Concern and outrage have been expressed in Japan and throughout the world in response to a contentious plan to dump treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear facility into the Pacific Ocean.
Since the tsunami in 2011, which caused significant damage to the plant, there has been an accumulation of more than one million tonnes of treated waste water there. The Japanese government has announced that it will begin discharging it on August 24th.
In spite of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog of the United Nations, has given its blessing to the idea, the plan has been met with intense opposition in Japan, with local people voicing concerns about the possibility of contamination.
Fishing industry associations in Japan and the wider region are also concerned about their ability to maintain their standard of living because they fear that consumers will stop purchasing seafood.
China has criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency for being "one-sided" and has accused Japan of using the ocean as its "private sewer." The government of South Korea has stated that it does not have any issues to the idea; nonetheless, a large number of South Korean residents are against it.
The question is, what exactly is Japan's plan, and how exactly has it caused a stir in the waters?
What plans does Japan have for the water that comes from the nuclear power plants?
Since the accident, the power plant company Tepco has been continuously pumping water into the Fukushima nuclear reactors in an effort to bring the temperature of the fuel rods down. This means that the facility generates contaminated water on a daily basis, which is then stored in extremely large tanks.
More than one thousand tanks have been stuffed, and Japan claims that it needs the land that the tanks are occupying in order to construct new facilities that will allow it to safely decommission the facility. Concerns have also been raised over the possibility of the tanks collapsing in the event of a natural calamity.
The release of treated waste water into the ocean is a common practice at nuclear power plants; nevertheless, critics have pointed out that the volume released by Fukushima is on a magnitude that has never been seen before and is far larger.
Tepco uses its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to filter the water coming from Fukushima. This system decreases the majority of radioactive substances to levels that meet acceptable safety requirements. The only exceptions are tritium and carbon-14.
Radioactive forms of hydrogen and carbon, such as tritium and carbon-14, are notoriously challenging to isolate from water because of their similar chemical properties. Due to the fact that they are produced in the atmosphere of the earth and have the potential to enter the water cycle, they are found in high concentrations not only in the natural environment but also in water and even in humans.
Both substances give off very low levels of radiation, but it is possible for them to be harmful if substantial amounts of them are consumed.
The water that has already been filtered goes through one more treatment, after which it is mixed with saltwater in order to lower the concentrations of any remaining pollutants, and then it is discharged into the ocean through an underground tunnel that is one kilometer long. Tepco will monitor the radioactivity of the ocean water at the discharge site in addition to the radioactivity of the processed water at each of the many steps.
According to Tepco, a series of emergency valves will ensure that no undiluted waste water is unintentionally released, and workers will also be able to manually shut off the discharge in a timely manner in the event that a tsunami or earthquake occurs.
According to the Japanese government, the final level of tritium, which is approximately 1,500 becquerels per liter, is significantly less dangerous than the limit permitted by regulators for the release of nuclear waste or by the World Health Organization for drinking water. Tepco has stated that the carbon-14 level will likewise be within acceptable parameters.
Studies that Tepco and the Japanese government commissioned have shown that the water that would be discharged will not pose a significant threat to either humans or marine life.
The concept has received support from a significant number of scientists. In terms of both volume and radioactivity, the amount of water that is going to be released will be insignificant. According to a specialist in molecular pathology named Gerry Thomas, who collaborated with Japanese scientists on radiation studies and advised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Fukushima findings, "there is no evidence that these extremely low levels of radioisotopes have a detrimental health effect."
What do the reviewers have to say?
The Japanese public's opinion on the proposal has not changed despite the government's repeated reassurances over the past few years. In a study that was carried out in August by the daily Asahi Shimbun, just 53% of respondents indicated that they are in favor of it, while 41% stated that they were opposed to it.
Both human rights experts selected by the UN and environmental campaigners have voiced their opposition to the scheme. Reports that have been published by Greenpeace throw doubt on the treatment procedure that Tepco uses, arguing that it does not go far enough in eliminating radioactive chemicals.
Some people believe that Japan should, at least temporarily, preserve the treated water stored in the tanks. They contend that this will provide them time to develop new processing methods and will also allow any lingering radioactivity to naturally decrease.
In addition, there are certain researchers in the scientific community who have reservations about the proposal. They claim that additional research is needed to see how it might impact the seabed and the marine species that lives there.
"We've seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what's getting into the water, sediment, and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it... there's no way to get the genie back in the bottle," marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, said in an interview with the BBC's Newsday programme. Richmond is part of the university's department of marine biology.
According to Tatsujiro Suzuki, a professor of nuclear engineering at Nagasaki University's Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, "if everything goes well," the plan "will not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public."
However, considering that Tepco was unable to avert the tragedy in 2011, he continues to be concerned about the possibility of tainted water being accidentally released, as he stated.
What have Japan's other countries said about it?
China has been the most outspoken in its criticism of Japan's actions, which it says violate "international moral and legal obligations" and "put its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entire humanity."
Additionally, it has issued a warning that Tokyo "must bear all consequences" and has already prohibited the consumption of fish from Fukushima and the prefectures that surround it.
The relationship between the two countries is now tense due to both Japan's recent military build-up and China's provocative movements around Taiwan, both of which have served to raise tensions.
When compared to China, South Korea's capital city of Seoul, which has been eager to strengthen ties with Japan, has toned down its fears. It has stated that it "respects" the findings of the IAEA and has given its approval to the proposal.
A recent poll found that eighty percent of South Koreans are concerned about the water leak, which is despite the fact that this method has enraged the population.
A stringent ordinance that prohibits pollution at sea is strictly enforced by the authorities... According to BBC Korean, a South Korean fisherman named Park Hee-jun said that the government is not making any statements (to Japan) about the wastewater that is running into the ocean.
If we don't want to make customers even more worried, according to some of the government authorities, we should keep our mouths shut. That seems like complete hogwash to me."
Thousands of people have gathered in Seoul to demand action from the government, while other consumers, out of worry that there may be delays in the food supply, have stocked up on salt and other needs.
Late in June, in reaction, the parliament of South Korea passed a resolution condemning the water release proposal; nevertheless, it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan's decision. Officials have also begun conducting "intense inspections" of seafood, and they are maintaining a prohibition on the importation of Japanese seafood from areas surrounding the Fukushima plant.
In an effort to allay the concerns of the general people, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo stated that he would be willing to consume the water that was discharged from the Fukushima nuclear plant in order to prove that it was safe. Meanwhile, an official stated the previous week that only a small portion of the discharge would reach up in Korean waters.
In the meantime, a regional body known as the Pacific Islands Forum has referred to the idea as "another major nuclear contamination disaster." Several of the group's members are still suffering with the effects of nuclear testing conducted by the United States.
What kind of a response has Japan given?
Tepco and the Japanese government have both begun massive public education programs, and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has pledged that Japan will maintain "a high level of transparency."
Tepco has also vowed to publish online real-time data on the levels of radioactivity in the water. This information will be made available on an internet portal that is dedicated to explaining the treatment and discharge operations in a number of different languages.
On the diplomatic front, Tokyo has been holding talks with its neighbors while also inviting foreign delegations and media outlets, such as the BBC, for visits of the processing facilities.
Additionally, Japan noted out in materials that were published on the website of its ministry of foreign affairs that other nuclear facilities in the region, particularly those in China, discharge water that has significantly higher quantities of tritium. The BBC was able to validate some of these estimates by using information that was freely accessible from Chinese nuclear power stations.
However, the most significant vindication may come from the IAEA report, which was made public by the head of the agency, Rafael Grossi, while he was in Japan in July.
According to the findings of the report, which was the culmination of an examination that took place over the course of two years, Tepco and Japanese authorities were in compliance with international safety standards for a variety of factors, such as facilities, inspections and enforcement, environmental monitoring, and radiation assessments.
Mr. Grossi stated that there would be "negligible radiological impact on people and the environment" as a result of the strategy.
However, Japan's decision to begin dumping the water from Fukushima has created the conditions for a more heated confrontation with the nation's detractors.
Since the tsunami in 2011, which caused significant damage to the plant, there has been an accumulation of more than one million tonnes of treated waste water there. The Japanese government has announced that it will begin discharging it on August 24th.
In spite of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog of the United Nations, has given its blessing to the idea, the plan has been met with intense opposition in Japan, with local people voicing concerns about the possibility of contamination.
Fishing industry associations in Japan and the wider region are also concerned about their ability to maintain their standard of living because they fear that consumers will stop purchasing seafood.
China has criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency for being "one-sided" and has accused Japan of using the ocean as its "private sewer." The government of South Korea has stated that it does not have any issues to the idea; nonetheless, a large number of South Korean residents are against it.
The question is, what exactly is Japan's plan, and how exactly has it caused a stir in the waters?
What plans does Japan have for the water that comes from the nuclear power plants?
Since the accident, the power plant company Tepco has been continuously pumping water into the Fukushima nuclear reactors in an effort to bring the temperature of the fuel rods down. This means that the facility generates contaminated water on a daily basis, which is then stored in extremely large tanks.
More than one thousand tanks have been stuffed, and Japan claims that it needs the land that the tanks are occupying in order to construct new facilities that will allow it to safely decommission the facility. Concerns have also been raised over the possibility of the tanks collapsing in the event of a natural calamity.
The release of treated waste water into the ocean is a common practice at nuclear power plants; nevertheless, critics have pointed out that the volume released by Fukushima is on a magnitude that has never been seen before and is far larger.
Tepco uses its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to filter the water coming from Fukushima. This system decreases the majority of radioactive substances to levels that meet acceptable safety requirements. The only exceptions are tritium and carbon-14.
Radioactive forms of hydrogen and carbon, such as tritium and carbon-14, are notoriously challenging to isolate from water because of their similar chemical properties. Due to the fact that they are produced in the atmosphere of the earth and have the potential to enter the water cycle, they are found in high concentrations not only in the natural environment but also in water and even in humans.
Both substances give off very low levels of radiation, but it is possible for them to be harmful if substantial amounts of them are consumed.
The water that has already been filtered goes through one more treatment, after which it is mixed with saltwater in order to lower the concentrations of any remaining pollutants, and then it is discharged into the ocean through an underground tunnel that is one kilometer long. Tepco will monitor the radioactivity of the ocean water at the discharge site in addition to the radioactivity of the processed water at each of the many steps.
According to Tepco, a series of emergency valves will ensure that no undiluted waste water is unintentionally released, and workers will also be able to manually shut off the discharge in a timely manner in the event that a tsunami or earthquake occurs.
According to the Japanese government, the final level of tritium, which is approximately 1,500 becquerels per liter, is significantly less dangerous than the limit permitted by regulators for the release of nuclear waste or by the World Health Organization for drinking water. Tepco has stated that the carbon-14 level will likewise be within acceptable parameters.
Studies that Tepco and the Japanese government commissioned have shown that the water that would be discharged will not pose a significant threat to either humans or marine life.
The concept has received support from a significant number of scientists. In terms of both volume and radioactivity, the amount of water that is going to be released will be insignificant. According to a specialist in molecular pathology named Gerry Thomas, who collaborated with Japanese scientists on radiation studies and advised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Fukushima findings, "there is no evidence that these extremely low levels of radioisotopes have a detrimental health effect."
What do the reviewers have to say?
The Japanese public's opinion on the proposal has not changed despite the government's repeated reassurances over the past few years. In a study that was carried out in August by the daily Asahi Shimbun, just 53% of respondents indicated that they are in favor of it, while 41% stated that they were opposed to it.
Both human rights experts selected by the UN and environmental campaigners have voiced their opposition to the scheme. Reports that have been published by Greenpeace throw doubt on the treatment procedure that Tepco uses, arguing that it does not go far enough in eliminating radioactive chemicals.
Some people believe that Japan should, at least temporarily, preserve the treated water stored in the tanks. They contend that this will provide them time to develop new processing methods and will also allow any lingering radioactivity to naturally decrease.
In addition, there are certain researchers in the scientific community who have reservations about the proposal. They claim that additional research is needed to see how it might impact the seabed and the marine species that lives there.
"We've seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what's getting into the water, sediment, and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it... there's no way to get the genie back in the bottle," marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, said in an interview with the BBC's Newsday programme. Richmond is part of the university's department of marine biology.
According to Tatsujiro Suzuki, a professor of nuclear engineering at Nagasaki University's Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, "if everything goes well," the plan "will not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public."
However, considering that Tepco was unable to avert the tragedy in 2011, he continues to be concerned about the possibility of tainted water being accidentally released, as he stated.
What have Japan's other countries said about it?
China has been the most outspoken in its criticism of Japan's actions, which it says violate "international moral and legal obligations" and "put its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entire humanity."
Additionally, it has issued a warning that Tokyo "must bear all consequences" and has already prohibited the consumption of fish from Fukushima and the prefectures that surround it.
The relationship between the two countries is now tense due to both Japan's recent military build-up and China's provocative movements around Taiwan, both of which have served to raise tensions.
When compared to China, South Korea's capital city of Seoul, which has been eager to strengthen ties with Japan, has toned down its fears. It has stated that it "respects" the findings of the IAEA and has given its approval to the proposal.
A recent poll found that eighty percent of South Koreans are concerned about the water leak, which is despite the fact that this method has enraged the population.
A stringent ordinance that prohibits pollution at sea is strictly enforced by the authorities... According to BBC Korean, a South Korean fisherman named Park Hee-jun said that the government is not making any statements (to Japan) about the wastewater that is running into the ocean.
If we don't want to make customers even more worried, according to some of the government authorities, we should keep our mouths shut. That seems like complete hogwash to me."
Thousands of people have gathered in Seoul to demand action from the government, while other consumers, out of worry that there may be delays in the food supply, have stocked up on salt and other needs.
Late in June, in reaction, the parliament of South Korea passed a resolution condemning the water release proposal; nevertheless, it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan's decision. Officials have also begun conducting "intense inspections" of seafood, and they are maintaining a prohibition on the importation of Japanese seafood from areas surrounding the Fukushima plant.
In an effort to allay the concerns of the general people, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo stated that he would be willing to consume the water that was discharged from the Fukushima nuclear plant in order to prove that it was safe. Meanwhile, an official stated the previous week that only a small portion of the discharge would reach up in Korean waters.
In the meantime, a regional body known as the Pacific Islands Forum has referred to the idea as "another major nuclear contamination disaster." Several of the group's members are still suffering with the effects of nuclear testing conducted by the United States.
What kind of a response has Japan given?
Tepco and the Japanese government have both begun massive public education programs, and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has pledged that Japan will maintain "a high level of transparency."
Tepco has also vowed to publish online real-time data on the levels of radioactivity in the water. This information will be made available on an internet portal that is dedicated to explaining the treatment and discharge operations in a number of different languages.
On the diplomatic front, Tokyo has been holding talks with its neighbors while also inviting foreign delegations and media outlets, such as the BBC, for visits of the processing facilities.
Additionally, Japan noted out in materials that were published on the website of its ministry of foreign affairs that other nuclear facilities in the region, particularly those in China, discharge water that has significantly higher quantities of tritium. The BBC was able to validate some of these estimates by using information that was freely accessible from Chinese nuclear power stations.
However, the most significant vindication may come from the IAEA report, which was made public by the head of the agency, Rafael Grossi, while he was in Japan in July.
According to the findings of the report, which was the culmination of an examination that took place over the course of two years, Tepco and Japanese authorities were in compliance with international safety standards for a variety of factors, such as facilities, inspections and enforcement, environmental monitoring, and radiation assessments.
Mr. Grossi stated that there would be "negligible radiological impact on people and the environment" as a result of the strategy.
However, Japan's decision to begin dumping the water from Fukushima has created the conditions for a more heated confrontation with the nation's detractors.
No comments:
Post a Comment