Booklets touting Fukushima plant water discharge angers schools
March 7, 2022
Complaints from educators have prompted some municipalities in coastal areas of the Tohoku region to stop schools from handing out government fliers to students or retrieve distributed ones that tout the safety of releasing treated water from a crippled nuclear plant into the ocean.
The government sent a total of 2.3 million booklets directly to elementary, junior and senior high schools across the nation in December in an effort to prevent reputational damage caused by the planned water discharge.
The school staffers say the leaflets are unilaterally imposing the central government’s views on children.
“There are both arguments for and against the processed water discharge program, but the materials impose the thought that it is safe on naive children in a one-sided manner,” said a principal of an elementary school in Miyagi Prefecture who described the fliers as “totally unacceptable” in the disaster-ravaged region.
The processed water at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is scheduled to be released into the sea in spring next year, but the plan is facing strong local opposition.
One of the two booklets in question targets elementary school students with the aim of promoting recovery from the nuclear crisis by instructing them on the disaster triggered by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.
It was developed by the economy ministry’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.
The other was worked out by the Reconstruction Agency to educate junior and senior high school students on the three topics over contaminated water treated with the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS).
They arrived directly in schools along with supplementary textbooks of the education ministry on radiation.
The handbook for elementary school pupils describes the processed water as “so safe that people’s eating or drinking it would pose no health problems.”
Referring to a radioactive substance called tritium in the treated water, the leaflet for high schools states there “would be no health effects” and that kind of water “has already been discharged in oceans all over the world.”
A representative of the Reconstruction Agency said its material was distributed as “supplementary data to provide scientific explanations to prevent the spread of groundless rumors that cause reputational damage.”
Mitsunori Fukuda, a senior economy ministry official, said the leaflets are aimed at providing accurate information about the water discharge based on scientific evidence to minimize possible reputational damage.
“The ministry has no intention of requiring using the leaflets (at schools) and it is up to local governments to decide how to use them,” said Fukuda, director of the Nuclear Accident Response Office.
The central government in April last year announced a plan to release water contaminated in the Fukushima nuclear crisis into the sea in spring 2023 after removing most radioactive substances in it and diluting it with seawater.
Suffering negative effects of groundless rumors of contaminated products in the aftermath of the 2011 tremor, local fisheries associations are resolutely opposing the program. Miyagi Prefecture in November demanded the state “research disposal options other than oceanic discharge.”
On Feb. 21, four opposition parliamentary groups in the prefectural assembly submitted a request to the prefecture’s educational board to stop the fliers from reaching students.
“Though the issue is still being discussed, the materials convey information directly to children while presupposing the sea release,” said Miyuki Yusa, chair of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan’s caucus in the assembly.
Yusa insisted that concerns about the safety of treated contaminated water have yet to be dispelled.
Akiyo Ito, head of the secretariat of the prefectural education board, said the board is not planning to retrieve all the distributed leaflets, but acknowledged that the documents have been “sent directly to schools and have resulted in a mess, posing a problem.”
Many municipalities are embarrassed about the booklets.
In Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, the city education board instructed 23 elementary and junior high schools, except for two schools, to refrain from distributing the leaflets and keep them at the schools. The two schools had already handed out the fliers to students.
An education board official said the leaflets include contents sensitive to the city where the fisheries industry is essential to the local economy.
“We need more time to deliberate on how to deal with the issue,” the official said.
Kamaishi and Ofunato cities in the same prefecture issued similar instructions.
In Okuma, which co-hosts the Fukushima No. 1 plant in Fukushima Prefecture, officials distributed the fliers at junior high schools but decided not to do so in elementary schools.
In Iwaki in the same prefecture, the city education board sent a written notice to all elementary and junior high schools on Feb. 4, calling on them to refrain from using them in classes and store them at schools.
A junior high school teacher said the timing was inappropriate.
“It is important for children to know the actual situation but it is too early to distribute the leaflets when there are strong criticisms about the planned water discharge,” the teacher said.
Ishinomaki city in Miyagi Prefecture called on school operators to “cease handing the leaflets to students” because it has not examined the contents thoroughly.
As many people in the fisheries circle in Shichigahama are worried about the water release plan, the town has decided to retrieve booklets already distributed to first-graders at elementary and junior high schools.
“The materials were distributed at a significantly insensitive time in a terribly thoughtless manner,” said a member of the town’s education board. “It can’t be helped that people suspect they were sent out behind the backs of municipalities.”
Nobuo Takizawa, head of the secretariat for Natori city’s education board, pointed out the central government should have notified municipalities in advance.
“The documents were distributed to schools without the education boards being notified,” said Takizawa.
Yoshinori Hakui, a senior education ministry official, showed signs of remorse about the direct distribution of the leaflets to schools during a session of the Lower House Committee on Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology on March 2.
“We regret that we delivered the leaflets in a manner that was not careful enough. We could have made better coordination with the economy ministry and others,” said Hakui, director-general of the Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau.
Greenpeace says Fukushima dismantling, dumping not credible.
March 3, 2022
Tokyo, Mar 3 (EFE).- Greenpeace denounced Thursday the lack of clarity and “inconsistencies” in the dismantling project of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, calling it a “fantasy” and saying the discharge of the water contaminated and treated to the ocean “does not solve the crisis.
Eleven years after the earthquake and tsunami that led to one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, the environmental organization makes a new call for attention after reviewing multiple documents from different government agencies and industry.
“Decommissioning is not possible in 40 years. The government should announce how much progress has been made. We are still in the shadows,” nuclear engineering expert Satoshi Sato told media.
“We will have to deal with treated water for decades,” said the expert in relation to the discharge of treated water into the Pacific Ocean, a plan planned for the year 2023 and that the International Atomic Energy Agency recently evaluated in a mission to the country.
The expert spoke about the serious problems detected in the dismantling plan. These included the poor condition of the buildings and their continuous degradation, the challenges and “not very credible” plans for extracting the fuel, the high levels of radiation present, the exposure of workers and the amount of highly radioactive waste generated.
The extraction of fuel from the four reactors of the Daiichi plant “will lead to more contaminated water and the water will be dumped back into the ocean. The current roadmap is minimizing the human and environmental impact and dumping is not the solution,” Greenpeace nuclear specialist Shaun Burnie said.
“TEPCO has no intention of dismantling the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the next 20 or 30 years. It is a fantasy and a much longer process than what they have explained to us,” said Burnie, stressing the need to inform affected communities in detail.
“The long-term consequences cannot be dismissed, because this transcends generations and this fact should be crucial when addressing the problem, and not the official agenda of the actors involved,” Burnie criticized the roadmap approved by the Japanese government.
Reconstruction Agency Distributes “Treated Water Fliers,” Causing Puzzled Voices from the Education Sector
February 25, 2022
The Reconstruction Agency has distributed flyers to schools across Japan asking for their understanding of the increasing release of treated water containing tritium and other radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
From December to January of last year, the Reconstruction Agency distributed flyers to junior high schools and high schools across the country explaining about the treated water containing tritium and other radioactive materials.
The fliers stated that “tritium is all around us” and “there is no concern about the effects on your health”, etc. The government distributed the fliers in the hope that people would have a correct understanding based on scientific evidence and not be misled by false information.
However, while there are deep-rooted voices against the release of tritium and other treated water into the ocean, such as those from the fishing industry, there are many confused voices from the educational field.
The principal of a junior high school in Hamadori said, “To be honest, I was puzzled by the handling of the flyers. Treated water is a delicate issue, and since Hamadori is the site itself, we have to be more sensitive to it,” he said, and decided not to distribute the flyers to students.
In addition, some school boards around the country have voiced their discomfort with the contents of the flyer, saying, “We would like to carefully judge whether it is appropriate to use this flyer in radiation education,” and “The government should check the contents more before distributing it.
Mr. Nishimei, the Minister of Reconstruction, said, “We did not anticipate that there would be confusion when we distributed the leaflets. I had no idea that something like this would happen in the field.
On the other hand, Shinobu Goto, an associate professor at Fukushima University’s Graduate School of Symbiotic Systems Science and Engineering, who is an expert on radiation education, said, “In the field of education, it is especially important to enable discussion from multiple perspectives. It is necessary to discuss together with those who oppose the release of radiation, including the reasons why they oppose it,” he said, pointing out the importance of providing opportunities to learn about diverse opinions in the field of education.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/lnews/fukushima/20220225/6050017355.html?fbclid=IwAR33ufbih6A7hS5nn5L-AWmIkrYitrgetG1D8usDX8UXvmyjon0W8DHitE4
Some local governments have stopped distributing flyers directly to schools saying that treated water from nuclear power plants is safe
February 22, 2022
A government flyer emphasizing the safety of treated water from Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has been distributed to educational facilities in Miyagi Prefecture, causing a stir. Some schools have stopped distributing the leaflets amid deep-rooted opposition to the planned release of treated water into the ocean next spring. There is criticism that the government is unilaterally not imposing safety.
There are two types of flyers: one for elementary school students, “The push for reconstruction starts with knowing” (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy), and another for junior and senior high school students, “Three things you should know about ALPS treated water” (Reconstruction Agency). These were sent directly to each school in December last year, enclosed in a supplementary reader on radiation prepared by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Approximately 2.3 million copies were distributed nationwide to elementary, junior high, and high schools.
In the flyer for elementary school students, the treated water is introduced as “safe for human consumption and drinking. For junior and senior high school students, the flyers said that tritium, a radioactive substance contained in the treated water, “does not pose a health risk” and “is already being discharged into the ocean around the world.
A representative of the Reconstruction Agency said, “We sent the letter as supplementary material to provide scientific explanations to prevent harmful rumors from spreading.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/4e90162f416b1dc1d88618a136371e2a296d24be?fbclid=IwAR2cZSiMyy0u5ZRy3dNF8eupT9T9bgpR4E2Z3b7DPISHfk2ouBcGebhrpnc
Miyagi prefectural assembly: “Don’t hand out flyers to schools about treated nuclear water
2022/02/21
On February 21, opposition members of the Miyagi Prefectural Assembly asked the prefecture not to distribute flyers directly to schools in Miyagi Prefecture, saying that treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will be safely disposed of in the sea.
Fourteen members of the opposition faction of the prefectural assembly submitted the request to Miyagi Prefecture.
In December 021, the national government issued a flyer to schools across Japan stating that the tritium-containing treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which is scheduled to be released into the ocean in the spring of 2023, will be “safely disposed of in the ocean.
In the letter of request submitted on the 21st of February, it was stated that the safety of tritium is not in question. In the letter of request submitted on December 21, the prefectural government was requested that the leaflets not be distributed to children and students in the prefecture, saying that even experts have different opinions on the safety of to be released water which is claimed in the leaflets.
The prefectural government responded that it is not planning to collect the flyers at prefectural schools and will leave the decision on municipal schools to the respective boards of education.
The lawmakers plan to ask the government for an explanation through their political parties.
IAEA ‘will not approve or oppose’ release of treated water from Fukushima plant, ‘responsibility of each country’
February 19, 2022
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) survey team, which is examining the safety of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant’s treated water release plan, said that they will not oppose or approve the release.
IAEA Deputy Director General Liddy Evrard, who is visiting Japan to lead the survey team, said, “The IAEA does not approve or oppose the decision. The IAEA does not approve or oppose the decision, as it was made under the responsibility of each country.
The IAEA does not approve or oppose decisions because they are made under the responsibility of individual countries,” he said, adding that “the decision to oppose or approve a project related to nuclear safety must be made by the national regulatory body.
When asked if there were any other options other than oceanic release, Mr. Evrard said that consideration of other options had been completed in the past, and that this activity was being undertaken in response to a request for technical assistance from Japan, which had decided on the oceanic release plan.
Under-Secretary General Evrard explained the IAEA’s role as “helping countries improve their nuclear safety regulations through internationally accepted safety standards and providing mutual assessments of the adequacy of equipment to maintain safety.
“The role of the IAEA is not to be involved in regulation on the ground,” he answered, “but to visit the site as necessary at specific stages.” When asked if the IAEA would station nuclear experts with good command of Japanese to fully grasp the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, he said, “The role of the IAEA is not to be involved in regulation on the ground.
Under-Secretary-General Evrard stressed that “we listen carefully to their concerns, as a matter of priority,” regarding the opposition to the release of treated water into the ocean in South Korea and Japan.
However, when asked, “In the course of this investigation, have you met or do you have plans to meet with people who are opposed to oceanic release, such as those involved in fishermen’s groups and environmental groups?” Mr. Gustavo Caruso, coordinator of the IAEA’s Nuclear Safety and Security Directorate, replied, “We will meet with the people decided by the Japanese government.
Gustavo Caruso, coordinator of the IAEA’s Nuclear Safety and Security Directorate, replied, “We will meet with a person to be decided by the Japanese government,” adding, “We will evaluate the report based on IAEA safety standards and make it public later so that anyone can see it. The report on the investigation activities is expected to be released around the end of April.
During the visit, the IAEA team will take samples of treated water and other materials stored in tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and analyze them at three laboratories in Monaco, Austria and other countries.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/2788b6b92e30ddf25df98c1f880848edfe385ad9?fbclid=IwAR1cBVbP8xhe47ZZOH98xm5u88E0BiIBh51DwCPgExFNWCBAVRnfzg51lsg
UN to review Japan’s plan to release Fukushima water into Pacific
Transparency coming from Tepco is an oxymoron…
Taskforce will ‘listen to local people’s concerns’, as government plans to release more than 1m tonnes
February 18, 2022
A UN nuclear taskforce has promised to prioritise safety as it launches a review of controversial plans by Japan to release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water into the ocean from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
Japan’s government announced last April that it had decided to release the water over several decades into the Pacific Ocean, despite strong opposition from local fishers and neighbouring China and South Korea.
Lydie Evrard, the deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], speaking after a team of experts visited the plant to collect water samples, said on Friday: “We listen very carefully to local people’s concerns and the inspection is designed to provide answers about safety in a transparent manner.” .
The controversy comes almost 11 years after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake triggered a huge tsunami that killed more than 18,000 people along Japan’s north-east coast.
Tsunami waves crashed into Fukushima Daiichi, knocking out its backup electricity supply, triggering meltdowns in three of its reactors and sending large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere. More than 150,000 people were forced to flee their homes, and evacuation orders in communities closest to the plant have only recently been partially lifted.
The Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco) says its treatment technology can remove all radioactive materials from water except tritium, which is harmless in small amounts. It said the gradual release of the water, diluted with seawater, would not pose a threat to human health or the marine environment. In 2020, however, Greenpeace said the water still contained contaminants beside tritium and would have to be treated again.
The wastewater is being stored in about 1,000 tanks that officials say need to be removed so the plant can be decommissioned, an operation expected to take several decades. The tanks are expected to reach their capacity of 1.37m tonnes this summer.
The liquid includes water used to cool the damaged reactors, as well as rain and groundwater that seeps into the area.
Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist for Greenpeace East Asia, said he did not believe the IAEA would fully investigate and address safety and environmental concerns in its report.
Noting that the agency had welcomed the discharge option when it was announced last year, Burnie said: “The IAEA is not an independent agency in nuclear affairs – under statute its mission is to promote nuclear power. It has sought to justify radioactive marine pollution as having no impact and safe. But the IAEA is incapable of protecting the environment, human health or human rights from radiation risks – that’s not its job.
“The IAEA taskforce should be investigating the root cause of the contaminated water crisis and exploring the option of long-term storage and the best available processing technology as an alternative to the deliberate contamination of the Pacific.”
The IAEA team, which includes experts from South Korea and China, will report its findings at the end of April.
South Korea, which has yet to lift an import ban on Fukushima seafood introduced in 2013, has said that discharging the water would pose a “grave threat” to the marine environment. Pacific peoples have challenged Japan to prove the water is safe by dumping it in Tokyo.
Local fishers also oppose the water’s release, saying it would undo a decade’s work to rebuild their industry and reassure nervous consumers their seafood is safe.
Junichi Matsumoto, a Tepco official overseeing management of the treated water, said the utility was prioritising safety and the effect on the Fukushima region’s reputation. “Ensuring transparency and objectivity is crucial to the project,” he said this week. “We hope to further improve the objectivity and transparency of the process based on the review.”
Fresh pressure on Japan to reverse Fukushima discharge plan
February 17, 2022
Japan’s proposal to release contaminated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean was condemned again as a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in the country to review the plan.
The Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory that is located some 2,500 kilometers southeast of Japan, said Japan’s plan, officially announced last year, is unacceptable.
“The expectation is that the discharge will not happen until 2023. There is time to overturn this decision,” said Sheila Babauta, a member of the Northern Mariana Islands’ House of Representatives. In December, its government adopted a joint resolution opposing any nation’s decision to dispose of nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean.
“The effort that went into the creation of the joint resolution exposed research and reports from Greenpeace East Asia highlighting alternatives for the storage of Japan’s nuclear waste, including the only acceptable option, long-term storage and processing using the best technology available,” Babauta added.
Under Japan’s proposal, the Japanese government will gradually dump the still-contaminated water in spring 2023. The water has been used to cool highly radioactive damaged reactor cores as the massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011 destroyed the Fukushima plant’s cooling systems, triggering the meltdown of three reactors and the release of large amounts of radiation.
The plan has provoked concerns since its first day by local fishers, coastal communities, neighboring countries and Pacific Island countries. Foreign ministries of China and South Korea had vocally expressed opposition and the Pacific Islands Forum, the intergovernmental organization for the region, said that “Japan has not taken sufficient steps to address the potential harm to the Pacific”.
Haruo Ono, a 69-year-old fisherman in Fukushima, told China Daily in December that the discharge will completely ruin the reputation of fishing industry of Fukushima.
“The (Japanese) government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (the plant’s operator) have been hiding information since the 2011 accident,” Ono said, adding that he and his fellow fishermen “can’t trust them for a second”.
On Monday, a team from the IAEA including experts from Argentina, China, France, South Korea, Russia, the United States, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom arrived in Tokyo to review Japan’s plan. They will hold a news conference on Friday after their five-day mission of visiting the site and observing the handling of the contaminated water.
Gustavo Caruso, director-coordinator of the IAEA’s nuclear safety and security department that heads the team, said the review would be carried out in an “objective, credible and science-based manner and help send a message of transparency and confidence to the people in Japan and beyond”.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Tuesday: “Japan should face up to the international community’s concerns, revoke the erroneous decision on ocean discharge, and stop advancing relevant preparatory work. Unless consensus is reached with stakeholders including neighboring countries and relevant international organizations through full consultation, the Japanese side mustn’t wantonly start the ocean discharge.”
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/17/WS620daf49a310cdd39bc872b7.html
Japan’s decision to release over 1.2 mil. tons of wastewater from nuclear plant under review
The IAEA promotes the nuclear industry, it is the accomplice of the nuclear industry. How in the hell could we ever expect of fair impartial review of Tepco’s radioactive water sea dumping plan? They are partners in crime, so it’s all B.S. play for the general public eyes….
February 16, 2022
Japan’s decision to release nuclear wastewater into the Pacific alarmed the international community last year. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) travelled to Japan this month to carry out another review of the safety of this plan.
Once discharged, the nuclear contaminated water never goes back
15-Feb-2022
It has been almost 10 months since Japan initially announced its plan to discharge the contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi power station into the Pacific Ocean. Amid the roaring criticism and anger from across the globe, Japan chose to close its eyes and ears while stubbornly wading to the end of the cliff.
When this article goes to press, a delegation from International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) is now visiting the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to review Japan’s discharge plan, which is the result of long and tiresome international bargain since it is always a tough job asking the Japanese government to correct its mistakes.
The 2011 Fukushima earthquake was an inevitably tragic accident, but the irresponsible treatment of the contaminated water is tantamount to a man-made disaster, setting the worst precedent of human response to nuclear threat.
By releasing the contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean, Japan is spreading the risk of nuclear exposure to every coast of the ocean and eventually the whole maritime system potentially poisoning creatures off-shore and under the sea alike.
A barely discussed issue about Japan’s decision is what a grave international human right abuse it could be. It deprived people both in Japan and beyond of the very basic human need – to live and thrive in a sound and healthy environment.
This is literally of everyone’s concern – the water we drink, the seafood we consume, the beaches on which we relax, and we don’t want all those things bright and beautiful screwed up by the enduring threats of nuclear radiation. Not a chance.
Releasing the nuclear contaminated water into the ocean is by no means a responsible solution. Many other options that are more scientific and eco-friendly are actually on the table. However, the Japanese government has chosen the least time-consuming and expensive one, i.e. to dump it into ocean, citing a crappy explanation such as a lack of storage space. And that is why the ceaseless and furious protests from local communities in Fukushima and neighboring countries have all been met with a deaf ear in Tokyo.
The act of Japanese government has not only disgraced itself internationally, but also stained Fukushima’s reputation and stigmatized the local people and food, for whom it should be most responsible. Historically, Hiroshima paid for the imperialist government’s evildoing and, sadly, became almost an acronym for nuclear destruction.
Now, Fukushima has paid for the current government’s irresponsibility and, sadly, has to risk becoming the acronym for man-made disastrous nuclear exposure. From Hiroshima to Fukushima, Japanese politicians sacrificed the fundamental interests of the Japanese people for their own mistakes.
According to the data released by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan recently, the radioactivity of cesium detected in Schlegel’s rockfish captured off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture reached 1400 Bq/kg, way exceeding the national standard of 100 Bq/kg. It is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Tremendously proud of its booming fishery industry, Fukushima feels stabbed in the back by its national government. But that surely won’t take one yen away from the pockets of the Japanese decision-makers, while those expensive but responsible and eco-friendly solutions will.
Fukushima residents rally against plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into sea
16 February 2022
Protests have been held in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture against the government’s controversial plan to release contaminated water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean.
Dozens of local residents gatheredin front of the Fukushima prefectural government office building on Tuesday, calling for the cancellation of the move, while also demanding protection for the ocean, as they waved banners with slogans written in several languages in a bid to bring international attention to their concerns.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, located on Japan’s northeast coast, was crippled after going into meltdown following an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Around 1.25 million tons of water, used to cool the reactors after the meltdown, are currently stored in tanks in and around the plant.
Local polls have shown that more than 70 percent of non-governmental organizations in Fukushima object to the plan of releasing the radioactive water into the ocean. Many people worry the plan will cause great harm to their health.
“If nuclear contaminated water is discharged into the sea, people may be affected by eating fish or other sea food. This may bring sustained harm to people’s health. Since the release plan will take a long time to complete, I am worried the harm will increase day by day,” said a local resident.
“I want to protect the health and future of younger generations, so I oppose dumping the contaminated water into the ocean,” said another local resident.
The protesters also voiced concern that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operator of the nuclear power plant, had failed to fully disclose information about the Fukushima nuclear disaster or verify the data about the nuclear contaminated water.
“Although the release plan says the radioactive water will be diluted before being discharged into the sea, the total amount of nuclear elements in the water will not change at all. So I think it’s not right to dump the wastewater into the ocean and spread contamination,” said a local resident.
Tuesday’s protest took place as a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was slated to conduct safety reviews at the plant.
The 15-member team arrived in Japan on Monday to review the government’s plan to release the treated radioactive water into the ocean from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant — a review that Tokyo hopes will instill confidence in the plan, which is opposed by neighboring countries.
The task force, headed by Gustavo Caruso, director of the IAEA’s Office of Safety and Security Coordination, is due to stay in Japan through Friday.
Japan and the IAEA have agreed to compile an interim report on the review later this year.
Last April, the then-Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said TEPCO would be allowed to release nuclear contaminated water from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean starting in 2023, leading to a massive outcry from both local residents and the international community.
Local fishing communities expressed opposition as well, saying that the water discharge would undermine years of work to restore confidence in seafood from the region.
The radioactive water, which increases in quantity by about 140 tons a day, is now being stored in more than 1,000 tanks, and space at the site is expected to run out around next autumn.
To meet international standards before disposal, the nuclear wastewater, however, needs to be filtered to remove harmful isotopes. The process, however, cannot remove tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that experts say will be harmful to human health in large doses.
Japan nuclear watchdog to boost monitoring spots for TEPCO ‘treated’ water release
Smooth propaganda spinning from NHK, ‘treated’ water instead of the reality: radioactive water!
February 16, 2022
Japan’s nuclear watchdog has decided to boost maritime monitoring spots in anticipation of the release of treated water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, plans to release treated water into the sea, starting from around spring next year.
Water, which has either been used to cool molten fuel or seeped into damaged reactor buildings, has become contaminated with radioactive materials.
TEPCO is treating the water by filtering out most of the radioactive substances. But the filtered water still contains tritium.
The utility plans to discharge the treated water after diluting the tritium level to well below national standards.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority on Wednesday discussed ways to measure levels of radioactive substances in the seawater, based on advice from an expert panel of the Environment Ministry.
The authority decided to increase its tritium monitoring locations from 12 to 20, and to lower the minimum detectible level to enable more precise measurements.
It will adopt these enhancements this spring. This would allow for comparison of water before and after release.
The total of tritium monitoring locations, including those of the Environment Ministry, will be increased to around 50, mainly within 10 kilometers of the release spot.
The head of the authority, Fuketa Toyoshi, called for sufficient confirmation to prevent substandard measurements and errors, noting that analysis of tritium takes time and analytic laboratories are limited.
TEPCO claims that impacts from exposure to treated water are minimal, but fears of damage based on rumors remain strong, especially among local residents.
The government and the plant operator hope that stepped-up monitoring would help ease such concerns.
Japan Federation of Bar Associations writes to Prime Minister Kishida, urging him to consider other ways to release treated water into the ocean
February 15, 2022
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) submitted an opinion letter to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and others opposing the release of treated water from the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean, arguing that the procedures for obtaining social consensus are insufficient. The letter urges that other methods be considered instead of discharging the water into the sea.
The letter emphasizes the fact that the Nuclear Citizens’ Committee, made up of engineers and researchers, has proposed a method of storing the treated water by mixing it with cement or sand and hardening it. The report emphasized the fact that the Citizens’ Committee on Nuclear Energy, made up of engineers and researchers, proposed a method of storing treated water by mixing it with cement and sand.
It was a ritualistic meeting.
The government held seven meetings the year before last to hear opinions from agriculture, forestry, and fisheries groups, as well as chiefs from within and outside the prefecture, attended by the vice ministers of the relevant ministries. However, since there were almost no questions, the opinion piece criticizes the meetings as “ritualistic. The government and TEPCO only held the briefings with the conclusion that the waste would be released into the ocean. It cannot be said that they are listening to the voices of many citizens and reflecting them in their measures.
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations also sent the letter to the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Minister of the Environment, and the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority. (Keitaro Fukuchi)
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/bd482f91d45a9db5f2b2d04511218a2c2f4ed15b?fbclid=IwAR3SZtUKj56m67BgLNp-7HQ9ESo6d1WuwDUQXh0YW4pJHLzkoU88UF4e1LQ
IAEA promises ‘objective review’ of Fukushima treated water discharge
Objective review from a partner in crime!
Feb 14, 2022
An International Atomic Energy Agency mission to Japan pledged Monday to conduct an objective and science-based safety review of a plan to discharge treated low-level radioactive water into the sea from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
The IAEA task force made the pledge in a meeting with government officials in Tokyo, a day before visiting the plant severely damaged by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami for inspection, as the discharge plan has drawn opposition from China and South Korea, as well as local fishing communities.
The task force will conduct the five-day review in Japan in an “objective, credible and science-based manner and help send a message of transparency and confidence to the people in Japan and beyond,” said Gustavo Caruso, director and coordinator at the IAEA’s Department of Nuclear Safety and Security.
The inspection is aimed at helping ensure the discharge plan proceeds in line with international safety standards and without harming public health or the environment, according to the Vienna-based agency.
Monday’s meeting involved the IAEA team and officials from the economy ministry, the Foreign Ministry and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.
Caruso said the government needs to find the best way to handle the treated water from the standpoint of safety and sustainability, as Tokyo’s efforts will be vital for further promoting international understanding on the issue.
Keiichi Yumoto, director general for nuclear accident disaster response at the economy ministry, said the government will fully cooperate with the IAEA review.
Tokyo considers it extremely important to have safety evaluations from the IAEA, Yumoto said.
The task force, established last year, is made up of independent and highly recognized experts with diverse technical backgrounds from various countries including China and South Korea, as well as personnel from IAEA departments and laboratories, according to the agency.
The findings from the mission will be compiled into a report by the end of the year, according to the IAEA.
The review will also be reflected in deliberations over the discharge plan, submitted by Tepco, carried out by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, according to Yumoto.
Water that has become contaminated after being pumped in to cool melted reactor fuel at the plant has been accumulating at the complex, also mixing with rainwater and groundwater at the site.
Tokyo decided last April to gradually discharge the water, treated through an advanced liquid processing system that removes radionuclides except tritium, into the Pacific Ocean after dilution starting next year.
Through an undersea tunnel, treated water is to be released into the sea about 1 kilometer away from the Fukushima plant from around spring 2023.
IAEA task force members are not expected to work in a national capacity but serve in their individual professional roles and report to Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi.
In response to the government’s request for assistance, Grossi said the IAEA will support Japan before, during and after the release of the water.
The safety review had been initially scheduled for mid-December but was postponed due to the rapid spread of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/02/14/national/fukushima-water-iaea/
‘Not a dumping ground’: Pacific condemns Fukushima water plan
Northern Mariana Islands says proposal for wastewater from stricken plant to be stored on site must be considered urgently.
By Catherine Wilson – 14 Feb 2022
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands says there is a viable alternative to Japan’s plan to dump more than 1 million tonnes of treated water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power station into the Pacific Ocean, and it requires urgent consideration.
The wastewater is a product of efforts to cool the nuclear reactors at Fukushima that were badly damaged in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
The Northern Mariana Islands, a United States territory with a population of about 51,659 people, is located only 2,500km (1,553 miles) southeast of Japan. The islands’ leaders have declared that Japan’s plan, officially announced last year, is unacceptable.
“The expectation is that the discharge will not happen until 2023. There is time to overturn this decision,” Sheila J Babauta, a member of the Northern Mariana Islands’s House of Representatives, told Al Jazeera in an interview last month. In December, its government adopted a joint resolution opposing any nation’s decision to dispose of nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean.
“The effort that went into the creation of the joint resolution exposed research and reports from Greenpeace East Asia highlighting alternatives for the storage of Japan’s nuclear waste, including the only acceptable option, long-term storage and processing using the best technology available,” Babauta said.
Currently, Japan intends to dispose of all the wastewater, which will be treated, over a period of about 30 years.
Anxiety is high among local Japanese fishers and coastal communities. And its plan has met with vocal opposition from neighbouring countries, including China, South Korea and Taiwan, as well as Pacific Island countries and the Pacific Islands Forum, the intergovernmental organisation for the region.
“This water adds to the already nuclear polluted ocean. This threatens the lives and livelihoods of islanders heavily reliant on marine resources. These include inshore fisheries as well as pelagic fishes such as tuna. The former provides daily sustenance and food security, and the latter much needed foreign exchange via fishing licences for distant water fishing nation fleets,” Vijay Naidu, adjunct professor at the School of Law and Social Sciences at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, told Al Jazeera.
It was the use of the Pacific Islands for nuclear weapons testing by the US, the United Kingdom and France from the 1940s to late last century which has driven heated opposition among islanders to any nuclear-related activities in the region.
Radioactive contamination from more than 300 atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests rendered many locations, especially in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia, uninhabitable and led to irreversible long-term health disorders in affected communities.
Satyendra Prasad, the Chair of Pacific Islands Forum Ambassadors at the United Nations, reminded the world in September last year of the Pacific’s “ongoing struggle with the legacy of nuclear testing from the transboundary contamination of homes and habitats to higher numbers of birth defects and cancers”.
In 1985, regional leaders established the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, prohibiting the testing and use of nuclear explosive devices and the dumping of radioactive wastes in the sea by member states, including Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Island nations.
“For us in the Pacific, the Pacific Ocean has become a proving ground, a theatre of war, a highway for nuclear submarines and waste. The Pacific is not a dumping ground for radioactive waste water,” Maureen Penjueli, Co-ordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation, added.
Running out of space
When the earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima power plant, three nuclear reactors went into meltdown.
The process of decommissioning the disaster-hit site, which could take up to four decades, includes pumping cooling water through the affected infrastructure to prevent overheating. About 170 cubic metres of treated wastewater is accumulating every day and now fills at least 1,000 tanks around the site.
The Japanese government says it needs to release the water because it is running out of space to store it all.
It says it consulted with other countries in the region after announcing its plan in April last year, conducting briefings with Pacific Island Forum countries and the organisation’s secretariat. It adds that it will cooperate with the international community and adhere to relevant international standards.
“In November last year, experts from laboratories of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], France, Germany, and the Republic of Korea visited Japan to collect samples such as fish. These samples will be divided and sent to these laboratories for analysis,” a spokesperson for Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Al Jazeera.
“The sea area monitoring will be strengthened from one year before the discharge, which is expected to start in spring 2022 under the current plan. The concentration measurement of the nuclides regulated by law, including tritium and carbon-14, will be measured prior to the discharge into the sea, and reports of the results will be made public.”
Last year, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director-general of the IAEA, expressed support for Japan’s decision.
“We will work closely with Japan before, during and after the discharge of the water,” Grossi said. “Our co-operation and our presence will help build confidence, in Japan and beyond, that the water disposal is carried out without an adverse impact on human health and the environment.”
The US has also given its backing to Japan.
Babauta believes storage space is available at the Fukushima Daiichi site and on nearby land in Japan’s Futaba and Okuma districts.
In a report published in 2020, Greenpeace argued that “the only acceptable solution” was for Japan to continue the long term storage and processing of the contaminated water.
“This is logistically possible and it will allow time for more efficient processing technology to be deployed as well as allowing the threat from radioactive tritium to diminish naturally,” the environmental group said. Greenpeace said that while the Japanese government had considered allocating land for storage in Okuma and Futaba, ocean discharge was seen as easier and less time-consuming.
The wastewater storage option is also favoured by the expert civil society organisation, the Citizens Committee on Nuclear Energy (CCNE), which is supported by Tilman Ruff, associate professor at the Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
“Their [CCNE’s] recommendation for the management of the water is that, the first thing to do would be to store it in properly built secure long-lived large tanks similar to the ones that Japan uses for its national oil and petroleum reserves … The argument that they make, which, I think, is really very valid, is that, if this water was stored not for an indeterminant period, but even for a period of about 50-60 years, then, by then, the tritium will have decayed to a tiny fraction of what it is today and hardly be an issue,” Ruff told Al Jazeera.
The Japanese government insists the effect of the radiation on human health as a result of the discharge is small, specifying that it will amount to 0.00081 mSv/year (millisievert of radiation per year), a fraction of the natural radiation exposure level, estimated at 2.1 mSv/year. But medical experts have serious concerns about the enormous volume of wastewater and the potential fallout of even minimal amounts of Tritium, a radioactive isotope that will not be removed during treatment.
“Tritium is a normal contaminant from the discharges, the cooling water from normal reactor operations, but this is the equivalent of several centuries worth of normal production of tritium that’s in this water, so it is a very large amount,” Ruff said.
“The government says that it will dilute the water so that it doesn’t exceed the concentration limits that are regulated … It might allow you to tick a regulatory requirement, but it doesn’t actually reduce the amount of radioactivity going into the environment and the amount of radioactivity that is being released here is really critical,” added Ruff, who is a Nobel laureate and co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
He says that the human and environmental consequences of even very low levels of radiation exposure cannot be discounted.
“Obviously, the higher the level of exposure [to radiation], the greater the risk, but there is no level below which there is no effect,” Ruff said. “That is now really fairly conclusively proven, because in the last decade or so there have been impressive very large studies of large numbers of people exposed to low doses of radiation. At levels even a fraction of those that we receive from normal background [radiation] exposure from the rocks, from cosmic radiation. At even those very low levels, harmful effects have been demonstrated.”
For Babauta and other Pacific Islanders, any effect is untenable.
For now, she says that it is vital that the Northern Mariana Islands have “a seat at the decision-making table. Major decisions such as these impact the core of our lives as Pacific Islanders, thus impacting our children’s future and generations to come.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/14/not-a-dumping-ground-pacific-condemns-fukushima-water-plan
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (181)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 