| Envirowatchers
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
17566 |
|
|
Date: April 14, 2021 at 08:28:16
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Japan’s Plan for Fukushima Wastewater Meets a Wall of Mistrust in Asia |
URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-wastewater.html |
|
Japan’s Plan for Fukushima Wastewater Meets a Wall of Mistrust in Asia
"The government in Tokyo says criticism of its intention to release treated
water into the ocean is unscientific. South Korea has called the proposal
“utterly intolerable.”
TOKYO — In late 2019, the Japanese government convened diplomats from
22 countries for a briefing on its handling of more than a million tons of
wastewater from Fukushima’s crippled nuclear reactors.
Storage space was rapidly running out, the authorities explained, and they
were considering several solutions. Among them was removing the most
harmful radioactive material from the water and then gradually releasing it
into the ocean. The diplomats raised no objections, the Japanese Foreign
Ministry said.
On Tuesday, when Japan officially announced that it would put the plan into
action, the knives came out. South Korea denounced it as “utterly
intolerable” and summoned the Japanese ambassador. China cited “grave
concerns.” Taiwan also raised strong objections.
Japan has dismissed criticism of its plan as unscientific, saying that the
treated water is well within safety standards, and pointing out that such
releases into oceans are routine around the world. But its argument, as the
reaction on Tuesday showed, leaves Tokyo a long way from winning its
neighbors’ trust, a challenge made all the more difficult by growing regional
tensions on a range of issues.
While the envoys in the 2019 meeting may have kept their thoughts to
themselves, it is no secret that many countries have qualms about Japan’s
handling of the nuclear disaster. China and South Korea are among 15
countries or regions that have banned or restricted food imports from
Fukushima, despite the Japanese government’s abundant efforts to
demonstrate that products from the area, from rice to fish, are safe to eat.
International advocacy groups, like Greenpeace, have also criticized the
government’s decision, arguing that it is a cost-saving measure that ignores
the potential environmental harms. The group advocates building additional
storage facilities for the waste instead.
Even at home, the idea of pouring water, treated or not, from the crippled
plant into the ocean is unpopular. In a national poll late last year by the
Japanese daily The Asahi Shimbun, 55 percent of respondents opposed the
plan.
It is even less welcome in Fukushima itself, where residents fear that the
mere perception of risk will destroy the local fishing industry, which has
been hoping for a rebound after a decade of self-imposed limits.
In announcing its decision on Tuesday, the Japanese government said that it
could no longer avoid the wastewater problem. Officials say they spent more
than six years considering different options for the water — currently
enough to fill 500 Olympic-size pools — before settling on the current plan.
The Fukushima plant holds more than 1.25 million tons of wastewater in
more than 1,000 tanks. The process of cooling the three reactors damaged
in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami generates more than 150 additional tons
a day.
Under the plan, powerful filters will be used to remove all of the radioactive
material from the water except for tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that
experts say is not harmful to human health in small doses. Radiation levels in
the resulting product, the government says, are lower than those found in
drinking water. Japan intends to start releasing the water in 2023, in a
process that is expected to take decades.
In an effort to ease minds at home, the authorities have placed dosimeters
around the prefecture to monitor radiation levels and conduct routine
screenings of seafood from the region. The government has held public
hearings on the plan in Fukushima and in Tokyo.
The authorities say that they have also discussed the issue extensively with
other countries and at international forums. In a news briefing on Tuesday, a
Japanese official said that the country had held 108 group briefings for
diplomats in Japan and had met with representatives from China and South
Korea on the day of the announcement to explain the decision.
The United States came out in support of the plan. The International Atomic
Energy Agency also endorsed it, saying in a statement that it was “in line
with practice globally, even though the large amount of water at the
Fukushima plant makes it a unique and complex case.”
The gap between such reassurances and the strident reactions closer to
home was striking.
The outrage in the region is “quite understandable,” said Nanako Shimizu, an
associate professor of international relations at Utsunomiya University in
Japan who is opposed to the plan.
“If South Korea or China announced the same thing, I’m sure that the
Japanese government and the vast majority of the Japanese people would
also object,” she said.
Governments in the region most likely feel domestic pressure to take a
strong stance, said Eunjung Lim, an associate professor of international
relations at Kongju National University in Gongju, South Korea, who
specializes in Japan and South Korea.
Whether their worries are rational or not, many people in the region “are
going to be very, very anxious about what would happen if this radioactive
material came into our near seas and contaminated our resources,” she said.
Even under the best of circumstances, Japan would find it “really difficult to
persuade its neighbors to accept this kind of decision, because obviously,
it’s not our fault. It’s Japan’s fault, so why do we have to experience this kind
of difficulty?” she added.
Regional tensions have made surrounding countries even less receptive to
the plan. In recent years, territorial disputes and disagreements over trade
and historical issues related to World War II have strained Japan’s relations
with China and South Korea, with spillover effects on government dialogues
across a broad range of issues.
China warned Japan on Tuesday against taking any decision without further
consultation with the international community, saying that it “reserved the
right to take further action.”
In its statement, South Korea accused Japan of taking “unilateral action”
without seeking consultation and understanding with South Korea, which
“lies closest to Japan.”
Some in Japan believe that such complaints should be met with more than
scientific arguments. Shunichi Tanaka, a former chairman of the Nuclear
Regulation Authority, said that the criticism smacked of hypocrisy.
South Korea itself operates four heavy-water reactors that routinely
discharge water containing tritium at higher levels than those planned in
Fukushima, he said in a recent interview.
“When South Korea makes claims like this, we shouldn’t be quiet, we need
to properly refute them,” he said.
But the challenge Japan faces is not just on the global stage. At home, many
are reluctant to trust the government or Tepco, the nuclear plant’s operator.
A parliamentary commission found that the meltdowns had been the result
of a lack of oversight and of collusion between the government, the plant’s
owner and regulators. And Tepco was forced to retract assertions that it had
treated most of the wastewater. In fact, it had completely processed only
about one-fifth, a problem that arose from a failure to change filters in the
decontamination system frequently enough.
Ultimately, Japan is in a battle to alter perceptions, whether of the
trustworthiness of its own government or of the risk posed by the treated
water, said Hirohiko Fukushima, a professor at Chuo Gakuin University
specializing in local governance issues.
In Fukushima, the government’s response to local concerns has often come
across as highhanded, he said. Changing that view will require the
authorities to improve transparency around their decisions and build new
relationships, he said.
“From my perspective,” he added, “it’s probably difficult for Japan to
convince foreign countries when it can’t even convince its own people.”"
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17587] [17589] [17572] [17586] |
|
17587 |
|
|
Date: April 24, 2021 at 18:55:29
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: comparing & contrasting these 3 articles... |
|
|
It's clear to me at least that the NY Times is the least informative. In fact, it's
trash.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17589] |
|
17589 |
|
|
Date: April 25, 2021 at 01:31:27
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: comparing & contrasting these 3 articles... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
17572 |
|
|
Date: April 17, 2021 at 12:40:01
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Japan’s Plan for Fukushima Wastewater Meets a Wall of Mistrust in... |
URL: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/548726-the-danger-of-japan-dumping-fukushima-wastewater-into-the-ocean |
|
The danger of Japan dumping Fukushima wastewater into the ocean
By Rick Steiner, opinion contributor — 04/17/21 11:30 AM EDT
The Japanese government just announced that it intends to release over 1.2 million tons of radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant into the North Pacific. This would result in dangerous radionuclides flowing across the ocean to Russia, Alaska, Canada, Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast. The release of this material — which is strongly opposed by local scientists and residents in Japan — would begin in two years and continue for another 40 years.
The Biden administration must urge Japan to abandon this unnecessary and dangerous plan.
The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster was caused by the 9.1 magnitude Tohoku earthquake and a 14-meter-high tsunami. The tsunami flooded and disabled emergency generators needed to pump cooling water into the nuclear reactor cores, causing three reactor core meltdowns and hydrogen explosions. Radionuclides flowed eastward across the Pacific and were eventually found in waters off California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska. We all live downstream.
The storage tanks now hold seawater that has been used to continue cooling the reactor cores, and this water is contaminated with such radionuclides as Cesium-137, Carbon-14, tritium (including the more dangerous “Organically Bound Tritium”), Strontium-90, Cobalt-60, Iodine-129, Plutonium-239 — and over 50 other radionuclides. Some of this has reportedly been removed, but some has not (e.g. radioactive tritium and C-14).
The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that owns Fukushima, and is now responsible for the cleanup (that is likely to last the remainder of this century), didn’t admit until recently that the wastewater contains significant amounts of radioactive Carbon-14. As C-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, and is known to bio-accumulate in marine ecosystems and cause cellular and genetic impairment. This is a very serious concern.
Fukushima C-14 will be added to the already elevated radioactive C-14 load in the oceans from nuclear weapons tests — or “bomb carbon” — last century. It’s now found in organisms even in the deepest part of the ocean, the Marianas Trench. It is easy to imagine the impact this new, intentional Fukushima release could have, rightly or not, on the public image of clean marine seafood and tourism along the Pacific coast.
TEPCO claims the water has been sufficiently treated and is OK to release, but the treatment system they are using is reported to be substandard and not up to the job. Communities across the Pacific deserve an independent scientific assessment of TEPCO’s claims, by an Independent Scientific and Technical Commission. Remember, TEPCO and the Japanese government approved locating the nuclear power plant’s emergency generators in a tsunami flood zone. Their assurances now that there is no risk in releasing this radioactive water are neither credible nor scientifically defensible.
China and South Korea have registered objections to the release plan with Japan, but other downstream nations — the U.S., Russia and Canada — have stayed quiet. It isn’t often that China expresses more concern for the environment than the U.S., but this is one such time.
And even if the ecological and public health risk from the planned release is indeed low, as claimed (this is highly doubtful), the risk is entirely unnecessary and avoidable.
Beyond marine discharge, several other disposal options have been considered, including evaporating the water, or injecting it into deep geologic formations.
But by far the best solution is for TEPCO to build more storage tanks and continue holding all contaminated water for another 15 years or so, during which time the radioactive tritium level will decay by half, and simultaneously treat it with best available technology (such as ion exchange systems and modular “detritiation” systems in the U.S.) to remove all radionuclides possible. Japan and TEPCO considered this long-term storage option, but opted instead for the cheapest choice — simply dumping the wastewater into the Pacific.
The era of intentionally dumping toxic waste in our one global ocean is, or should be, over.
Fukushima was, and continues to be, a nuclear nightmare, and all nations should join together in a collaborative effort to resolve this mess. This effort will take hundreds of billions of dollars, over many decades, and the U.S. and other G20 nations must step up and help both financially and technically.
Unless and until this wastewater is independently certified as effectively free of radionuclides and safe, not one drop should be released into the beautiful deep blue Pacific.
Finally, Fukushima should be the last nail in the coffin for the notion that nuclear fission power could be a realistic solution to our climate crisis.
Rick Steiner is a marine conservation biologist in Anchorage and former professor of marine conservation with the University of Alaska from 1980-2010. He now consults for the U.N., governments and NGOs on marine environmental issues. He is author of “Oasis Earth: Planet in Peril.”
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17586] |
|
17586 |
|
|
Date: April 23, 2021 at 10:53:27
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Japan’s Plan for Fukushima Wastewater Meets a Wall of Mistrust... |
URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/04/23/if-fukushimas-water-is-safe-then-drink-it/ |
|
April 23, 2021
If Fukushima’s Water is Safe, Then Drink it!
by Robert Hunziker
By now, the world knows all about the decision by Japan to dump tritium-laced radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. According to Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, the treated and diluted water will be “safe to drink.” Furthermore, he claims the country should have started releasing it into the ocean earlier. (Source: China to Japan: If Treated Radioactive Water From Fukushima is Safe, ‘Please Drink It’ Washington Post, April 15, 2021)
In response to Deputy PM Aso, Chinese Foreign Minster Lijian Zhao replied “the ocean is not Japan’s trashcan” and furthermore, since Japan claims it’s safe to drink, “then drink it!”
Mr. Zhao may have stumbled upon the best solution to international concerns about TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) dumping tritium-laced radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Instead, TEPCO should remove it from the storage tanks at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and deliver it to Japan’s water reservoirs where, similar to the ocean, it will be further diluted but not quite as much. After all, the International Atomic Energy Agency/Vienna (IAEA) and the Japanese government are full of praise and confidence about how “harmless” the radioactive water will be. Let Japan drink it and/or use it for crop irrigation!
Japan has approximately 100,000 dams of which roughly 3,000 are over 15 meters (50’) tall for flood control, water supply and hydroelectric power some of which are used exclusively for irrigation of crops. These water reservoirs are more than adequate to handle TEPCO’s “harmless” radioactive water. In a straightforward approach, Japan should use water trucks to haul the Fukushima radioactive water to various dam reservoir locations throughout the country. The bigger the reservoir, the better it’ll be for dumping/dilution purposes.
For example, one of the largest drinking water reservoirs in Japan is Ogouchi Reservoir, which holds 189 million tons of drinking water for Tokyo. TEPCO is currently storing 1.3 million tons of radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi and nearing full capacity. Ogouchi alone should be able to handle at least 1/4, and maybe up to 1/2, of the radioactive water without any serious consequences, especially as both the IAEA and the government of Japan have clearly given thumbs up. No worries, it’s safe.
The citizens of Tokyo should be okay with this plan since their own government and the IAEA and the U.S. have re-assured the world that dumping Fukushima’s radioactive water into a large body of water is safe, in fact, safe enough to drink. Eureka! Problem solved!
With the blessing of the IAEA and the U.S. via Biden’s Climate Envoy John Kerry, Japan’s government plans to start releasing radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi’s water storage tanks into the sea effective 2022, allegedly removing the toxic deadly isotopes like Cesium-137, leaving behind less deadly toxic tritium. Why not dump that “harmless water” (according to Japan’s own statements) into their water systems rather than into the sea? It doesn’t make sense to dump drinkable water (according to Japan’s Deputy PM) that simply needs a bit of dilution in a larger body of water, like the sea, when reservoirs are nearby to put it to good use and of adequate size to effectively dilute the toxic water, similar to the ocean.
Identical to all radioactive substances, tritium is a carcinogen (causes cancer), a mutagen (causes genetic mutation), and a teratogen (causes malformation of an embryo). The good news: Tritium is relatively weak beta radiation and does not have enough energy to penetrate human skin. The main health risks are ingesting or breathing the tritium-laced water in large quantities.
Cancer is the main risk to humans ingesting tritium. When tritium decays it emits a low-energy electron (roughly 18,000 electron volts) that escapes and slams into DNA, a ribosome or some other biologically important molecule. And, unlike other radionuclides, tritium is usually part of water, so it ends up in all parts of the body and therefore, in theory, can promote any kind of cancer. But that also helps reduce the risk because tritiated water is typically excreted in less than a month. (Source: Is Radioactive Hydrogen in Drinking Water a Cancer Threat, Scientific American, Feb. 7, 2014)
Some evidence suggests beta particles emitted by tritium are more effective at causing cancer than the high-energy radiation such as gamma rays. Low-energy electrons produce a greater impact because it doesn’t have the energy to spread its impact. At the end of its atomic-scale trip it delivers most of its ionizing energy in one relatively confined track rather than shedding energy all along its path like a higher-energy particle. This is known as “density of ionization.” As such, scientists say any amount of radiation poses a health risk. (Source: How Radiation Threatens Health, Scientific American, March 15, 2011)
“Tritium is very mobile and can enter biological systems and has the potential to damage living cells.” (Source: Bundy, et al. (2012) Tritium, Health Effects and Dosimetry: Meyers R.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY)
“Tritium can potentially be hazardous to human health because it emits ionizing radiation, exposure to which may increase the probability that a person will develop cancer during his or her lifetime. For this reason, it is very important that human exposure to any radioactive material, such as tritium, is minimized within reason.” (Source: HPS- Health Physics Society, Specialists in Radiation Safety, Tritium Fact Sheet, March 2011)
Perhaps TEPCO, the government of Japan, the U. S., and the IAEA are counting on the hedged statement in the aforementioned paragraph as their primary rationale for dumping radioactive water into a larger body of water: It’ll be “minimized within reason.” Hmm.
In point of fact: “The storage tanks now hold seawater that has been used to continue cooling the reactor cores, and this water is contaminated with such radionuclides as Cesium-137, Carbon-14, tritium (including the more dangerous “Organically Bound Tritium”), Strontium-90, Cobalt-60, Iodine-129, Plutonium-239 — and over 50 other radionuclides. Some of this has reportedly been removed, but some has not (e.g. radioactive tritium and C-14). The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that owns Fukushima, and is now responsible for the cleanup (that is likely to last the remainder of this century), didn’t admit until recently that the wastewater contains significant amounts of radioactive Carbon-14. As C-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, and is known to bio-accumulate in marine ecosystems and cause cellular and genetic impairment, this is a very serious concern.” (Source: Rick Steiner, The Danger of Japan Dumping Fukushima Wastewater into the Ocean, The Hill, April 17, 2021)
According to the aforementioned article, TEPCO’s treatment system is subpar and likely not up to the task of thorough cleansing.
Furthermore, according to Ken Buesseler, marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: “Would this open the door for any country to release radioactive waste to the ocean that is not part of normal operations?” (Source: Japan Plans to Release Fukushima’s Wastewater into the Ocean, Science, April 12, 2021)
Based upon the news flow on the international front, Japan’s government did not consult its neighbors about the plan. China issued a warning, “the international community is watching” calling on Tokyo to “fulfill its international responsibilities to the environment.” A harsh South Korean Foreign Ministry complaint said Japan will “directly and indirectly affect the safety of the people and the neighboring environment… difficult to accept… without sufficient consultation of neighbors.” Meanwhile, local Japanese fishermen are fit to be tied because dumping radioactive water into the ocean is essentially a death sentence for their industry.
On the other hand, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is just fine with the scheme since it meets “global standards.” They say it’s a normal process for nuclear plants around the world to release some amount of tritium into the seas. There is nothing positive about that, nothing whatsoever.
TEPCO has deployed an Advanced Liquid Processing System that purportedly removes 62 isotopes from the water, all except tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen and cannot easily be filtered out of water. Thus, allegedly all radioactive isotopes will be removed, except tritium, which is hard to separate.
Greenpeace/Japan has expressed strong reservations, more than once, about the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the removal cleansing process, claiming that several highly toxic/deadly radioactive isotopes remained after processing. Who knows whether this still holds true?
It is highly unlikely that the international community, other than the United States, will ever be totally comfortable with Japan’s decision to dump toxic radioactive water into the sea. Therefore, the country should take it upon itself to dispose of all radioactive water in their extensive network of water reservoirs.
Of course, nuclear power advocates argue that it’s insane to dump the radioactive water into any body of water other than the ocean because of its massive circulation capabilities, which will disperse the radioactive water throughout the world. But, that’s precisely what other countries do not want!
Deliberately, Japan has made the problem a simple one to deal with by publicly admitting that the treated water will be harmless, good enough to drink. As follows, they can keep it. Enough said!
Postscript: Doubling down- “Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso repeated his claim Friday that it is safe to drink treated radioactive water accumulating at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after China asked him to personally prove it.” (Taro Aso Repeats Claim That Treated Fukushima Water is Good to Drink, The Jakarta Post, April 16, 2021)
Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |