by the international community, Tokyo is still going its own way and speeding up the plan to make the rest of the world pay for it.
According to the Japan Times, government sources said on Wednesday that Japan will seek the endorsement of the G7 nations for its plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water from its crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture into the Pacific Ocean when it hosts a meeting of the group’s energy ministers in April.
On March 11, 2011, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake occurred off the coast of northeastern Japan and triggered a tsunami, resulting in a nuclear leak at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Faced with many options for dealing with nuclear-contaminated water, the Japanese government chose to dump it in the ocean because it takes the shortest time and costs the least.
Japan’s attempt to draw other G7 members over to its side is through hosting a G7 meeting, a platform where it is easiest to reach consensus. Tokyo’s aim is very obvious. This is also a kind of public opinion manipulation to cover up its own wrongdoing.
Dumping nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has not only sparked controversy within the country, but also met with strong opposition from neighboring countries such as China, South Korea, and Russia. Therefore, Tokyo wants the Western camp to endorse it in order to find legitimacy for its actions.
If the “treated water” claimed by the Japanese government is really safe, why is it being dumped into the Pacific Ocean? Today, when water resources are so tight, the Japanese government can use “treated water” for irrigation, breeding, or other purposes. Similarly, the Japanese government insists that the dump of nuclear-contaminated water is under the supervision of the international community, but why did it arbitrarily decide before the International Atomic Energy Agency completed its supervision? Tokyo’s guilt is self-evident.
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, China, Russia, South Korea, and other countries were the first to give Japan a helping hand. However, Japan returned their kindness by ignoring the lives, health, and safety of people in neighboring countries.
The US, which claims human rights come first, is turning a blind eye to Japan’s move. The US is also a victim of the accident. A large amount of pollutants have drifted from west to east to the US coast due to ocean circulation along the North Pacific Current. Nevertheless, in order to maintain the alliance between the US and Japan and achieve the goal of dominating East Asia, Washington continues to tolerate Tokyo.
Indeed, it is not just the US that turns a blind eye to Japan on certain issues; Japan does the same with the US on many things. For instance, the whole world is paying close attention to whether Washington planned the Nord Stream explosion, but the Japanese government, which has always been actively involved in international affairs, has kept a low profile this time. In a sense, Japan and the US are covering up each other’s scandals. In order to maintain the bond of the so-called alliance between them, they do not hesitate to ignore facts and violate science.
After the nuclear-contaminated water is dumped into the sea, it will quickly spread to most parts of the Pacific Ocean, thereby affecting the global oceans. According to marine biologists, radiation will be absorbed by marine organisms and enter the human body along the food chain, which is a major threat to the Pacific Rim countries and the ecosystem on which all human beings depend.
It is not a matter that relates to a single country. Rather, it is a matter of the security of neighboring countries and sustainable security of the international sea food chain, and the health of future generations. Therefore, it deserves high attention from the international community. Some said Japan’s dumping of nuclear-contaminated water has got the approval from its big brother, the US. However, this is both a scientific and humanitarian issue. Japan should explain it to the world, not Washington, in an open and transparent manner. It should also work with relevant international organizations and scientists from neighboring countries.
G7 are not in a position to give scientific evaluation of Japan’s discharge of Fukushima contaminated water. If they do agree on a statement that endorses Japan’s plan, they have to bear the responsibilities for what Japan should bear.
Japan’s attempt to mislead international public opinion and woo the Western bloc is irresponsible and will not work. Japan is not only dumping nuclear-contaminated water, but also its morality too. A Japan that tampers with its history of aggression, a Japan that disrupts the international order, and a Japan that harms the homeland of mankind, will never be able to stand up with dignity.
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Liu Zixuan based on an interview with Liu Jiangyong, vice dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Japan beefs up moves in seeking G7 support for wastewater dump
Action to cause irreversible damage to environment, human health: experts
Feb 23, 2023
Amid backlash from domestic and the international community, the Japanese government reportedly is to seek the endorsement of the Group of Seven (G7) nations for its controversial plan to discharge radioactive contaminated wastewater from the crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture into the Pacific Ocean. Analysts criticized countries that are giving a go-ahead signal to Japan’s irresponsible dumping plan, noting they will share the shame of making irreversible damage to maritime environment and human health.
As this year’s chair, Japan is seeking to include a phrase that says the G7 members “welcome” its “transparent” approach toward the disposal of the treated water in a document to be released after the April 15 to 16 gathering in Sapporo, Japanese media Kyodo News reported citing government sources.
In January, the Japanese government and the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, announced the plan to begin discharging the treated water around this spring or summer, with construction work underway to install an undersea tunnel and other necessary facilities.
Analysts said that Japan has beefed up efforts in soliciting support from the US and Western countries for its disposal of the Fukushima radioactive contaminated wastewater and in promoting its narrative of the “safety” of the wastewater amid growing oppositions from domestic public, neighboring countries and other stakeholders.
Against the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis and current tense Korean Peninsula situation, Japan is working to create the momentum for its dumping plan especially among Western countries as other G7 nations are also members of NATO and the military pact is seeking closer cooperation with Japan, Da Zhigang, director of the Institute of Northeast Asian Studies at the Heilongjiang Provincial Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times.
This is not the first time for Japan to try to include the Fukushima nuclear wastewater issue into the G7 declaration. In May 2016, after the Ise-Shima Summit in Japan, the G7 Leaders’ Declaration wrote about “steady progress on decommissioning and treatment of contaminated water” as well as “Japan’s efforts to proceed in an open and transparent manner in close communication with the international community.”
The US also expressed support for its close ally in Asia. In April 2021, after the Japanese government mentioned the plan to release more than 1 million metric tons of treated radioactive water, the US Department of State said in a statement that Japan “appears to have adopted an approach in accordance with globally accepted nuclear safety standards.”
However, fancy words from the US and the G7 cannot gloss over the increasing questions over the safety of the “treated” wastewater, the transparency of Japan’s processing of the contaminated water and its consultations on the disposal with related neighboring countries, analysts said.
Pacific island nations also urged Japan to delay the release of the contaminated water over fears fisheries will be contaminated and that the health of people will be affected. For example, during a livestreamed public meeting in Suva, Fiji on January 18, the Pacific Island Forum Secretary General Henry Puna said, “Our region is steadfast that there be no discharge until all parties verify it is safe.”
At the Security Council session on February 14 over Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, both representatives from China and Russia expressed concerns over the issue. Ambassador Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China to the UN, made China’s position clear, stressing that “Japan’s discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea will severely endanger the global marine environment, ecosystems, and the lives and health of people of all countries.”
“Japan has been bent on forcibly approving the discharge program of the nuclear contaminated water and has been accelerating the preparations for the discharge. Such behavior is extremely irresponsible,” said Zhang.
Lingering threats
The Japanese government sees the plan of dumping the contaminated water into the ocean as the most “economic” way to get rid of the burden from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant. But people in Japan, neighboring countries and the world will pay the price given the irreversible damage to environment and human health, Zhou Yongsheng, deputy director of the Japanese Studies Center at China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.
The Japanese government will be condemned and held accountable if it irresponsibly discharges contaminated nuclear wastewater into the ocean and countries that give green light to Tokyo’s moves will also share the shame, said Zhou.
Concerns expressed by UN human rights experts, global nongovernmental organizations and activists from all over the world and their own countries may make G7 countries to consider more than only political leverage, analysts said.
As far back as 2021, independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council have expressed deep regret on Japan’s decision to release contaminated water into the ocean.
They noted that the water processing technology known as ALPS had failed to completely remove radioactive concentrations in most of the contaminated water stored in tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The radioactive hazards of tritium in the water, which cannot be removed, have been underestimated and can be detrimental to humans and pose threat to the environment for over 100 years.
Japanese fisheries and Japanese people will be the first to be affected and the whole world will also suffer as oceans are linked. If the US and other G7 nations are the real protectors of the environment and human rights as they like to trumpet, they should have opposed Japanese government’s transboundary environmental harms, said Zhou.
As Japanese activists have staged protests against the government’s discharge plan for years, analysts called on more countries to join them and the neighboring countries in urging the Japanese government to stop making irreparable damage to the world.
Trials to reuse decontaminated soil around Tokyo postponed
Feb. 24, 2023
Japan’s government is postponing trials in the Tokyo area to reuse soil that was decontaminated following the 2011 nuclear accident due to complaints from residents. They would have been the first of their kind outside Fukushima Prefecture.
The trials were set to start by the end of March in Tokyo’s Shinjuku Ward and Tokorozawa City in neighboring Saitama Prefecture.
But Environment Ministry officials say residents complained and raised concerns at briefing sessions in December.
They say some people questioned why their neighborhood was chosen, and that others complained about a lack of information.
The mayor of Tokorozawa has also been hesitant, as the majority of a local community group opposes the plan.
Ministry officials say they will consider when to start the trials after providing thorough explanations to the residents.
Soil exposed to radioactive fallout from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has been cleansed and stored.
The government plans to reuse it for public works projects, as long as the concentration of radioactive substances meets certain safety standards.
Science should guide Fukushima wastewater release plan, Pacific leaders say
2023-02-26
SUVA – Pacific leaders on Friday wrapped up the two-day Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Special Leaders’ Retreat in Fiji, where Japan’s Fukushima wastewater release plan was in the limelight.
The PIF rotating chair underlined in a statement that science and data should guide political decisions on Japan’s proposed discharge of treated radioactive wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea.
The outgoing chair and Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, together with other PIF leaders, believes the decision is not as simple as a domestic issue of Japan, but concerns the South Pacific island countries and beyond.
Given that related data and evidence provided by Japan are far from independent or verifiable, the PIF has called on the country repeatedly to delay the discharge plan.
CRITICISM FROM INTL COMMUNITY
Civil society groups in Japan and many international organizations have also voiced objections to the plan, citing a lack of a practical demonstration and its potential threat to society and marine ecology.
Over the past years, fishermen in neighboring countries have staged several rallies, calling for immediate stop to the “grave criminal act” of releasing radioactive water into the sea. Within Japan, local civic groups have organized protests outside the government house of Fukushima Prefecture.
Japan’s unilateral push to discharge radioactive wastewater from its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean is irresponsible and harmful, South Korean green activists have said.
“The Pacific Ocean is not the sea of Japan, but the sea of everybody … Pollutants will flow to neighboring countries in a situation that a lot of radioactive materials have already been released and contaminated (the marine ecosystem),” Ahn Jae-hun, energy and climate change director at the Korea Federation for Environment Movement, told Xinhua.
The Japanese government’s decision to discharge the contaminated water into the sea when there are alternatives such as long-term storage violates the precautionary principle recognized by the international community, Greenpeace Seoul Office has said. Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning network for environment protection.
“We must prevent action that will lead or mislead us toward another major nuclear contamination disaster at the hands of others,” said PIF Secretary General Henry Puna.
Take a look at how Japan proceeded with that.
The Japanese government decided in April 2021 to release more than one million tons of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean this spring.
Three months later, Japan greenlit the discharge plan while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s task force was still conducting the review mission.
Earlier this year, Japan unilaterally announced that it would start discharging the radioactive water in spring or summer, just before the agency’s task force arrives in Japan for review.
PACIFIC OPPOSITION
Pacific island countries unanimously oppose Japan’s release plan for multiple reasons, citing ecological fragility, economic dependence on the fisheries industry, and the devastating effects of radioactive pollution caused by Western nuclear testing.
First, Pacific island countries are concerned that the released radioactive substances will spread with ocean currents and tides, risking contaminating fish. As more than half of the world’s tuna comes from the Pacific Ocean, a potentially contaminated environment could hurt the fisheries that those countries rely on.
Second, the Pacific Ocean’s delicate ecology may come under threat. If the wastewater release leads to an ecological disaster, the vulnerable island residents will leave their homes, causing an ecological and survival crisis that will deal a heavy blow to the entire Pacific region.
Last, Western countries have conducted a dazzling array of nuclear tests in the Pacific since the mid-20th century, resulting in shocking radioactive pollution and ecological disasters. These have left painful memories for islanders, who have been sensitive to the wastewater issue.
Analysts believe that Japan should not ignore the concerns and livelihoods of Pacific islanders. Neither should it dump the wastewater into the sea until disputes are settled over the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of radioactivity data, the effectiveness of purification equipment and the uncertainty of environmental impact, they added.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202302/26/WS63faa2fca31057c47ebb0e4b.html
Tokyo, Saitama residents say ‘no’ to living near Fukushima soil
The flower bed in Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden where decontaminated soil from Fukushima Prefecture will be reused
February 25, 2023
Residents of Tokyo and Saitama are up in arms at an Environment Ministry plan to reuse decontaminated soil from Fukushima Prefecture in their midst, including a major park in the capital’s Shinjuku district.
They formally submitted requests on Feb. 24 asking to suspend the plan to distribute the soil that was formerly contaminated from radioactive fallout due to the 2011 triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The plan, announced in December, is aimed at reducing the volume that would go to the final storage site.
One potential test site is Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden in the heart of Tokyo.
At a meeting on Feb. 24 between about 50 local residents and Environment Ministry officials, a request was submitted asking to cancel the plan as well as holding explanatory meetings about the project.
After the meeting, one of the residents, Kunikazu Hirai, 70, said, “We are angry at the danger of having soil that was once contaminated with radiation brought right next door to us.”
According to Environment Ministry officials, there were about 1.2 million visitors to Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden in fiscal 2021, although annual visitors numbered about 2 million prior to the novel coronavirus pandemic.
The two other candidate test sites are the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, and the National Environmental Research and Training Institute in Tokorozawa, Saitama Prefecture.
All three sites are managed by the Environment Ministry and officials believe that consent of local residents is not needed to proceed with their plan.
However, Saitama residents not only attended the Feb. 24 meeting with Environment Ministry officials but also submitted their own request to stop the project.
The unpopularity of the plan is understandable. A proposal to reuse soil in two municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture went nowhere after local residents raised strong opposition.
Only soil decontaminated to levels below 8,000 becquerels per kilogram will be used in the trial runs.
The plan for Tokyo calls for reusing the soil in a flower bed in an area of Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden that would be off-limits to the public. The flower bed would be 10 meters by 3 meters with a hole dug 1 meter deep.
A plastic sheet will be placed in the hole before about six cubic meters of decontaminated soil covers it. A 50-centimeter layer of soil will be placed on top of the decontaminated soil.
The water collected in the sheet will be moved to an adjacent tank and measured for radiation levels. If the levels are under government standards, the water would be released into the sewage system.
The Environment Ministry held an explanatory meeting on Dec. 21, but only 28 people showed up, in large part, because notification of the scheduled meeting was given at the last minute.
Shinjuku Mayor Kenichi Yoshizumi said while the project was completely in the hands of the central government, he expressed dissatisfaction at the explanation and documents presented by the Environment Ministry, which he called “difficult to understand.”
Tokorozawa residents raised objections at an explanatory meeting held in their community in January, and Mayor Masato Fujimoto said it would be difficult for the project to proceed if residents were opposed.
Kenichi Oshima, a professor of environmental economics at Ryukoku University in Kyoto, said the ministry likely wanted to conduct the trial in Tokyo to attract more attention and gain understanding.
But he added, “What has to be paid attention to is not to create a dispute between various regions by having the central government pressuring localities with comments such as, ‘Are you saying you will not cooperate to help Fukushima Prefecture?’”
Decontaminated Soil Planned for Shinjuku Gyoen, Japan “Aware of Safety” Opposition in Various Locations
Image of flower beds using decontaminated soil
February 25, 2023
On February 24, some residents of Shinjuku Gyoen (Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo), one of the candidate sites for a demonstration project by the Ministry of the Environment to reuse decontaminated soil from the decontamination process following the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, submitted a request to the ministry to stop the project. The Ministry said, “We want as many people as possible to know the safety of the project. The gap between the two parties has not been closed.
A citizens’ group consisting of local residents handed a letter to ministry officials at the House of Councilors building (Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo), demanding the suspension of the project, a detailed explanation of the project, and the holding of a public meeting to explain the project. About 50 people attended the meeting.
According to the ministry, the number of visitors to Shinjuku Gyoen was approximately 1.2 million in FY2021, and before the Corona disaster, the number had remained at approximately 2 million.
After the offer was made, Shintaro Fujii, Assistant Counselor in charge of the Ministry’s Environmental Restoration Project Office, told the press, “We will answer questions and opinions politely and consider holding additional explanatory meetings in consultation with Shinjuku City.
Kunikazu Hirai, 70, one of the sponsors of the citizens’ group, told the press, “We are angry about the danger of radioactive soil coming to our neighborhood. The group was joined by a group that is working against the project in Tokorozawa City, Saitama Prefecture, another candidate site for the project.
Last December, the ministry announced that it was considering starting the project at three facilities under its control, including Shinjuku, Tokorozawa, and Tsukuba City in Ibaraki Prefecture. At Shinjuku Gyoen, where public access is restricted, the ministry plans to reuse decontaminated soil with a radioactivity level of less than 8,000 becquerels per kilogram to create flower beds. The start date has not yet been determined.
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR2S66V9R2SOXIE009.html?iref=pc_photo_gallery_bottom
Taro Kono also sounded the alarm about the dangers of spent fuel pools Attacks on nuclear power plants became a reality with the invasion of Ukraine
Taro Kono in Nagoya City on January 28, 2011.
February 22, 2023
It will be one year on the 24th since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During this period, attacks on nuclear power plants shocked the world. When considering preparedness in Japan, the handling of spent nuclear fuel becomes important. Once it finishes its role in the reactor, it is mainly stored in storage pools, but that group and those politicians see the vulnerability of the pools as a problem. If they are left as they are now, they will become a “weak spot” in the event of an attack on a nuclear power plant, which could result in extensive damage. The Kishida administration should not focus its efforts only on nuclear power plant operation. (Naoaki Nishida and Yuichiro Yamada)
◆Russia targeted nuclear power plants immediately after the invasion.
On the 18th, the Institute for the Study of War, a U.S. think tank, expressed the following opinion: “The Russian media is advocating an attack on Ukraine’s nuclear facilities in order to cut off the power supply to the plants.
The next day, the 19th. The following day, on the 19th, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine issued a statement regarding the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which has been occupied by Russian troops and turned into a military base. It accused Russia of refusing to replace the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts stationed there to ensure safety.
Attacks on the plant were feared early on. As early as last January, Sergiy Korsunsky, Ukraine’s ambassador to Japan, expressed concern. The bad predictions were right on target, and nuclear power plants were targeted immediately after the Russian invasion.
The attack continued, and a bomb landed near a spent nuclear fuel storage facility. The Russians claimed that they had been attacked from the Ukrainian side and that the greatest risk from the attack was not the reactor but the spent fuel storage facility.
Spent nuclear fuel, which can cause extensive damage, is made from uranium. It is used in nuclear reactors for four to five years and then removed.
According to Chihiro Uesawa of the Nuclear Data and Information Center, the amount of heat generated and radiation levels remain high even under these conditions. In Japan, the heat value is mainly stored in a storage pool inside the reactor building, and water is circulated to lower the heat value and other parameters.
Storage pools are not the only storage method. There is also a type of cask called a “dry cask,” which is cooled for five to six years in a pool and then placed in a metal container and cooled by air circulation. The sturdier casks are several steps ahead of the dry casks in terms of safety, but due to cost considerations, the use of dry casks is still on the road to widespread use. Compared to Europe, dry casks have lagged behind.
◆“Vulnerable to external attacks,” points out…
After the invasion of Ukraine, Yuki Kobayashi, a researcher at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, has been raising the issue of the vulnerability of storage pools.
On the foundation’s website, he wrote, “The reactors are made of steel and are protected by a containment vessel, which has a certain degree of robustness against external attacks,” but he also pointed out that the spent fuel storage “often does not have a multiple protection system,” “is vulnerable to external attacks,” and “if the spent fuel is exposed to the atmosphere (e.g., because the water runs out), it will be exposed to high concentrations of radiation over a wide area. If the spent fuel is exposed to the atmosphere (e.g., when the water runs out), high concentrations of radiation will be emitted over a wide area.
When the hydrogen explosion occurred in the Unit 4 reactor of TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the possibility of an anomaly occurring in the spent nuclear fuel storage pool was discussed. When interviewed, Kobayashi said, “Even after the Fukushima accident, Japan had not decided what measures to take. It can be said that we were somewhat naive in our understanding of the situation.
The late Ryoichi Sasakawa was honorary chairman of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. Shunichi Yamashita, vice president of Fukushima Medical University, is a trustee of the Sasakawa Health Foundation, another organization that is a descendant of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. In a lecture after the Fukushima nuclear accident, he expressed his optimism, saying, “The effects of radiation will not come as long as you are smiling and laughing.
The Sasakawa Peace Foundation also warned of the vulnerability of the storage pools. Uesawa, mentioned above, also spoke of the vulnerability of the storage pool, saying, “If the storage pool and other facilities are destroyed in an emergency, the buildings will be inaccessible. This would cause an irreversible situation.
◆Taro Kono, who was a member of the opposition party, also called it “a potential weak point.
In the past, some have pointed out the fragility of the storage pools for spent nuclear fuel.
The vulnerability of the spent fuel pools became clear after 3.11.” “How will the security system be changed?”
The speaker was Taro Kono, the current digital minister. He is the current digital minister. In November 2011, a little more than six months after the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, he asked these questions at a meeting of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Monitoring the Settlement of Accounts. This was when he was a member of the opposition party. In September 2012, he wrote on his blog, “Nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools are potential weak points that could be targeted by terrorists or missiles.
Does he think the same way now as he did then? We asked him through his office, but had not received an answer by the evening of September 21.
So how is the Kishida administration handling the situation?
At a Lower House Budget Committee meeting last October, Katsuya Okada, secretary general of the Democratic Party of Japan’s Constitutional Democratic Party, asked, “Spent nuclear fuel in the pool is a real nuisance,” and “What would happen if a missile hit us? He asked that the spent fuel be removed from the storage pool and transferred to a dry cask in a metal container to increase protection.
In response, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, said, “The Nuclear Regulation Authority is in charge of this issue centrally” and “METI would like to refrain from doing so.
◆The Nuclear Regulation Authority “is virtually unable to do so.
In March of last year, immediately after the invasion of Ukraine, Toyoshi Sarada, then chairman of the Regulatory Commission, said at a press conference that “we have no plan to discuss a facility that is robust against armed attack, and it is virtually impossible. He then went on to say that, in general terms, “dry casks are more defensible than spent fuel pools. Shinsuke Yamanaka, the current chairman of the committee, echoes this view.
A spokesperson for the Regulatory Commission said, “There is no change in our view that the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law does not assume an armed attack. There is no indication that the Regulatory Commission has given a new directive to switch to dry casks as a counterterrorism measure,” he clarified.
Masashi Goto, a former nuclear power plant design engineer, said, “The power companies are planning to move to casks, but the fuel must be cooled in a pool after use before being moved. This takes a considerable amount of time,” he said, pointing out that as long as nuclear power plants continue to operate, storage in storage pools is an unavoidable problem.
He resents the Kishida administration’s bluntness, saying, “There are major risks, such as accidents and terrorism. Despite the existence of major risks, such as accidents and terrorism, the government has deemed the probability of their occurrence to be low and has failed to take effective countermeasures.
◆The nuclear fuel cycle is failing, but the government is moving forward with its utilization.
The amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants in Japan is enormous. The amount of spent fuel stored at nuclear power plants in Japan is enormous, amounting to about 20,000 tons, most of which is kept in storage pools. The government has been pushing for the reuse of this fuel under the banner of the “nuclear fuel cycle,” but the completion of a reprocessing plant under construction in Rokkasho Village, Aomori Prefecture, has been postponed for some time. Even if the government wants to reduce the amount of nuclear fuel used for reuse, it has been unable to do so because the key facilities are not functioning.
The Kishida administration, however, is pushing forward with the use of nuclear power plants. It has taken the lead in allowing the operation of nuclear power plants for more than 60 years and in permitting the rebuilding of next-generation nuclear power plants. The amount of spent fuel stored in vulnerable pools will continue to increase, which will require more time and effort to protect.
The government is treating the spent fuel cycle as if it were still running, and is avoiding confronting the problem,” said Teru Honma, a professor at Aoyama Gakuin University. The government is treating it as if it is going around and avoiding facing the problem,” said Terumitsu Honma, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Damage Compensation System at Aoyama Gakuin University.
The nuclear accident at Fukushima and the invasion of Ukraine have exposed the huge risks involved in operating nuclear power plants,” he continued. We have not taken responsibility for the unmanageable risks and costs. If we are going to make a decision to operate nuclear power plants, at the very least, we should take steps to address counterterrorism and safety measures that are a prerequisite.
◆Desk Memo
It is easy to imagine the fear of nuclear power plants becoming targets of spent fuel storage pools. It is also easy to imagine the damage to civilians that would result in the event of an attack. Despite this, discussions on preparedness have stalled. In contrast, the Self-Defense Forces are even discussing the possibility of moving their headquarters underground as a protective measure. Abandoning someone and protecting someone else. Is this the kind of country we are supposed to love? (Sakaki)
Mayor Hideki Toshima, a pro-nuclear power plant advocate, re-elected in Mihama, Fukui Prefecture. The Mihama NPP, the only nuclear plant already in operation for over 40 years
Hideki Toshima (center) was reelected unopposed as mayor of Mihama Town, Fukui Prefecture, on the afternoon of September 21.
February 21, 2023
Mihama Town in Fukui Prefecture, where Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Mihama Unit 3, the only nuclear power plant in Japan operating for more than 40 years, is located, announced the election of a new mayor on January 21.
There were no other candidates other than incumbent Hideki Toshima, 65, a pro-nuclear power plant advocate recommended by the Liberal Democratic Party, and he was reelected unopposed following the previous election in 2019.
Mr. Tojima said, “Sustainable use of nuclear energy is necessary for the future. We will promote the development of a town that coexists with nuclear power on the basic premise of ensuring safety and security,” he said. He answered questions from reporters in the town.
In June 2009, Mihama Unit 3 became the first nuclear power plant in Japan to be restarted after 40 years of operation, under the rule that in principle the plant should be in operation for 40 years, with a maximum extension of 20 years.
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/232442?rct=politics
Fukushima nuclear disaster: Japan set to dump contaminated water in Pacific – a million tonnes
Beside the dangerosity of various radionuclides on our environment, our food chain and our health, we must also consider the fact that TEPCO is not trustworthy for its “transparency”, it has lied repeatedly numerous times during the past 12 years, and that the IAEA itself being for the nuclear industry it has shown well its tendency if not its policy to minimize the radiation risks if not to cover things up.
22 Feb, 2023
Outrage is growing over an “unjust” plan to dump more than a million tonnes of contaminated wastewater on Australia’s doorstep – within months.
In 2011, Japan was rocked by the Fukushima nuclear disaster – the worst of its kind since Chernobyl in 1986.
Responders scrambled to stop damaged reactors at Fukushima’s Daiichi nuclear plant from overheating by pumping massive amounts of water through them, with the contaminated water then being stored in massive tanks at the site.
But now, Japan has run out of space, and in 2021, announced plans to dump 1.3 million tonnes of the contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.
The water would be treated before being released over a period of several decades, with Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga saying at the time it was “a realistic solution”.
“We will do our utmost to keep the water far above safety standards,” he vowed.
In the almost two years since, Japan has been working out the finer details of the release, which is now due to begin as soon as the northern hemisphere’s spring or summer – Australia’s autumn or winter.
Countries across the Pacific are furious.
‘Catastrophic harm’
Writing for The Guardian soon after the plan was first announced, youth advocates from the region Joey Tau and Talei Luscia Mangioni described it as an “unjust act”.
“To Pacific peoples, who have carried the disproportionate human cost of nuclearism in our region, this is yet another act of catastrophic and irreversible trans-boundary harm that our region has not consented to,” they wrote.
They were referring to the long history of the Pacific being used as the world’s nuclear waste dumping ground, with hundreds of nuclear tests being carried out across the region in the decades since World War II.
High-profile individuals and groups from across the Pacific – including from Vanuatu, Fiji, the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia – have also spoken out against Japan’s plan for months on end.
“If it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free,” Vanuatu stateswoman and veteran activist of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement Motarilavoa Hilda Lini said soon after Japan’s plan was unveiled.
“We are people of the ocean, we must stand up and protect it.”
In another moving statement released last year, environmental advocacy group Youngsolwara Pacific likened the release to “nuclear war”.
“How can the Japanese government, who has experienced the same brutal experiences of nuclear weapons in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wish to further pollute our Pacific with nuclear waste? To us, this irresponsible act of trans-boundary harm is just the same as waging nuclear war on us as Pacific peoples and our islands.”
But their pleas have fallen on deaf ears – and a string of experts have even voiced support for Japan’s controversial move.
‘Best option’
Writing for The Conversation recently, Jim Smith, professor of environmental science at the University of Portsmouth, said releasing the wastewater was the “best option”.
Prof Smith – who has worked on the impacts of radioactive pollutants in the environment for more than three decades – explained that before the water is stored in the first place, “the wastewater produced at Fukushima is treated to remove almost all of the radioactive elements”.
“These include cobalt 60, strontium 90 and caesium 137. But tritium – a radioactive form of hydrogen – is left behind,” he explained.
“When one of the hydrogen atoms in water is replaced by tritium, it forms radioactive tritiated water. Tritiated water is chemically identical to normal water, which makes separating it from wastewater expensive, energy intensive and time consuming. A review of tritium separation technologies in 2020 found that they are unable to process the huge volumes of water required.
“But as radioactive elements go, tritium is relatively benign and its existence as tritiated water reduces its environmental impact. Chemically identical to normal water, tritiated water passes through organisms like water does and so does not strongly accumulate in the bodies of living things.”
Meanwhile, a South Korean government study released this month also found the release of the wastewater would have little impact on South Korean waters.
“That change would be too small to detect,” an official at the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology said, according to Reuters.
And the nation of Micronesia has also recently dropped its opposition to the release of the water, with president David Panuelo telling reporters he was no longer worried.
But for many critics of the plan, plenty of concerns remain.
“We must prevent actions that will lead or mislead us towards another major nuclear contamination disaster at the hands of others,” the former prime minister of the Cook Islands Henry Puna said just last month, as the deadline for the release looms. –
Seoul wary of reduced disclosure of radioactive elements in Fukushima wastewater
Prime Minister Han Duck-soo
Feb 22, 2023
Japan’s nuclear regulation authority tentatively confirmed plans Wednesday to narrow the scope of radioactive elements to be monitored in the radiation-contaminated water from quake-stricken Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the South Korean Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement Wednesday.
The types of nuclides under the monitoring has been reduced from 64 to 30, according to Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s office.
The Seoul government pledged to place the Korean people’s safety as the priority and ensure that the wastewater is treated according to international standards. Moreover, the government will continue to be engaged in the scientific and technological review of Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s plan, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency’s wastewater analysis.
This came after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs raised the possibility of the narrowing down of the scope of radioactive elements earlier this month. A spokesperson at the Foreign Ministry said on Feb. 10 that such a decision came upon the request of the IAEA.
Tokyo unveiled plans to release the wastewater by as early as this spring.
Japan has claimed that the contaminated water was treated by its own nuclide removal system called Advanced Liquid Processing System. The IAEA has endorsed Japan’s claims that the release meets international standards.
Some 1.3 million tons of wastewater — enough to fill about 500 Olympic-size swimming pools — was used to cool down the quake-hit nuclear reactors, and is being stored at the site. Tokyo announced plans to release the water in 2021.
Recent research jointly conducted by the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute indicated some of the nuclides, in particular tritium, could potentially reach South Korean waters within the next four or five years. The impact of it, however, could be “hard to detect,” with about 0.001 becquerel per cubic meter 10 years after the release, research results indicated. A becquerel is a unit of measurement for radioactivity, with even one full becquerel being a tiny amount as relates to human health.
The deadly tsunami in 2011 broke down the nuclear reactor cooling system and melted down three reactors in the Fukushima nuclear power plant in eastern Japan.
Japan slammed for loosening test standards on Fukushima radioactive water
Tokyo Electric Power Company shows a bottle of radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan which has been filtered by ALPS, Feb. 18. The filtering measure is, however, drawing criticism from experts in different countries as its radioactivity-cleansing feature has not been fully verified.
2023-02-23
Seoul urged to respond firmly to Tokyo’s move
By Ko Dong-hwan
Korean environmental activists condemned Thursday, the Japanese government’s latest move to discard radioactive water from their own soil which is now stored at the tsunami-hit nuclear power plant in Fukushima.
Filtered and planned for discharge into the Pacific Ocean this year, the water, according to the Japanese government, has been tested for concentration levels of radioactive nuclides that would pollute the maritime environment.
What concerns the activists is that the Japanese government recently reduced the list of radioactive nuclides to measure and verify their safety levels from 64 to 30.
The list has been shortened to more than half because the Japanese government believes some radioactive nuclides have half-lives that are so short that their radioactivity would thin out to a concentration level minuscule enough to be almost unmeasurable and non-influential to the environment.
But the activists said the move is only an additional problem to the Japanese government’s “doubtful” actions in dealing with the water, largely due to the questionable veracity of the data shared by the government with the world.
“Some radioactive nuclides have very short half-lives, like iodine-131 which has only eight days. Cesium-134, which has a half-life of two years, will also be watered down almost flat in a couple of years,” Choi Kyoung-sook, the coordinator from Korea Radiation Watch, a Seoul-based civic environmental activist group, told The Korea Times.
“But the biggest problem with Japan’s discharge plan is that the water’s potential biological effect on maritime species in the ocean hasn’t been fully tested yet. The Japanese government just got started with that experiment earlier this year, putting halibuts and other fish in an aquarium containing 1 becquerel of cesium to see what happens to the creatures.”
Choi said the Japanese government’s explanation advocating the safety of the discharge is only based on its own belief that the water “appears clean enough” after being filtered by the advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) that the Japanese government claims it has used to treat the water before its discharge planned this spring.
Kim Kyoung-ok from the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology explains the result of a simulation carried out by his institute which demonstrates how discharged radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan could affect Korean waters, at Ramada Plaza Jeju Hotel, Feb. 16.
“It’s like they pour one liter of milk into 1,000 tons of water and say, ‘Hey, the water doesn’t look opaque at all,'” Choi said. “ALPS cannot filter out tritium. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,000 years. Who can possibly be so sure that radioactive water containing those radioactive particles is safe enough to discharge into the ocean?”
The Korean government has not been as critical of Japan as it should be, Choi said. She said the authority appears to be neglecting to demand sufficient scientific proof from its neighboring country that ensures the safety of the discharge.
“There isn’t any reliable scientific proof whatsoever to what the Japanese government has released to argue the discharge is safe,” Choi said. “Our government should make sure with Japan that there is no harmful biological effect from the discharge and the environmental assessment claimed done by Japan was based on reliable data.”
Choi, alongside other experts concerned with the discharge, proposed the radioactive water be stored for a longer period of time in Japan until it is diluted enough to be safely discharged.
It was found that Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Agency, earlier this year, approved the latest shortlist of radioactive nuclides to be tested, which was proposed by Tokyo Electric Power Company. The list removed 39 types from the original list and added five new ones.
The agency claimed the removed nuclides have half-lives short enough to be dissolved clean into sea waters to the level of not causing any harmful effect on humans and thus do not need to be tested further.
The Japanese authorities have been arguing that their decision-making adhered to the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been supporting the country’s discharge of the water.
The Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute last week released the results of a simulation of the discharge they had been studying.
The simulation, designed specifically to track tritium after the water is discharged, showed the water, after circling the Pacific for two years and reaching Korean waters, is expected to have only a negligible amount of the nuclide left. The Ministry of Oceans and Fishery, however, said the simulation was only carried out during a preliminary stage of the study and further simulations are required.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/02/371_345995.html
800,000 cubic meters of new radioactive waste to be generated as a result of decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
February 20, 2023
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, buildings around the reactor buildings will be dismantled in preparation for the removal of fuel debris.
TEPCO has released an estimate of 450,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste to be generated as a result of this work.
In addition to this, 805,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste is expected to be generated during the decommissioning work over the next 10 years.
The waste will be stored at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, but the amount is expected to increase further in the future.
https://www.fukushima-tv.co.jp/localnews/2023/02/2023022000000013.html?fbclid=IwAR3uLGcmRWtk6l-2k2GSGfXnxjmdsYaaC3EcjiIr93m4l7 HHPFMFDCvp4PM
1 This Month.
Let’s keep radioactive waste away from our river!
Nuclear Power? -Never again
(Switzerland –https://www.greenpeace.ch/de/handeln/atomkraft-nie-wieder/+)
PETITION – Close Down the Monticello Nuclear Reactor on the Mississippi River!
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (213)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 