S. Korea holds emergency meeting over Japan’s Fukushima water release plans
21 déc. 2021
Earlier this year… Japan announced plans to discharge treated radioactive water from Fukushima nuclear power plant. Neighboring countries expressed concerns. As Tokyo submit a request for an approval… Seoul reiterated its opposition to the idea.
Kim Do-yeon has the details. South Korea has expressed deep concern to Japan after its electrical company Tepco on Tuesday requested regulatory approval to release treated radioactive water from Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea.
South Korea held an emergency Vice Ministerial meeting… and the country’s nuclear safety chiefl affirmed their stance on the matter.
“To share the main points of the letter, we’ve requested that during the process of collecting opinions, in addition to Japan, other countries’ opinions should be taken into account as well as…. while cooperating with the international community. In addition, we requested that relevant information should be transparent, and Japan be cooperative and prompt to South Korea’s request to confirm the release is safe.”
This was the second time South Korea used its nuclear safety commission as a means to send a message to Japan.
The first time was earlier this year when Japan said it had decided to push for the discharge of more than 1 million tons of the water into the ocean.
Tepco’s appeal for regulatory approval this time around… was around 500 pages long… detailing how the water will be released as well as the extent of the dilution process. The firm said… pumps would move the treated water from the tanks to the seashore and through a seabed tunnel before releasing it at a depth of 12 meters, and about 1 kilometer out at sea.
South Korean authorities plan on examining the appeal thoroughly and will request additional information. They will also strengthen its watch over the level of radioactivity in the sea. Currently… it has 32 spots in coastal waters to check for levels of tritium and cesium, and it is planning to add 2 more spots with more frequent checks being carried out.
Kim Do-yeon, Arirang News.
Release of treated water from Fukushima Daiichi: TEPCO applies for implementation plan to the Regulatory Commission
December 21, 2021
The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has announced its plan for the release of treated water containing tritium and other radioactive substances that continues to accumulate at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea.
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) held a press conference on April 21 and announced that it has applied to the Nuclear Regulation Authority for an implementation plan in line with the government’s policy that the treated water that continues to accumulate at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will be discharged into the sea in the spring of the next year after being diluted to a concentration below the standard.
The plan describes the procedure for diluting the treated water with seawater and the design of an undersea tunnel to be constructed to release the diluted water from 1 km offshore.
After receiving approval from the regulatory board and gaining the understanding of the local community and other related parties, the company plans to start construction of the equipment to dilute the treated water with seawater and the undersea tunnel around June next year, aiming to complete the work around the middle of April next year in accordance with the national policy.
Junichi Matsumoto, the executive officer of TEPCO who is in charge of the plan, said, “Based on the government’s policy, we would like to explain the plan to the local community and many related parties in parallel with the regulatory committee’s examination, and study specific designs and operations to ensure safety.
With regard to the release of treated water being promoted by the government and TEPCO, there are deep-rooted concerns about harmful rumors, especially among local residents, and the issues that remain to be addressed are how to gain the understanding of those concerned and how to take effective measures to deal with the rumors.
What is “treated water”?
At the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, so-called “contaminated water” is being generated at a rate of 140 tons per day, including water used to cool the nuclear fuel in Units 1-3 that melted down in the accident 10 years ago, as well as groundwater that flows into the buildings.
The contaminated water is treated in a special purification system to remove most of the radioactive materials, but the water containing tritium, a radioactive material that is difficult to remove, or “treated water,” remains and is stored on the plant grounds.
According to the current plan, 1.37 million tons of water can be stored in a large tank on the site, but more than 90% of the tank is already filled with treated water, and it is expected to be full after next fall.
Therefore, the government has decided to dilute the treated water to less than 1/40th of the standard by adding seawater and discharge it into the sea around the spring of 2023, as it is unlikely to affect human health if the concentration is reduced below the standard.
What is the outlook for the future?
The implementation plan applied for by TEPCO will be reviewed by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will examine the plan, which includes the following: (1) measures against natural disasters, such as equipment to dilute the treated water with seawater and an undersea tunnel, and (2) a function to stop the release of water in case of abnormalities.
Toyoshi Sarada, chairman of the regulatory board, said, “There are no major technical difficulties in diluting and checking the concentration of the treated water, and it will not take a long time.
On the other hand, there are deep-rooted concerns about the release of treated water, especially in the local community, and Mr. Sarada pointed out that “the understanding of the local community and other related parties is extremely important, and even if the plan is approved, the period until the start of construction is unpredictable.
On April 20, TEPCO submitted a “Request for Prior Approval,” which is required for the construction of new facilities and expansion of facilities, to Fukushima Prefecture and the municipalities of Futaba and Okuma.
In addition, the construction work is expected to take about a year, so the government’s goal of releasing treated water in the spring of 2023 is still uncertain.
After TEPCO reported to fishermen in Iwaki that it had applied to the Nuclear Regulation Authority for a plan to release treated water, Tetsu Nozaki, chairman of the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, said, “It’s unfortunate and frustrating that we have been opposed to the release of treated water into the ocean, but we are moving forward without hesitation. We want them to think of other ways. We have no choice but to send out the message that fishermen are against it.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/lnews/fukushima/20211221/6050016725.html?fbclid=IwAR3VlVNSI0PxYOuA9Kxpr1i7Eg836xnjIAzsC57-aWsok-fK0ep5RkYzSLU
TEPCO starts offshore drilling to release Fukushima water
14-Dec-2021
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) began offshore drilling operations on Monday for the undersea tunnel that will implement its plan to release radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, local media has reported.
TEPCO is scheduled to initiate the release in the spring of 2023.
The Japanese operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has decided to release treated wastewater from the ruined facility in an area roughly 1 kilometer offshore from the site, reported Nikkei.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings plans to discharge the wastewater through a pipeline, which will be contained in a tunnel to be drilled within the seafloor, said the report.
Greenpeace: TEPCO assessment of Fukushima water dumping lacks analysis of impact on S. Korea
The international environmental organization called TEPCO’s radiological impact assessment “highly selective” in its use of IAEA guidelines
Dec.18,2021
The international environmental group Greenpeace sent an opinion to the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) on Thursday stating that the company’s radiological impact assessment of contaminated water from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant made convenient use of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines without considering the potential damages to residents of neighboring countries such as South Korea.
The opinion from Greenpeace was based on its review of the draft version of a contaminated water radiological impact assessment report released by TEPCO last month.
In that draft report, TEPCO claimed that the release of contaminated water into the ocean would have a “very limited” impact on the marine environment. The company has announced that it plans to issue a final report Saturday after gathering outside opinions on the draft.
Commenting on the report, Greenpeace East Asia senior nuclear specialist Shaun Burnie called it a piecemeal radiological assessment that was intended to legitimize the discharge of radioactive water into the ocean.
He also said that TEPCO failed to give an adequate scientific basis for its conclusion that the discharge would not cause damage to the waters or marine ecosystem beyond a range of 10 square kilometers.
In its release of the report, TEPCO said it had been drafted in compliance with IAEA guidelines.
But Greenpeace said that an examination showed that TEPCO not only set a “far too narrow” scope of radiological impact assessment targets, but also that it is “highly selective” in its use of IAEA guidelines.
“Ultimately, the potential damages to residents in South Korea and other neighboring countries were not considered in the scope of the current radiological impact assessment,” it explained.
The IAEA General Safety Guide No. GSG-9 document states that radiological impact assessments should take into account the effects of natural radioactivity, nuclear weapons testing, and nuclear power plant accidents, with measurements of radioactivity concentrations in various environmental areas such as water, soil, plants, and grains around the nuclear power plant site.
Greenpeace explained that TEPCO did not perform the kind of comprehensive environmental impact assessment stipulated in the guidelines, nor did it explain about the long-term radiation damage to the maritime ecosystem as the contaminated water is released over a period of at least 30 years.
“It is deliberately vague,” Greenpeace wrote of Japan’s draft. “It does not conclude there will not be adverse effects on species, on the marine environment, on biodiversity or on fish or fisheries or tourism.”
The organization also criticized the report’s omission of the radioactivity contamination pathways identified to date, including study results published by Japan’s Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) last March.
This indicates that TEPCO did not follow the IAEA’s recommendation to reflect the discovery of new contamination pathways for radioactive substances in its assessment, the organization said. Cesium-bearing particles were detected in all seven samples taken by CRIEPI from sediment along the Fukushima coast.
Greenpeace further said that the report did not offer an explanation on why the ocean discharge of contaminated water was unavoidable, nor did it deal at all with the effect that decommissioning the Fukushima Daiichi site would have on the contaminated water.
“The TEPCO radiological impact assessment presumes only that the secondary purification of contaminated water will undoubtedly be successful, which is far from the reality,” said Chang Ma-ri, an anti-nuclear power campaigner with Greenpeace.
“For years now, the ALPS multi-nuclide removal equipment has been failing to fully process highly toxic radioactive substances. Korea and the rest of the international community need to demand that TEPCO examine whether the release of the contaminated water into the ocean is actually unavoidable in scientific and technical terms,” she said.
Japan urged to revoke decision to dump nuclear wastewater after study finds Fukushima radioactive material reaches Arctic Ocean
Dec 15, 2021
Research shows that radioactive substances that flowed into the ocean due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 have reached the Arctic Ocean and a Chinese expert warned against the danger of the spread of the radioactive substances in the ocean and called on Chinese authorities to collect data on radioactive substances as evidence to defend its maritime interests while the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged Japan to revoke its decision to release contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant.
According to the latest study of Yuichiro Kumamoto, a senior researcher from the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, radioactive Cesium-134 has reached the Arctic Ocean eight years after it leaked into the ocean due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, Kyodo News reported on Tuesday. Cesium-137 also arrived in the Arctic Ocean, according to the researcher.
A small amount of the radiocesium was detected and Yuichiro speculated that it had spread to the center of the Arctic Ocean.
The tritium in the contaminated water that Tokyo Electric Power Company plans to discharge will likely follow the same path, Kyodo News said.
Zhang Yancang, director of the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea Research Institute of Dalian Maritime University told the Global Times that the possibility exists that the radioactive material was brought through the ballast water in ships, which would be horrible.
Zhang explained that the ballast water in ships needs to be replaced regularly. If the ship takes in new ballast water in a port near Japan, it might carry water with radioactive material and release it somewhere around the world, which is unpredictable.
Zhang who didn’t expect the radioactive material to reach the Arctic Ocean so quickly said that it remains to be seen if the ocean current could speed up the spread of the radioactive material.
China should start collecting data of the amount of radioactive substances before and after Japan dumps the radioactive water in 2033 as evidence to help defend its maritime interests, he said.
“This is not the first report that confirmed that radioactive substance from the Fukushima nuclear accident had been detected in the Arctic Ocean. The research results of researchers at Tsukuba University released in November also found that Cesium-137, a radioactive substance that flowed into the sea in the Fukushima nuclear accident, was detected in the Arctic Ocean,” Zhao Lijian, spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at Wednesday’s media briefing.
These findings of Japanese scholars clearly illustrate the fact that the radioactive substances leaked from the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant have spread to the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean and may affect waters around the globe, he said.
“If the more than 1.2 million tonnes of nuclear contaminated water is discharged into the Pacific Ocean as planned by Japan, it will have an impact on the marine environment in the whole region and even the world. Is this the kind of consequence that can be born by Japan alone?” Zhao said, urging Japan to take a responsible attitude toward the marine environment and humanity’s health, revoke its wrong decision of ocean release and stop the preparatory work for the discharge.
Japan’s Fukushima water set to be dumped as critics attack ‘flawed’ Tepco report
. Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant’s operator says its move to dispose some 1.23 million tons of treated radioactive water will have ‘minimal’ impact on public health
. But Greenpeace says Tepco’s scientific analysis is lacking in multiple areas, including an assessment of how the water will affect the wider Asia-Pacific region
16 Dec, 2021
The operator of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant has this week commenced test drilling for pipes to release more than 1.23 million tons of treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, the work coinciding with a study by an environmental group accusing Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) of using “flawed” scientific analysis to justify the release.
Tepco on Tuesday started a boring survey at the nuclear plant, which was destroyed in the March 2011 earthquake and the massive tsunami it triggered, causing the meltdown of three of the six reactors at the site and the second-worst nuclear disaster in history.
With the backing of the government, Tepco intends to lay a pipeline to a location about 700 metres offshore and start to release treated water into the ocean from the spring of 2023.
The company claims that virtually all trace of the 64 radionuclides will be eliminated before the release of the water, which is used to keep the damaged reactors cool, but critics point out that no independent organisations had been permitted to test radiation levels in the water in the more than 10 years since the disaster.
Tepco on November 17 released a study that concluded the effects of the release of the water “on the public and the environment is minimal as calculated doses were significantly less than the dose limits, dose targets and the values specified by international organisations”.
On Thursday, Greenpeace released a study that took issue with the findings in Tepco’s report, saying its own radiological impact assessment “found many flaws in the approach and with their conclusions”.
The firm “does not apply the basic principles of radiation protection, which requires even low-level increases in radiation risks to be justified and demonstrate net benefits to society”, Greenpeace’s report said, while Tepco had also failed to take into account the existing radiation exposure of the local population as a result of the original disaster in its conclusions.
Tepco also ignored cumulative effects of exposure to elevated levels of radiation, as well as the long-term effects on marine ecology, species and food chains, the Greenpeace study found.
The Tepco report also failed to take into account future hazards at the plant due to “its fundamentally flawed decommissioning plan”, while the assessment of the impact of the radiation was “extremely limited” and failed to include the impact on the wider east coast of Japan or further afield in the Pacific.
The plan to discharge the water violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Greenpeace said, adding that Tepco continued to ignore alternative solutions to the problem of contaminated water at the site, including long-term storage.
“The Tepco document is flawed in its scientific analysis and disregard for basic international norms of radiation protection,” said Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia.
“It is wholly inadequate, legally takes no account of wider impacts, including to the Asia-Pacific region, and in no way provides justification to deliberately discharge radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean over at least 30 years,” he said. “Opposition, including by small Pacific island nations, continues. Tepco’s discharge plans can be stopped.”
In a statement, a Tepco official declined to comment directly on the Greenpeace report, but said the company would continue to seek the approval of the Nuclear Regulation Authority for the planned release of the water.
Tepco says an additional 210 tons of water builds up at the site every day and argues it is running out of space close to the reactors, and that another natural disaster could rupture the hundreds of tanks containing the contaminated water, causing a new environmental crisis.
The plant operator is pushing ahead with the plan in spite of criticism from home and abroad.
Fishermen and farmers in eastern Japan have expressed their anger, claiming it will further damage the reputation of their industries and ruin their livelihoods, while people living in coastal areas are similarly concerned at the possible impact on their health.
The work is taking place at the same time the Japanese government is calling on countries around the world to lift restrictions on imports of foodstuffs from northeast Japan as there is no evidence they pose any danger to the health of consumers.
A number of governments in the region, including Hong Kong, South Korea and China, have also expressed deep reservations about the proposal to dump the contaminated water into the Pacific. South Korea has already indicated it is planning to take legal action against the move and the case may be joined by other nations.
Japan’s Upcoming Nuclear Waste Dump
The last known “deliberate nuclear waste dumping into the ocean,” outside of the “good graces” of what the industry refers to as “detailed environmental impact assessments” that somehow (questionably, mysteriously, are you kidding me!) seem to justify dumping toxic nuclear waste was October 1993 when the Russian navy illegally dumped 900 tons of nuclear waste into international waters off the coast of Vladivostok near Japan and Korea. Moscow claimed they were running out of storage space and that “radioactive waste is not hazardous and the dumping would be according to international norms.” Sound familiar?
In 1993 Japan called the Russian dumping “extremely regrettable.”
December 7, 2021 by Robert Hunziker
Nuclear waste is an interminable curse that eternally haunts the future of civilization for hundreds/thousands of years.
“The challenge of making nuclear power safer doesn’t end after the power has been generated. Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor.” (Source: Nuclear Waste, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 22, 2016)
There are 440 nuclear power plants in the world, all of which use nuclear fission, prompting one simple question: Is the process of generating heat via nuclear fission with a byproduct of extremely toxic radioactive waste lasting hundreds, or more, years for purposes of simply “boiling water” the epitome of human stupidity?
In April 2021, the Japanese government announced its decision to discharge nuclear waste from Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean via a sub-seabed pipeline. At least 1.2 million tons of tritium-laced toxic water will be discharged.
As it happens, nuclear powers of the world regularly dump nuclear waste into the ocean in violation of the London Convention (1972) and the London Protocol (1996), which are the two principal international agreements against dumping nuclear waste into the oceans. But, they get around the rules by dumping under the cover of “detailed environmental impact assessments.”
The last known “deliberate nuclear waste dumping into the ocean,” outside of the “good graces” of what the industry refers to as “detailed environmental impact assessments” that somehow (questionably, mysteriously, are you kidding me!) seem to justify dumping toxic nuclear waste was October 1993 when the Russian navy illegally dumped 900 tons of nuclear waste into international waters off the coast of Vladivostok near Japan and Korea. Moscow claimed they were running out of storage space and that “radioactive waste is not hazardous and the dumping would be according to international norms.” Sound familiar?
In 1993 Japan called the Russian dumping “extremely regrettable.” Yet, at the time, Tokyo Electric Power Company was itself discharging radioactivity into the ocean. At the time, Japanese power stations were allowed to dump nuclear waste into the ocean based upon “detailed environmental impact assessments.” (OMG is this real?) (Source: Nuclear Dumping at Sea Goads Japan Into Action, NewScientist, November 6, 1993)
“Jinzaburo Takagi, a physicist working with the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Centre in Tokyo, says: ‘If the Russians had done an impact assessment for their dumping, it would have proved safer than the Japanese power plants.’ He says local authorities in Japan have measured elevated levels of radionuclides in shellfish and seaweed near the nuclear plants. If the Japanese criticize Russian dumping, says Takagi, ‘then they will have to abandon the option of dumping nuclear waste,” Ibid.
The abovementioned series of conflicting events surrounding disposal of nuclear waste brings to mind the complexity and hypocrisy that runs throughout the nuclear industry. It stems from the hideous fact that the industry does not know what to do with radioactive waste, which is the most toxic material on the face of the planet; they do make up weird excuses and protocols to actually dump the toxic material into international waters. Not only that, but, as mentioned in the quoted article above, “local authorities in Japan have measured elevated levels of radionuclides in shellfish and seaweed near the nuclear plants.” That’s a prime example of human insanity at work. And, that was 30 years ago, but it’s a safe bet that it’s the same today.
The bitter truth is that the citizens of the world are stuck with nuclear power and its offbeat craziness and its horrific potential destructiveness because the major powers have it and want to keep it.
Greenpeace has experts with “boots-on-the-ground” at Fukushima since the beginning. Here’s Greenpeace’s take on the situation, as of recent: “There are many technical and radiological reasons to be opposed to discharging Fukushima waste water into the Pacific Ocean. And Greenpeace East Asia has reported on these and continues to investigate. But the decision also affects you on a fundamental level. It should rightly trigger an outrage. In the 21st century, when the world’s oceans are already under the most severe threats including the climate and biodiversity emergencies, a decision by any government to deliberately contaminate the Pacific with radioactivity because it’s the least cost/cheapest option when there are clear alternatives seems so perverse. That it is Japan, given its historical role in securing the prohibition on nuclear dumping in the London Convention and London Protocol, makes it all the more tragic.” (Shaun Burnie, The Japanese Government and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster – History Repeating Itself? Greenpeace, November 17, 2021)
Further to the point of the future impact of dumping toxic radioactive water from TEPCO’s storage water tanks into the Pacific Ocean: Tsinghua University analyzed the diffusion process of the treated Fukushima contaminated water to be discharged into the ocean from 2023 onward. The results show that the tritium, which is the main pollutant, will spread to the whole of the North Pacific in 1200 days. (Source: Tracking Contaminated Water From The Fukushima Nuclear Accident, Phys.org, December 2, 2021)
The Tsinghua University analysis went on to discuss the risks, stating: “Large amounts of radionuclides can affect marine biological chains and adversely influence marine fisheries and human health. The global effects of Fukushima discharge, which will last 30 to 40 years, remain unknown.”
As stated by Tsinghua, the pollutants will reach as far as the coast of North America to the east and as far as Australia to the south. Eventually, the South Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean (2400 days) will be affected. On day 3600 the pollutants will cover almost the entire Pacific Ocean.
According to a UN news release d/d April 2021: “Three independent UN human rights experts expressed deep regret on Thursday over Japan’s decision to discharge potentially still radioactive Fukushima nuclear plant water into the ocean, warning that it could impact millions across the Pacific region.”
The experts call the decision by Japan “very concerning,”
Moreover, according to the UN: “While Japan said that the tritium levels are very low and do not pose a threat to human health, scientists warn that in the water, the isotope organically binds to other molecules, moving up the food chain affecting plants and fish and humans.”
“Moreover, they say the radioactive hazards of tritium have been underestimated and could pose risks to humans and the environment for over 100 years.”
Source: Counterpunch
S. Korean experts call Japan’s impact assessment of Fukushima water dumping shortsighted
A working-level briefing took place between Japan and Korea on Friday
Dec.8,2021
A Japanese simulation of the impact of radioactive water that it plans to release into the ocean is focused on the short term, and Japan doesn’t have any contingency plans in place for accidents during the release phase, say South Korean experts who attended a working-level briefing organized by Japan and Korea on Friday, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported.
The Japanese government is planning to release contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, where the Fukushima nuclear accident occurred in 2011.
That was part of a summary of a Korea-Japan briefing about a draft report assessing the impact of radiation during the release of contaminated water from the Fukushima plant into the ocean that a Foreign Ministry official provided reporters Tuesday. The draft report was published on Nov. 17 by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).
In the Nov. 17 report, TEPCO said the contaminated water stored in tanks at the Fukushima site — which the Japanese government refers to as “processed water” — would have a negligible impact on the marine environment if released into the ocean. TEPCO plans to finalize the report by Dec. 18, after consulting the opinions of stakeholders.
A Foreign Ministry official added that the Japanese had said they’d organized a special working-level briefing for Korea, but not any other countries, “because Korea is Japan’s closest neighbor and the most important stakeholder.”
The Korean experts said they’d used the briefing to ask why Japan has set a yearly radioactivity target of 22 terabecquerels for the tritium that’s not removed by the advanced liquid processing system that Japan is using to process the radioactive water. They also asked why Japan has chosen a region measuring 10 square kilometers for assessing the density of radioactive contamination in seawater.
The Foreign Ministry reported that the Korean experts had also taken issue with the fact that the Japanese simulation didn’t account for long-term factors, including environmental changes in the weather and the ocean, and with the lack of contingency plans for the potential release of water that hasn’t been adequately processed.
Experts did not have enough time to address all related issues during this working-level session, which lasted for two and a half hours, so they plan to send additional questions in writing. Korea and Japan apparently have yet to reach an agreement about setting up a bilateral deliberative body, as Korea has requested, to discuss the issue of releasing the contaminated water.
“The two sides recognize the need for creating a bilateral deliberative body to exchange information more systematically, but we continue to trade opinions about setting the agenda and choosing the participants for that deliberative body,” the Foreign Ministry official said.
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1022513.html
S. Korea voices concerns about Japan’s Fukushima water release plan
December 03, 2021
SEOUL, Dec. 3 (Yonhap) — South Korea on Friday expressed concerns over Japan’s assessment report about its planned release of radioactive water into the sea from its crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant.
The stance was delivered at a virtual meeting between South Korea and Japan over a draft report by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) about radioactive impacts of its planned discharge.
Last month, TEPCO, the operator of the tsunami-stricken Fukushima plant, said its planned release of radioactive water into the sea would have a very minimal impact on the marine environment and humans.
In April, Japan announced a plan to start discharging the radioactive water into the sea in 2023 in what is expected to be a decadeslong process, as all storage tanks at the Fukushima plant are expected to be full as early as the fall of 2022.
At the session, the Korean government voiced “regret” that Japan has unveiled the report on the premise that it will release the radioactive water.
“We also expressed concerns over uncertainty about the impact on humans and the environment that the discharge will have,” the government said.
South Korea also called on Japan to disclose related information in a transparent manner to its neighboring countries and sincerely engage in consultations on the issue.
According to Japanese media reports, TEPCO plans to build a roughly 1-kilometer-long undersea tunnel to release the tritium-laced water from the wrecked plant into the waters.
An estimated 1.25 million tons of such water are in temporary storage at the Fukushima nuclear plant on the east coast of Japan, which was devastated by a tsunami triggered by an earthquake in March 2011.
How Close Is Fukushima Nuclear Accident Contaminated Water to Us?
Macroscopic and microscopic simulations of Fukushima nuclear accident contaminated water discharge.
On August26, 2021, the Japanese Cabinet passed a bill to discharge treated Fukushima nuclear accident contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean to alleviate the problem of nuclear wastewater storage. However, large amounts of radionuclides can affect marine biological chains when inhaled by marine life and adversely influence marine fisheries and human health. The global effects of Fukushima discharge, which will last 30-40 years, remain unknown. Thus, identifying the diffusion process of radioactive water in oceans is critical.
To solve this problem, a team from Tsinghua University, China, developed analysis models from both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, to simulate the diffusing process of the nuclear elements. The former one focuses on the overall distribution of pollutants, while the latter focuses on the behavior of individual pollutants.
Macro simulation results (Figure b) revealed that in the early stages of pollutant discharge, the polluted area increases rapidly, reaching 30° of latitude × 40° of longitude within 120 days. Due to ocean currents, the pollutant diffusion speed is considerably higher in the latitude direction than that in the longitude direction.
In 1200 days, the pollutants will cover almost the whole North Pacific region, reaching as far as the coast of North America to the east, and the Australia to the south. The pollutants will then spread rapidly to the South Pacific Ocean, under the influence of the equatorial current along the Panama Canal. The Indian Ocean will also be influenced, due to the waters infilling from north of Australia, in 2400 days. On day 3600, the pollutants will cover almost the entire Pacific Ocean.
Notably, although the contaminated water is discharged near the Japanese island, the contamination center (represented by yellow and red in Fig. b and c) will over time move eastward along the 35°N latitude line.
The team plotted the pollutant concentrations in adjacent waters of Miyazaki, Shanghai, and San Diego, all near 30°N, as shown in Figure d. Miyazaki gets polluted first, followed by Shanghai and San Diego, in order of their distances from Fukushima. According to the trend of the three curves, the pollutant concentration in each region increases rapidly at the beginning before stabilization. Although San Diego is the last city among the three to be affected, the steady-state concentration of pollutants in its adjacent waters is even higher than that near Miyazaki.
The differences in pollutant concentrations near Miyazaki, Shanghai, and San Diego result from the strong ocean current near Japan. Specifically, Fukushima is located at the confluence of Kuroshio (northward) and Oyashio (southward). Therefore, most pollutants do not migrate towards north and south along the land edges but spread eastward with the North Pacific west wind drift. In the early stage of treated water discharge, its impact on coastal Asia should be focused on. However, at a subsequent stage, the high concentration of nuclear elements near North America will definitely become a concern.
Reference: “Discharge of treated Fukushima nuclear accident contaminated water: macroscopic and microscopic simulations” by Yi Liu, Xue-Qing Guo, Sun-Wei Li, Jian-Min Zhang and Zhen-Zhong Hu 2021, 26 November 2021, National Science Review.
DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwab209
Fukushima Nuclear Accident Discharge: Animation of Macroscopic Diffusion Analysis
2 déc. 2021
The increase in tritium concentration caused by Fukushima discharge over a decade. Credit: ©Science China Press
Study: Fukushima discharge to affect entire Pacific Ocean in 10 years
03-Dec-2021
Chinese scientists have mapped out the potential global effects of Fukushima discharge, suggesting that the contaminated water, if poured forth, may sprawl onto the entire Pacific Ocean within 10 years.
The study, published online in the peer-reviewed journal National Science Review, showed that 3,600 days after discharge, the pollutants will have covered almost the entire Pacific Ocean.
The Japanese government announced in April that it would start dumping contaminated water from around the spring of 2023.
The researchers from China’s Tsinghua University led by Zhang Jianmin and Hu Zhenzhong simulated the diffusing process of nuclear elements and found that the pollutants could affect China’s coast 240 days after discharge.
The polluted water would spread to almost the entire North Pacific region within 1,200 days, before spreading southward to the South Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, according to the study.
The nuclear elements would eventually cause concern near North America, noticeably polluting the West coast of the United States after 2,400 days, it found.
China has expressed serious concerns about Japan’s decision to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear station, calling for an open, transparent and responsible approach to prudently deal with its disposal.
Tracking contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident
December 2, 2021
In a paper published in the National Science Review, a team from Tsinghua University analyzed the diffusion process of the treated Fukushima accident contaminated water to be discharged into the Pacific Ocean from 2023. Results show that the tritium, the main pollutant in the radioactive water, will spread to the whole North Pacific in 1200 days, which is important to formulate global coping strategies.
On 26 August 2021, the Japanese Cabinet passed a bill to discharge the treated water into the Pacific Ocean to alleviate the problem of nuclear wastewater storage. However, large amounts of radionuclides can affect marine biological chains and adversely influence marine fisheries and human health. The global effects of Fukushima discharge, which will last 30 to 40 years, remain unknown. Thus, identifying the diffusion process of radioactive water in oceans is critical.
To solve this problem, a team from Tsinghua University, China, developed analysis models from both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, to simulate the diffusing process of the nuclear elements. The first focuses on the overall distribution of pollutant, while the second focuses on the behavior of the individual pollutant. Macro simulation results (Figure b) revealed that in the early stages of pollutant discharge, the polluted area increases rapidly, reaching 30 degrees of latitude × 40 degrees of longitude within 120 days. Due to ocean currents, the pollutant diffusion speed is considerably higher in the latitude direction than that in the longitude direction.
In 1200 days, the pollutants will cover almost the whole North Pacific region, reaching as far as the coast of North America to the east, and the Australia to the south. The pollutants will then spread rapidly to the South Pacific Ocean, under the influence of the equatorial current along the Panama Canal. The Indian Ocean will also be influenced, due to waters infilling from north of Australia, in 2400 days. On day 3600, the pollutants will cover almost the entire Pacific Ocean. Notably, although the contaminated water is discharged near the Japanese island, the contamination center (represented by yellow and red in Fig. b and c) will over time move eastward along the 35 degrees N latitude line.
The team plotted the pollutant concentrations in adjacent waters of Miyazaki, Shanghai and San Diego, all near 30 degrees N, as shown in Figure d. Miyazaki is polluted first, followed by Shanghai and San Diego, in order of their distances from Fukushima. According to the trend of the three curves, the pollutant concentration in each region increases rapidly at the beginning before stabilization. Although San Diego is the last city among the three to be affected, the steady-state concentration of pollutants in its adjacent waters is even higher than that near Miyazaki.
The differences in pollutant concentrations near Miyazaki, Shanghai and San Diego result from the strong ocean current near Japan. Specifically, Fukushima is located at the confluence of Kuroshio (northward) and Oyashio (southward). Therefore, most pollutants do not migrate towards north and south along the land edges but spread eastward with the North Pacific west wind drift. In the early stage of treated water discharge, its impact on the coastal Asia should be focused. However, at a subsequent stage, the high concentration of nuclear elements near North America will definitely become a concern.
More information: Yi Liu et al, Discharge of treated Fukushima nuclear accident contaminated water: macroscopic and microscopic simulations, National Science Review (2021). DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwab209
https://phys.org/news/2021-12-tracking-contaminated-fukushima-nuclear-accident.html
TEPCO to start ocean investigation by the end of the month.
November 26, 2021
On April 25, it was learned that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has decided to start an oceanographic survey by the end of the month to lay an undersea tunnel for the release of treated water from the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. After completing the survey, the company will start laying the tunnel, aiming to start releasing the water in spring 2023. According to the officials, TEPCO had initially expected to start the survey in September, but was forced to postpone it due to difficulties in forming a consensus with neighboring municipalities.
In August, TEPCO announced a process plan to construct an undersea tunnel, run pipes through it, and drain the water into the sea about one kilometer offshore from the plant. In this submarine survey, in addition to magnetic surveys to ascertain the condition of the seabed, including confirmation of unexploded ordnance and other hazardous materials, diving surveys will be conducted as necessary. A submarine boring survey using a workboat will also be conducted.
The submarine tunnel is expected to be about 2.5 meters in diameter, and pipes will be cut through the bedrock of the seabed from the vicinity of the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors at the plant. We had considered the idea of draining the water into the sea near the east side of the plant, but we chose to go offshore where the tritium contained in the treated water would be more diffused. It is believed that the decision was based on the fact that there are no fishing rights in the waters about one kilometer offshore and that there would be little opposition from fishermen concerned about harmful rumors.
On the 17th of this month, the government announced the results of its assessment that the radiation dose in the surrounding waters due to the release of treated water was far below the safety standards set by the government and international organizations, and that the impact of radiation on the surrounding residents and the environment was “extremely minor.
The decision to release the treated water was made in April this year by the then government of Yoshihide Suga, and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who inspected the plant in October, said that it was a very important issue that could not be postponed.
https://www.sankei.com/article/20211126-MVPMX33MAFNVHAA5MPOA4ULOV4/
The Japanese government and the Fukushima nuclear disaster – History repeating itself?
17 November 2021
Did you know that there are global agreements against the dumping of nuclear waste into the world’s oceans? They are called the London Convention and London Protocol (LC/LP) and the latest meeting of the government signatories and observers, including Greenpeace International, has just finished under the auspices of the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO). It was an uncomfortable experience for Japanese diplomats trying to defend the decision to dispose of nuclear waste from Fukushima Daiichi into the Pacific Ocean. But it also triggered memories of a different time and a different policy nearly three decades ago when Japan at the IMO took on the role of protecting the marine environment from radioactivity.
The LC/LP international conventions, which were established between the 1970’s and the 1990’s, only exist because of sustained public pressure against governments and the global nuclear industry which from 1946 had been dumping nuclear waste from ships into the world’s oceans. For countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, France, and Russia, military and commercial nuclear programs were producing enormous volumes of nuclear waste of many different types.
Faced with the rapidly growing stockpiles of wastes, from the 1950’s governments choose one of the least costly options for dealing with some of those wastes – dumping solid and liquid wastes directly into the ocean. The thinking was that the waste would be out of sight in the deep ocean and that radioactivity would dilute. Other countries also developing their commercial nuclear power programs, such as Germany and Japan, also supported nuclear waste dumping at sea. Seventy years of the commercial nuclear industry and the nuclear waste crisis has only got worse and still with no viable safe solution.
Fortunately, the last known deliberate nuclear waste dumping from a ship into the ocean was in October 1993 when the Russian navy dumped 900 tons of liquid and solid nuclear waste into the international waters off the coast of Vladivostok in the sea near Japan and Korea. The justifications offered by the government in Moscow were that the issue was urgent as storage space was running out, that the radioactive waste was not hazardous, and that the dumping was carried out according to international norms.
Sound familiar?
History on repeat
The Japanese government in April 2021 announced its decision to proceed with plans for the deliberate discharge of nuclear waste water from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Even beyond the 900 tons of nuclear waste the Russian’s dumped in 1993, Japan plans for more than at least 1.2 million tons to be mixed with sea water and discharged via a sub-seabed pipeline into the Pacific Ocean. The discharges are scheduled to take 30 years, but are almost certainly going to last much longer.
In 1993, the Japanese government called the Russian dumping extremely regrettable. Now, the Japanese government justifies its plans to discharge over 1 million tons of radioactive waste water as “necessary” because storage space is not available, and that the water is not contaminated but “treated”. Nearly 30 years apart, the dezinformatsiya, perfected by the Soviet Union and Russia and used to justify waste dumping, is mirrored by the disinformation from Tokyo.
In early 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), already knew of Russia’s plans to dump nuclear waste, but did not intervene and chose not to inform Tokyo. Today, the IAEA has formed a partnership with the Japanese government to provide cover for its plans and to ensure, as it states, that the discharges will be done safely and in line with international practice. It continues to play the same historical role as set down in its 1957 statute of supporting and promoting the interests of the nuclear industry, not protecting the environment or public health.
Since the 1970’s Greenpeace had been challenging nuclear sea dumping. After years of investigations and campaigning, the Russian navy’s secret operations to pump nuclear waste into the sea were challenged and filmed by the Nuclear Free Seas campaign team on board the Motor Vessel Greenpeace ship on 18 October 1993. While the MV Greenpeace sat off the Russian coast after the Russian military ship TNT27 and other navy vessels returned to port to pick up another cargo of nuclear waste, their nuclear dumping exposed to world attention, the Russian’ government announced on 22 October that it would halt further disposal plans. The TNT27 remained in port.
By the time the Greenpeace ship had docked in Japan, the government of Morihiro Hosokawa had announced a policy change. It would no longer advocate nuclear waste disposal at sea. Instead, it would support an amendment to the London Convention at the November 1993 meeting at the IMO that would prohibit all nuclear waste disposal at sea. Both then and now, Greenpeace International representatives were at the IMO meeting pushing for an end to radioactive pollution of the marine environment.
I played a very minor role at that time, chasing the then IAEA Director Hans Blix, from Seoul to Tokyo with a copy of a telex (it was three decades ago!) from the Russian government informing Blix of their plans for nuclear dumping. The IAEA for some reason had chosen not to inform the Japanese government. Travelling from South Korea to Japan, I still remember as if it was only yesterday how moved I was watching my Greenpeace colleagues John Sprange, Twilly Cannon, Dima Litvinov, Thomas Schultz, captain Pete Wilcox and the rest of the crew of the MV Greenpeace confronting the Russian navy on NHK TV .
One further result of Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Germany, and Greenpeace Japan’s exposé of Russian dumping was that the Japanese government took the decision to financially support the building of additional storage and processing facilities for nuclear waste in the Russian Far East. This was a point that Greenpeace International has emphasised over the years at IMO meetings and drew the parallels for the Fukushima water crisis.
Failed discussions and agreements
A principal objective of the London Convention and London Protocol is to protect the marine environment from pollution, including man-made radioactivity. However, the Japanese government contends that their plans for Fukushima contaminated water have nothing to do with the conventions. In fact, at the latest meeting on 26 October 2021, Japan tried to stop further discussion of the Fukushima water issue, arguing that the IAEA was the correct place to discuss such matters and it was not appropriate for governments to consider the issues at the LC/LP United Nations hosted meeting. This is an absurd and scientifically bankrupt position when radioactivity discharged from a pipeline poses potentially a greater coastal threat to the marine environment than deep sea dumping from a ship.
Japan failed to end discussion of the Fukushima contaminated water issue at the LC/LP. In Greenpeace International’s written submission, Greenpeace International proposed that a scientific working group be established under the LC/LP that would consider the alternatives to discharging the Fukushima waste into the Pacific. Greenpeace International argued, as in 1993, that there were alternatives to the Russian dumping, namely additional storage and applying best available processing technology, and that these should also be applied at Fukushima Daiichi.
In 1993, Russia accepted international assistance and the dumping stopped. However, Dr. David Santillo, Greenpeace International’s science representative reported that Japan refused to consider this option at the October 2021 IMO meeting, and its position was supported by the United States, France and the UK. The governments of South Korea, Chile, China, and the Pacific Island nations of Vanuatu and Palau all spoke in favour of reviewing alternatives to discharge in a technical working group. The meetings operate on consensus and with Japan’s objections, agreement to assess alternatives was impossible. Dr. David Santillo, challenged the IAEA over its role, and asked if it could be tasked with reporting on its discussions with Japan on the alternatives to discharges. The IAEA has agreed to report back in 2022.
There is a historical resonance and also a tragic irony with Japan’s attempts to remove discussion of its Fukushima nuclear waste crisis from international review at the LC/LP IMO meetings. The Russian dumping in 1993 caused public and political outrage in Japan. The Japanese government of Hosokawa subsequently played an important and critical role at the LC/LP meeting when it supported the prohibition of all nuclear waste ocean dumping. Nearly thirty years ago its position was no doubt informed by self-interest – protecting its coastal waters from radioactive pollution and the rights of its own citizens, especially the fishing communities that were at risk.
Back then, the position of the Japanese government was the right and just thing to do. Today, protecting the marine environment from deliberate radioactive pollution still remains the right and legal thing to do – except that’s not what’s happening.
Instead, the government of Prime Minister Kishida, like his predecessors Abe and Suga, are disregarding and disrespecting the views and rights of their own citizens and fishing communities along the Tohoku coast.
The decision to discharge violates an agreement to abide by the views of the Fukushima fishing federations. They are not acting to protect the marine environment from radioactive pollution but instead will be the source of pollution. The Japanese government is also seeking to avoid scrutiny of their plans and to dismiss the concerns and opposition of neighbours in the Asia Pacific region, near and far. And they clearly don’t want to explore any viable alternative options of storage and processing.
Continuing the fight
There are many technical and radiological reasons to be opposed to discharging Fukushima waste water into the Pacific Ocean. And Greenpeace East Asiahas reported on these and continues to investigate. But the decision also affects you on a fundamental level. It should rightly trigger an outrage. In the 21st century, when the world’s oceans are already under the most severe threats including the climate and biodiversity emergencies, a decision by any government to deliberately contaminate the Pacific with radioactivity because it’s the least cost/cheapest option when there are clear alternatives seems so perverse. That it is Japan, given its historical role in securing the prohibition on nuclear dumping in the London Convention and London Protocol, makes it all the more tragic.
There are numerous legal problems facing Japan’s plans – they have dismally failed to consult with affected coastal countries, including South Korea, China and northern Pacific Island States; they have failed to conduct an environmental impact assessment, and they have obligations not to allow pollution from their own waters to pollute international waters or the waters of other countries. This disregard for the human rights of both their own Japanese citizens, as well as those in the wider Asia Pacific region, including indigenous people’s has justifiably been challenged, not least by UN human rights Special Rapporteurs.
Japan is under international legal obligation to take all measures possible to avoid transboundary pollution from radioactivity, and its failure to develop the alternatives to dumping in the Pacific by continued storage (which it can certainly extend; it is a question of money) and treating the water to remove radioactive, including carbon-14 and tritium, (another question of money). But these are just reflections of the blazingly obvious: Japan is exporting its radioactive pollution by dumping it in the Pacific ocean.
However, there is time to stop the discharges which are due to begin in 2023, at the earliest. The governments attending the LC/LP, under the auspices of the United Nations IMO, together with Greenpeace International, will continue to question and challenge the Japanese government on the Fukushima nuclear waste water crisis. It’s only one of several international instruments that allow scrutiny of the Fukushima Daiichi plant and to directly challenge the plans to discharge. The articles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) have even greater relevance and application to Tokyo’s misguided plans. The new government of Kishida may yet find out, as the government of Boris Yeltsin did nearly three decades ago, that you may have plans for dumping radioactive waste into the sea, but it does not mean you will be able to.
Shaun Burnie is a Senior Nuclear Specialist at Greenpeace East Asia.
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 