nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Japan claims that China and South Korea both pour radioactive waste-water , worse than Japan’s, into the oceans

Japan said Thursday that China and South Korea have both discharged liquid
waste containing high levels of tritium, a radioactive material, countering
Beijing’s criticism of Tokyo’s plan to release treated water from the
Fukushima nuclear power plant. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno
also said Japan will explain to China “based on scientific perspectives”
the planned water discharge into the sea from the nuclear complex, crippled
by a devastating earthquake and ensuing tsunami in March 2011. Japan’s
standard for the release of tritium, at below 22 trillion becquerels per
year, is far stricter than that of other nations including its neighbors
China and South Korea, Matsuno, the top government spokesman, said at a
regular press conference.

In 2021, the Yangjiang nuclear plant in China
discharged around 112 trillion becquerels of tritium, while the Kori power
station in South Korea released about 49 trillion becquerels of the
radioactive material, Japan’s industry ministry said.

Japan Today 6th July 2023

https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-says-china-s.-korea-released-water-with-high-levels-of-tritium

July 9, 2023 Posted by | China, oceans, radiation, South Korea | Leave a comment

Japanese regulator greenlights discharge of nuclear waste from Fukushima plant.

(Rafael Grossi – the consummate hypocrite)

Grossi, however, stressed that the report does not signify support for Japan’s decision to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean.

‘IAEA’s conclusion largely limited, incomplete, fails to respond to international community’s concerns,’ says China

AA, Necva Taştan  |07.07.2023, ISTANBUL 

Japan’s nuclear regulator Friday approved the release of treated radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, thus allowing the country to begin discharge of the waste into the sea this summer.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., received certification from the Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved Japan’s water discharge plan through a comprehensive assessment, Tokyo-based Kyodo News reported.

Neighboring China has fiercely opposed the plan and on Friday imposed a ban on the import of seafood from Japan’s 10 regions.

However, the IAEA its two-year-long safety review report concluded the discharge of nuclear waste will have a “negligible” impact on people and the environment.

However, Beijing disagrees.

The report was submitted to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida early this week by IAEA chief Rafael Grossi.

“The IAEA conclusion is largely limited and incomplete and failed to respond to the international community’s concerns over Japan’s plan to dump nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean,” said Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, Beijing-based Global Times reported.

Grossi, however, stressed that the report does not signify support for Japan’s decision to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean.

Wang said Grossi’s remarks that “one or two experts” of the IAEA team had concerns over the agency’s report on Japan’s nuclear waste, “once again prove the report was hastily released and failed to fully reflect views from experts who participated in the review.”……….

“China urges Japan not to take the report as the greenlight,” but suspend the dumping plan and dispose of the nuclear-contaminated wastewater in a responsible way, Wang added.

Grossi is now traveling to South Korea, New Zealand, and Cook Islands, which is the current chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, to “address concerns, hear views, clarify IAEA role” on Japan’s nuclear waste, the IAEA chief said on Twitter.

Japan’s water discharge plan, announced in April 2021, faced significant criticism from China, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, and international organizations, including the UN.

The US supported the proposal, following years of discussions on dealing with over 1 million tons of water stored at the Fukushima nuclear complex since the 2011 disaster.

Despite the pressure, Japan last month initiated the injection of seawater into a drainage tunnel at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, marking the initial stage of releasing treated radioactive wastewater into the ocean.  https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/japanese-regulator-greenlights-discharge-of-nuclear-waste-from-fukushima-plant/2939518

July 8, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi says he’s satisfied with Japan’s plans to release Fukushima wastewater

[Ed note. In this IAEA’s internal document the IAEA is seen coaching TEPCO about what to tell and what not tell to the public regarding the « treated » water to be soon discharged into the Pacific Ocean.

One thing that can be drawn from that document’s content is that the IAEA and TEPCO have no intention to be fully transparent about the radioactive contamination of the said « treated water », only the one to cushion insidiously the real facts to the public eyes.]

BY MARI YAMAGUCHI, July 5, 2023

FUTABA, Japan (AP) — The head of the U.N. atomic agency toured Japan’s tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant on Wednesday and said he is satisfied with still-contentious plans to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean…………………………………

The wastewater release still faces opposition in and outside Japan.

Earlier Wednesday, Grossi met with local mayors and fishing association leaders and stressed that the IAEA will be present throughout the water discharge, which is expected to last decades, to ensure safety and address residents’ concerns. He said he inaugurated a permanent IAEA office at the plant, showing its long-term commitment.

The water discharge is not “some strange plan that has been devised only to be applied here, and sold to you,” Grossi said at the meeting in Iwaki, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) south of the plant. He said the method is certified by the IAEA and is followed around the world…………………….

Local fishing organizations have rejected the plan because they worry their reputation will be damaged even if their catch isn’t contaminated. It is also opposed by groups in South Korea, China and some Pacific Island nations due to safety concerns and political reasons.

Fukushima’s fisheries association adopted a resolution on June 30 reaffirming its rejection of the plan.

The fishery association chief, Tetsu Nozaki, urged government officials at Wednesday’s meeting “to remember that the treated water plan was pushed forward despite our opposition.”

Grossi is expected to also visit South Korea, New Zealand and the Cook Islands to ease concerns there. He said his intention is to explain what the IAEA, not Japan, is doing to ensure there is no problem.

In an effort to address concerns about fish and the marine environment, Grossi and Tomoaki Kobayakawa, president of the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, signed an agreement on a joint project to determine whether they are impacted by tritium, the only radionuclide officials say cannot be removed from the wastewater by treatment.

In South Korea, officials said in a briefing Wednesday that it’s highly unlikely that the released water will have dangerous levels of contamination. They said South Korea plans to tightly screen seafood imported from Japan and that there is no immediate plan to lift the country’s import ban on seafood from the Fukushima region.

Park Ku-yeon, first vice minister of South Korea’s Office for Government Policy Coordination, said Seoul plans to comment on the IAEA findings when it issues the results of the country’s own investigation into the potential effects of the water release, which he said will come soon.

China doubled down on its objections to the release in a statement late Tuesday, saying the IAEA report failed to reflect all views and accusing Japan of treating the Pacific Ocean as a sewer.

“We once again urge the Japanese side to stop its ocean discharge plan, and earnestly dispose of the nuclear-contaminated water in a science-based, safe and transparent manner. If Japan insists on going ahead with the plan, it will have to bear all the consequences arising from this,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.

Grossi said Wednesday he is aware of the Chinese position and takes any concern seriously. “China is a very important partner of the IAEA and we are in close contact,” he said………………….  https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-radioactive-water-a4dcc4457c95f15ac7636fde4aca1df3
—

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, PERSONAL STORIES, politics international | Leave a comment

Fukushima: Anxiety and anger over Japan’s nuclear waste water plan

By Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 6 July 23

A controversial plan by Japan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant has sparked anxiety and anger at home and abroad.

Since the 2011 tsunami which severely damaged the plant, more than a million tonnes of treated waste water has accumulated there. Japan now wants to start discharging it into the Pacific Ocean.

The UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has published a report endorsing Japan’s plan.

But since it was announced two years ago, the plan has been deeply controversial in Japan with local communities expressing concerns about contamination.

Fishing and seafood industry groups in Japan and the wider region have also voiced concerns about their livelihoods, as they fear consumers will avoid buying seafood.

And Tokyo’s neighbours are not happy either. China has been the most vocal, accusing Japan of treating the ocean as its “private sewer”. On Tuesday it criticised the IAEA report, saying its conclusions were “one-sided”.

So what is Japan’s plan and how exactly has it churned the waters?

What does Japan plan to do with the nuclear waste?

Since the disaster, power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. This means every day the plant produces contaminated water, which is stored in massive tanks.

More than 1,000 tanks have been filled, and Japan says this is not a sustainable long-term solution. It wants to gradually release this water into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 years, insisting it is safe to be discharged.

Releasing treated waste water into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants – but given that this is the by-product of an accident, this is no ordinary nuclear waste.

Tepco filters the Fukushima water through its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which reduces most radioactive substances to acceptable safety standards, apart from tritium and carbon-14……………………………………….

What do critics say?

UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.

Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.

UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.

Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.

There are also some scientists who are uncomfortable with the plan. They say it requires more studies on how it would affect the ocean bed and marine life.

“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.

Tatsujiro Suzuki, a nuclear engineering professor from Nagasaki University’s Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, told the BBC the plan would “not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public – if everything goes well”.

But given that Tepco failed to prevent the 2011 disaster, he remains concerned about a potential accidental release of contaminated water, he said.

What have Japan’s neighbours said?

China has demanded that Japan reaches an agreement with regional countries and international institutions before it releases the water.

Beijing has also accused Tokyo of violating “international moral and legal obligations”, and warned that if it proceeded with the plan, “it must bear all consequences”.

The two countries currently have a prickly relationship, with Japan’s recent military build-up and China’s provocative moves around Taiwan raising tensions.


Tokyo has engaged in talks with its neighbours, and hosted a South Korean team of experts on a tour of the Fukushima plant in May. But it is not certain how far it would commit to getting neighbouring countries’ approval before it goes ahead with the plan.

In contrast to China, Seoul – which has been keen to build ties with Japan – has soft-pedalled its concerns and on Tuesday it said it “respects” the IAEA’s findings.

But this approach has angered the South Korean public, 80% of whom are worried about the water release according to a recent poll.

“The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,” Park Hee-jun, a South Korean fisherman told BBC Korean.

“Some of the officials say we should remain quiet if we don’t want to make consumers even more anxious. I think that’s nonsense.”

Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action, as some shoppers fearing food supply disruptions have stockpiled salt and other necessities.

In response, South Korea’s parliament passed a resolution last week opposing the water release plan – though it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan’s decision. Officials are also launching “intense inspections” of seafood, and are sticking to an existing ban of Japanese seafood imports from regions around the Fukushima plant.

To assuage the public’s fears, prime minister Han Duck-soo said he would be willing to drink the Fukushima water to show it is safe, while one official said last week that only a small fraction of the discharge would end up in Korean waters.

Elsewhere in the region, several island nations have also expressed concerns with the Pacific Islands Forum regional group calling the plan another “major nuclear contamination disaster”.

How has Japan responded?

Japanese authorities and Tepco have sought to convince critics by explaining the science behind the treatment process, and they would continue to do so with “a high level of transparency”, promised prime minister Fumio Kishida on Tuesday.

In materials published on its foreign affairs ministry website, Japan also pointed out that other nuclear plants in the region – particularly those in China – discharge water with much higher levels of tritium. The BBC was able to verify some of these figures with publicly available data from Chinese nuclear plants.

But the biggest vindication may lie with the IAEA report, released by the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi while visiting Japan…………………………

On Tuesday, Mr Grossi said the plan would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.

With the world’s nuclear watchdog giving its stamp of approval, Japan could start discharging the Fukushima water as early as August, according to some reports – setting the stage for an intensified showdown with its critics.

Additional reporting by Yuna Kim and Chika Nakayama.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Japan, oceans | Leave a comment

Fukushima: China calls for suspension of Japanese plan to release radioactive water into sea.

Guardian, 4 July 23

Comments come as IAEA boss visits Japan to deliver results of safety report on planned discharge of nuclear-contaminated water

China has called for the suspension of a Japanese plan to begin releasing radioactive water from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea, ahead of a UN report that is expected to give its approval to the scheme.

Beijing denounced the plan as “extremely irresponsible” when it was announced in 2021 and reiterated its opposition on Tuesday, as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, Rafael Grossi, begins a four-day visit in which he is set to deliver the results of the body’s safety review.

Through its embassy in Japan, China said the IAEA’s report cannot be a “pass” for the water release and called for it to be suspended.

Last week a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry said Beijing urged Japan to “take seriously both international and domestic concerns, stop forcibly proceeding with its ocean discharge plan” and “subject itself to rigorous international oversight”.

……… Local Japanese fishing communities have also objected to the plan, saying it will destroy more than a decade of work rebuilding their industry, with consumers likely to shun their catch and send prices plummeting.

Japan has not specified a date for the water release, which would take place over 30 to 40 years pending the IAEA’s final review and official approval from the national nuclear regulatory body for Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco). The regulatory body’s final word could come as early as this week………………… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/04/fukushima-china-calls-for-suspension-of-japanese-plan-to-release-radioactive-water-into-sea
—

July 5, 2023 Posted by | China, oceans | 2 Comments

International community cannot tolerate Japan’s nuclear-contaminated water dumping.

By Global Times, Jul 03, 2023 ,  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202307/1293596.shtml

Japan is making final preparations for dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea. According to local media reports, Japan’s nuclear regulator finished inspecting a newly completed system to release radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the sea, presenting a posture that everything is ready. Rafael Mariano Grossi, director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will visit Japan from Tuesday to Friday, and the IAEA’s final assessment report on Japan’s dumping plan will soon be released. Will Grossi’s attitude, or the IAEA’s final assessment, change Japan’s decision to dump wastewater into the sea? It seems unlikely.

In fact, the Japanese side officially approved the dumping plan as early as July 22 last year. Since then, it has been working intensively on implementing the plan. At the same time, it has been spending a lot of effort on public relations, never taking seriously of the strong concerns at home and abroad, and failing to conduct adequate and well-intentioned consultations with stakeholders. And the IAEA is being targeted by the Japanese side as a priority in networking. Although the organization cannot give Japan a “license” and a “talisman” for dumping nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese side may make an issue of how the IAEA writes its assessment report and draws its conclusions.

We still urge the IAEA to uphold the principles of objectivity, professionalism and impartiality, develop an assessment report that can stand the test of science and history, and not endorse the Japanese side’s dumping plan. Tokyo’s calculation is to force the international community to accept that what’s done is done. Japan hopes that after resisting the pressure for some time, perhaps the international community’s attention will turn to other areas, and the opposition to dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea will weaken. We cannot let such a scheme succeed.

Now we need to be particularly vigilant that some governments and the Japanese side have reached a political deal over the issue of the wastewater dumping plan, which is a colluded betrayal of the public interest of mankind and marine ecology. Washington was the first to give Tokyo the green light for geopolitical reasons and then persuaded its other allies. The South Korean government has also started to release ambiguous messages frequently despite strong opposition from the public. To dispel the public’s doubts, some lawmakers from the South Korean ruling party even went to the seafood market in groups to drink seawater from the breeding pond, and “even the fish in the pond found it ridiculous.” Some European governments have also relaxed their attitude over the issue.

There have been concerns, objections, and questions about the discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea from ASEAN countries, Pacific Island countries, and others including Japan. Although the US and Japanese governments have tried to marginalize such voices, they have never disappeared. China’s position as a major power is clear and has remained unchanged. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea is a matter of common interest for the international community, not a private matter for Japan. So China urges the Japanese side to stop pushing forward with the dumping plan, effectively dispose of the nuclear-contaminated water in a scientific, safe and transparent manner, and accept strict international supervision. This is a voice from a scientific and all-human perspective, which is justified and couldn’t be alone.

In order to promote the safety of seafood from Fukushima, the Japanese government once attempted to use Fukushima’s seafood in the meals of primary and secondary schools in the prefecture. However, all schools in Fukushima prefecture rejected this proposal. According to reports, content of Cs-137 in fish recently caught in the harbor of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is 180 times that of the standard maximum stipulated in Japan’s food safety law, which is extremely alarming.

In this situation, claiming that the contaminated wastewater is safe is nothing but a lie. As officials from Pacific island countries have said, if the so-called “treated water” meets the standards and can be discharged, why doesn’t Japan use this contaminated wastewater in its own country, especially in its agricultural sector?

Japan does have other more appropriate choices. The Japanese government has considered five different treatment options, but it ultimately chose the cheapest and easiest one, which is to discharge the contaminated wastewater into the ocean. From a technical standpoint, this is the solution with the lowest economic cost to Japan, but it releases the highest amount of radioactive substances into the global environment. Japan is unwilling to spend money on safely treating the contaminated wastewater but is willing to invest in public relations. According to recent reports from South Korean media, Japanese officials made political donations worth over EUR 1 million to the staff of the IAEA Secretariat and there has been no response to this matter so far.

According to a German marine scientific research institute, with the world’s strongest currents along the coast of Fukushima, radioactive materials could spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within 57 days from the date of discharge. However, Japan has failed to provide a comprehensive and systematic monitoring plan for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea. The current monitoring scope is small, with few sampling points and low frequency, making it difficult to timely detect abnormal situations such as discharging pollutants in levels that exceed the stipulated standards. In short, Japan’s forceful disposal of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is illegal and violates a series of international legal obligations, constituting a crime against all of humanity. China and the international community’s forces of justice stand together against such behavior and will never compromise or tolerate it.

July 3, 2023 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Fukushima continuing, oceans | Leave a comment

US navy accused of cover-up over radioactive shipyard waste

The US navy is covering up dangerous levels of radioactive waste on a
40-acre former shipyard parcel in San Francisco’s waterside Hunters Point
neighborhood, public health advocates charge.

The land is slated to be
turned over to the city as early as next year, and could be used for
residential redevelopment. The accusations stem from 2021 navy testing that
found 23 samples from the property showed high levels of strontium-90, a
radioactive isotope that replaces calcium in bones and causes cancer.

The Environmental Protection Agency raised alarm over the levels, but the navy
in 2022 said its testing was inaccurate and produced a new set of data that
showed levels of strontium-90 lower than zero, which was dismissed by
environmental health experts as impossible.

Guardian 25th June 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/25/us-navy-accused-radiocative-shipyard-waste

June 26, 2023 Posted by | environment, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Is Fukushima wastewater release safe? What the science says

Radiation in the water will be diluted to almost-background levels, but some researchers are not sure this will be sufficient to mitigate the risks.

Bianca Nogrady Nature, 22 June 23

Despite concerns from several nations and international groups, Japan is pressing ahead with plans to release water contaminated by the 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean. Starting sometime this year and continuing for the next 30 years, Japan will slowly release treated water stored in tanks at the site into the ocean through a pipeline extending one kilometre from the coast. But just how safe is the water to the marine environment and humans across the Pacific region?

How is the water contaminated?

The power station exploded after a devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami crippled the coastal plant, overheating the reactor cores. Since then, more than 1.3 million cubic metres of seawater have been sprayed onto the damaged cores to keep them from overheating, contaminating the water with 64 radioactive elements, known as radionuclides. Of greatest concern are those that could pose a threat to human health: carbon-14, iodine-131, caesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60 and hydrogen-3, also known as tritium.

Some of these radionuclides have a relatively short half-life and would already have decayed in the 12 years since the disaster. But others take longer to decay; carbon-14, for example, has a half-life of more than 5,000 years.

How are they treating the water?

The contaminated water has been collected, treated to reduce the radioactive content and stored in more than 1,000 stainless steel tanks at the site. …………………………

Will radioactivity concentrate in fish?

Nations such as South Korea have expressed concern that the treated water could have unexplored impacts on the ocean environment, and a delegation from the country visited the Fukushima site in May. Last year, the US National Association of Marine Laboratories in Herndon, Virginia, also voiced its opposition to the planned release, saying that there was “a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data supporting Japan’s assertion of safety”. The Philippine government has also called for Japan to reconsider releasing the water into the Pacific.

“Have the people promoting this going forward — ALPS treatment of the water and then release into the ocean — demonstrated to our satisfaction that it will be safe for ocean health and human health?” asks Robert Richmond, marine biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “The answer is ‘no’.”

Richmond is one of five scientists on a panel advising the Pacific Islands Forum, an intergovernmental organization made up of 18 Pacific nations including Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and French Polynesia. The panel was convened to advise on whether the release of the treated water from Fukushima was safe both for the ocean and for those who depend on it. Richmond says they have reviewed all the data provided by TEPCO and the Japanese government, and visited the Fukushima site, but there are still some unanswered questions about tritium and carbon-14………………………………….

TEPCO says fishing is not routinely conducted in an area within 3 kilometres of where the pipeline will discharge the water. But Richmond is concerned the tritium could concentrate in the food web as larger organisms eat smaller contaminated ones. “The concept of dilution as the solution to pollution has demonstrably been shown to be false,” Richmond says. “The very chemistry of dilution is undercut by the biology of the ocean.”

Shigeyoshi Otosaka, an oceanographer and marine chemist at the Atmospheric and Ocean Research Institute of the University of Tokyo says that the organically bound form of tritium could accumulate in fish and marine organisms. He says international research is investigating the potential for such bioaccumulation of the radionuclides in marine life, and what has already happened in the waters around Fukushima after the accidental release of contaminated water during the tsunami. “I think it is important to evaluate the long-term environmental impact of these radionuclides,” Otosaka says……………………………….  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-

June 25, 2023 Posted by | Japan, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

Japan urged to halt release of toxic water

By Xu Weiwei in Hong Kong and Karl Wilson in Sydney, China Daily : 2023-06-19 

Impact of Fukushima nuclear plant discharge plan seen as catastrophic

Environmental and social experts from across Asia have called on Japan to refrain from contaminating the sea with radioactive wastewater after it began test running the equipment to discharge toxic water from a crippled nuclear power plant into the Pacific.

The nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will contain traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope, and possibly other radioactive traces such as carbon-14, scientists said.

“Nobody wants to dump (radioactive substances) into the ocean,” said David Krofcheck, senior lecturer in the faculty of science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

“We need to be aware of the difference between tritium and carbon-14, on one hand, and the radioactive fission products which tend to remain in the human body,” he said, adding that tritium could still enter the food chain throughout its buildup in underwater plants.

“This organically bound tritium still decays with a half-life of 12.3 years, and it stays in the human body for about 10 days, the biological half-life, before excretion.”

Instead of pumping the wastewater into the sea, Japan can dispose of it safely, Krofcheck said, offering an alternative for managing the Fukushima water: to hold it on site in an ever “growing number of water tanks”.


“If the water is properly filtered to leave only tritium and carbon-14, the natural decay of tritium can be used to reduce its radioactivity.

“Since the radioactive half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, holding the water in tanks for seven half-lives would reduce the tritium content to less than 1 percent of its current value.”

This option still leaves the carbon-14 that would still roughly have the same radioactivity because of its 5,730-year half-life, he said.

The potential impact of releasing treated radioactive water from the Fukushima plant into the ocean remains a subject of contention and concern among stakeholders, said Anjal Prakash, clinical associate professor (research) and research director of the Bharti Institute of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad.

“The ocean release decision itself has sparked opposition, leading to ongoing debates on alternative water management strategies. The decision-making process weighs safety, public perception, regulations and potential impacts on industries and trade.”

While the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, operator of the crippled plant, say there is minimal risk, differing opinions persist, Prakash said, adding that factors such as ocean currents, distance, dilution and treatment efficacy will determine the impact on neighboring areas, including South Asia, Pacific Island countries, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world.

Long-term effects and bioaccumulation concerns remain, he said. “Evaluating the precise impact is complex, necessitating considerations of various factors and ongoing scientific research.”

Despite continuing opposition from domestic experts, civic groups and fishery organizations, Japan has been rushing to dump the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, which has also spurred protests from neighboring countries and communities within the Pacific Islands.

Firm opposition

In April the Fijian government reaffirmed its opposition to Japan’s plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica said earlier that the Pacific Ocean should not be seen as an easy and convenient dumping ground for unwanted and dangerous materials and waste that larger countries produce but do not want to use in their own ecosystem, local media reported.

“The social and economic impact of this irresponsible behavior is catastrophic, particularly on our vulnerable communities,” he said.

Environmental groups have argued that the move sets a bad precedent and poses a serious danger to Pacific communities that depend on the ocean for their livelihoods…………….

Many people are asking why, if the wastewater treated by Japan’s Advanced Liquid Processing System is so safe, Japanese are not using such water for alternative purposes, in manufacturing and agriculture for instance.

According to a report issued by Tokyo Electric Power Company on June 5, the radioactive elements in the marine fish caught in the harbor of the Fukushima plant far exceed safety levels for human consumption. In particular, the content of cesium-137, a radioactive element and a common byproduct in nuclear reactors, is said to be 180 times that of the standard maximum stipulated in Japan’s food safety law.

Kalinga Seneviratne, a visiting lecturer at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, said: “The contamination will affect the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (adopted in 1986) areas as well when it eventually flows there. Also, since fish stocks are migratory, contaminated fish could be caught within the treaty area.”…………………………. https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202306/19/WS648f8421a31033ad3f7bce66.html

June 20, 2023 Posted by | ASIA, oceans, politics | 1 Comment

Global biodiversity crisis

Nature is in crisis. Soils are being depleted faster than they can
regenerate, wildlife populations have crashed by two thirds in 50 years,
bird species are vanishing, a quarter of all plant and animal species are
dying out and their rate of disappearance is accelerating.

We are living through the sixth mass extinction in the planet’s history. For the first
time we are the cause. It’s not a distant threat but an immediate one. We
have had our free lunch building, poisoning, extracting, dredging,
harvesting, rapaciously demanding all the natural world can offer us. We
are treating the planet’s life as an infinitely exploitable, adaptable
resource. It isn’t. We are killing the web of growing things on which our
own survival depends.

Times 16th June 2023

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-thousand-little-acts-can-help-save-nature-0lcflzwgf

June 20, 2023 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

Darkness: nuclear winter – fire, ice, famine

A U.S.- Russia conflict could result in ‘prompt’ casualties in hundreds of millions to a billion. The subsequent global famine could claim up to 5 billion lives.

“What can be said with assurance…is that the Earth’s human population has a much greater vulnerability to the indirect effects of nuclear war…especially mediated through impacts on food productivity and availability, than to the direct effects of nuclear war itself. As a result, ‘The indirect effects could result in the loss of one to several billions of humans’”.

By John HallamJun 18, 2023,  https://johnmenadue.com/darkness-nuclear-winter-fire-ice-famine/

The Ukraine conflict, and the nuclear threats uttered by Vladimir Putin have made the risk of nuclear war as high as it has ever been. The current position of the Doomsday Clock hands at 90 seconds to ‘midnight’ is the closest ever. Nuclear Winter, together with tech-ending EMP, is one of a number of civilisation- ending things we’ll have to deal with if the hands ever reach midnight.

Let’s look at the year I met my beloved – In 1983, the year Nuclear Winter became an object of discussion, and the world nearly ended twice.

First, on 26 Sept, Colonel Stanislav Petrov, working an unscheduled shift at the Serpukhov-15 nuclear command centre about 70 miles south of Moscow, singlehandedly prevented World War III. If not for his decision-making, the Nuclear Winter simulations I’ve been studying would’ve become reality. In November 1983, The USSR mistook an apocalypse rehearsal by NATO for the real thing.

Smoke, soot, and climate

The TTAPS Nuclear Winter study was published in December 1983. It warned that the smoke from burning cities and forests could create a layer of black carbon soot in the stratosphere, blocking sunlight and drastically reducing ground temperatures, with devastating consequences for life on earth.

The concept of a nuclear winter mistakenly faded from the public consciousness by the 1990s.

In 2007 interest in nuclear winter resurfaced, driven by renewed concerns about nuclear weapons and an improved climate model. Prof. Alan Robock’s study, “Nuclear Winter Revisited with a Modern Climate Model and Current Nuclear Arsenals – Still Catastrophic Consequences,” utilised the latest climate model. Unlike its predecessors, the study ran simulations for decades, incorporating the behaviour of deep oceans.

Robock’s research concluded that even a “limited” nuclear war (India vs Pakistan) could result in a nuclear winter.

The effects of such a catastrophe, it warned, would persist longer than previously thought, extending the global food shortage into decades and leading to widespread starvation.

The 2007 study made several important discoveries. Atmospheric soot, resulting from a nuclear explosion, can linger in the atmosphere for decades. Importantly, Soot could self-loft to much greater heights than previously considered.

Even a nuclear conflict involving hundreds, rather than thousands, of warheads,(e.g. India vs Pakistan) could lead to a nuclear winter capable of triggering global famine resulting in up to 2 billion subsequent fatalities.

Following 2007, researchers focussed on the aftermath of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. This focus had been intensified when, during a 2003 confrontation between India and Pakistan, nuclear weapons were moved to the line of control (over which WW-II was being re-fought with an option to go to WW-III) in Kashmir. The confrontation ultimately de-escalated, but not without a close call, admitted by both countries’ leaders.

In 2008, researchers Brian Toon, Richard Turco, and Alan Robock concluded that even if significant reductions in nuclear arsenals were achieved, the humanitarian and environmental consequences of a nuclear war would still be devastating. The direct effects of using the 2012 arsenals were estimated to cause hundreds of millions of fatalities, while the indirect effects could potentially wipe out the majority of the human population.

Subsequent studies by researchers including Lili Xia, Alan Robock, and Luke Oman particularly focussed on how a nuclear conflict could disrupt global food supplies. Ira Helfand of IPPNW, concluded that up to 2 billion people could face starvation in the decade following such a conflict.

The 2022 Nature-Food study suggests that a large-scale conflict between India and Pakistan could result in a quarter of the world’s population facing famine. A NATO/Russia clash could lead to famine for the vast majority of the Earth’s population.

Comparisons between old and new climate models, consistently affirmed that a large-scale nuclear conflict would lead to nuclear winter, supporting research from the 1980s and underscoring the dire need for nuclear disarmament.

Some variables can significantly impact these conclusions. The amount of black carbon soot generated in a nuclear explosion will depend on the target’s ‘fuel load.’ The altitude that the smoke reaches in the atmosphere is also an essential consideration. The unanimous agreement among researchers, however, is that the effects would be devastatingly catastrophic. The ultimate solution lies in reducing nuclear arsenals and striving for global disarmament.

Wildfires, volcanoes, and asteroids

Can wildfires and volcanic eruptions serve as models for the impacts of a nuclear winter?

Recent wildfires, like the 2019 Australian bushfires and 2023 Canadian fires, shot smoke up into the stratosphere, just as volcanic eruptions, like the Mt Agung and Mt Tambora events in 536 AD and 1815, did.

The asteroid impact at the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago, often compared with nuclear winter, was cataclysmic enough to cause mass extinction, including likely that of dinosaurs.

Nuclear wars, even ‘smaller’ ones are expected to have immediate casualties ranging up to 500 million. These conflicts would eject millions of tonnes of soot into the stratosphere, causing a global famine affecting billions.

A US Russia conflict could result in ‘prompt’ casualties in hundreds of millions to a billion. The subsequent global famine could claim up to 5 billion lives.

Countries that are agriculturally challenged or heavily dependent on import for food like wheat or rice will be hardest hit.

Chinese cities have the highest fuel loads, so their targeting would produce more atmospheric black carbon, increasing the severity of a nuclear winter. China also has a very significant nuclear arsenal.

The ideal locations during such a cataclysm would be Australia and New Zealand, though Australia’s connections with major nuclear command and control installations could make them targets.

As nuclear war becomes a real possibility, both between NATO and Russia and between India and Pakistan, nuclear winter seems an imminent threat. This is due to the failure of Governments, primarily Russia and the US, but also China, India, the UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea, to honour their legal obligations under the NPT to disarm.

In summary, the quote from Toon, Robock, and Turco in their 2008 Physics Today article speaks volumes:

“What can be said with assurance…is that the Earth’s human population has a much greater vulnerability to the indirect effects of nuclear war…especially mediated through impacts on food productivity and availability, than to the direct effects of nuclear war itself. As a result, ‘The indirect effects could result in the loss of one to several billions of humans’”.

The consequences of nuclear conflict and a potential nuclear winter must be at the forefront of our global discourse, underscoring the urgency for disarmament and peace.

June 19, 2023 Posted by | environment, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USSR Sprinkled More Than 2,500 Nuclear Generators Across The Countryside

Hundreds of these tiny atomic terrors are still unaccounted for in the rugged landscape of the former Soviet Union.

By Erin Marquis, 16 June 23, https://jalopnik.com/ussr-sprinkled-more-than-2-500-nuclear-generators-acros-1850501190

Ah, the USSR. It was a strange place with strange ideas. Ideas such as planting unprotected mini nuclear power sources into inhospitable and hard-to-reach areas. I mean, nothing should go wrong as long as the government always exists to maintain them, right?

Welcome to the world of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators or RTGs. It’s a piece of nuclear history I only recently learned about and thought I should bring this whole new horror to your attention as well. These things are just kind of rolling around famously stable Russia, and it seems like it should be a cause for concern.

RTGs are not nuclear reactors, nor are they “nuclear batteries.” Rather they work by converting the heat caused by radioactive decay into electricity. Due to the dangerous nature of the materials used however, countries like America only use RTGs in applications such as space exploration. Voyager, Cassini and New Horizons uses RTGs for power, as do the Mars rovers Perseverance and Curiosity. These probes however, use expensive plutonium-238 as their power sources and we launch them far the hell away from us.

The USSR though? Nah. It’s going to use super cheap, super radioactive Strontium-90 instead, though later, smaller RTGs used equally cheap Caesium-137 or Cerium-144. These three isotopes all have one thing in common; they’re all the products of spent nuclear fission. In other words, waste. The terrestrial Beta-M RTG is about 1.5 meters wide and 1.5 meters tall and weight about one metric ton, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The entire unit put out about between 1 and 1000 watts (quite the spread) and had a working life of 10 to 20 years.

Originally built by the USSR’s Navy to power lighthouses and radio navigation beacons along Russia’s expansive arctic coastline, the RTGs provided power hundreds or even thousands of miles from civilization, occasionally completely unprotected and always unsupervised. They were occasionally secured by metal frames or sheds, but sometimes these lighthouses and radio beacons were set up on little more than rough structures hastily constructed out of nearby timber with the RTG stuck outside to face the harsh arctic elements. While the USSR provided regular rolling patrols to maintain the RTGs, that came to a screeching halt in 1991 when the Soviet Union fell. After that, there was no money to maintain the hard-to-reach RTGs, and they became victims of neglect and metal thieves.

After it proved useful for the Navy, the Soviets put the RTGs into service in other rough terrains. That’s how several ended up in the mountains of the former Soviet state of Georgia. Three residents from the village of Lia, Georgia, found a canister high up in the mountains. Since this strange material gave off heat, the three used it to stay warm overnight, but they woke up vomiting and dizzy. A week later, a military hospital diagnosed the three with radiation sickness. Two of the men would make it out with the help of dozens of skin grafts and months in the hospital. But the man who slept closest to the radioisotope source and handled it the most could not be saved.

Their arrival at the hospital launched a mad scramble from the international atomic community to find the orphan source of radiation. Footage of the clean-up crew both training for retrieval and actually snaring the Strontium-90 core shows just how dangerous RTGs are:

That wasn’t the only incident involving RTGs however. In 2001, scrappers broke into a lighthouse on Kandalashka Bay and stole three radioisotope sources (all three were recovered and sent to Moscow). Three men in the mountains of Georgia were also exposed in 2002 after stumbling upon cores left out in the woods. In 2003, scrappers hurled a core into the Baltic Sea, where a team of experts retrieved it.

June 18, 2023 Posted by | environment, Russia, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, wastes | 1 Comment

Macao SAR to suspend Japanese food import after nuclear-contaminated wastewater discharge

An official at the Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM) of the Government of Macao Special Administrative Region (SAR) said on Tuesday that it will immediately suspend food import applications from Japan’s nine prefectures, if the country releases nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea.

O Lam, acting chairman of the IAM, said in an interview that import suspension will be expanded to the country’s nine “highest-risk prefectures,” including Tokyo Metropolis and Chiba prefectures.

Products to be suspended will include aquatic products, vegetables and fruits.

Fresh and live food imported from other prefectures may be asked to attach a certificate on radiation monitoring and pass inspection before entering Macao SAR, she added…………………………more https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-06-13/Macao-to-suspend-Japanese-food-import-after-nuclear-wastewater-release-1kBLwicliP6/index.html

2

June 18, 2023 Posted by | China, oceans | Leave a comment

The profligate use of our stressed freshwater resource by the nuclear industry.

Stressed Freshwater in our Lakes and Rivers Cooling the Heels of the Nuclear Industry – while the Industry wants More and Hotter Waste.

  BY MARIANNEWILDART,  https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2023/06/15/stressed-freshwater-in-our-lakes-and-rivers-are-cooling-the-heels-of-the-nuclear-industry-and-the-industry-wants-more-and-hotter-waste/

There is a deeply worrying unspoken aspect of this heatwave and that is the profligate use of our stressed freshwater resource by the nuclear industry. The hotter the weather the more freshwater is required for processes including the one absolutely essential to protect all life on planet earth from humanity’s greatest hubris – and that is the cooling of high level radioactive wastes. The industry requires top quality water not the rubbish that was given to folk in West Cumbria from the boreholes near Sellafield – nope the industry requires the coolest freshest waster including from Britain’s most iconic lake.

For Fifteen years now Radiation Free Lakeland have been flagging up the nuclear industry’s eyewatering use of our most precious resource,  freshwater.  For fifteen years the main stream media have shied away from the issue preferring to flag up the freshwater use of fracking which is big and very nasty but on a different scale both in time and quantity of freshwater involved .

Despite the nuclear industry insisting that the public should not have access to information on fresh water use for reasons of ‘national security’ we now have a body of documentation from (largely blacked out) Freedom of Information requests and research which shows that the nuclear industry’s freshwater use is on a scale second to none.  The nuclear industry’s abuse of fresh water continues long after other industrys’ fracking, fossil fuel etc will have come and gone.

We have been told by diligent fracking activists that the figure from the hydraulic fracture plan for Cuadrilla  was up to 31,000 cubic metres of water to frack the first well. This was based on up to 765 cubic metres per stage. The number of stages in the fracture plan was 41.  That is a lot, it is too much and thanks to diligence of fracking campaigners (nuclear campaigners also fought fracking) this was stopped in its tracks.  The ALREADY monstrous freshwater use by the nuclear industry in the Preston area was flagged up by nuclear campaigners.

Springfields Nuclear Fuels just off Preston New Road discharges at least 2400 cubic metres A DAY  into the River Ribble.  The fresh water discharge contains chemical and radioactive contamination – but the industry say this is fine as the super large quantities of  fresh water used  “dilute and disperse” the nasties.

Springfields Nuclear Fuels which is slap bang in the middle of Cuadrilla’s fracking plans on the Fylde has recieved no, nada, zilch attention  over its fresh water use.

The video illustrates information painstakingly gleaned about Springfields freshwater use along with Sellafield’s.  The front and the back end of the nuclear industry  which are neatly tucked away under a cloak of invisibility in the NW. Sellafield’s abusive use of the Lake District’s freshwater is detailed in the video taken from a talk at New Horizons, St Annes. Lets hope the rain falls soon to replenish our Lakes and Rivers which have been flushing cool water over hot nuclear wastes since the 1940s. The new build plan would mean more and ever hotter wastes to cool into infinity . Our Lakes and rivers are finite.

This abuse of our fresh water has been going on now since the 1940s.  Who knew? and Who Cares?

June 17, 2023 Posted by | climate change, wastes, water | 1 Comment

Fukushima waste-water plan a nuclear threat to Asia-Pacific

FILE PHOTO: Storage tanks for radioactive water are seen at Tokyo Electric Power Co’s (TEPCO) tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town, Fukushima prefecture, Japan February 18, 2019. REUTERS/Issei Kato/File Photo

By Shaun Burnie | chinadaily.com.cn 2023-06-13  https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202306/13/WS6487d3e0a31033ad3f7bbf92.html

Japan has decided to start discharging radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean very soon. The operator of the wrecked plant began tests on Monday of newly constructed facilities for discharging treated radioactive wastewater into the sea. Many myths and untruths have been spread about the nuclear-contaminated water. For example, the Japanese government has said, that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global nuclear industry and some scientists, there is nothing to worry about the effects of the radioactive wastewater.

The Japanese government also claims that nearly all the radioactive materials will be removed from the wastewater using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) with only tritium remaining before it is released into the Pacific. It is constantly stated that tritium cannot be removed from the wastewater, but would emit very weak radiation and therefore it will have no impact on either the marine environment or human health in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

False claims to mislead the Japanese public

As for Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owner of the Fukushima nuclear plant, it claims discharging the wastewater is necessary due to insufficient space for more storage tanks and for it to be able to fully decommissioning the Fukushima plant between 2041 and 2051. TEPCO also says the discharges will meet regulatory standards and will be lawful.

In the real world, it is a lot worse and a lot more complicated than what TEPCO, the Japanese government and the IAEA claims. The ALPS has been a spectacular failure, with major doubts about its effectiveness. In addition to tritium, all the radioactive carbon (C-14) in the wastewater will be released into the ocean along with many other radionuclides (plutonium isotopes, iodine-129, strontium-90). But despite the Japanese government and TEPCO “planning” to keep them below the regulatory limit, they will still be significant.

There is no safety threshold for artificial radioactivity in the environment, and technology does exist to process tritium from the tanks’ water. However, TEPCO and the Japanese government do not want to spend huge amounts of money needed to do so. Tritium is indeed a low energy radioactive material but that does not mean its effect is weak; if ingested, it has the potential to damage plants, animals and humans.

Recent research published by a leading radiation biologist shows scientific literature of the past 60-plus years is clear — tritium, in particular organically bound tritium (OBT), is biologically harmful to all forms of life. The persistence, bioaccumulation and potential biomagnification and increased toxicity of OBT increases the potential impact on the environment if tritiated water is discharged on land or in the sea.

Tritium more dangerous than previously believed

None of the current regulations in Japan (or worldwide) takes into full account the nature of organic forms of tritium. That organic forms of tritium have been found to bioaccumulate in phytoplankton, the base of the marine food chain, is deeply worrying. The fact that there has been no comprehensive environmental impact assessment of these and many other issues is outrageous, and suggests there is a deliberate underestimation of the accumulation and potential toxic effect of tritium on the environment.

Equally important, the many other radioactive materials in the Fukushima wastewater have the potential to cause damage to the environment and human health. In fact, Japan has sufficient storage capacity, including in the areas around the Fukushima plant. And storing the toxic wastewater, TEPCO cannot fully decommission the reactors at Fukushima in the next 20-30 years — probably not in this century. Rather than being lawful, the release of the wastewater into the sea will violate international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.


One reason why the untruths and myths continue to be spread is that there is a lot at stake for the Japanese government and the nuclear industry. Japan’s energy policy is dependent on restarting many nuclear reactors shut down after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. So far, nine have resumed operations — but according to government policy, Japan needs 30-plus reactors by 2030.

Public opinion in Japan has been influenced by the government’s claim that it is safe to operate these nuclear reactors and that it is possible to recover from a three-reactor meltdown without consequences for human health and the environment. Of course, it’s not.

Sweeping real issue under the carpet

TEPCO, the Japanese government or the IAEA refuses to accept that the wastewater crisis points to a deeper nuclear crisis at the Fukushima plant. And it is getting worse, because groundwater entering the plant continues to become highly contaminated, while the water in the tanks requiring ALPS processing increases.

In November 2021, based on TEPCO data, there were 1,284,284 cubic meters of contaminated ALPS water in the storage tanks, of which 832,900 cu m needed further ALPS processing. As of April 20, 2023, the total volume of radioactive wastewater stored in the tanks was 1,330,944 cu m — a 3.6 percent increase in less than 2 years.

Worse, about 70 percent or 931,600 cu m of the wastewater needs to be processed again (and probably many times again) by the ALPS to bring the radioactive concentration levels below the regulatory limit for discharge. This is an increase of nearly 12 percent in less than 2 years.

TEPCO has succeeded in reducing the concentration levels of strontium, iodine and plutonium in only 0.2 percent of the total volume of the wastewater, and it still requires further processing. But no secondary processing has taken place in the past nearly three years. Neither TEPCO nor the Japanese government nor the IAEA wants to talk about this. They have not said how many times the wastewater needs to be processed, how long it will take to do so or whether the efforts will ever be successful.

Problems not new but none solved in 5 years

Greenpeace wrote about these problems and why the ALPS failed nearly five years ago; none of those issues has been resolved. Also, there is a high possibility of the ALPS failing in the future.

To proceed with their discharge plan, the Japanese government and TEPCO have been creating a false impression on the public that significant progress has been made in decommissioning the Fukushima plant. But fact is, the source of the problem — the highly radioactive fuel debris in reactor pressure vessels 1, 2 and 3 — continues to contaminate groundwater. Nearly 1000 cu m of water becomes highly contaminated every 10 days. So until the nuclear fuel is isolated from the environment, contaminated groundwater, potentially hundreds of thousands of cubic meters, will continue to accumulate.

While the Fukushima plant, after being destroyed by the earthquake-triggered tsunami in March 2011, released large amounts of radioactive particles into the environment, most of the radioactive inventory remains inside the melted fuel. As such, the damaged Fukushima plant on the edge of ocean is a long-term radioactive threat to the environment, including the marine environment. And this threat will be aggravated once Japan begins dumping the toxic water into the ocean.

TEPCO, the Japanese government and the IAEA refuse to acknowledge the fact that the decommissioning plan for the Fukushima plant is not attainable, and that they must embark on a comprehensive reassessment of the plan.

Crisis compounded by damage to reactor

The nuclear crisis in Fukushima is compounded by the damage to the reactors, in particular unit 1. The rapid meltdown of the nuclear fuel in March 2011 severely damaged the large concrete block the 440-ton reactor pressure vessel sits on. One of the agencies responsible for its decommissioning has recently demanded that TEPCO work out immediate countermeasures to prevent the possible collapse of the reactor. But with very high radiation levels inside the plant, it’s not clear whether any countermeasures are possible.

Building a very large containment structure covering the reactor buildings, like it was done at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine after the nuclear disaster in 1986, is probably the only way to prevent highly radioactive dust entering the lower atmosphere in the event of a future collapse. But such a “solution” is not a currently an option for the Japanese government or the nuclear industry, as it would send the wrong message that the decommissioning process is not going according to plan.

There is no scientific, legal or moral justification for Japan to deliberately contaminate our shared and common marine environment. And concerned citizens, scientists, maritime lawyers, the fishing communities across the Asia-Pacific and the world’s leading oceanography universities and institutes have spread public awareness about the nuclear dangers, something that has rarely been done before.

There is a very strong legal case for challenging Japan’s decision to dump the wastewater into the sea but doing so is a major undertaking. For many reasons, no state or group of states may take up the challenge through UNCLOS this year. But since the environmental threat from the Fukushima plant will only intensify, future legal action should not be ruled out.

At a time when our oceans are under so many multiple threats, including from melting glaciers and related climate emergencies, overfishing and biodiversity loss and plastic pollution — there is no reason why Japan should be allowed to dump the radioactive water into the sea.

Greenpeace has been campaigning for protection for our oceans from radioactive contamination since the 1970s. And the most important thing I have learned in my 30 years with Greenpeace is that positive change is possible even if it does not often happen as early as it should but it can happen and people must never give up their efforts or hope.

The author is a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia and has worked in Japan and wider Asia for over 30 years.

June 13, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, Reference, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »