Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK nuclear site ‘leaking’ – The Guardian

Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility November 26, 2001 in Cumbria, England © Getty Images / Graham Barclay/BWP Media/Getty Images
RT | December 5, 2023

Sellafield, regarded as the most hazardous nuclear site in Europe, has developed a leak in a massive radioactive waste silo that has prompted concerns about the facility’s safety measures, as well as potential dangers to the public and the environment, The Guardian has reported.

The two-square-mile (6km sq) plant, located in Cumbria in England’s northwest, is responsible for the storage and decommissioning of nuclear waste from nuclear weapons programs and power generation. It was previously used to generate nuclear power from 1956 to 2003.

However, the decades-old facility, Europe’s largest nuclear site, has a catalog of safety issues, the newspaper said, including asbestos and fire hazards. Perhaps more concerningly, though, are cracks in storage silos which have prompted diplomatic squabbles with affected countries, including the US, Norway and Ireland.

Damage to one silo of toxic radioactive waste has caused a leak of “potentially significant consequences,” The Guardian said on Tuesday, citing official documents seen by the outlet. It adds that the leak, which it says is likely to continue until 2050, could contaminate groundwater should the situation worsen further.

Scientists are attempting to assess the full risks of the leak using “ongoing radiological dose assessments” and statistical modeling, the newspaper added. In June, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ORR) said in a report that the risk presented by the leak is “as low as reasonably practicable.” However, the nuclear regulator remained concerned by the full impact of the leak and at what rate, if any, it may affect groundwater.

An unnamed expert who sits on a committee that monitors Sellafield and other nuclear sites told The Guardian : “It’s hard to know if transparency is put aside because no one’s brave enough to say ‘we simply don’t know how dangerous this is – other than certainly dangerous.’”

An EU report in 2001 warned that an accident at Sellafield could be more hazardous than that of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which exposed about five million people in Europe to radiation. Sellafield contains substantially more radioactive material than the Chernobyl facility did at the time.

Reports of Sellafield’s crumbling facade have sparked US concerns about the safety standards at the site, according to diplomatic cables seen by the publication. It has also led to complaints from the governments of both Ireland and Norway – with Oslo worried about the potential of radioactive particles being carried towards its territory by winds across the North Sea.

Health problems brought on by exposure to nuclear radiation depend on the dose but can range from nausea and vomiting to cardiovascular disease and cancer. Extremely high exposure is, in most cases, fatal.

December 5, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Nuclear Power | , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian attack on Russian nuclear facility thwarted – officials

RT | October 27, 2023

A Ukrainian attack involving multiple drones has been stopped in the Russian city of Kurchatov, home to the Kursk nuclear power plant, according to civilian and military officials. Unconfirmed reports claimed that one of the aircraft damaged a nuclear waste storage building at the site.

The spree of incidents happened on Thursday evening in Kursk Region, which borders Ukraine. The Russian Defense Ministry reported intercepting a fixed-wing drone over Russian territory on two occasions, about two hours apart, while the power plant’s press service said it was attacked by three enemy drones. Kurchatov is located some 60 km from the Ukrainian border.

The statement by the civilian authorities reported no damage or casualties on the ground, and said all four units of the facility were operating normally. Three of them are currently online, while one is undergoing a shutdown procedure ahead of being decommissioned, it said. The oldest reactor, which first went operational in 1976, has not been generating power since late 2021.

The news outlet SHOT claimed that the incident was more serious than according to official statements, reporting that the third drone “fell next to a nuclear waste storage and blew up.” The report said the blast caused minor damage to the infrastructure but didn’t hurt anyone.

Another drone incident in Kurchatov that may have been an attempted attack on the plant was previously reported in mid-July. An unmanned aerial vehicle, which was described as home-made and fitted with a Taiwan-manufactured jet engine, exploded several kilometers away from the nuclear site, media reported at the time.

Moscow has accused Kiev of launching multiple attempts to sabotage its crucial energy infrastructure, including nuclear power plants, amid ongoing Russian-Ukrainian hostilities.

Earlier this month, the chief of Ukrainian military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, confirmed three failed commando raids on Energodar, the city where the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant is located.

Energodar is located in the Zaporozhye region, which joined Russia last year after people living there voted for the move in a referendum. Ukraine has dismissed the vote as a “scam,” and Kiev partially controls the contested territory.

The Zaporozhye plant hosts a monitoring mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog. It was stationed there last year, amid a string of drone and shelling attacks, which Moscow and Kiev blamed on each other.

October 27, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Members of 13 European PMCs Fighting Against Russia in Ukraine – FSB Head

Sputnik – 11.10.2023

Members of 13 private military companies (PMCs) from Europe and members of nine foreign paramilitary proxy formations are participating in military operations against Russia in Ukraine, Federal Security Service (FSB) chief Alexander Bortnikov said on Wednesday.

“We record the participation of employees of 13 European PMCs and members of nine foreign paramilitary proxy forces in hostilities,” Bortnikov said at a meeting of the CIS Council of the Heads of Security Agencies and Special Services.

Additionally, the identities of 794 mercenaries from 35 countries fighting against Russia in Ukraine have been established, the official said.

There are 17 training camps in EU countries under the auspices of NATO special services, where militants from members of international terrorist organizations and mercenaries are trained for Ukraine, Alexander Bortnikov said.

Ukraine, thanks to the efforts of Washington and its NATO allies, has become a source of military and terrorist threats on the border of Russia and Belarus, Bortnikov added.

The priority of the international terrorist organizations, actively directed by the American and British special services, is to seize power primarily in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and incorporate them into the so-called “world caliphate,” Alexander Bortnikov said.

The undermining of the power lines of the Smolensk and Kursk nuclear power plants by the Ukrainian saboteurs was aimed at disrupting the technological process of the nuclear power plants’ operation; as a result of their actions, the No. 2 unit of the Kursk nuclear power plant was stopped in an emergency, Bortnikov said.

In August this year, the FSB detained members of the Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group, which was trained by the British Army Special Forces and whose task included sabotage of the Smolensk and Kursk nuclear power plants, Bortnikov stressed.

October 11, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Ukraine’s Possible New Counteroffensive: ‘Camouflage’ for Zelensky to ‘Steal More Money From West’

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 01.10.2023

Kiev’s alleged push for another counteroffensive, this time in the autumn, can be perceived as the West’s red herring, Scott Bennett, a former US Army psychological warfare officer and State Department counter-terrorism analyst, told Sputnik.

The Zelensky regime had elaborated a plan for a major offensive in the Kherson and Zaporozhye region in early October, securing the approval of Ukraine’s sponsors in Washington and London, an informed source told Sputnik earlier this week.

According to the source, Kiev’s special forces intend to seize control of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) as part of the blueprint.

All this could be Western countries’ red herring, Scott Bennett suggested, pointing to the Ukrainian Army’s futile attempts to break through Russian defensive lines.

“As a result of the resounding defeat of Ukraine, the West is frantically searching for an opportunity to try and escape the coming judgement and potential crimes against humanity charges for the death and destruction the Biden Administration has recklessly unleashed. And the nearest opportunity for distraction may be the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant,” Bennett argued.

He recalled that many perceive this facility as “a target for destruction in a kind of ‘doomsday’ button that the US might try and push, in an attempt to generate sufficient chaos and destruction to distract the world away from the small scale battles of Ukraine, to the global implications of a nuclear disaster.” According to the former psychological warfare officer, the potential destruction of the Zaporozhye NPP would be the “ultimate expression” of this chaos.

He warned that if the facility is destroyed, “the resulting tsunami of social, political, economic disruption would disorganize opposition parties and protests against the current political elites in Europe and America, and justify a lockdown or martial law and police state mentality which could be endlessly extended.”

Bennett didn’t rule out that “the West will combine its best liars in the CIA, the Mossad, the MI6 to blame the event on Russia, and perhaps also simultaneously initiate some self-inflicted false flag attacks at the same time—such as assassinate Joe Biden and Zelensky at the same time and blame this on Russia in order to justify ‘police action’ and a drafting of Americans into the military for conflict with Russia.”

“We’ve seen it in Vietnam, and the 9/11 war on terror, so they may try and do it again, sad to say. The American media, the most professional liars and propagandists since Germany’s Goebbels, have already planted in the minds of Americans that ‘Trump supporters’ are becoming Russia-sympathizing domestic terrorists who may try and assassinate Biden, so the writing is on the wall,” the former State Department analyst added.

Commenting on how Zelensky’s alleged new advance can be explained, given the failure of Kiev’s summer counteroffensive, Bennett claimed that the Ukrainian president is “a madman, or being told what to do by madmen—or both. I suspect the latter.”

When asked if it’s safe to say that the alleged October counteroffensive plan is an attempt to appease the Ukrainian people and justify Western demands, Bennett said that it is “camouflage for Zelensky’s scheme to steal more money from the West, and show some kind of a “good faith effort” that would invite future ‘re-construction’ donations and investments by the West.

“The military reality is that Ukraine is destroyed, the war is essentially over, and the Russian military and people have prevailed and been victorious. Of course, the West is trying to distract away from this reality and create all kinds of miniature flash-points and terrorist attacks upon innocent civilians in Crimea and Moscow and elsewhere, but this too shall end,” the ex-State Department analyst asserted.

Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed last month that Ukrainian troops had failed to achieve any tangible results on all the frontlines since the beginning of their counteroffensive on June 4, something that he said had claimed the lives of more than 71,000 Ukrainian soldiers by the time.

October 1, 2023 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Nuclear Power | | 1 Comment

Moscow Says ‘Anti-Russia’ IAEA Resolution Contains Unsubstantiated Accusations

Sputnik – 30.09.2023

MOSCOW – The resolution adopted at the 67th session of the IAEA General Conference on “nuclear safety, nuclear security and safeguards in Ukraine” contains unfounded attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against Russia, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.

The 67th Regular Session of the IAEA General Conference took place from Monday to Friday in Vienna.

“On September 28, the 67th regular session of the IAEA General Conference, under pressure from the United States and its allies, adopted the resolution ‘Nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine’, containing unfounded attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against Russia, through a vote accompanied by the typical Western blackmail, intrigue and intimidation of countries,” Zakharova said in a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website.

Zakharova accused the United States and its allies of using international mechanisms “to achieve their opportunistic political goals, which are in no way related to the statutory purposes of such mechanisms.”

“The above resolution is non-binding, and Russia is not going to act on its provisions, while citing the resolution in documents will make them politically and legally void to us,” Zakharova added.

The issue of nuclear safety has drawn renewed international attention since the Ukraine conflict started in February 2022. During the hostilities, the Zaporozhye NPP, which is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe by number of units and energy output, came under the control of Russian forces in early March 2022 and has since been repeatedly shelled, raising concerns over a possible nuclear accident. The IAEA established a permanent presence of its experts at the ZNPP in September 2022.

September 30, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

A Concrete Solution for Fukushima

#SolutionsWatch Corbett • 08/30/2023

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Last week, TEPCO, in conjunction with the Japanese government, began dumping radioactive Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. Joining us today to talk about the consequences of that decision, what it will mean for peoples around the Pacific, and what could be done to mitigate this disaster, is Dr. Robert H. Richmond, Research Professor and Director at the Kewalo Marine Laboratory in the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack  / Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES

August 31, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power | , | Leave a comment

China bars seafood from Japan

RT | August 24, 2023

Chinese customs authorities announced on Thursday an immediate ban on imports of all seafood from Japan as Tokyo begins a contentious release of treated radioactive wastewater from the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.

China is Japan’s biggest importer of fish, having purchased $496 million worth in 2022. It has also imported $370 million worth of crustaceans and mollusks – such as crabs and scallops – last year, data tracked by the Japanese statistics office shows.

Apart from Japan, China also purchases seafood from other countries including Ecuador, Russia, and Canada.

China had previously banned food imports from ten Japanese prefectures around the Fukushima plant, while earlier this week Hong Kong announced a ban on seafood imports from those same prefectures.

Earlier this week, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced plans to discharge around 1.3 million metric tons of treated wastewater, equivalent in volume to about 500 Olympic-size swimming pools, from Fukushima.

The Japanese authorities scheduled the discharge of the treated water into the Pacific Ocean for 1pm Tokyo time on Thursday, according to state-owned electricity firm TEPCO, adding that the weather and sea conditions were suitable.

Beijing has blasted the plan as “extremely selfish and irresponsible.” The Chinese customs agency said the suspension of imports was intended to prevent radioactive contamination risks.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant experienced a catastrophic meltdown after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent devastating tsunami in 2011. It was the worst nuclear disaster since the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

August 24, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power | , | 1 Comment

FM says China’s move ‘based on facts and reason’ as Japan complains of China tightening seafood imports due to nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumping plan

By Wang Qi | Global Times | July 20, 2023

The Chinese government puts people first, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, noting that China’s opposition to Japan’s ocean discharge plan is based on facts and reason, after Japan recently complained that China had tightened radiation testing on its seafood imports, and some Japanese seafood had reportedly been “held up” at China’s customs due to Tokyo’s nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumping plan.

At a press briefing on Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning urged Japan to “heed the call of the international community, stop pushing through the discharge plan, engage in full, sincere consultations with its neighbors, dispose of the nuclear-contaminated water in a responsible way and accept rigorous international oversight.”

Japan’s chief cabinet secretary Hirokazu Matsuno said on Wednesday that there have been cases of Japanese seafood exports “being held up by China,” along with Japanese media reports saying that China has ramped up efforts to test “all seafood imports from Japan for radiation.”

Earlier on July 7, China’s customs announced a ban on imports of food from Japan’s Fukushima and nine other regions, as Japan makes final preparations to dump nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean.

Mao said Thursday that “Our job is to be responsible for the health of our people and the marine environment. Our opposition to Japan’s ocean discharge plan is based on facts and reason, so are the measures that we have decided to take.”

According to Japanese media outlet Asahi Shimbum, China is Japan’s largest seafood destination, accounting for 87.1 billion yen ($624 million) in imports.

Many people from Japan and most of its neighboring countries, including China, are against Tokyo’s irresponsible plan to dump the nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima plant into the Pacific Ocean.

A recent Japanese poll by Kyodo News showed 80.3 percent of respondents said they felt the explanation provided by the Japanese government on dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater was insufficient.

More than 80 percent of respondents in 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region except for Japan said Japan’s plan to dump nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is “irresponsible,” a survey conducted by the Global Times Research Center found recently.

A Gallup Korea survey from June shows that 78 percent of those polled said they were very or somewhat worried about contamination of seafood, according to a CNN report.

The obstruction of Japan’s seafood exports is entirely self-inflicted, Lü Chao, the director of Institute of US and East Asian Studies under Liaoning University, told the Global Times on Thursday.

Trying to shift local fishermen’s anger toward the Japanese government to neighboring countries exposed Tokyo as having no sense of decency and its ill intentions, Lü noted.

The Japanese government recently used various multilateral diplomatic occasions, including the NATO summit, to justify its plan, and gave signs that it will not postpone the hazardous dumping.

Mao criticized Tokyo’s move as a global PR campaign. She said that the legitimacy and safety of Japan’s nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumpling plan have been questioned by the international community, and no matter how much the Japanese side tries, it cannot whitewash the plan, and the protests of neighboring countries and the voices of doubt in Japan are clear evidence of this.

“If the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water is truly safe, Japan wouldn’t have to dump it into the sea—and certainly shouldn’t if it’s not,” Mao said.

Dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean will seriously damage Japan’s national image and its people’s interests, Lü said, “More countries may take more stricter measures or even reject Japanese seafood imports in the future, as it’s very obvious that radioactive elements can cause long-term damage to human.”

July 26, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power | , , | 1 Comment

What’s the problem regarding radioactive water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant? Part 2

A delegation of South Korean scientists visits the NPP

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 12.07.2023

The disputable situation surrounding the safety of discharging water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which the author discussed in Part 1, prompted a team of 21 South Korean experts to visit Japan from May 21 to 26 to inspect the plant and the treatment of radioactively contaminated water that Japan plans to begin discharging into the ocean in the near future because the tanks are full.

Many Koreans are concerned about this because they believe the waters are still contaminated and will have a negative impact on the environment and health of the population of the area, especially South Korea. A presidential administration official stated that Seoul feels a real inspection of the nuclear disaster by South Korean experts is required in light of the rapprochement between Seoul and Tokyo on May 9, 2023. He reminded that the inspection of contaminated water quality is carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) specialists. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the treatment facilities and their operational capabilities need to be independently verified. On the same day, South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, visiting Europe at the time, met with IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi and noted the need for South Korean specialists and research organizations to be constantly involved in the process of monitoring the composition of contaminated water.

The idea was also supported in Washington. On May 12, Philip Goldberg, US Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, said that South Korea and Japan should exercise “patience and diplomatic skill.”

The delegation consisted of 19 experts from the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, one expert from the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology and its head, South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission Chairperson Yoo Guk-hee. Indeed, it was a serious team, but the preparation for the visit was fraught with a number of difficulties.

On the one hand, the parties defined the goals of the trip differently. The visit, the Foreign Ministry anticipated, would provide “opportunity to conduct a multilayered review and evaluation” of the water’s safety independently of the IAEA’s monitoring team. However, Japanese Industry Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura stated that the inspection is intended to “help deepen understanding” about the safety of the release, not to evaluate or certify its safety.

On May 17, South Korea and Japan held further consultations at the working level, but could not elaborate on the details of the upcoming inspection, despite many hours of talks.

On the other hand, the question arose as to whose representatives would go there. On May 12, Park Ku-yeon, the first deputy chief of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, stated that “the inspection team will be composed of top-notch experts in safety regulations,” and “the purpose of inspection activities is to provide an overall review of the safety of the water discharge into the ocean.”

But on May 19, Park Ku-yeon said that in addition to government experts, a separate group of about 10 civilian experts would be formed by Yoo Guk-hee to review and support the inspection team.

As a result, the government formed an advisory group of 10 civilian experts, some of whom strongly raised questions about the safety of radioactive water and called for a thorough review. But members of the advisory group were not included in the on-site inspection team.

This raised the question of objectivity, as the arguments of the critics were worth considering:

  • Members of the expert group serve in government agencies; it may be difficult for them to express an opinion different from the government which supports Japan.
  • Japan will not allow experts to take radioactive water samples at the power plant site and will not accept the results of the safety assessment of the Korean inspection team, a clear indication that Japan does not want a full objective inspection.
  • Japan does not allow Korean journalists to accompany the inspection team. The lack of transparency and openness may cause concern.

However, the Yoon administration and the ruling People Power Party claimed that there is no need for the public to be alarmed because Japan will permit an additional inspection if a problem is discovered at the facility and the Korean delegation will have the chance to examine and assess the advanced cleaning system developed at the Fukushima plant.

On the third hand, the democratic opposition started its resistance right away. On May 10, opposition leader Lee Jae-myung called on the government to reconsider its plan to send an inspection team “that has no power to conduct a substantial and thorough inspection and verification,” saying that the visit could end up approving the planned discharge of contaminated water from the damaged plant. “It appears the government is trying to be a volunteer helper for Japan’s plan to dump contaminated water from the nuclear power plant into the ocean.”

On May 13, the Democratic Party called on the government to withdraw its plan to send an inspection team to Japan, saying it would only justify Japan’s plan. The Democrats pointed out that the Japanese government has no plans to allow the Seoul delegation to verify the safety of the discharge and will proceed with the plan in July, regardless of the team’s actions. This means that the inspection team is just a formality.

On May 21, the experts arrived in Japan. On May 22 they met with the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO), the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), presenting them with a list of facilities they want to inspect. Before the meeting, Yoo Guk-hee noted that the experts will check with their own eyes the K4 tanks intended for storing and measuring the radioactive substance and will ask the Japanese authorities for the necessary data. Yoo also promised to study the ALPS treatment system, and assess whether the treated water is safe enough to discharge into the sea.

In brief, the purification process is as follows: contaminated water goes through the procedure of preliminary purification from suspended solids and then enters the ALPS unit, which removes radionuclides except tritium. Then its samples are evaluated, and if they meet the established safety parameters, the water is diluted with pure seawater in a separate facility to reduce the concentration of tritium. Later, it is supposed to be discharged into the ocean.

On May 23-24, experts inspected the damaged Fukushima Daiichi NPP. As Yoo Guk-hee noted, the main focus was on the radioactive water storage tanks and treatment system.

On May 23, the ALPS equipment, the central control room, the K4 tank for measuring water concentration before discharge, and the transportation equipment were inspected.

On May 24, the experts inspected the first power unit of the plant, including the radiological analysis laboratory. Additionally, by comparing the concentration of water before and after treatment, the experts evaluated the effectiveness of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS).

The team visited the nuclide analysis facility and inspected the seawater dilution system and discharge facilities, including the capacity of the dilution pumps and how they functioned. The experts took a close look at the shut-off valves that would be triggered if the water contamination level exceeded the norm.

Additionally, Tokyo gave them reports from IAEA officials it had invited to observe the procedure and data it had collected on water control.

After the inspection, Yoo told reporters that “we examined all the facilities we wanted to see … but we need to engage in additional analysis of their function and role.” Although the team was not able to collect water samples on their own, they analyzed those previously collected by the IAEA.

When asked whether the South Korean government would release its security assessment before the IAEA releases its final report, Yoo declined to comment.

On May 25, the delegation held consultations with Japanese counterparts, and Yoo Guk-hee reported that the commission had completed its task by requesting additional data to be sent from Japan and analyzed. Only then will the final report be made public.

On May 26, the group returned home. The opposition and some civil society organizations criticized the visit, calling it “government-led tourism,” saying that the Yoon Seok-yeol government was simply following Japan’s lead and risking the health of Koreans. South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin rejected such criticism, saying that experts were carefully examining the sites, resolving all concerns with the Japanese authorities, and obtaining scientific data. “It is not right to devalue the work of our team that is working hard (in Japan).”

On May 30, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo asked the group of experts to present the results of their inspection transparently and comprehensively. On May 31, the group held a press conference to announce the main results of the visit.

The specialists spoke in detail about TEPCO’s procedure for cleaning and testing radiation-contaminated water, as well as the sites visited as part of the inspection. They also learned the procedures to stop water discharge in case of emergency and the process of maintaining the machinery used in water treatment. The unique cleaning technique and the equipment for assessing radiation levels received special attention.

In the process of familiarization with the water treatment facilities at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi NPP, the South Korean expert group received data from the Japanese side on the performance of the ALPS for the last four years. This includes data regarding the water’s chemical composition at the ALPS system’s input and exit, which made it possible to assess the system’s effectiveness and gauge the degree of pollution before and after treatment. The experts made sure that all major equipment was installed in accordance with current standards, and that the system for preventing leakage of contaminated water was operating normally. In particular, there are emergency valves to automatically stop water discharge in case of a sudden power and communication failure. In addition, equipment for double-checking the composition of water is in operation. However, there has not been a “yes or no” answer: significant progress has been made during the Fukushima inspection, but further analysis is needed for a more accurate conclusion.

This did not dampen the excitement, and on June 22, Hahn Pil-soo, a South Korean nuclear energy expert who formerly served as director of the IAEA’s radiation, transport and waste safety division, said that IAEA investigation reports have reliable objectivity and credibility. “The credibility of the final report is directly related to the status of the IAEA. Thus lawyers and experts are involved to ensure that not a single word is misspelled,” he said, stressing that the agency works hard to produce professional, objective and reliable results.

On June 26, Park Ku-yeon said that there is no alternative to Japan’s decision to release contaminated water from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant because there is no other way to dispose the water.  In the mid-2010s, there were extremely complex discussions in Japan, with various options for water disposal (solidifying water in concrete or storing water in massive tanks), but “the current water discharge method was finalized as the most realistic alternative when scientific precedents and safety were fully taken into account.” Therefore, the IAEA approved the method to be implemented, taking into account its safety and based on scientific data.

Park Koo-yeon noted that the NRA would begin trial operation of the water dilution and pumping units on June 28.

On June 27, after a month of his group’s return, Yoo Guk-hee, reported that South Korea is in the final stages of analysis: “We have been scientifically and technologically reviewing Japan’s plan based on the results of the on-site inspection and additional data obtained afterward.” In addition, Yoo said six types of radionuclides have been detected in the water stored in the tanks at concentrations in excess of acceptable limits, even after treatment with ALPS, but most cases occurred before 2019, so “this is the aspect of radionuclide that we need to closely examine.”

The final report will eventually be published in early July. However, in a politicized environment, its meaning becomes a matter of trust, particularly because the opposition prematurely declared the commission’s findings invalid and launched a loud campaign, which the author will discuss in the section after this one.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, is a leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

July 15, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power | , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power ‘Lapdog’ IAEA to Suffer ‘Reputational Blow’ for Fukushima Wastewater Release

By Fantine Gardinier – Sputnik – 07.07.2023

Numerous regional governments have for years protested Japan’s plans to release the wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi into the Pacific Ocean, including South Korea, China, and numerous Pacific Island nations, whose fishing fleets work the vast ocean waters.

The Japanese government has moved to begin the gradual release of 1.3 million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Okuma. The water, which is radioactive from having been used to keep molten spent nuclear fuel cool in the aftermath of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that devastated the Sendai plain, has been filtered through the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). The planned release will take place over 30 to 40 years.

Kevin Kamps, the radioactive waste watchdog at Beyond Nuclear, told Sputnik on Friday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is caught in a vise between its advocacy for nuclear power and the reality of the detrimental effects of improper storage of its waste, which is a key problem with the Japanese government’s plan since 2011 to store that waste at the site of the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant.

“I think it’s just an industry public relations campaign to kind of say, look, the ocean’s a big place, it’s just going to disappear into nothingness. And it’s not true,” he told Radio Sputnik. “In fact, it’s going to concentrate the radioactivity in the food chain. And that’s going to be the main pathway for human exposure as people eating Fukushima contaminated fish from the Pacific Ocean.”

“There’s so many options that are better than dumping it in the ocean. One option is what they’ve been doing for the past 12 years, since this catastrophe began: storing it in tanks. It has not gone perfectly, but their rationale for not continuing with the tank storage is that they’ve run out of room, they’ve run out of physical space. And all I can say is, would you please give me a break? They have turned that region into a radioactive sacrifice zone because of the catastrophe,” Kamps said, adding that the area has already been rendered inhospitable by the radiation.

“There’s an option to expand the site perimeter, continue with the tank storage. A problem with that, though, is that site, as shown by the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, it’s not a stable site, so storage there may not be the best idea,” he noted.

“A colleague of mine, Dr. Arjan Nakatani, is actually serving on the Pacific Islands Forum, reviewing this insane scheme on behalf of Pacific Island nations and opposing it. He has pointed out from the earliest days of the catastrophe that the radioactive wastewater could be transported to a more stable site and stored there. The reason this makes sense is tritium has a 12.3-year half life. Multiply by ten to get the hazardous persistence. That’s 123 years. One hundred twenty-three years of storage is doable, humans can do that. That’s really the best plan for what they have now.”

Kamps noted that several months after the 2011 disaster, radioactive cesium in the seawater along the California coast had doubled, proving that while “it’s a big ocean,” the radioactive materials won’t just disappear. In the case of Fukushima, it’s not just radioactive waste entering the water, either: the water itself is radioactive.

“The main culprit that we need to worry about is radioactive tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen, which means that the water molecules in that radioactive wastewater are themselves radioactive. It’s not a contaminant per se. It’s radioactive water. And other contaminants in there include strontium-90, cesium-137, iodine-129 – the list goes on. They have run it through filters.”

“The radioactive isotopes per element behave chemically just like their non-radioactive sibling. So, for example: cesium, that’s going to go to muscle tissue; strontium, that’s going to go to bone; tritium is going to go anywhere in the human body and other living things that hydrogen goes, which is everywhere. Radioactive carbon-14, the nuclear industry likes to say that they’re carbon-free. Well, they’re not carbon-14 free. And ironically enough, carbon-14 – which again, can go anywhere in the human body that carbon can go, which is everywhere – is perhaps the most biologically harmful of these radioactive poisons because it has a 5,500-year half-life. That means 55,000 years of hazard.”
“And all of these radioactive elements are going to enter the food chain and in fact, they’re going to concentrate upwards to humans at the top of that pyramid, through fish, through seaweed. You mentioned that there has been panic buying of salt in South Korea to try to get salt not exposed to this ocean release before they start releasing. So the shelves in South Korea are devoid of salt because people are buying as much as they can before this bad idea began.”

Kamps noted other examples include the US’ underground storage sites for radioactive waste such as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), buried deep under the New Mexico desert inside a watertight salt formation, where it is expected to safely decay for 10,000 years. However, even then, it took only 15 years for an accidental release of radioactive material, which escaped through a ventilation shaft.

Kamps said the IAEA’s endorsement of the release would deliver the agency “a huge reputational blow,” adding that it has long downplayed the risks of nuclear power and the outcomes of disasters such as that at Chernobyl in Soviet Ukraine in 1986.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency under the Nonproliferation Treaty of 1970 is a pro-nuclear power institution. Their job is to supposedly hold nuclear weapons proliferation in check while advocating an expansion of nuclear power. It’s a schizophrenic mandate. And what they do is they will downplay Chernobyl, they will downplay Fukushima as part of their pro-nuclear power mandate.”

Kamps also noted that the Japanese government has been strongly pro-nuclear power since the 1950s, thanks to pressure by the US government, which occupied the country from the end of World War II until 1952. He accused the IAEA of being “a lapdog sitting in the lap of Tokyo Electric and the Japanese government.”

“It’s pretty astounding that they’re willing to stick to their script when, you know, they are getting called out by a long list of countries in the Pacific who are going to be harmed by this and by scientists with a lot more integrity than any of those institutions I mentioned, who are saying that the data is nonexistent, analyses have not been completed. It’s all very half-baked. And I guess those promoting it are hoping that this public relations scheme to just make people look away and forget about it is going to work. So I guess that fight is on.”

“There’s a growing list of countries that have banned importation of seafood from the Fukushima region, which include places like South Korea and China and elsewhere. And the list of countries that have spoken out very strongly against this wastewater dum, those same countries and many others, including Russia, the Philippines, the Pacific Islands Coalition, who have an expert panel looking at this, have pointed out just how sloppy the so-called analysis by Tokyo Electric and the Japanese government have been. The documentation is missing. The analyses are far from complete. Even analyses that the IAEA promised to carry out are one-third done at this point, and yet they have signed off on the dumping to begin. So the public relations facade of proponents of dumping is very thin and they’re being called out on it at the highest levels of many governments on the Pacific Ocean.”

Many of those same governments, Kamps noted, are also very heavily dependent on nuclear power and wrestle with many of the same questions of safe waste disposal. Pressure from anti-nuclear groups has also forced their hand, and the expert noted that in Japan, those groups have long been “the little Dutch boy with their finger in the dike, preventing this scheme from going forward for many years.”

“Hats-off to the Japanese anti-nuclear movement, which has kept the vast majority of reactors shut down since Fukushima. They won’t let them be reactivated. And that’s something that amazes me because we try so hard in the United States to do that, too. But we’re often steamrolled in our efforts,” he said.

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The problem with radioactive water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant – Part One

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 06.07.2023

As previously noted, the outrage over Japan’s discharging of over 1 million tons of radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean (“discharge” for short) continues to persist. For instance, thousands of Koreans rallied in downtown Seoul on May 20, 2023, to protest the discharge. The leader of the main liberal opposition party in Korea, Lee Jae-myung, told the protesters that the national government should not support Japan’s decision to dispose of contaminated water without considering the repercussions for neighboring countries and the contamination of the world’s oceans. Lee Jae-myung compared the discharge of wastewater with pouring poison into the well, to “nuclear terrorism.” How right is South Korea’s top Democrat?

If you accept the claims made by various environmental groups or the South Korean “democratic opposition” without question, you might well believe that Japan is following through on its plan to release water into the ocean to cool the reactor. However, when this information is clarified, the possibility of a “global disaster” becomes a hotly contested topic.

Since 2011, the procedure of water filtration and sedimentation has been under progress. There are currently more than 1.3 million tons of water in more than 1,000 tanks at the nuclear power plant that have passed through a specialized treatment system known as the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). Throughout this time, the water has been filling the storage tanks until there was no more room nearby. The ALPS system is capable of removing all radioactive substances except tritium from wastewater, and Tokyo claims that tritium-added water discharge is common practice at nuclear power plants around the world.

There is a fierce debate, however, over what to call water that has undergone purification. The Japanese side claims that among the potentially dangerous isotopes there remains only radioactive tritium, the concentration of which will not cause much concern. Therefore, it is logical to call water “purified” or at least “treated,” while Lee Jae-myung and Co. speak of “contaminated” water, not shying away from using the term “liquid radioactive waste,” which creates a very different impression in the public mind.

The IAEA uses both terms depending on the level of filtration: water that has undergone treatment is referred to as “treated water,” while unfiltered water is referred to as “contaminated.”

In an effort to improve relations with Tokyo under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, official Seoul is also thinking about changing the word “contaminated” to “treated.” For example, the government urged the term “nuclear wastewater” not be used on June 19, 2023 because it “causes people excessive and unnecessary concern.” This is correct, because the phrase “radioactive water” implies “water directly from the reactor” in the mass consciousness, not “water that has undergone a purification procedure and has stood for more than ten years.”

Of course, the water would be drained from the initial storage facilities, and – after several years, if not decades – the cleaned water would be mixed with regular water and released into the ocean in a thin stream.

The Japanese government had stated that Discharge to the Pacific Ocean would commence in April 2021, and on June 7, 2023, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) finished work to pump seawater through an undersea tunnel designated for Discharge. In the near future, TEPCO plans construction of a tank in which contaminated water will be temporarily stored before being transferred to the underwater tunnel. All work in preparation for the discharge of contaminated water into the ocean should be completed by the end of June. Water discharge is set to commence this summer.

On June 12, Japan began testing facilities designed for the Discharge. According to Fukushima TV, clean water mixed with seawater will be discharged for two weeks. At the same time, there will be no discharge of contaminated water during this period.

The arguments of the supporters and the opponents of Discharge can be summarized in the following table.

For Discharge Against Discharge

·         Filtration of the contaminant will reduce harm to the environment to an insignificant level.

·         Radioactive tritium can be reduced to a safe level by diluting it. According to Heo Gyun-young, professor of nuclear engineering at Kyung Hee University, who heads the technical review committee of a government task force convened to respond to the Discharge, it would be hard to assume that tritium could affect our health. Heo Gyun-young believes that the tritium discharged with wastewater will not affect human health. A single chest X-ray of an adult exposes the patient to 0.1 mSv of radiation, while the Japanese government’s proposed treatment will discharge 0.00003 mSv of tritium into the ocean.

·         The IAEA confirms that the water is safe.   Five reports have already been released by the agency, and a sixth is scheduled for release at the end of June.

·         The best method for getting rid of water is discharge.

  

 

 

 

·         The ocean is more unpredictable than it seems – harm can be done through food chains

·         There have been no research on the impacts of tritium on marine ecosystems in Tokyo, therefore people do not completely realize the true harm caused by tritium.

·         The IAEA’s role is to analyze and confirm the data provided by the Japanese side, not to directly collect samples and verify them. This UN agency stands with Japan on nuclear power, and therefore “IAEA’s role, in this case, was clear from the outset ― not to verify but to corroborate. Yes, it is the only international agency to do that job. Still, one had better not read too much into its conclusion.”

·         The third-largest economy in the world has the resources and technology to create alternatives, such as onshore storage and contaminated water evaporation. Allegedly there are at least two alternatives to discharging water into the ocean – building giant storage tanks on land and turning it into mortar by mixing it with sand and cement. The first costs about 300 billion won ($227 million) and the second costs 1 trillion won. Although it is far more expensive than the 34 billion won that Discharge costs, “we can hardly believe that the world’s third-largest economy and the only Asian member of the G7 chooses a contentious method to save at most $750 million,” the article states.

 

Let us not forget the thesis beloved by the opponents of the discharge: “If it is safe enough to drink, they should use it as drinking water. It should at least be used as agricultural or industrial water.” At various points this thesis has been voiced by Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the ROK opposition, a representative of the Chinese foreign ministry, and even worried Fijian officials.

By the way, China’s stance is just as dogmatic and prejudiced. Li Song, China’s permanent representative to the IAEA, criticized Japan for their intended discharge of radioactive water into the ocean on June 10, 2023, claiming that the action will jeopardize the health of people worldwide and the marine ecosystem. More than 60 radionuclides are present in the radioactively contaminated water, according to Li, who also noted that even after filtering, 70% of this water does not adhere to IAEA guidelines.

Two other issues on which there is scientific and public debate is the time when discharged water will reach Korea and also the problem of general water contamination, including radioactive fish.

The government-funded research institute Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) issued a disclaimer after Wade Allison, a British physicist and Emeritus professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College at Oxford University, said on May 15 that he would drink up to 10 liters of Fukushima water. According to KAERI’s news release, treated wastewater is not safe to drink, and the professor’s assertion that he would drink many liters of water does not reflect the institute’s views. Meanwhile, during a National Assembly session on May 24, Han Gyu Joo, the KAERI President, stated that wastewater should not be drunk since “the wastewater is 62 times higher in becquerel (Bq), a unit of radioactivity, than drinking water.”

When Professor Emeritus Suh Kune-yull of Seoul National University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering told local broadcaster YTN that the wastewater could flow into the East Sea within five to seven months after the discharge begins, authorities immediately issued a press release refuting the claim. They referred to simulations done by government research institutes, denying the professors claims and indicating that seawater containing very few traces of tritium would enter the Korean Seas about five years after wastewater discharge. A group of fishermen then reported the professor to the police for defamation, and the ruling party criticized him for causing fear in the general public by spreading groundless rumors.

Later, Vice Minister Song Sang-geun of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, denied a media report citing a study by the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers that contaminated water from the plant would reach the shores of South Jeju Island in just seven months. According to him, as ocean currents carry the contaminated water, the radioactive material would be virtually invisible on the shores of Jeju. He also added that the concentration level there would be about a trillionth of that of the Fukushima coast.

Meanwhile, salt sales in the Republic of Korea have increased by 55.6 percent as a result of concerns that Japan’s planned discharge of treated wastewater may contaminate the waters surrounding the Korean Peninsula. Separately, there is a shortage of iodized salt as a remedy for radiation.

On June 20, 2023, it was announced at the plenary meeting of the Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock, Food, Marine, and Fisheries Committee of the National Assembly that from 2011 to 2020, the level of cesium-137 in the Sea of Japan rose from 0.001 to 0.002 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg). But on June 21, Vice Minister Song Sang-geun of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, reported that in 2011 the concentration of cesium in the East Sea has not practically increased:   from 2005 to 2010, the index was kept between 0.001 and 0.004 Bq/kg. At the same time, the World Health Organization limits the content of cesium in drinking water to 10 Bq/kg, so the water from the Sea of Japan is absolutely safe.

According to Song Sang-keon, the government has discovered no concerns in around 75,000 radiation tests conducted on marine items after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. The government is still examining fish taken in Korean waters to ensure they are not contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

On May 31, 2023, the IAEA submitted an interim report on the results of the analysis of contaminated water from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. No significant excess of nuclides was detected in the water samples. The Tokyo Electric Power Company’s radioactivity analysis method and water sample collecting procedure are acceptable, according to the paper. Research institutions from France and Switzerland, as well as the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety participated in the IAEA’s analysis of the water samples. The IAEA intends to submit a report on the results of seawater analysis in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant area and the fish that are located there in the near future.

However, in response to mounting concerns, the ruling party and the government agreed on June 18 to expand the inspection of radiation levels in the ocean, increasing the number of seawater testing sites from 92 to 200. Furthermore, cesium and tritium concentration levels will be monitored every two weeks, compared with the current frequency of once every one to three months.

Fish taken in the waters around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in May carried radioactive cesium, many times exceeding Japanese food safety regulations. The Kyodo Tsushin Agency reported that the intestines of sebastes taken at a port near the nuclear power plant in May contained 18,000 becquerels of cesium per kilogram, according to a study provided by the facility’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

This is 180 times higher than the limit for cesium content in seafood as stipulated by Japanese health regulations (no more than 100 becquerels per kilogram) and far exceeds the permissible level for human consumption. In particular, the content of cesium-137 is 180 times higher than the standard maximum.

As a result, according to a poll conducted from May 26 to 28 by Hankook Ilbo, a Korean daily newspaper, and the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbun, more than 80% of South Koreans oppose the discharge, while 60% of Japanese support it. At the same time, the Democrats claim that the government is downplaying the results of a poll showing that  84% of Koreans oppose.

In May 2023, a team of South Korean experts visited the plant with an inspection to see whether the radioactive water could be safely processed. The inspection was conducted in accordance with the agreement reached at the summit between President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. After the inspection, the team stated that significant progress had been made, but that further analysis was needed for a more accurate conclusion. This led to an outburst of speculation about the bias of the commission, but the author will discuss the twists and turns surrounding this visit in the next text, concluding with a passage from the media: “The Fukushima wastewater discharge is an issue related not only to people’s health but also to their sentiments. It is a matter of safety in scientific terms and also a matter of whether people really feel it is safe. The government must keep trying to figure out ways to dispel people’s anxiety. Above all, it is important to concentrate on verifiable scientific facts and communicate with the people swiftly, transparently and continuously. It must also demand concrete and precise data and explanations from Japan if necessary, while keeping up efforts to verify them.”

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, is a leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Sweden just scrapped their “Renewable Energy Targets”. Here’s why.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 26, 2023

Buried behind the news of the supposed “attempted coup” in Russia this weekend, was the Swedish government’s announcement, last Wednesday, that they will be stepping back from their plans to go 100% renewable energy.

According to finance minister Elisabeth Svantesson, wind and solar power are simply not efficient or reliable enough to be trusted to produce the entire country’s energy supply.

This has been celebrated in some circles as an example of a government taking a logical approach.

But, to be clear, this is not about refuting or rejecting the “climate change” agenda, but purely a question of methodology. Sweden is rejecting “renewable energy” goals, not net zero. Net zero is still very much on the cards… via nuclear power, what some still laughably call “clean energy”.

According to Euractive.com :

Sweden’s parliament on Tuesday (20 June) adopted a new energy target, giving the right-wing government the green light to push forward with plans to build new nuclear plants in a country that voted 40 years ago to phase out atomic power. Changing the target to “100% fossil-free” electricity, from “100% renewable” is key to the government’s plan to […] reach net zero emissions by 2045.”

Sweden has always been at the fore-front of climate messaging, introducing one of the first ever “Carbon Taxes” as early as 1991.

It’s also the case that Sweden recently approved a feasibility study for a massive carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant near Stockholm. CCS is among the bigger scams of the climate change narrative.

And yet this scrapping of renewable goals has been welcomed by some in the alternative sphere as Sweden “seeing sense”.

This is highly reminiscent of Sweden’s role in the Covid narrative – the “voice of reason”. The sensible rejection of the official narrative in favour of a very slightly different version of the official narrative.

Sweden pushed for no lockdowns and “early treatment” and herd immunity, but all of that actually served to underline that there was an actual pandemic that needed dealing with. Reinforcing the official story through carefully orchestrated dissent.

It looks like Sweden is about to cast itself in the same part for the Climate play.

Moving forward, the debate will be about “net zero via renewables” vs “net zero via nuclear”, without ever questioning whether we need to go “net zero” at all, or if it’s even physically possible to do so.

June 26, 2023 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »