Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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 | , , | Leave a 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 | , , | Leave a 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

Ukrainian Shelling of Zaporozhye NPP Creates Risk of ‘Nuclear Bomb Scenario’

A Russian serviceman inspects a part of a shell on the territory of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant – © Sputnik / Konstantin Mihalchevskiy
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – May 31, 2023

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi has proposed a five-point plan to help ensure safety and security at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. Renowned nuclear expert Chris Busby says Grossi’s concerns about the plant’s safety are fully justified, but that much more needs to be done.

In an address before the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, Rafael Grossi outlined measures which should be taken to prevent a deadly incident at the ZNPP – key among them an immediate halt to attacks of any kind against the facility.

Other necessary measures, he said, include a commitment that the plant won’t be used to store heavy weapons or launch attacks, the preservation of the safety of onsite backup cooling systems and offsite power connections, and assurances that no actions are taken which could undermine these principles.

Grossi characterized the situation at the plant as “extremely fragile and dangerous,” and urged for the measures to be implemented immediately. As usual, he did not attribute responsibility for the deterioration of the security situation around the plant, which has been controlled by Russia since March 2022, and regularly shelled by Ukrainian forces since then.

Ukrainian Permanent Representative to the UN Serhiy Kislitsa disingenuously assured the Security Council that Kiev had “never resorted and will never resort to any steps that could lead to a nuclear incident” at the ZNPP.

Russian Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzya told the body that the Russian side is already in compliance with Grossi’s recommendations, having implemented them independently “in accordance with decisions taken at the national level.”

“Thus, there have never been any attacks from the territory of the ZNPP [by Russia]. Heavy weapons and ammunition have never been deployed at the plant. There are no military personnel at the Zaporozhye NPP which could be used to carry out attacks from the territory of the plant,” Nebenzya said. Furthermore, he said, Moscow has taken “concrete steps” to protect the plant’s most sensitive structures and systems from sabotage and attack.

‘Absolutely Right to Be Freaking Out’

The IAEA chief “is fully aware” of the dangers associated with the deteriorating security situation at the ZNPP, is “understandably panicking,” and is “absolutely right to be freaking out,” says Chris Busby, a veteran chemical physicist with decades of experience studying the health effects of internal ionizing radiation, who currently serves as the scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk.

Speaking to Sputnik and commenting on Grossi’s recommendations, Dr. Busby said that the “common sense” proposals are really just “a list of things that everyone must have been aware of from the very beginning” of the Ukraine crisis, but that regular shelling and missile attacks, and the possibility of the ZNPP becoming a direct battleground in a possible Ukrainian counteroffensive, makes them all the more pressing.

“The Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Kislitsa, apparently stated [that] ‘we have never resorted and never will resort to steps that could lead to a nuclear incident.’ Well, one problem I have with this is the pronoun ‘We.’ I am a scientist, not a political commentator, but it seems to me that there are many different groups fighting in this war, and all kinds of attacks occur in all kinds of places, people are assassinated, bridges are blown up, undersea pipelines are destroyed, and no one seems to blame the Ukrainian government. Maybe there are a lot of independent nationalist groups (Terrorists? Assassins?) who take matters into their own hands and devise independent strategies,” Busby quipped.

‘Controlled Nuclear Bomb’

“Nuclear energy is a very dangerous technology,” the scientist emphasized, pointing out that at their core, nuclear power plants are “effectively a controlled nuclear bomb.”

“The enormous energy released when a nuclear bomb is detonated—and we have seen the pictures of Hiroshima—is released all at once. Bang! But the chain reaction in uranium that levelled Hiroshima and killed all those people is the same neutron-controlled reaction that occurs in nuclear power plants, except that the reaction is controlled with materials that moderate the rate of production of neutrons, so that the uranium fuel remains at a temperature where it can turn cooling water into steam which in turn turns the turbines that make the electricity,” Dr. Busby explained.

“The problem is, that if the cooling system is damaged, so that the water cannot circulate, the neutrons heat up the uranium fuel very quickly, and there is a meltdown. When the uranium fuel rods melt, they fall to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel, and at that point, the neutron density increases, a chain reaction occurs and the reactor turns into a bomb and explodes, as happened at Fukushima, and as happened at Chernobyl. Other bad things can also happen: the enormous increase in temperature and radiation can produce hydrogen and this can also explode,” he added.

The same thing could happen to spent fuel, the scientist said, with these elements continuing to contain all of the fission products of uranium, and will continue to be radioactive for thousands of years.

“These spent fuel rods are still very hot, and have to be kept apart and cooled, just as in the reactor. So, they are stored in spent fuel ponds and cooled with water, or else dry stores and cooled with air and heat exchangers. If the cooling to the spent fuel fails, you have another nuclear bomb scenario,” Busby said.

The scientist estimates that there are about 20,000 tons’ worth of spent fuel rods at the ZPP, plus 60 tons in each of its reactors.

An aerial view shows the spray ponds at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant © Sputnik

“If one component goes up, they all will, because the radiation levels will, just as with Fukushima and Chernobyl, prevent anyone getting near the plant,” he stressed, noting that this includes even robots – whose electronic circuits would be “wiped out” by the radiation.

The radioactive fallout from a disaster at the ZNPP would “make Europe pretty much uninhabitable,” in Dr. Busby’s estimation, leading to skyrocketing rates of premature deaths from cancers, fertility loss, congenital defects and a host of other illnesses. According to the scientist, the Ukrainian forces shelling the plant probably don’t “have the faintest idea” of what they’re doing, and “what Grossi has termed ‘the rolling of the dice.'”

What Can Be Done?

Dr. Busby believes the best thing that can be done to ensure the ZNPP’s safety is putting the Ukraine crisis to bed. “Failing that, the integrity of the [plant’s] lake must be ensured,” which means protecting the dam feeding it.

“It is water from the lake that is at the base of the cooling system. A buffer zone capable of protecting the power station from attacks should be organized, and this must constitute a no-fly area for missile attacks or personnel incursions. What else? Prayer. It is as bad as you can imagine,” Busby summed up.

The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, with its six reactors capable of generating up to six gigawatts of power – enough to power over 1.8 million average European homes.

May 31, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power, War Crimes | Leave a comment

Why are ‘sensitive US nuclear technologies’ in Ukraine?

By Drago Bosnic | April 26, 2023

When talking about various reasons as to why Russia launched its counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe the points usually revolve around historical and strategic/geopolitical aspects of the Ukrainian conflict. And while those points certainly stand regardless, there are other crucial reasons, almost entirely overlooked or even censored by mainstream media. One of those is the aspect of NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons in Ukraine, all of which fall under the category of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

The topic of “biological research facilities“, as infamous neocon warmonger Victoria Nuland ever so euphemistically put it, received a significant amount of attention from media around the world, while the mainstream propaganda machine tried suppressing it. On the other hand, by far the most overlooked aspect of the Ukrainian conflict has been the covert transfer of US nuclear technologies to the Neo-Nazi junta. CNN, the infamous US neoliberal mouthpiece, was the first major mainstream propaganda outlet that broke the story last week.

According to the report, Washington DC has “sensitive nuclear technologies” in at least one (former) Ukrainian nuclear power plant (NPP). CNN claims that “the US has already warned Russia not to touch them”, citing a letter Department of Energy (DoE) allegedly sent to Moscow’s Rosatom corporation. CNN supposedly reviewed the letter (dated March 17) in which the director of DoE’s Office of Nonproliferation Policy, Andrea Ferkile, told Rosatom that the Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar “contains US-origin nuclear technical data that is export-controlled by the United States Government”.

Firstly, the idea that Russia is in any way intimidated by a third-rate US bureaucrat who allegedly “ordered it not to touch anything” is simply absurd. Secondly, both Washington DC and its Kiev puppets are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which means that transferring “sensitive nuclear technologies” to the Neo-Nazi junta is a direct violation of that agreement. Worse yet, the US is now (supposedly) threatening Russia through a director of its Office of Nonproliferation Policy, an institution that was supposed to prevent “sensitive US nuclear technologies” from ever reaching Ukraine.

This blatant hypocrisy is only matched by the sheer magnitude of US irresponsibility and WWIII brinkmanship for even considering the possibility to transfer such technologies to an unstable, genocidal and deeply corrupt regime in the middle of a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed superpower next door. What’s more, CNN admits that the “sensitive US nuclear technologies” in question “could be used in a way that undermines US national security interests”. Once again, this is disturbingly similar to US claims about the so-called “biological research labs”.

“It is unlawful under United States law for non-authorized persons, including, but not limited to, Russian citizens and Russian entities such as Rosatom and its subsidiaries, to knowingly and willfully access, possess, control, export, store, seize, review, re-export, ship, transfer, copy, manipulate such technology or technical data, or direct, or authorize others to do the same, without such Russian entities becoming authorized recipients by the Secretary of the US Department of Energy,” the alleged letter reads.

Once again, the US is trying to enforce the self-proclaimed exterritoriality of its laws. However, in the case of Russia, this practice is not only legally void, but is also impossible to implement, especially after the city of Energodar and the Zaporozhye oblast (region) where the NPP is situated voted to join Russia last year. Obviously, CNN’s motivation to report the story was anything but altruistic, as it revolved around an attempt to portray US “demands” to Russia as anything more than a laughing matter to Moscow.

However, what surely isn’t a laughing matter is the seriousness of Russia’s approach to the situation. And for good reason, given the fact that the Kiev regime boasted about its intentions to acquire nuclear weapons nearly a decade before the start of the SMO (special military operation). As early as March 2014 and as late as February 2022, the Neo-Nazi junta has been openly declaring its intention to get WMDs, specifically nuclear weapons, to say nothing of the constant grumbling of many Kiev regime politicians about how they “made a big mistake for giving up on nuclear weapons in 1994”.

This only shows their lack of knowledge on the subject, as Ukraine itself never actually had nuclear weapons, because all those deployed there were Russian-made/controlled. However, this doesn’t stop the Neo-Nazi junta from claiming this Soviet/Russian legacy as its own, despite rabidly Russophobic disdain for all things Soviet. Another important segment of Russian legacy they were happy to harness is its world-class missile technology that Kiev is using to produce strike weapons with possible nuclear warheads to target major Russian cities, including Moscow.

Although Russian air defenses have been successful in downing such missiles, the Neo-Nazi junta could still use other Soviet legacy assets to target the Eurasian giant. Or worse yet, these could be provided by the US/NATO or any of its vassals and satellite states. The fact that the Kiev regime never publicly renounced its intention to acquire nuclear weapons that could be used to arm such missiles is quite telling. It’s also yet another confirmation that Russia’s SMO was the only way to prevent the Neo-Nazi junta from going ahead with its plans. And even if such guarantees were ever given, with the diplomatic scandal surrounding EU/NATO lies about the Minsk agreements, Moscow could hardly ever take them seriously.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

April 26, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Nuclear Power, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

IAEA on Kiev’s Remark on Capturing ZNPP by Force: Nuclear Plant Should Not Be Target

Sputnik – 29.03.2023

The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) should not be considered as a target during current hostilities, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday, commenting on Kiev’s statement about capturing the plant by force.

During his visit to the territory of the ZNPP, Grossi pointed to the need to agree on one important thing — the nuclear power plant should not be attacked and used for attacks in the other direction.

The idea is the basis of a new concept, currently being developed to protect the ZNPP, the IAEA chief said, adding that it envisages narrowing the safety zone around the plant. He insists that new measures have to be taken in order to protect the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant as situation here is not getting better. According to Grossi, hostilities around the area are intensifying so the agency is developing a new protection concept for the plant, and discusses this issue with Russia and Ukraine.

Rosenergoatom, a subsidiary of Russian state nuclear energy corporation Rosatom supports the stance of IAEA head Rafael Grossi that the ZNPP should not be used as a target or for blackmail, Rosenergoatom spokesman Renat Karchaa said on Wednesday.

“We fully support the position of the IAEA and Mr. Grossi on the inadmissibility of using the ZNPP as a target, but we are also categorically against the use of the plant as an instrument of blackmail and manipulation,” Karchaa told reporters after inspecting the plant’s territory with Grossi.

The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, under the control of Russian forces since March, is persitently shelled by Ukrainian militants. Moscow has repeatedly warned that such attacks should be considered as acts of nuclear terrorism.

March 29, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Japanese environment economist says ALPS-treated Fukushima radioactive wastewater still contains radionuclides

Tokyo  urged to stop dumping plan

By Xu Keyue | Global Times | March 27, 2023

While stressing that the so-called treated water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant still contains radionuclides that are not able to be removed, a renowned Japanese environment economist said in an exclusive interview with the Global Times recently that we must persistently demand that the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) stop dumping the nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean.

Kenichi Oshima, professor at Ryukoku University, told the Global Times that the Japanese government and TEPCO should not release the nuclear-contaminated wastewater.

The Japanese government and TEPCO plan to use ALPS – Advanced Liquid Processing System – to treat the nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear accident and then release the treated water into the ocean. The treated water contains radionuclides including ruthenium, strontium-90 and iodine-129, in addition to tritium, Oshima noted.

Before the release, TEPCO developed a “Radiation and Environmental Impact Assessment Report on Ocean Discharge of ALPS Processed Water” to assess the impact of ocean discharge.

“Nevertheless, we believe it is impossible to accurately predict the ecological effects of ocean discharges over the next several decades,” the Japanese environment economist said.

Commenting on the so-called treated Fukushima water, Mao Ning, spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Monday that Japan has been claiming that ALPS-treated nuclear-contaminated water is safe and harmless and that it opposes calling the water “nuclear-contaminated”. The fact, however, is that the water contains over 60 radionuclides, many of which cannot be treated effectively with existing technologies.

Some long-lived radionuclides may spread with ocean currents and form a bioconcentration effect, which will multiply the total amount of radionuclides in the environment, causing unpredictable hazards to the marine environment and human health, Mao pointed out, noting that the discharge will last as long as 30 years or even longer.

Mao’s remarks are made in response to Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yasutoshi Nishimura, who claimed on Friday that the use of “nuclear-contaminated water” is a “misunderstanding of facts” after the heads of state of China and Russia expressed serious concern about Japan’s plan to dump the nuclear-contaminated water in a joint statement released on March 21.

The maturity and effectiveness of the ALPS technology has not been evaluated or certified by a third party, and the treatment of such large quantities and complex components of nuclear-contaminated wastewater is unprecedented, and its long-term effectiveness is in doubt, Mao said.

Oshima noted that in 2015, the Japanese government and TEPCO pledged in writing that they would never discharge the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean without the understanding of fishermen and the public. The Japanese government and TEPCO have been explaining the situation to fishermen and local residents but have not obtained their consent.

However, the Japanese government and TEPCO are not listening to the voices of the people, including those involved in the fishing industry, Oshima revealed.

“We must persistently demand that the [Japanese] government and TEPCO stop discharging ALPS-treated water,” he stressed.

The Japanese professor raised two alternatives in dealing with the radioactive wastewater.

The first is to store the water in large tanks. The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, so after 123 years of storage, the radioactivity will have decayed to 1/1,000 of its original level. Japan has experience in oil stockpiling, so this is feasible, said Oshima.

The second is mortar solidification. Mortar solidification can prevent leakage. Mortar solidification has been used in the US, Oshima noted.

What Japan needs to do now is to take seriously the legitimate concerns of the international community, faithfully perform its international obligations, handle the nuclear-contaminated water in the safest and most prudent way, including fully studying alternatives to ocean discharge, Mao urged.

Also, rather than whitewash its ocean discharge decision, Japan needs to fully subject itself to international oversight, and avoid, to the maximum extent possible, imposing unpredictable risks on the international community, Mao said.

March 28, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power | , | Leave a comment

Australian premiers spar over nuclear sub waste disposal

RT | March 16, 2023

The Australian political establishment is divided as to where the federal government should dispose of nuclear waste associated with the country’s expanded submarine deal with its AUKUS allies.

An accord was struck by the leadership of the countries which make up the trilateral AUKUS alliance – Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom – when they met in San Diego, California earlier this week, which rubber-stamped the sale of nuclear-powered submarines by Washington to Canberra.

In addition, Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed that his country would construct its own fleet of nuclear submarines, which will be delivered in the early 2040s. The terms of the agreement stipulate that the Australian government will be responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste from the vessels – but this appears to have opened a new political front for the country’s various state leaders.

“I think the waste can go where all the jobs are going,” said Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Thursday, referencing the 8,000 jobs which are expected to be generated in South Australia during the construction of the military submarines. “I don’t think that’s unreasonable, is it?”

West Australian Premier Mark McGowan has also indicated that nuclear waste disposal sites are unwelcome in his state, joining Andrews in suggesting South Australia as the most appropriate location.

Susan Close, the acting South Australian premier who doubles as the region’s environment minister, responded to the suggestions by saying the decision on nuclear waste locations should be dictated by science and not by “state leaders trying to move nuclear waste that doesn’t yet exist across the border.”

A final decision on the location of the site is not expected for another 12 months, and the site that is eventually selected won’t be required for use until around 2055.

The AUKUS deal will see Australia become the seventh nation with nuclear-powered submarines in its military arsenal, and comes amid Western concerns about China’s military expansion in the Indo-Pacific region. Beijing has rebuked the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, saying it contradicts accepted norms of nuclear non-proliferation.

March 16, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Nuclear Power | , | Leave a comment

Iran follows parliament’s strategic law, Safeguards, NPT, not JCPOA: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran

Press TV – March 5, 2023

The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) says the country remains committed to the Safeguard Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), considering them as the basis for its nuclear activities, along with the strategic law adopted by the Iranian parliament.

Mohammad Eslami made the remark in an interview on Sunday, following a trip to Iran by Director General of the IAEA Rafael Mariano Grossi.

Commenting on Grossi’s visit, he said Iran’s interactions with the agency should continue and “we must not allow the destructive Zionist and terrorist current to take advantage of our relations and find excuses to mount pressure on the country.”

Eslami added that the nuclear deal reached in 2015, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), can no longer be taken as the basis of Iran’s activities.

“Naturally, the JCPOA, with which the other side does not comply, cannot form the basis of our action, because the basis of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s action is the strategic law passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Iranian parliament) and the removal of unjust sanctions” that have been imposed on the country, the AEOI head said.

The law, dubbed the Strategic Action Plan to Counter Sanctions was adopted by Iranian lawmakers in December 2020 to counter sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and its Western allies, and promote the country’s peaceful nuclear program.

Under the parliament’s law, the Iranian administration is required to restrict the IAEA’s inspections and accelerate the development of the country’s nuclear program beyond the limits set under the JCPOA.

Eslami added, “We fulfill our responsibilities and [carry out] our activities according to the strategic law. The important point is that we take our steps based on this law and within the framework of the Safeguards [Agreement] and the NPT…. but they intend to exaggerate these steps in line with their double standards and create [media] hype.”

“We announced yesterday that we are committed to the Safeguards and the NPT, and the agency oversees and assesses our activities. However, this oversight must be carried out within frameworks and considerations acceptable for the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said.

Explaining about a controversial IAEA report, claiming that uranium particles enriched to about 84 percent of purity have been found in Iran, Eslami said the agency has mentioned such particles in a report to its Board of Governors.

“However, after repeated assessments and inspections, and through the interaction carried out [between Iran and the IAEA], it was decided that the criterion for measuring [the degree of enrichment] should be the final output of the production line.”

“No enrichment above 60 percent has taken place in storage tanks that are currently operating and whose entire process is being supervised by the IAEA, according to the Safeguards Agreement. [Therefore,] they have practically announced the closure of this case. The case of 84-percent [enriched] uranium particles has been closed and decided,” Iran’s nuclear chief said.

Eslami added that pressures exerted on the IAEA chief by Western media with regard to Iran’s nuclear activities are masterminded by “the Zionist current.”

“They are angry and upset with Mr. Grossi’s trip [to Iran] and are increasing pressure on him. It is natural [for them] to mount media pressures as a result of their anger with the [IAEA] director general’s visit to Iran,” the AEOI head said.

March 5, 2023 Posted by | Nuclear Power | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine could stage false flag operation on nuclear power plant to force Western intervention

By Ahmed Adel | January 25, 2023

The Ukrainian military are storing Western weapons in nuclear power plants in the hope that Russia will strike them. However, as Russia is unlikely to make this mistake, it cannot be ruled out that Kiev will stage a false flag operation to force direct Western intervention and increase the supply of weapons.

According to the director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, HIMARS missiles and other foreign air defence systems, as well as large-calibre artillery ammunition, are deployed at Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

“There is credible information that Ukrainian troops are stockpiling the Western-supplied weapons and ammunition on the territory of nuclear power plants,” Naryshkin said, according to a statement on the intelligence service’s website.

According to the intelligence chief, several cars loaded with “lethal cargo” were delivered by rail to the Rovno Nuclear Power Plant in western Ukraine during the last week of December alone.

“They rely on the calculation that the Russian Armed Forces would not strike nuclear power plants because they realise the danger of a nuclear disaster,” Naryshkin said.

He expressed the hope that no one in Kiev would deliberately think of blowing up the nuclear power plants in a false flag operation. False flag operations are often used by international terrorists, as seen on a frequent basis during the peak of the Syrian war, or by the US to justify their own invasions and interventions.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces often receive weapons that are of very poor quality. This fact alone heightens the risk of an accidental explosion, something that could unleash a nuclear catastrophe and be blamed on Moscow.

Alarmingly, in addition to nuclear power plants, the Ukrainian military also uses residential buildings to house Western weapons. Ukrainian soldiers are fully aware of the fact that the Russian military does not strike civilian populations. The Russian military does not strike at nuclear plants, especially as any spill over can directly affect Russian citizens.

Ukrainian soldiers on the other hand have consistently used civilians as human shields, even before the Russian military operation began in 2022, as reported by the United Nations. The Ukrainian military is desperate for more weapons, tanks, howitzers, and ammunition, and such an incident could unite the West in providing Kiev with what it demands.

Ukraine’s nuclear plants are located near the border with Romania, Slovakia and Poland. Therefore, delivering military equipment from the West is a relatively straightforward process. According to intelligence data, only in the last week of December, several railway wagons with “lethal cargo” were delivered from abroad via the Rafalovka railway station to the Rivne nuclear power plant, located only 170km from the Polish border.

None-the-less, according to Andrei Golovatyuk, a colonel in the Russian army reserve, Moscow will certainly find a way to destroy ammunition and Western weapons stores without endangering the lives and health of the civilian population.

“They are doing this on purpose so that the Russian armed forces cannot shell their weapons depots. But our army will certainly not do that to avoid damaging the nuclear power plant,” he added.

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky, claimed that his country has never used nuclear power plants to store weapons.

“Ukraine has never stored any weapons on NPP territory, as falsely claimed by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. On the contrary, the Russian Federation seized the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and keeps its military there,” he said on Twitter, alluding that a military presence and weapons storage is the same thing.

Podolyak said that Kiev remained “open to inspecting bodies, including the IAEA” and that “Russian lies are aimed to justify their provocations.”

However, it does question what kind of “justification” Russia gets for its military operation by claiming that Ukraine stores weapons in nuclear power plants. Moscow obviously gains no “justification” and rather its justification is hinged on Kiev’s unrelenting fascistic policies towards minorities since 2014.

Rather, it is more likely that Podolyak is making nonsensical statements as Kiev is stunned that their false flag operation cannot be implemented because Moscow has already called it out. The Kiev regime is currently desperate for Western weaponry, particularly tanks, and was likely hoping that a nuclear incident could force the issue, or even better, force a direct intervention.

Podolyak tweeted on January 21 that “Today’s indecision is killing more of our people. Every day of delay is the death of Ukrainians. Think faster.”

However, even if US and German-made tanks start arriving in Ukraine, the situation is already too late for the Ukrainian military because it struggles to maintain a semblance of order in the face of Russia’s unrelenting onslaught. Rather, Kiev is responsible for the death of Ukrainians as it refuses to find a peace with Moscow. Therefore, it cannot be entirely discounted that as Ukraine becomes more desperate, it may resort to reckless measures, such as false flag operations on nuclear power plants.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

January 25, 2023 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »