Ukrainian officials have urged US Congress members to press President Joe Biden’s administration to send F-16 jetfighters to Kyiv, saying the aircraft would boost Ukraine’s ability to hit Russian missile units with US-made rockets, lawmakers said.
The lobbying came over the weekend on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in talks between Ukrainian officials, including Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, and Democrats and Republicans from the Senate and House of Representatives.
“They told us that they want (F-16s) to suppress enemy air defenses so they could get their drones” beyond Russian front lines, Senator Mark Kelly, a former astronaut who flew US Navy fighters in combat, told Reuters on Saturday evening.
Biden last month said “no” when asked if he would approve Ukraine’s request for Lockheed-Martin-made F-16s.
Four delegations from the Senate and House combined in what members called the largest number of US lawmakers to attend Europe’s premier security gathering since it started in 1963, demonstrating clear bipartisan support for Ukraine…………………………
In a statement to the AP, the Cyprus Anti-Nuclear platform, a coalition of over 50 Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot environmentalist groups, trade unions and political parties, said it “calls on all political parties, scientific and environmental organizations and the civil society to join efforts and put pressure on the Turkish government to terminate its plans for the Akkuyu nuclear power plant.”
Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, by MENELAOS HADJICOSTIS and JENNIFER McDERMOTT The Associated Press
NICOSIA, Cyprus — A devastating earthquake that toppled buildings across parts of Turkey and neighboring Syria has revived a longstanding debate locally and in neighboring Cyprus about a large nuclear power station being built on Turkey’s southern Mediterranean coastline.
The plant’s site in Akkuyu, located about 210 miles west of the epicenter of the Feb. 6 quake, is being designed to endure powerful tremors and did not sustain any damage or experience powerful ground shaking from the 7.8 magnitude earthquake and aftershocks.
Cypriot European Parliament member Demetris Papadakis asked the European Commission what immediate actions it intends to take to halt the plant because of the dangers posed by building a nuclear power station in a seismic zone so close to Cyprus……..
But the size of the quake, the deadliest in Turkey’s modern history, sharpened existing concerns about the facility being built on the edge of a major fault line…………………………………………..
An official with Turkey’s Energy Ministry, when contacted by the AP, said there were no immediate plans to reassess the project. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government protocol. Some activists, however, still say the project — the first nuclear power plant in Turkey — poses a threat.
Nuclear facilities are constructed of heavily reinforced concrete, sized for significant earthquake shaking and far more robust than commercial buildings, said Andrew Whittaker, a professor of civil engineering at the University at Buffalo who is an expert in earthquake engineering and nuclear structures.
The fact that it’s being built off the western end of the East Anatolian Fault, which was linked to the powerful tremor, suggests that the design would have been checked for significant shaking, Whittaker added.
Still, Whittaker said, it would be prudent to reassess seismic hazard calculations in the region for all infrastructure, including the plant.
“There’s no reason to be concerned, but there’s always a reason to be cautious,” he said.
That’s little comfort to activists in Turkey and on both sides of ethnically divided Cyprus. They’ve renewed their calls for the project to be scrapped, saying that the devastating earthquake is clear proof of the great risk posed by a nuclear power plant near seismic fault lines.
In a statement to the AP, the Cyprus Anti-Nuclear platform, a coalition of over 50 Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot environmentalist groups, trade unions and political parties, said it “calls on all political parties, scientific and environmental organizations and the civil society to join efforts and put pressure on the Turkish government to terminate its plans for the Akkuyu nuclear power plant.”…………………….. https://nwaonline.com/news/2023/feb/19/quake-revives-debate-over-turkeys-nuclear-plant/?news-wor1
Kingdom wants to be involved in global negotiations with Iran
N UK, 19 Feb 23,
Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, has said he “cannot rule out” a nuclear arms race in the region.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, he said the kingdom was concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme and wanted negotiations between Tehran and world powers to resume.
At a session titled Middle Men: The Geostrategic Role of Middle Eastern Countries, Prince Faisal said: “If one state gets nuclear weapons, especially one that has expressed aggression towards its neighbours, I think everyone will start thinking about how to protect themselves.
Iranian media sounded optimistic this week following news on Wednesday that Tehran and Washington seemed to be negotiating over a prisoner exchange deal.
But gradually the optimism dissipated as no follow-up news was heard and the foreign ministry spokesman on Saturday told a local news website that the talks have stopped.
Moderate conservative Khabar Online in Tehran was quick to pick up the newsabout “Progress in the Iran-US negotiations.” The website’s editors were upbeat that finally, US officials have spoken positively about the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which is another name for the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
Khabar Online observed that “Although some analysts maintain that pressures by Israel and disputes with the Congress as well as some domestic political issues give reasons to the Biden Administration to be reluctant about resuming the nuclear talks, yet the bigger picture indicates a more positive outlook compared to past weeks and months.”
Indirect nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington reached a deadlock in September 2022, when at the same time antigovernment protests broke out in Iran. The US in early October signaled that it is not focused on the negotiations any more and is determined to support the rights of protesters………………………….
Apart from statements by President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iranian nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami also told the press that Iran is prepared to continue the nuclear negotiations based on previous agreements.
Regardless of any real or imagined progress, Iran’s former ambassador to London, Mohsen Baharvand warned in a commentary he wrote for Etemad Newspaper that the possible death of the JCPOA will have unforeseeable repercussions. Baharvand said: “After the death of the JCPOA is announced any of the two parties might resort to actions that would endanger regional and international peace.”…………………………..more https://www.iranintl.com/en/202302197995
He challenged the MR bill to extend three reactors: “We are talking about nuclear reactors with single-walled tanks, honeycombed tanks, with hydrogen bubbles. We are talking about power stations that do not meet the conditions of resistance to seismic shocks, to the fall of an aeroplane… I remind you that Tihange is on the axis of the Bierset airport. The international safety standards are essential.”
Extending more than two nuclear reactors would be dangerous, warned Ecolo deputy prime minister Georges Gilkinet in an interview with Le Soir published Saturday. The minister opposes the MR’s proposal to extend the life of the three other units still in operation.
As the energy uncertainty brought on by the Ukraine crisis continues, De Croo’s Vivaldi government has reconsidered the question of Beligum’s nuclear power, which it had long been due to phase out.
for Georges Gilkinet, whose party has historically opposed any prolongation of Belgium’s reactors, “we will continue to push for the closure of the plants. The current plans to close five reactors have not been changed.” To prevent the real possibility of blackouts, the deputy prime minister speaks of “modulation” of three reactors rather than “extension”.
He challenged the MR bill to extend three reactors: “We are talking about nuclear reactors with single-walled tanks, honeycombed tanks, with hydrogen bubbles. We are talking about power stations that do not meet the conditions of resistance to seismic shocks, to the fall of an aeroplane… I remind you that Tihange is on the axis of the Bierset airport. The international safety standards are essential.” https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/374759/extending-more-than-two-nuclear-reactors-is-dangerous-says-gilkinet—
Register here – February 22nd 5 pm (UK time) PRESS NOTICE Cumbrian Campaigner Invited to Speak at International Webinar on Nuclear Waste Burial Schemes. Radiation Free Lakeland’s founder, Marianne Birkby has been invited to speak at an International Webinar. Speakers from the US, Sweden and the UK will provide updates from other countries exploring or pursuing deep […]
Science and Technology: ¶ “DOE Just Can’t Quit Concentrating Solar Power (And That’s A Good Thing)” • Fans of concentrating solar power have a dream of a 100-MW facility that can deliver electricity 24/7, just like a nuclear power plant but without the risk and the fancy price tag. Now the US DOE has a […]
Japan’s plan to discharge more than 1,000 tanks of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific has incensed island nations.
The Runit Dome, a concrete dome located in the Marshall Islands that houses tons of radioactive waste from nuclear testing in the 40’s and 50’s.
February 17, 2023
TOKYO — In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a group of tropical islands has never seen winter. But one morning 70 years ago, a loud bang followed by a flash of light made it “snow” for the first time.
Fluttery and white, the powdery material sank into the Marshall Islands’ deep blue lagoons. It lightly covered the palm trees that lined Rongelap Atoll, astounding those who came out of their thatched homes to watch it settle on roofs. Children played with it, scooping the dust into their mouths.
But within hours, the atoll’s residents mysteriously began falling ill. Hair fell out in clumps. Skin burned. People vomited. They were evacuated two days later, but the damage was already done. Years later, the Rongelapese would suffer heightened cases of cancer, miscarriages, and birth deformities.
This was the fallout of Castle Bravo, the U.S.’ largest-ever thermonuclear bomb test that sprinkled radioactive debris on that warm March day. Now, residents of the island nations that include Fiji, the Marshall Islands, and French Polynesia invoke the nuclear accident and its subsequent contamination to oppose Japan’s plan to release its nuclear wastewater into the Pacific.
“We have a legacy of being the dumping ground when it comes to the issue of nuclear waste,” James Bhagwan, a Fijian anti-nuclear activist and secretary-general of the Pacific Conference of Churches, told VICE World News.
“Pacific Islanders have a spiritual bond with both land and ocean. So this again speaks to the issue of poisoning a part of us, our family,” he said.
The comparison Bhagwan drew between the controlled release of treated wastewater and an atmospheric nuclear test gone wrong may sound like a stretch. But it speaks to how much Pacific Island nations fear Japan’s planned discharge in the coming months of more than 1.3 million metric tons of contaminated water into the world’s largest ocean.
The nuclear waste sits in over 1,000 water tanks in Japan’s northeastern prefecture of Fukushima, the product of the meltdown of the Daiichi nuclear reactors there in 2011.
That year, a tsunami triggered by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake inundated the power plant and knocked out its cooling systems. Since then, officials have been trying to cool the destroyed reactors by pumping over a hundred tons of water through them every day.
But now Japan is running out of space to store this contaminated water, and is looking to release the treated liquid into the ocean this spring or summer.
Like Bhagwan, Pacific Island leaders have protested Japan’s plan.
If it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free.
“We must prevent actions that will lead or mislead us towards another major nuclear contamination disaster at the hands of others,” said Henry Puna at a public seminar last month. He’s the former prime minister of the Cook Islands and current secretary-general of the Pacific Islands Forum—a regional bloc of 17 island nations.
In objecting to the release, Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, a Vanuatu stateswoman, has cited the slogan of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement: “If it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free.”
Scientists disagree over the extent to which the release of Fukushima’s treated wastewater could affect the Pacific Islands. Some claim that nuclear waste could enter human food chains and contaminate fish eaten by communities outside Japan. Other experts argue that the distance between Japan and the Pacific Islands, ocean current patterns, and marine behavior will make the risk of nuclear contamination for the Pacific Islands highly unlikely. The water will get released into the Pacific through an undersea tunnel, built one kilometer off the coast near the Daiichi plant.
Japan has insisted that the wastewater is safe to release following treatment by a system called ALPS, Advanced Liquid Processing System. The process is designed to remove all radioactive material found in the water with two exceptions: The radioactive isotopes of hydrogen and carbon, tritium and carbon-14, are almost impossible to filter out and will instead be released after the liquid is diluted to one-hundredth of its concentration with seawater.
Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO)—which ran the collapsed Daiichi plant—said it would test the waste before, during, and after the wastewater’s release into the Pacific through an undersea tunnel over the span of 30 years.
Scientists who spoke with VICE World News and who are referenced in this article said that the amount of tritium Japan plans to release won’t be harmful to humans or the environment because of the small doses. And though ALPS can’t remove carbon-14, TEPCO told VICE World News that the radioactive isotope’s concentrations are well below the regulatory limit.
But despite the general consensus that low doses of tritium, which is found also in rain and seawater, have negligible effects on health, some scientists questioned whether the wastewater to be released truly meets the level of safety promised by Japan.
Ken Buesseler, a marine radiochemist and one of five experts on the Pacific Islands Forum’s panel of independent scientists, questioned TEPCO’s ability to sufficiently remove radioactive material from the liquid. He cited how, in 2020, the company had to retreat about 70 percent of the stored wastewater because it was found to contain amounts of radioactive substances exceeding standards.
“That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence,” he told VICE World News. Monitoring the wastewater after it was released into the ocean would be too late, Buesseler added, as once it’s in the ocean, TEPCO can’t get it back.
He also faulted the company for analyzing only about a quarter of the 1,061 tanks and providing testing results on just seven radioactive substances out of the dozens TEPCO said it would monitor. This, he said, ignored the possibility that there would be variation among the tanks, potentially overlooking harmful levels of more radioactive substances such as cesium-137 and strontium-90.
In a written statement to VICE World News, TEPCO said potential variations among the tanks have been accounted for and that each tank will eventually be tested before they’re discharged. Not all tanks have been tested yet because 70 percent of them currently do not meet TEPCO’s standard for discharge and will be retreated. TEPCO also said it would sample the water for 69 different radionuclides before it is released and that the test results would be audited by third-party agencies it appointed and Japan’s nuclear regulator.
Despite these measures, critics say that TEPCO has had a spotty record when it comes to communicating with the public. In 2018, Kyodo News reported that the treated water still contained radioactive substances above the legal limit after it had gone through ALPS. And it wasn’t until 2020 that the power company first acknowledged that the water contained carbon-14, which can’t be removed using ALPS.
“I saw this as an opportunity for Japan to build up trust, to take care of their waste, clean it up and demonstrate independently to the world that they’ve done that,” Buesseler said. “It’s a lot of trust, is what it really boils down to. And we’re saying, show us.”
Brent Heuser, a nuclear engineering professor at the University of Illinois in the U.S., told VICE World News he’s confident that, even if the tanks storing wastewater in Fukushima have higher levels of radioactive substances than is reported, dilution of the liquid is enough to ensure their safety. He noted that the company will discharge the water gradually over 30 years to sufficiently thin out the wastewater.
Paul Dickman, a radiochemist who has visited Fukushima multiple times over the past decade to advise Japanese regulators on nuclear waste cleanup, supports the safe release of the treated water, although he acknowledged that the debate also hinges on trust.
“Let’s face it. I think the central government lost trust and trust is very hard to rebuild,” Dickman, a former senior official of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and current chairman of the American Nuclear Society’s external affairs committee, told VICE World News.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization within the UN system that advocates for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, has tested the wastewater and found the plan to release it in line with global practices.
But scientists who support the discharge say worrying about the treated wastewater was ignoring the more pressing concern: what TEPCO will do with the fuel debris in the reactor vessels.
When the 2011 tsunami hit Fukushima’s three reactors, power sources and equipment used to cool the fuel inside shut down. This allowed the fuel to overheat, melting the core and other parts of the reactor. Once it cooled and solidified, it became highly radioactive material known as “fuel debris.” At the moment, it sits at the bottom of the three reactor vessels and needs to be cleaned out before the plant can be decommissioned—making it a far greater issue than what’s in the tanks, Dickman said.
“It’s like, if you’re worrying about the air freshener in your car and you’re not worrying about the tires, then you’re not paying attention,” Dickman said.
Though the deadline for Japan’s release of the treated wastewater is fast approaching, the country is yet to fully convince Pacific Island nations that its plan won’t be harmful. The tanks fill up day by day, swelling to their 1.3 million ton limit.
Now, the Pacific Islands are running out of time to defend their oceans, the environmentalist Bhagwan said, warning Japan of the consequences that could lay ahead.
“The culture of shame will be laid upon the Japanese government and the people of Japan in years to come. Do they want that to be part of their legacy?” he said.
The new Japanese series is expected to land on June 1st, 2023.
Netflix has released its first teaser for its upcoming drama series on the Fukushima disaster called The Days. We’re hearing the series is set to be released globally in June 2023.
First announced back in September 2022. The series is comparable to HBO and Sky’s groundbreaking limited series Chernobyl which has quickly become one of the most celebrated limited series of all time. If The Days is half as good as Chernobyl then Netflix subscribers will be in for a treat.
Warner Bros Film and Lyonesse are behind the production for Netflix, with Nakata Hideo and Nishiura Masaki sharing directing duties.
A teaser was released by Netflix (exclusively on Netflix Japan’s YouTube channel) on February 16th, 2023. The teaser is sadly only available in Japanese on YouTube, although you can find a subtitled teaser embedded within the Netflix page for the show (you can also set a reminder there).
When is The Days Netflix release date?
Through Netflix’s official channels, it has only been confirmed that The Days will be released sometime in 2023. However, we’re hearing the project is currently set for a June 1st, 2023 global release date.Until confirmed officially by Netflix all release dates are subject to change.
What is the plot of The Days?
The synopsis for The Days is the following:
Depicts the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident that occurred in 2011 over a period of 7 days. From the three perspectives of the government, corporate organizations, and those who put their lives on the line. It will approach what really happened on that day and in that place.
What is The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster?
The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a nuclear accident that took place in Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan on March 11th, 2011. The event was caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and its resulting tsunami.On the afternoon of March 11th, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake rocked Japan, with the epicenter only 45 miles east off the coast of the Tōhoku region. The earthquake triggered an extremely powerful tsunami, with waves recorded as high as 14 meters hitting the Japanese coastline.
These 14-meter waves rolled over the man-made defenses in place to protect the power plant, causing a devasting amount of damage in the process. The flooding of units 1-4 in the lower parts of the reactor buildings caused not only a loss in power, but the emergency generators also failed. Thanks to the loss of power, the pumps used to cool down the reactor cores stopped working.
With the reactors unable to be cooled, three nuclear meltdowns took place, with three hydrogen explosions and shockingly large amounts of radioactive contamination released into three of the four units.
The radiation that was released into the atmosphere forced the Japanese government to increase the evacuation area to a 12-mile radius. Not to mention there was an unapparelled amount of radioactive isotopes that were released into the Pacific Ocean, which in the long term will have a massive and devasting impact upon the world’s largest ocean.
Could the disaster have been prevented?
Had the correct measures taken place, then there was definitely a chance that the damage from the disaster would have been reduced.
Key factors such as the power plants’ height to sea level played a huge role in the disaster. At only 10 meters above sea level, the 14-meter Tsunami waves rolled over the defenses easily, however, in 1967 when it was first being built, the original plan would have seen the plant sit 30 meters above sea level. The reduction in height was a result of TEPCO leveling the sea coast in order to make it easier to bring in the equipment to build the plant.
Over the years the concern over earthquakes was raised several times, in particular after the backup generator of Reactor 1 was flooded in 1991, and tsunamis of 2000 and 2008.
We can’t definitively say for certain that the disaster will have been averted but had concerns been taken more seriously, and stronger measures implemented, at the very least the damage caused by the tsunamis may have been reduced.
Who are the cast members of The Days?
None of the following cast members have been given named roles, however, we can confirm their involvement in the series.
Yakusho Koji has been cast in the main role. He has yet to star in a leading role for Netflix but is most famous for his work on the Japanese NHK drama Tokugawa Ieyasu in the role of Oda Nobunaga.
Takenouchi Yutaka has been cast in a supporting role. He has yet to star in a Netflix Original, but some may recognize him for his role as Akasaka Hideki in Shin Godzilla.
Kohinata Fumiyo has also been confirmed for a supporting role, but like his fellow co-star has yet to star in a Netflix original movie or drama.
Kobayashi Kaoru, Musaka Naomasa, and Satoi Kenta have also been cast in supporting roles.
The strong Kuroshio Current is expected to lead the water to the West Coast of the US and then continue to spread throughout the northern parts of the Pacific Ocean, according to the simulation
Feb.17,2023
A simulation by South Korean government research institutes has found that if Japan dumps contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor into the ocean, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen in the contaminated water will begin entering the waters off Jeju Island within four or five years. The same analysis also found that a low concentration of radiation (less than one-millionth of the current background concentration in Korean waters) could temporarily be brought into the area by ocean currents two years after the contaminated water is released.
On Thursday, a joint research team including researchers from the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology (KIOST) and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) presented their results of a simulation studying the effects of the diffusion of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen present in the Fukushima wastewater.
The results of the simulation were presented at an academic conference held by the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation in Jeju.
The reason for concern is that tritium can decay to helium-3 and affect DNA, which could result in adverse effects on the human body including cell death or deterioration in reproductive function.
This is the first time that the results of a joint simulation conducted by national research institutes on the domestic impact of the release of Fukushima wastewater have been released.
Ever since Japan announced its decision in April 2021 to release the contaminated water, both the previous Moon Jae-in government and the current Yoon Suk-yeol administration have recognized the need to conduct studies, saying that domestic institutes would further advance analysis models and then conduct related studies.
The results of this study were obtained using an analysis model that had been upgraded by late last year.
According to the research results, the tritium present in the wastewater poised to be discharged off the coast of Fukushima, which is located in eastern Japan, would move in an eastward direction due to the strong Kuroshio Current. This would lead the water to the West Coast of the US and then continue to spread throughout the northern parts of the Pacific Ocean.
On the other hand, the inflow of this water to the Korean Peninsula would be slower given the weak ocean currents.
A diagram showing the simulated tritium concentrations in the ocean two years following release. (Source: KAERI-KIOST simulation)
The analysis predicts that around four to five years will pass after the release of the wastewater before tritium begins flowing in Jeju waters.
Even though the Korean Peninsula is situated geographically close to Japan, it is expected to be affected by the wastewater at a later time than, for example, the Pacific Coast of the US, because the seawater flows eastward from Japan due to the influence of ocean currents.
Since the Korean Peninsula is located to the west of Japan, the water will first spread to the Pacific Ocean and then begin making its way to Korean waters.
The research team predicted that the concentration of tritium flowing into Jeju waters would reach around 0.001 becquerels (Bq) per cubic meter of water 10 years after the release of the Fukushima wastewater. A becquerel is a unit of radioactivity.
This concentration is one-100,000th of the average tritium concentration (background concentration) of the 172 Bq/m3 in domestic seawater analyzed by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety.
“This concentration is a concentration [level] that is difficult to detect with an analysis device,” the research team explained.
However, the study also found that the timing of wastewater inflow into Korean waters could change every year depending on specific characteristics of the ocean currents.
In fact, the joint simulation showed a temporary inflow of wastewater into Korean waters due to the influence of sea currents just two years after its release, albeit at a low concentration of 0.0001 Bq/m3.
“Ocean currents do not flow steadily, but change from season to season,” says Kim Kyeong-ok, a senior researcher at KIOST who helped carry out this simulation.
“The reason for the temporary influx of tritium two years after the [wastewater] release is because the ocean current is strong at this time,” Kim explained.
The simulation results from Korean researchers are not very different from what previous studies conducted in China concluded.
In 2021, a simulation conducted by an international research team led by researchers from the First Institute of Oceanography of China’s Ministry of Natural Resources found that tritium reached South Korean waters at a concentration of about 0.001 Bq/m3 five years after the initial release of the wastewater.
Last year, another simulation conducted by a research team at Tsinghua University in China predicted that tritium would reach Korean waters after 10 years at a concentration level of one-hundredth the levels present in the Pacific Ocean east of Japan.
“Tritium released off the coast of Fukushima was found to spread throughout the entire northern part of the Pacific Ocean 10 years later. These are similar results to China’s simulation study on the spread of the wastewater,” the KOIST and KAERI joint research team said.
This simulation was based on the assumption that Japan would release 22 trillion Bq of tritium annually for 10 years from next month into the ocean located about 1 kilometer from the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
The figure of 22 trillion Bq is the maximum amount Japan plans to release annually.
However, this simulation was only focused on the diffusion of tritium, meaning that the spread of other radioactive nuclides throughout the food chain or the effects of their accumulation in water was not taken into consideration.
Therefore, this analysis does not represent the full environmental impact that the discharge of the wastewater would actually have. In reality, besides tritium, the wastewater Japan plans to release into the ocean contains many more radioactive materials as well.
A diagram showing the simulated tritium concentrations in the ocean two years following release. (Source: KAERI-KIOST simulation)
While Japan’s Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) announced plans to begin the release of the wastewater this spring, this schedule could be delayed if reviews related to wastewater monitoring plans currently underway by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency are prolonged.
Regarding the results of this simulation, both environmental groups and opposition parties in Korea remain unconvinced, arguing that it is too hasty to conclude that the impact on Korea from the Fukushima wastewater will be negligible based solely on this simulation.
The reasoning behind this stance is the argument that the Japanese data used to conduct this study is unreliable and that the concentration levels of other radioactive materials were not considered.
“Many experts, including the US National Association of Marine Laboratories, which is affiliated with more than 100 marine research institutes, don’t trust the Japanese government’s data and plans based on the lack of important data regarding the amount of radionuclides in each tank where contaminated water is stored and the lack of efficiency of the ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System),” the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements said in a statement.
“The safety of discharging the wastewater into the ocean should not be evaluated solely by [measuring] the concentration levels of radioactive materials in seawater,” KFEM added.
In addition, the Democratic Party’s response team aimed at stopping the discharge of the Fukushima wastewater also spoke out after the simulation results were published, saying, “The priority should be verifying Japan’s false data.”
“It is difficult to expect reliability because these results are based on Japan’s false data and claims,” the team said in a statement.
“What we need to do now is to request verifiable and transparent data regarding the Fukushima wastewater from the Japanese government and to prepare for international legal responses, such as provisional measures, to stop the release of the Fukushima wastewater,” the team argued.
A new study estimated that the density of tritium in South Korean waters will rise by around one-100-thousandth the previous level in the event Japan releases contaminated water from its crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant for ten years starting from March.
Researchers at the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology and Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute published the assessment on Thursday as part of the the results of their simulation of the planned discharge during a conference of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation in Jeju.
The researchers conducted the latest study on the premise that Japan will, for ten years, release the treated contaminated water from the failed Fukushima plant that includes up to 22 terabecquerel.
The researchers assessed that the concentration of tritium, which is the radioactive isotope of hydrogen, in South Korean waters will reach around zero-point-001 becquerel per cubic meter in ten years, or one-100-thousandth of the average of 172 becquerels per cubic meter of tritium currently found in Korean waters.
According to the researchers, the amount of tritium is difficult to detect with current analysis systems.
The decision coincides with construction setbacks that would have postponed any discharge into the Pacific Ocean until spring or summer at the earliest.
February 16, 2023
Japan’s decision to postpone the release of treated nuclear wastewater into the ocean is giving Pacific nations and territories more time to push for other options.
But the company hired to dispose of the material is still moving ahead with preparations for the work, and told Civil Beat it expects to get the go-ahead in the coming months.
The company continues to work under the premise it will begin releasing water in the coming months, a representative confirmed to Civil Beat.
After visiting Japan an independent panel assembled by PIF said there was insufficient evidence that the release would be safe.
The water has been treated to remove radioactive materials, though significant gaps in data remain and all alternative disposal options have not been fully considered, said PIF scientific panel member Robert Richmond, who was part of the delegation that visited last week.
Richmond, director of the University of Hawaii Kewalo Marine Laboratory, has previously raised concerns about the potential interplay between lingering radioactive compounds and marine life in the Pacific, which could eventually make its way into the food system and fundamentally change the ecosystem.
Robert Richmond holds experiments on music CD at the Kewalo UH facility.
Richmond says he was not entirely satisfied with the level of research and data Japan could provide to the panel, despite TEPCO experimenting with flounder to assess whether there had been a change in the fish.
“When people try to trivialize the seriousness of that, that becomes very concerning for us,” Richmond said in an interview.
Company Moves Forward With Plan
Under the direction of the Japanese government, five methods of disposal were considered.
The final options were steam release, and discharging the treated water over time to dilute its contents. Releasing treated water into the ocean was selected and supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The scientific panel though has continually raised questions over the apparent rush to dispose of the wastewater, given fears over contamination.
Tritium, the key radioactive compound in the liquid, has a half-life of 12.3 years, so encasing the treated water in concrete would deal with the issue without risking potential fallout in the Pacific.
“I felt a sense of relief. That was very fleeting.” – Former CNMI Rep. Sheila Babauta
Richmond says science is developing faster than international standards and regulations, which means current standards may not reflect the best possible solution.
“If they can guarantee and swear that the water will be totally safe by all standards, then why are they still averse to keeping it on site, binding it up in concrete so that it can’t get into people and can’t get into oceanic organisms, rather than making it the transboundary issue it is?” Richmond said.
TEPCO reiterated that it was following the basic policy set by the Japanese government in April 2021, and that it would “move forward with the construction of discharge facilities with the aim of commencing ocean discharge within approximately two years.”
The power company said construction delays mean the release may not happen until spring or summer, the Associated Press reported.
Does Delay Still Mean Inevitable?
Japan has faced pushback from China and South Korea, as well as U.S. territorial governments in the Pacific, despite the U.S. Department of State’s statement that Japan had “been transparent about its decision,” in 2021.
The House of Representatives in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands introduced a resolution six months later, opposing nuclear testing and waste storage or disposal in the Pacific. The U.S. Territory has its own history with Japan, which planned to dump 10,000 drums of nuclear waste near its waters in the 1970s.
Former CNMI House Rep. Sheila Babauta, who introduced the resolution, says that cooperation and engagement with large international institutions such as the U.S. military, at least within Micronesia, have historically been opaque.
“I felt a sense of relief. That was very fleeting,” Babauta said in an interview. “We’ve engaged very much with the world around us and have been burned many times. And so it does come with trauma.”
The delay buys Pacific nations time to rally, organize and educate the region on the risks associated with the wastewater release, Babauta says.
But just how long they have is uncertain.
The decision to delay has curried some favor however from the Federated States of Micronesia, who had voiced opposition to the Japanese plan in September.
Richard Clark, special advisor to the FSM President David Panuelo, said in an email statement that the country was buoyed by Japan’s decision to delay until other Pacific nations “attain the same level of trust in Japan’s intentions and capabilities.”
The Pacific Action Network on Globalisation, a Fiji-based regional watchdog, was concerned that Pacific nations would be in a difficult predicament because Japan is a major regional donor.
But Joey Tau, deputy coordinator of PANG, says that conundrum pales in comparison to the environmental effects of releasing the wastewater into the Pacific, as forecast by the PIF scientific panel.
“If Japan decides to go ahead, we will see it as a fundamental breach of human rights,” Tau said in an interview. “We really hope that all other options are exhausted.”
Last year, a report revealed that Fukushima child thyroid cancer rates had skyrocketed – but still, the government of Japan and the nuclear industry refuse to take these statistics seriously. But in truth – how bad is it? We interviewed a genuine expert to find out.
Joseph Mangano is Executive Director of Radiation and Public Health Project. He is an epidemiologist – one who searches for the cause of disease, identifies people who are at risk, determines how to control or stop the spread, or prevent it from happening again. Joe has over 30 years of experience working with nuclear numbers and comes from a history of teasing out health information from data. We spoke on Friday, February 11, 2022.
A recent survey conducted by Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun has revealed differing opinions over how safe it is to eat food produced in the Fukushima region. In an internet poll of 3-thousand people released on Tuesday, 93-percent of Koreans asked felt it would be “dangerous” to eat food produced in the Fukushima area. On the other hand, 36-percent of Japanese residents felt it would be unsafe to do so. People from other parts of the world also took part in the survey, with 87 percent of Chinese respondents expressing concerns over food from Fukushima. Japan is set to release contaminated water into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in the coming months.
Neighbouring countries and local fishers express concern as 12th anniversary of nuclear disaster looms
Workers in hazmat suits remove radioactive materials from contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Wed 15 Feb 2023
Almost 12 years have passed since the strongest earthquake in Japan’s recorded history resulted in a tsunami that killed more than 18,000 people along its north-east coast.
As the country prepares to mark the 11 March anniversary, one of the disaster’s most troubling legacies is about to come into full view with the release of more than 1m tonnes of “treated” water from the destroyed Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The tsunami knocked out the plant’s backup electricity supply, leading to meltdowns in three of its reactors, in the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chornobyl 25 years earlier.
Much has changed since the Guardian’s first visit to the plant in 2012, when the cleanup had barely begun and visitors were required to wear protective clothing and full-face masks. Atmospheric radiation levels have dropped, damaged reactor buildings have been reinforced and robots have identified melted fuel in the basements.
But as the Guardian learned on a recent visit, progress on decommissioning – a process that could take four decades – is being held up by the accumulation of huge quantities of water that is used to cool the damaged reactor cores.
Now, 1.3m tonnes of water – enough to fill about 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools – is being stored in 1,000 tanks that cover huge swathes of the complex. And space is running out.
Two steel pillars protruding from the sea a kilometre from the shore mark the spot where, later this year, the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], plans to begin releasing the water into the Pacific Ocean, in the most controversial step in the Fukushima Daiichi cleanup to date.
The decision comes more than two years after Japan’s government approved the release of the water, which is treated using on-site technology to remove most radioactive materials. But the water still contains tritium, a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen that is technically difficult to separate from water.
The discharge, which is due to begin in the spring or summer, will take place in defiance of local fishing communities, who say it will destroy more than a decade of work to rebuild their industry. Neighbouring countries have also voiced opposition.
The government and Tepco claim the environmental and health impacts will be negligible because the treated water will be released gradually after it has been diluted by large amounts of seawater. The International Atomic Energy Agency says nuclear plants around the world use a similar process to dispose of wastewater containing low-level concentrations of tritium and other radionuclides.
Tepco and government officials who guided a small group of journalists around Fukushima Daiichi this month insisted the science supports their plans to pump the “treated” water – they object to media reports describing it as contaminated – into the ocean.
The water will be treated and, if necessary, treated again until tritium levels have fallen below government limits, said Hikaru Kuroda, a Tepco official overseeing the decontamination and decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi. “By the time the liquid is diluted with seawater, tritium levels will be at less than 1,500 becquerels per litre, or 1/40th of the government standard for discharging water into the environment,” he said.
“We will have contaminated water on the site for as long as we have to cool the reactor basements. And we will release the water very slowly to begin with, so we could be looking at something like 20 to 30 years to complete the process.”
The fiercest opposition has come from Fukushima’s fishers, who say releasing the water risks destroying their livelihoods because consumers will shun their catch and send prices plummeting.
“Even though it is safe, it could still harm sales of Fukushima seafood and lower prices, which is what happened 12 years ago,” conceded Junichi Matsumoto, Tepco’s chief officer for the management of treated water. “We know fishing communities are worried … that’s why we and the government are working on addressing the potential reputational damage.”
The Fukushima prefectural government says that, post-disaster, its food safety standards are among the strictest in the world. The government-set upper limit for radioactive caesium in ordinary foodstuffs such as meat and vegetables is 100 becquerels a kilogram, compared with 1,250Bq/kg in the EU and 1,200Bq/kg in the US.
While officials attempt to reassure the public and other countries that Fukushima produce is safe for consumers, Tepco and the government have embarked on a PR offensive, holding regular briefings on the water discharge for Tokyo-based diplomats and journalists, and running ads on TV, in newspapers and online.
“We take other countries’ concerns seriously, which is why we are using every possible opportunity to explain the discharge plan to them,” said Ayako Ogino, a foreign ministry official. “We have made a commitment to discharge the water without harming the environment or human health. To describe the water as contaminated is erroneous, as it implies that it will harm the environment.”
The campaign has had mixed results. South Korea and China have voiced opposition to the discharge, while the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) said recently it had “grave concerns”.
Environmental groups have challenged the Japanese government’s claims that the water will not affect marine life or human health, while the US National Association of Marine Laboratories has pointed to a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data to support its reassurances on safety.
The water release plan received a boost this month, however, when Micronesia, a member of the PIF, dropped its opposition to the water discharge. Its president, David Panuelo, said in Tokyo that his country was “no longer fearful or concerned about this issue now as we trust in Japan’s intention and technological capabilities in not harming our shared oceanic interests”.
Japanese officials have ruled out other options, including long-term storage underground or evaporation, and insist nothing will stand in the way of the discharge plans. “The biggest obstacle to decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi is the debris [inside the reactors],” said Atsushi Wakui, a nuclear accident official at the economy, trade and industry ministry.
“Securing the site so we can begin removing the melted fuel is absolutely essential, and that means urgently addressing the water problem. There are more than 1,000 tanks of water here, and they need to go.”
nuclear-news 