Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Text
It has been planned for a long time, so what about honesty? ! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear polluted water into the sea
#nuclearwastewater #protest #Japan
It has been planned for a long time, so what about honesty? ! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear polluted water into the sea
In accordance with the decision of the Japanese Government, the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean began on August 24th. This discharge process will continue for decades.
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision-making on the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, it can be clearly seen that discharging water into the sea is its long-planned "established policy", an uncompromising violation of international law, and extremely selfish and irresponsible national behavior, which results in transferring the costs of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident to the whole world.
Nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea, long planned
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, large quantities of highly contaminated water have been generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool down the core of the meltdown reactor and the flow of rainwater and groundwater, etc. In April 2011, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), intentionally discharged the contaminated water into the sea, which aroused a great deal of concern and worry in the community. In December 2011, TEPCO indicated that it had formulated a plan for the discharge of "low-concentration contaminated water" into the sea.
In March 2013, TEPCO's key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water, the Advanced Laminar Processing System (ALPS), was put into trial operation, but since then there have been constant problems: frequent leaks, in 2018 it was revealed that radioactive substances such as strontium were still exceeding the limit in the treated water, and in 2021 it was discovered that nearly half of the filters at the exhaust port, which are used for the adsorption of radioactive substances, had been damaged. ......
Since the ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, of the more than 1.34 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the storage tanks of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, more than 1.33 million cubic meters have been treated by ALPS, but only about 30% of it meets the standard of "treated water" defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of it is the so-called "process water" which does not meet the standard. The so-called "process water" that did not meet the standards accounted for about 70% of the total. Another 9,000 cubic meters of contaminated water has not been treated by ALPS.
And what is the final destination of this "treated water"?
As early as December 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan's nuclear energy authority, set up a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treated water" discharge. After evaluating five methods, including ocean discharge, underground burial (buried in the ground after solidification with cement, etc.), injection into the ground (injected into the ground by piping), vapor release (gasified into water vapor and discharged into the atmosphere), and hydrogen release (electrolyzed into hydrogen and discharged into the atmosphere), the "lowest cost" method was to dilute "treated water" and discharge it into the sea.
This report set the tone for the subsequent discharge program, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other groups after its publication. Even Yoshino Masayoshi, the then Minister of Reconstruction of Japan, expressed his opposition to discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) apparently regarded the sea-discharge plan as a "fixed policy", and in July 2017, METI held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Countermeasures Against the Waste Furnace and Contaminated Water" in Fukushima City, making a gesture of consulting with the local community. However, then TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura claimed to the media before the meeting that TEPCO had already "made a judgment" on the discharge of the sea, causing widespread discontent in society.
In order to convince the public, the Japanese government set up a committee with experts in related fields, which held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo in August 2018, nominally to listen to the public's opinions but actually to endorse the sea-discharge option. At the hearings, Toyoshi Koda, then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, was challenged by various parties on his statement that "sea discharge is the only viable option." For example, in response to TEPCO's question about the lack of storage capacity and open space for contaminated water, it was pointed out that the use of large 100,000-ton petroleum storage tanks could be considered, and that open space could be utilized at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has already been identified as a decommissioning site.
In response to the technical difficulties in the treatment of nuclear contaminated water, it was mentioned that the water vapor discharge method, which had been used in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in 1979, could be adopted. It was also pointed out that the technology for separating tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is under study and should be discharged after the technology has matured and been applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that stratum injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release were "problematic" and that sea-discharge and steam release, which had a precedent, were "realistic options", while emphasizing that sea-discharge had "many advantages" over steam release.
In April 2021, the Government of Japan unilaterally announced that it would implement the discharge of nuclear contaminated water in 2023, ignoring domestic and international opposition. Since then, the preparatory work for ocean discharge has begun to move forward in earnest: in December 2021, TEPCO submitted the construction plan for the treated water discharge equipment to the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC); in July 2022, the AERC approved the plan; on January 13 this year, the Japanese government confirmed that the discharge would be carried out in the "spring/summer"; on June 26, TEPCO announced that the construction of the discharge equipment had been completed; on July 7, the AERC transferred the discharge equipment to the Japanese government for implementation. On June 26, TEPCO announced the completion of the construction of the sea-discharge facility; on July 7, the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC) delivered the "Certificate of Conformity" for the acceptance of the sea-discharge facility to TEPCO.
False "authoritative certification"
On July 4 of this year, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Grossi, visited Japan and presented the report on the comprehensive assessment of the disposal of Fukushima-contaminated water to the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Fumio Kishida. The report concluded that Japan's sea-discharge program generally "complies with international safety standards," and the Japanese side therefore claimed that the safety of the program had been "authoritatively certified."
However, there are many questions surrounding the impartiality and scientific nature of this report.
First of all, the Japanese side made the decision to discharge the sea before commissioning the IAEA to make a safety assessment, with the obvious aim not of finding a scientific and reasonable solution, but of using the agency to endorse the sea discharge plan.
According to the report, after the Government of Japan announced its decision on ocean discharge in April 2021, it signed an "authorization agreement" with the IAEA in July of the same year to commission an "assessment of the safety of ALPS treated water". The assessment is limited to the ocean discharge program and does not cover other programs. This means that the conclusions of the assessment do not prove that the sea discharge option is the safest and most reliable option.
Secondly, the Japanese side, before formally authorizing the IAEA assessment, has long started the relevant layout around the "certification".
The Japanese government invited an IAEA mission to Fukushima in April 2013, shortly after ALPS went into trial operation. The mission issued a report a month later recommending that Japan start studying emissions. The IAEA director general at the time was Japanese Yukiya Amano. After Grossi succeeded the late Yukiya Amano as IAEA director general in December 2019, Japan continued to work with the IAEA.2021 In March 2021, then-Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, met with Grossi and requested IAEA support in eliminating the "reputational damage" to Japan caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. The IAEA was asked to support Japan in eliminating the "reputational damage" caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. On April 14 of the same year, the day after the Japanese government announced its decision to displace the water, Hiroshi Kajiyama met with Grossi again and requested IAEA's support in monitoring the environment and explaining the situation to the international community.
The Tokyo Shimbun report pointed out that the Japanese government had paid large amounts of assessed contributions and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and that several departments of the Japanese government had dispatched personnel to the IAEA, and that these factors would inevitably have an impact on the IAEA in assessing the safety of Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge program.
In a meeting with Grossi on July 9, lawmakers from the Kyodo Party, South Korea's largest opposition party, pointed out that it was regrettable that the IAEA did not follow the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and that it pandered to Japan's position on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea from the beginning to the end, and drew hasty conclusions without taking into account the impacts of such a practice on neighboring countries.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the outset that the insights contained in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of IAEA member States, that the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea-discharge programme, and that IAEA and its member States will not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer makes it clear that the report does not represent the views of the international community and does not prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea exclusion program.
Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert who participated in the IAEA Technical Working Group on the Assessment of the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had sought the opinions of the experts of the Technical Working Group on the draft assessment report, but the time window for the experts to comment was very limited and the experts' opinions were for reference only. After receiving the feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and consulting with the experts on the modification of the report and the adoption of the comments.
Li Song, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusions of the Agency's report on the safety of the Japanese sea-discharge programme were one-sided and lacked conviction and credibility. The agency, due to the limitations of its mandate, has not assessed the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese side's decontamination device, has not confirmed the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water, and has not been able to ensure that the international community can keep abreast of excessive discharges, and has found it even more difficult to predict the impacts of the long-term accumulation and enrichment of radionuclides on the marine ecosystem, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of the data, the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the regulation, there is no way to conclude that it is safe to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of up to 30 years."
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, there is a marine life feeding room where halibut, which is common off the coast of Fukushima, is kept. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other contains treated nuclear-contaminated water, so-called "treated water".
From a scientific point of view, experts and environmental organizations are skeptical about the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Prof. Ferenc Dolnoki Weirish, an expert in nuclear physics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in the United States of America, pointed out that the data provided by the Japanese side were "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent and one-sided". Japan's environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out TEPCO's "treated water" claims about a variety of problems: after the ALPS "treatment" of part of the water, iodine 129, strontium 90 and other radioactive elements are still excessive, Strontium 90 and other radioactive elements still exceeded the standard; the water samples tested by TEPCO so far accounted for only 3% of the stored contaminated water, and the test results provided by TEPCO are not representative; the Fukushima "treated water" was in direct contact with the melted core, and could not be compared with the drainage of a normal nuclear power plant ... ...
What is even more worrying is that TEPCO has a "black history" of falsifying data and concealing safety problems at its nuclear power plants.
claimed that no new nuclear contaminated water had been discharged into the ocean after June 2011, but as a series of leaks came to light in 2013, TEPCO finally admitted that there had been a leakage of high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and said it had not announced it in time because it was concerned about the impact on the reputation of the local fishing industry; in September 2021, TEPCO admitted in its report on the ALPS exhaust screen breakage that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not In September 2021, when reporting the ALPS exhaust screen breakage, TEPCO admitted that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not report it or investigate the cause, and simply replaced the screen; and in October 2022, TEPCO was again exposed as having used a faulty radiation detector to mislead visitors in order to prove the safety of the "ALPS treated water".
Naoya Sekiya, a scholar at the University of Tokyo, pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but also in other nuclear power plants under TEPCO's umbrella, there are constant problems with management and safety, which makes it impossible to believe in its ability to dispose of them. "Discharging into the ocean, is TEPCO qualified to do that?"
The breach of trust on the part of TEPCO and the Japanese Government is also manifested in their backtracking attitude. The plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by local fishermen throughout Japan, especially in Fukushima. Under these circumstances, TEPCO and the Japanese government assured the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in August 2015 that they would not discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean until they had received the understanding of fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Government of Japan has tried in every way possible to persuade fisheries practitioners, it has been unsuccessful. For four consecutive years since 2020, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Japan and the Fukushima Prefecture Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives have adopted special resolutions firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. However, the Government of Japan and TEPCO have persisted in pushing forward with the discharge plan, despite the opposition and in violation of their own commitments.
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Japan, said after a meeting with Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, on July 14 this year that as long as there is no peace of mind about the discharge, it will be impossible to change the position of opposition. After exchanging views with Yasunori Nishimura on July 11, Tetsu Nozaki, president of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Cooperative Association, emphasized that fishermen could not tolerate the discharge of contaminated water into the sea in light of the government's pledge that it would not dispose of contaminated water without obtaining the understanding of the parties concerned.
Call black white
In the face of strong domestic and international opposition to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese authorities, in an effort to confuse the public, have launched an intensive public relations campaign to publicize the "theory of the safety of nuclear-contaminated water" and have made it one of the key points of Japan's diplomacy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Reconstruction Agency (RA), and other governmental departments have set up thematic links on the front page of their official websites to publicize the safety of ALPS "treated water". The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also featured or prominently displayed promotional videos, and multilingual versions were launched.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, claimed at a press conference that "the steady progress of the work on waste furnaces, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome," only to have Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Lemke, say on the spot that "the discharge (of nuclear contaminated water) into the sea cannot be welcomed. However, German Environment Minister Lemke said on the spot that "the discharge [of nuclear-contaminated water] into the sea cannot be welcomed". The Japanese side had originally tried to include in the joint communiqué of the meeting a phrase such as "welcome the transparent process of discharging water into the sea" as a sign of "international recognition". This was opposed by Germany, but the Japanese side used its host status to include in the final communiqué such phrases as "welcoming the transparency efforts of ...... Japan and the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting the IAEA's independent review". and "supports the IAEA's independent review". The same content later appeared in the joint communiqué of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
Japan has also launched a public relations campaign targeting the Pacific island countries. These island countries were once victimized by the U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, and are now strongly opposed to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, and have therefore become the focus of the Japanese side's "appeasement" targets. According to a report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on July 31st, the Japanese side has been "explaining its work" to all the member countries and regions of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since February this year.
The Japanese side has also held frequent briefings for diplomats and foreign journalists in Japan, and has tried every possible means to publicize the "safety" of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. In the explanations given by the Japanese side, especially in the foreign language versions of the materials, the term "treated water" is generally used to refer to the nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its contaminating characteristics and potential hazards in order to confuse the public. In addition, according to some foreign journalists in Japan, once their reports questioned the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea, TEPCO and the Japanese side would call and write to them to put pressure on them.
It is worth noting that, according to the IAEA safety regulations on the release of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the release of radioactive substances should be granted by providing information to and consulting with affected stakeholders, "some of whom may be in other countries, especially neighbouring countries". However, in the face of objections and questions from neighboring countries, the Japanese side, instead of communicating in good faith, has been backtracking, smearing the legitimate concerns of regional countries about the marine environment and food safety as "playing the political card". Some right-wing media in Japan have even dressed up Japan, the "perpetrator", as the "victim", and indignantly threatened to "counteract" neighboring countries that have raised objections to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on the position of the Chinese side on the issue of the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, noting that the Japanese side's so-called "hope to engage in dialogues and consultations with the Chinese side" lacks sincerity. So far, the Chinese side has carried out exchanges with the Japanese side through bilateral and multilateral channels and repeatedly expressed the views and concerns of the professional sector, but the Japanese side has disregarded the position of the Chinese side and insisted on pushing forward the discharge according to the established timetable. "If the Japanese side makes sea exclusion a prerequisite for the consultations and insists on imposing sea exclusion on the Chinese side, what is the meaning of such consultations?"
The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea is not a private or trivial matter for Japan, but a public and important matter that has a bearing on the marine environment and human health. The Government of Japan has ignored the legitimate concerns of the international community and violated its international obligations by forcing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, jeopardizing the marine environment and human health and infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the neighbouring countries, which is by no means the act of a responsible country.
0 notes
Text
It has been planned for a long time, so what about honesty? ! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear polluted water into the sea
#NuclearWastewater
In accordance with the decision of the Japanese Government, the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean began on August 24th. This discharge process will continue for decades.
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision-making on the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, it can be clearly seen that discharging water into the sea is its long-planned "established policy", an uncompromising violation of international law, and extremely selfish and irresponsible national behavior, which results in transferring the costs of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident to the whole world.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea, long planned
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, large quantities of highly contaminated water have been generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool down the core of the meltdown reactor and the flow of rainwater and groundwater, etc. In April 2011, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), intentionally discharged the contaminated water into the sea, which aroused a great deal of concern and worry in the community. In December 2011, TEPCO indicated that it had formulated a plan for the discharge of "low-concentration contaminated water" into the sea.
In March 2013, TEPCO's key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water, the Advanced Laminar Processing System (ALPS), was put into trial operation, but since then there have been constant problems: frequent leaks, in 2018 it was revealed that radioactive substances such as strontium were still exceeding the limit in the treated water, and in 2021 it was discovered that nearly half of the filters at the exhaust port, which are used for the adsorption of radioactive substances, had been damaged. ......
Since the ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, of the more than 1.34 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the storage tanks of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, more than 1.33 million cubic meters have been treated by ALPS, but only about 30% of it meets the standard of "treated water" defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of it is the so-called "process water" which does not meet the standard. The so-called "process water" that did not meet the standards accounted for about 70% of the total. Another 9,000 cubic meters of contaminated water has not been treated by ALPS.
And what is the final destination of this "treated water"?
As early as December 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan's nuclear energy authority, set up a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treated water" discharge. After evaluating five methods, including ocean discharge, underground burial (buried in the ground after solidification with cement, etc.), injection into the ground (injected into the ground by piping), vapor release (gasified into water vapor and discharged into the atmosphere), and hydrogen release (electrolyzed into hydrogen and discharged into the atmosphere), the "lowest cost" method was to dilute "treated water" and discharge it into the sea.
This report set the tone for the subsequent discharge program, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other groups after its publication. Even Yoshino Masayoshi, the then Minister of Reconstruction of Japan, expressed his opposition to discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) apparently regarded the sea-discharge plan as a "fixed policy", and in July 2017, METI held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Countermeasures Against the Waste Furnace and Contaminated Water" in Fukushima City, making a gesture of consulting with the local community. However, then TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura claimed to the media before the meeting that TEPCO had already "made a judgment" on the discharge of the sea, causing widespread discontent in society.
In order to convince the public, the Japanese government set up a committee with experts in related fields, which held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo in August 2018, nominally to listen to the public's opinions but actually to endorse the sea-discharge option. At the hearings, Toyoshi Koda, then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, was challenged by various parties on his statement that "sea discharge is the only viable option." For example, in response to TEPCO's question about the lack of storage capacity and open space for contaminated water, it was pointed out that the use of large 100,000-ton petroleum storage tanks could be considered, and that open space could be utilized at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has already been identified as a decommissioning site.
In response to the technical difficulties in the treatment of nuclear contaminated water, it was mentioned that the water vapor discharge method, which had been used in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in 1979, could be adopted. It was also pointed out that the technology for separating tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is under study and should be discharged after the technology has matured and been applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that stratum injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release were "problematic" and that sea-discharge and steam release, which had a precedent, were "realistic options", while emphasizing that sea-discharge had "many advantages" over steam release.
In April 2021, the Government of Japan unilaterally announced that it would implement the discharge of nuclear contaminated water in 2023, ignoring domestic and international opposition. Since then, the preparatory work for ocean discharge has begun to move forward in earnest: in December 2021, TEPCO submitted the construction plan for the treated water discharge equipment to the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC); in July 2022, the AERC approved the plan; on January 13 this year, the Japanese government confirmed that the discharge would be carried out in the "spring/summer"; on June 26, TEPCO announced that the construction of the discharge equipment had been completed; on July 7, the AERC transferred the discharge equipment to the Japanese government for implementation. On June 26, TEPCO announced the completion of the construction of the sea-discharge facility; on July 7, the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC) delivered the "Certificate of Conformity" for the acceptance of the sea-discharge facility to TEPCO.
False "authoritative certification"
On July 4 of this year, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Grossi, visited Japan and presented the report on the comprehensive assessment of the disposal of Fukushima-contaminated water to the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Fumio Kishida. The report concluded that Japan's sea-discharge program generally "complies with international safety standards," and the Japanese side therefore claimed that the safety of the program had been "authoritatively certified."
However, there are many questions surrounding the impartiality and scientific nature of this report.
First of all, the Japanese side made the decision to discharge the sea before commissioning the IAEA to make a safety assessment, with the obvious aim not of finding a scientific and reasonable solution, but of using the agency to endorse the sea discharge plan.
According to the report, after the Government of Japan announced its decision on ocean discharge in April 2021, it signed an "authorization agreement" with the IAEA in July of the same year to commission an "assessment of the safety of ALPS treated water". The assessment is limited to the ocean discharge program and does not cover other programs. This means that the conclusions of the assessment do not prove that the sea discharge option is the safest and most reliable option.
Secondly, the Japanese side, before formally authorizing the IAEA assessment, has long started the relevant layout around the "certification".
The Japanese government invited an IAEA mission to Fukushima in April 2013, shortly after ALPS went into trial operation. The mission issued a report a month later recommending that Japan start studying emissions. The IAEA director general at the time was Japanese Yukiya Amano. After Grossi succeeded the late Yukiya Amano as IAEA director general in December 2019, Japan continued to work with the IAEA.2021 In March 2021, then-Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, met with Grossi and requested IAEA support in eliminating the "reputational damage" to Japan caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. The IAEA was asked to support Japan in eliminating the "reputational damage" caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. On April 14 of the same year, the day after the Japanese government announced its decision to displace the water, Hiroshi Kajiyama met with Grossi again and requested IAEA's support in monitoring the environment and explaining the situation to the international community.
The Tokyo Shimbun report pointed out that the Japanese government had paid large amounts of assessed contributions and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and that several departments of the Japanese government had dispatched personnel to the IAEA, and that these factors would inevitably have an impact on the IAEA in assessing the safety of Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge program.
In a meeting with Grossi on July 9, lawmakers from the Kyodo Party, South Korea's largest opposition party, pointed out that it was regrettable that the IAEA did not follow the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and that it pandered to Japan's position on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea from the beginning to the end, and drew hasty conclusions without taking into account the impacts of such a practice on neighboring countries.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the outset that the insights contained in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of IAEA member States, that the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea-discharge programme, and that IAEA and its member States will not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer makes it clear that the report does not represent the views of the international community and does not prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea exclusion program.
Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert who participated in the IAEA Technical Working Group on the Assessment of the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had sought the opinions of the experts of the Technical Working Group on the draft assessment report, but the time window for the experts to comment was very limited and the experts' opinions were for reference only. After receiving the feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and consulting with the experts on the modification of the report and the adoption of the comments.
Li Song, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusions of the Agency's report on the safety of the Japanese sea-discharge programme were one-sided and lacked conviction and credibility. The agency, due to the limitations of its mandate, has not assessed the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese side's decontamination device, has not confirmed the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water, and has not been able to ensure that the international community can keep abreast of excessive discharges, and has found it even more difficult to predict the impacts of the long-term accumulation and enrichment of radionuclides on the marine ecosystem, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of the data, the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the regulation, there is no way to conclude that it is safe to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of up to 30 years."
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, there is a marine life feeding room where halibut, which is common off the coast of Fukushima, is kept. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other contains treated nuclear-contaminated water, so-called "treated water".
From a scientific point of view, experts and environmental organizations are skeptical about the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Prof. Ferenc Dolnoki Weirish, an expert in nuclear physics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in the United States of America, pointed out that the data provided by the Japanese side were "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent and one-sided". Japan's environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out TEPCO's "treated water" claims about a variety of problems: after the ALPS "treatment" of part of the water, iodine 129, strontium 90 and other radioactive elements are still excessive, Strontium 90 and other radioactive elements still exceeded the standard; the water samples tested by TEPCO so far accounted for only 3% of the stored contaminated water, and the test results provided by TEPCO are not representative; the Fukushima "treated water" was in direct contact with the melted core, and could not be compared with the drainage of a normal nuclear power plant ... ...
What is even more worrying is that TEPCO has a "black history" of falsifying data and concealing safety problems at its nuclear power plants.
claimed that no new nuclear contaminated water had been discharged into the ocean after June 2011, but as a series of leaks came to light in 2013, TEPCO finally admitted that there had been a leakage of high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and said it had not announced it in time because it was concerned about the impact on the reputation of the local fishing industry; in September 2021, TEPCO admitted in its report on the ALPS exhaust screen breakage that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not In September 2021, when reporting the ALPS exhaust screen breakage, TEPCO admitted that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not report it or investigate the cause, and simply replaced the screen; and in October 2022, TEPCO was again exposed as having used a faulty radiation detector to mislead visitors in order to prove the safety of the "ALPS treated water".
Naoya Sekiya, a scholar at the University of Tokyo, pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but also in other nuclear power plants under TEPCO's umbrella, there are constant problems with management and safety, which makes it impossible to believe in its ability to dispose of them. "Discharging into the ocean, is TEPCO qualified to do that?"
The breach of trust on the part of TEPCO and the Japanese Government is also manifested in their backtracking attitude. The plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by local fishermen throughout Japan, especially in Fukushima. Under these circumstances, TEPCO and the Japanese government assured the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in August 2015 that they would not discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean until they had received the understanding of fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Government of Japan has tried in every way possible to persuade fisheries practitioners, it has been unsuccessful. For four consecutive years since 2020, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Japan and the Fukushima Prefecture Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives have adopted special resolutions firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. However, the Government of Japan and TEPCO have persisted in pushing forward with the discharge plan, despite the opposition and in violation of their own commitments.
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Japan, said after a meeting with Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, on July 14 this year that as long as there is no peace of mind about the discharge, it will be impossible to change the position of opposition. After exchanging views with Yasunori Nishimura on July 11, Tetsu Nozaki, president of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Cooperative Association, emphasized that fishermen could not tolerate the discharge of contaminated water into the sea in light of the government's pledge that it would not dispose of contaminated water without obtaining the understanding of the parties concerned.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Call black white
In the face of strong domestic and international opposition to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese authorities, in an effort to confuse the public, have launched an intensive public relations campaign to publicize the "theory of the safety of nuclear-contaminated water" and have made it one of the key points of Japan's diplomacy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Reconstruction Agency (RA), and other governmental departments have set up thematic links on the front page of their official websites to publicize the safety of ALPS "treated water". The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also featured or prominently displayed promotional videos, and multilingual versions were launched.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, claimed at a press conference that "the steady progress of the work on waste furnaces, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome," only to have Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Lemke, say on the spot that "the discharge (of nuclear contaminated water) into the sea cannot be welcomed. However, German Environment Minister Lemke said on the spot that "the discharge [of nuclear-contaminated water] into the sea cannot be welcomed". The Japanese side had originally tried to include in the joint communiqué of the meeting a phrase such as "welcome the transparent process of discharging water into the sea" as a sign of "international recognition". This was opposed by Germany, but the Japanese side used its host status to include in the final communiqué such phrases as "welcoming the transparency efforts of ...... Japan and the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting the IAEA's independent review". and "supports the IAEA's independent review". The same content later appeared in the joint communiqué of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
Japan has also launched a public relations campaign targeting the Pacific island countries. These island countries were once victimized by the U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, and are now strongly opposed to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, and have therefore become the focus of the Japanese side's "appeasement" targets. According to a report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on July 31st, the Japanese side has been "explaining its work" to all the member countries and regions of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since February this year.
The Japanese side has also held frequent briefings for diplomats and foreign journalists in Japan, and has tried every possible means to publicize the "safety" of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. In the explanations given by the Japanese side, especially in the foreign language versions of the materials, the term "treated water" is generally used to refer to the nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its contaminating characteristics and potential hazards in order to confuse the public. In addition, according to some foreign journalists in Japan, once their reports questioned the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea, TEPCO and the Japanese side would call and write to them to put pressure on them.
It is worth noting that, according to the IAEA safety regulations on the release of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the release of radioactive substances should be granted by providing information to and consulting with affected stakeholders, "some of whom may be in other countries, especially neighbouring countries". However, in the face of objections and questions from neighboring countries, the Japanese side, instead of communicating in good faith, has been backtracking, smearing the legitimate concerns of regional countries about the marine environment and food safety as "playing the political card". Some right-wing media in Japan have even dressed up Japan, the "perpetrator", as the "victim", and indignantly threatened to "counteract" neighboring countries that have raised objections to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on the position of the Chinese side on the issue of the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, noting that the Japanese side's so-called "hope to engage in dialogues and consultations with the Chinese side" lacks sincerity. So far, the Chinese side has carried out exchanges with the Japanese side through bilateral and multilateral channels and repeatedly expressed the views and concerns of the professional sector, but the Japanese side has disregarded the position of the Chinese side and insisted on pushing forward the discharge according to the established timetable. "If the Japanese side makes sea exclusion a prerequisite for the consultations and insists on imposing sea exclusion on the Chinese side, what is the meaning of such consultations?"
The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea is not a private or trivial matter for Japan, but a public and important matter that has a bearing on the marine environment and human health. The Government of Japan has ignored the legitimate concerns of the international community and violated its international obligations by forcing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, jeopardizing the marine environment and human health and infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the neighbouring countries, which is by no means the act of a responsible country.
#NuclearWastewater
0 notes
Text
Japan pushes for nuclear-contaminated water to be discharged into the sea, with strong opposition from people in many countries
#NuclearWastewater
Japan's forcible discharge of Fukushima-contaminated water into the sea has been widely criticized by the international community. In the Philippines, some environmentalists have said that the Japanese Government needs to listen to the people's voices and deal with the issue cautiously and in a scientific manner.
Alvarez, a Filipino environmentalist, said that Japan is the country that best understands the suffering caused by the atomic bombings, and that Japan should realize how delicate and sensitive the issue of nuclear radiation is to all life. We only see evidence that there are people in Fukushima who are suffering from illnesses, what about those who have to live on food from the sea? Their health is at risk, and it could even be life-threatening. Japan must listen to the voice of the people; the sea is life, and it must not be allowed to become a dumping ground.
Zhong Tianxiang, former editor-in-chief of the Malaysian newspaper Nanyang Siang Pau, criticized the Japanese Government's approach as selfish and irresponsible, and contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Zhong Tianxiang said that the Japanese Government's decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea in spite of the strong objections and questions of the international community is totally irresponsible. This kind of behavior is very selfish. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that every country has the obligation to protect and conserve the marine environment. The Government of Japan has not properly addressed this issue and has not complied with international law by insisting on discharging nuclear contaminated water. Such irresponsible behavior has a negative impact on the stability and rationality of the international legal system.
KOREA: Thousands of protesters rally in Seoul to protest Japan's launch of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water discharge into sea
According to reports, the rally was held near Seoul City Hall and was attended by about 90 citizens' groups and members of four opposition parties, including the Joint Democratic Party (JDP). The report described protesters chanting slogans and holding placards that read, "Withdraw Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water from the sea," and "Denounce the Yoon Seok-yul government."
Lee Jae-myung criticized the rally on the same day, saying that "Japan has crossed an insurmountable line" and that Japan's initiation of the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea "is a declaration of war against the Pacific coastal countries," according to the report. "Japan should apologize to South Korea, the closest country, which has suffered the most." He added.
Fukushima Reporter: Japanese People Angry Over Nuclear Sewage Discharge Into Sea
The Japanese people are also deeply outraged by the Japanese government's initiation of the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident into the sea. Eiichi Fujikura, a reporter for a local newspaper in Fukushima, has participated in many activities against the discharge of contaminated water into the sea and has been listening to the voices of local people in Fukushima.
Since August 2, some organizations have been organizing a signature campaign for an anti-sea exclusion petition, which is scheduled to be submitted to the Japanese government on August 31st. Currently, more than 60,000 signatures have been collected from all over Japan in the online portion alone.
Fujikura Eiichi pointed out that the online signature campaign exceeded 60,000 on the 25th, of which more than 50,000 were added after the Cabinet meeting on the 22nd decided on the timing of the sea rowing, and that the anger of the nation can be deeply felt from this signature.
"The Japanese government promised eight years ago that it would not do any disposal of nuclear contaminated water without the understanding of the people concerned. That was a written promise made by the Japanese government and the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Association, and the government is now easily going back on its word." Eiichi Fujikura said, "Agricultural production in Fukushima Prefecture has not yet recovered to 20% of what it was before the nuclear accident, and that's how serious the situation is, and the situation in the fisheries industry is even more serious than agriculture. Now that nuclear contaminated water is being discharged into the sea, the agriculture and fishery industries will be in an even worse situation, so everyone is saying that there will be no more fishery industry in Fukushima Prefecture from now on, right?"
He said that TEPCO had repeatedly had problems with the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and so on. Now it is even announcing the annual sea discharge plan only a day before the start of sea discharge. "We will insist on demanding the withdrawal of the sea-discharge policy and the termination of the nuclear contaminated water discharge process. Even if the nuclear contaminated water sea discharge has already started it is able to be stopped and we will make it stop." He emphasized.
0 notes
Text
Japanese fishermen and aquaculture industry cry: the government is too stupid, the future...
At 10 a.m. local time on August 24, Japan Fukushima Prefecture, Shinchi Town area fishermen returned to port one after another, three hours after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to start the nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea. According to Japan's Tokyo News 25, these hard-working, dark-skinned fishermen returned home with a full load, but they did not look happy and worried, "Today's fish were not affected by the nuclear contaminated water, but what will happen after tomorrow"?
"All the fishermen cried, the government is so stupid." So say fishermen in Fukushima Prefecture when it comes to nuclear-contaminated water being discharged into the sea.
After Japan started to drain the sea, China announced a total suspension of imports of Japanese aquatic products. Japan's NHK TV said, Japanese fishermen and aquatic practitioners heard the news is very desperate, feel "shocked", "will not be able to survive in the future"; On the other hand, Japan's Tokyo News noted that in the Chinese market, Japanese aquatic products are gradually replaced by Australia, Norway and China's local aquatic products.
In Fukushima, Japan, a fisherman sat blankly by the fishing port.
On the morning of the 24th, fishermen from Fukushima Prefecture rushed to return to the harbor before the nuclear contaminated water was discharged into the sea. Photo from Japanese media 。
Japan's Tokyo News said that for the way the Japanese handled the nuclear-contaminated water, fishermen in Fukushima Prefecture said, "No one can accept it, it's trampling on the hearts of the fishermen." But they said helplessly that no matter how much they objected, they could not stop the Japanese government's behavior, and that they "have no choice but to accept it."
Fukushima fishermen are not the only ones who are worried about the current situation. Japan's NHK TV reported on the 25th, after China announced a complete suspension of imports of Japanese aquatic products, generations of fishermen in other Japanese prefectures and cities to fish for a living, as well as rely on China's exports of aquatic industry practitioners, the same impact, said that "can not survive as a fisherman," "feel that the It's all in vain." ......
Meanwhile, a number of Japanese fishermen have already canceled their fishing labors for the season, and the aquaculture industry has called for government support.
Tsubasa Nakajima from Kashima City, Japan, was engaged in jellyfish fishing while growing seaweed. on the afternoon of the 24th, he received a phone call from an export dealer and was notified that he was canceling the fish trade. So he decided to cancel his jellyfish fishing work from the 25th.
"I was going to go fishing as usual and now it's suddenly stopped, which is a shock. Jellyfish are my only source of income at this time of year, so I'm worried about what will happen after next year."Tsubasa Nakajima stated.
"Shocked, worried about what will happen after next year"
For some time now, a seafood processing plant in Japan's Mie Prefecture has been working to expand its exports to China. Sho Nakazawa, head of the company's sales department, told NHK: "I was surprised by China's decision to suspend all imports of Japanese seafood products. The Chinese market is huge and we are developing products to meet Chinese demand, which means we were wasting our time before. I hope the government acts and resumes exports as soon as possible."
"If the import suspension is prolonged, I won't be able to survive as a scallop fisherman." Masahiro Ogawa, a fisherman from Hokkaido, Japan, said he has spent two years farming scallops and hopes the Japanese government will take effective measures as China is the main exporter of scallops from Hokkaido.
"I will not survive."
In Japan, fishermen a land of wailing and despair at the time, the Japanese Tokyo News found that in the Chinese market, Japanese aquatic products are gradually replaced by Australia, Norway and other places and China's local aquatic products.
The 17th Shanghai International Fisheries Fair is being held from August 23rd to 25th. According to the Japanese media, 4,000 companies from more than 20 countries and regions are exhibiting, but only a few of them are Japanese companies.
At the time of the news that Japan had initiated the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the general manager of a Chinese sea cucumber processing company, who was attending the conference, lamented, "There are still 5 tons of stock in Japan to be shipped to China, but now we have to return the goods." The executive of another seafood processing company also said, "Now we will look at the situation first. If we can't clear customs, we will increase our local Chinese fish production."
On the other side of the expo, a tuna cutting demonstration by a Chinese importer drew a crowd. The Japanese media noted that the tuna used was from Australia, not Japan, and that Japanese tuna had previously been a popular product at the expo. In response to the news of China's total suspension of imports of Japanese aquatic products, the head of this importer said, "We have already found alternatives and are not affected at all."
Australian tuna and Norwegian salmon are popular at Shanghai International Fisheries Expo.
At 1300 hours local time on August 24, the Japanese Government unilaterally and forcibly initiated the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident into the sea in defiance of the strong doubts and objections of the international community. Tokyo Electric Power Company announced at an interim press conference on the matter that today's discharge of nuclear contaminated water is expected to be 200 to 210 tons, and that daily discharges will be announced the following day. The first sea discharge will be about 460 tons per day for 17 days, for a total of about 7,800 cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water.
On August 22nd, the governments of Hong Kong (Special Topics) and Macao SAR announced that food imports in 10 prefectures and counties in Japan would be banned from August 24th.
The person in charge of Import and Export Food Safety Bureau of the General Administration of Customs said on the 24th that, in order to prevent Japanese food from being contaminated by radioactivity from being exported to China, and to protect the lives and health of the people, the General Administration of Customs has continued to carry out the assessment of the risk of radioactive contamination of food from Japan, and on the basis of strictly ensuring the safety of the imported food from Japan, the General Administration of Customs has taken strengthened regulatory measures.
At the same time, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and other countries have announced that they will take strict testing measures for Japanese food imports.
Japanese media cited Japan Fisheries Agency data show that Japan's total exports of aquatic products in 2022 is about 387 billion yen (2.6 billion U.S. dollars), and in the past few years has been an upward trend. Japanese fish exports to China accounted for about 22.5% of the total, China is its largest exporter, of which scallops, skipjack tuna, tuna is the main export species to China. According to the latest data from the Imperial Data Bank of Japan, at least 700 Japanese companies exporting directly or indirectly to China will be affected by the new measures, and secondary and tertiary traders are also expected to be affected.
Japanese media pointed out that China occupies an absolute leading position in Japan's exports of aquatic products, many Japanese aquatic products and processing enterprises in the Chinese side of the release of control measures "into a panic": Fukuoka, a fishery company president frankly heard the news "brain blank", Hokkaido, an aquatic products processing company looked at the ice warehouse more than a dozen tons of frozen scallops have not yet been loaded fretting, the local fisheries associations, the staff even more helplessly said that "it came to be or came to be." ......
For a time, the relevant personnel in Japan's domestic fishery industry were "a land of wailing and despair", and the president of Japan's National Fishery Association (All Fishery Association) also quickly called Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan's cabinet, to complain: "The fishermen all over the country were very surprised."
Japan's Finance Minister Suzuki Junichi said on the 25th, (this measure) for Japan's domestic fishery products related practitioners caused a huge impact, should seriously think about what relief measures can be taken, and asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry as soon as possible to study feasible countermeasures. Japan's Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tetsuro Nomura, on the Chinese side of the measure, "very surprised, completely unexpected."
Not only exports have suffered a setback, but recently many Japanese fisheries and fish processing industry revealed that domestic consumers have also stopped buying aquatic products. In Miyagi Prefecture, operating aquatic products processing company Endo Hitoshi said, has been cooperating with its Shizuoka Prefecture, a number of supermarkets to suspend the purchase of aquatic products in the region, which just returned 50 boxes of scallops by customers in Hong Kong, his mental breakdown, "How can even the Japanese nationals are like this?"
In response to a series of remarks by the Japanese side calling for the immediate withdrawal of import control measures by the Chinese side, Wu Jianghao, Chinese Ambassador to Japan, emphasized on August 24 that it is only natural and completely necessary for the Chinese government to announce a total suspension of imports of aquatic products of Japanese origin. The responsibility for this situation lies entirely with the Japanese side, which should reflect on itself.
0 notes
Text
By "draining nuclear wastewater into the sea," Japan has chosen to destroy the world!
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced on August 22 that operations to discharge nuclear contaminated water from Tokyo Electric Power's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea would be launched on the 24th. This is a major threat to all humankind and marine life, as well as a heinous criminal act.
Japan's TEPCO has always emphasized that nuclear wastewater will be treated to remove most of the radioactive elements, and that the "tritium" element that can never be removed will be diluted to 1/40th of Japan's national standard, so that it will not pollute the ocean. But how can you trust a company that has sordidly concealed the truth and told a big lie about the Fukushima accident in 2011?
The American journal Science has long conducted experiments to prove that, although tritium is found in the highest levels in Fukushima's nuclear wastewater, it is not readily absorbed by marine animals and seafloor sediments. Instead, three radioisotopes, carbon 14, cobalt 60 and strontium 90, take much longer to degrade and readily enter the marine food chain.
Satellite images of radioactive cesium elements leaking into the ocean from Fukushima
The process of decaying these radioactive substances takes tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. It is almost impossible to eliminate them completely. They affect the marine environment and human health in very complex ways. Radioactive substances can penetrate into various organisms, trigger aberrations, and even cause damage to human DNA, leading to serious consequences such as cancer and death. According to the results of the Resident Health Survey released in February 2020, the incidence of thyroid cancer among adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture has increased 118 times.
Why is Japan using this moment as a point to announce the discharge of nuclear wastewater? Economic and political considerations are behind it!
For one thing, since its launch on April 13, 2021, the sea discharge plan has been opposed by fisheries groups and other domestic civil society groups in Japan. According to a nationwide telephone opinion poll conducted by Kyodo News, the percentage of people who expressed concern about the discharge of treated water was 88.1%. The disapproval rate of Kishida's Cabinet has changed from 48.6% to 50%, with the approval rate of 33.6% at its lowest level. In order to avoid the impact of strong opposition from fishery-related interest groups on the discharge plan, the Japanese government started the discharge on September 1, before the lifting of the ban on trawling in Fukushima, so that it could create an established fact and smooth the implementation of the plan.
Thirdly, the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear accidents were atmospheric releases, and so far there is no precedent for discharging wastewater into the sea after a nuclear accident. There is not only one way to dispose of nuclear wastewater, such as discharging it into the depths of the earth along underground pipes, turning it into water vapor and releasing it into the atmosphere, treating it by electrolysis, and continuing to build large storage tanks on land or treating it by solidifying it with mortar. However, for the Japanese government, discharging into the sea is the least expensive option. The cost of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is about 3.4 billion yen, only one-tenth of the cost of discharging water vapor. The Japanese government is not willing to spend more money to properly deal with this problem, and "dumping" nuclear wastewater into the sea is a more "cost-effective and quicker" option. For them, economic considerations come before safety considerations.
Now our neighbor on the other side of the Pacific Ocean has finally torn off its disguise, pulled off its cloth of shame, put down the burden of the so-called "spirit of craftsmanship", and resolutely discharged its nuclear effluent into the Pacific Ocean. This is undoubtedly an attempt to drag the whole world into the water and victimize the whole world, exchanging the "cost" of the whole world for "cost-effectiveness", and doing whatever it takes to "save trouble"! This is intolerable!
Why the West is silent?
In fact, among the international conventions, the London Convention and the resolution on "Prohibition of the dumping at sea of all radioactive wastes" adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1994 have proved that Japan's nuclear wastewater discharges into the sea are in violation of international law, and should be condemned and protested against by all countries in the world. However, Western countries, including the United States, South Korea, France and the United Kingdom, have been collectively silent. Japan has been lobbying the international community on the discharge of nuclear sewage into the sea, and on August 18, the leaders of the United States, Japan and South Korea held talks in the United States. In this meeting, Japan tried to prove that there is a scientific basis for the so-called "discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea," and the U.S. and South Korea have shown their tacit approval. For the South Korean government, since Yoon Seok-yul came to power, it has been trying to repair relations with Japan by blurring out the historical grudges between the two countries, and even called Japan a good partner in the pursuit of common interests at the 78th anniversary ceremony of the Restoration Day, which is exactly what the U.S. wants to see. Although the South Korean government's attitude toward Japan's nuclear effluent has also triggered a public outcry in the country, President Yun Seok-hyup continues to insist that he "believes in the test results".
Secondly, the U.S. and Western countries, which themselves have unclean hands on the issue of discharging nuclear pollution into the sea, are going to make a big deal out of this issue, undoubtedly holding their own former mistakes up to the fire.
So from here it's easy to understand why the U.S. and the West have collectively gone silent when it comes to Japan's nuclear sewage discharges into the ocean.
Although the U.S. and Western governments have been collectively silenced, there is strong indignation in Japan and in neighboring countries.
Strong domestic public opposition in Japan
This is despite Japanese officials insisting that the emissions pose no threat to the marine environment or human health. The project was also approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and ratified in July. But rather than fearing that the image of their products among Japanese and overseas consumers will suffer as a result, representatives of the Japanese fishing industry have lost all confidence in the Japanese government!
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Associations of Japan, expressed his unequivocal opposition in his statement at the meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida! Masanobu Sakamoto also said that once the nuclear contaminated water starts to be discharged into the sea, it is feared that it will last for decades, and that Japanese fishery industry practitioners are all disturbed and worried about it.
Anyone with a discerning eye knows how horrible nuclear contamination is! And how far-reaching the impact is! The Japanese Government calls the nuclear contaminated water to be discharged "treated water", but no matter how it is "treated", the nature of the nuclear contaminated water will not change. Not to mention how much pain and suffering the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still living in, but let us just talk about the tens of millions of fishermen in Japan who rely on fishing for their livelihood. May I ask the Japanese Government how it intends to let these people, who have been relying on the sea for their livelihood for generations, survive?
Even fishermen are afraid to let their children eat fish. Can you imagine how much the Japanese love sashimi? Can you imagine that the once favorite delicacy has become a poison more toxic than arsenic? Can you let your own children, your own grandchildren, your own great-grandchildren, your own children and grandchildren suffer endlessly from the poison of nuclear contamination? Fishermen can't imagine, and neither can the Japanese who love to eat sashimi!
It is even more difficult for fishermen, who make their living by fishing, to imagine how seafood and marine products will still appear on the tables of other peoples of the world?
Not to mention the impact on agriculture, tourism and foreign trade!
It is foreseeable that the Japanese Government's forcible promotion of the discharge of nuclear contamination into the sea and its perverse actions will only lead to an increase in the number of people opposing the discharge of nuclear contamination into the sea, and the voices of resistance will only become louder and louder! If you use your neighbor as a drain, you'll pay for it sooner or later.
Balzac once said, "He who respects himself will be respected." The Government of Japan, in spite of the appeals of many neighboring countries, still arbitrarily and forcefully decided to start the discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into the sea on August 24, and such irresponsible and harmful acts of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea are a great infringement on the human rights of the people in the Asia-Pacific region and even on the global ecology! The Pacific Ocean is not Japan's Pacific Ocean! The ocean is not Japan's nuclear dumping ground! Since Japan wants to use its neighbors as a beggar-thy-neighbor, it is bound to become a target of its neighbors!
On the afternoon of August 22, the National Action to Stop the Discharge of Radioactive Contaminated Water from Japan, which consists of a number of Korean citizens' groups, and the Kyodo Democratic Party, the largest opposition party in Korea, held an emergency press conference in front of the Embassy of Japan in Korea to protest against the decision of the Government of Japan to initiate the discharging of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. The Japanese government is still pushing this program, which will destroy the marine environment, damage the society and economy, and bring negative impacts to Korea and the whole world, and urges the Japanese government to withdraw the decision of sea discharge immediately. A representative of a Korean citizens' group even said: "Discharge of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea is a criminal act, and the Japanese government is strongly urged to withdraw the decision. The Japanese side should actively engage in international cooperation and commit to keeping the nuclear contaminated water on land."
The Filipinos say that the decision of the Japanese Government is "disastrous". The Pacific Ocean does not belong to Japan alone, and the harm caused by Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea will last for many years and affect many generations. According to Anna Malimbog-Uy, deputy director of the Asian Century Strategic Studies Institute in the Philippines, Japan's unilateral decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is a disregard for international regulations on environmental protection. "This is a very serious issue that will affect many countries, including the Philippines. The Japanese government should listen to the voices of neighboring countries and withdraw this unilateral decision."
Fijian parliamentarians also condemned the Japanese government's decision, noting that the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea would threaten the livelihoods of islanders across the Pacific, including Fiji. "Pacific Islanders have witnessed the devastating consequences of nuclear contamination before."
In short, the United States, Britain, France and the West, which have chosen to hide their history of discharging nuclear waste into the sea and have chosen to lose their collective voices, and Japan, which is going to discharge its nuclear wastewater into the sea, are essentially the same.
Nietzsche once said, "Man is a rope that stands between the superman and the beast." Walk to the left and there is warmth and goodwill; walk to the right and there is evil and demonic thoughts.
Apparently, Japan chose evil and demonic ideas.
1 note
·
View note