The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi (L) delivers security assessment report on Japan’s plan to launch nuclear-contaminated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy plant into the ocean to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo, Japan, July 4, 2023. /Xinhua
Editor’s word: CGTN’s First Voice offers immediate commentary on breaking tales. The column clarifies rising points and higher defines the news agenda, providing a Chinese perspective on the most recent world occasions.
On July 4, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi delivered a security assessment report on Japan’s plan to launch nuclear-contaminated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy plant into the ocean to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. According to Japanese media studies, after receiving the report, Kishida instantly introduced that the date of discharge can be set in August.
This evaluation report is sort of a “passport” for the discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, giving the Japanese authorities the “endorsement” of official companies for the long-planned discharge plan.
But the IAEA, which was formally established in 1957, is in truth simply a global group that promotes the protected, safe, and peaceable use of nuclear expertise. Existing worldwide paperwork, together with the Statute of the IAEA, point out that the worldwide neighborhood has by no means given the IAEA any authority to approve or resolve on the discharge of radioactive waste.
In truth, after studying the report rigorously, it’s not troublesome to search out that the Japanese authorities selectively prevented the disclaimer within the report that mentioned “the release of the treated water stored at Fukushima Daiichi Power Station is a national decision by the Government of Japan and that this report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement of that policy.” It just isn’t obscure Japan’s intention.
South Korean protesters carrying masks of Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol throughout a protest towards the Japanese authorities’s choice to dump radioactive wastewater from the broken Fukushima nuclear energy plant into the Pacific, Seoul, South Korea, July 5, 2023. /CFP
So, is it actually scientific for the content material of the nuclear sewage talked about within the report that it “conforms to international safety standards” and that “the impact of the discharged water on people and the environment is negligible?”
Shaun Burnie, a German professional on the nuclear setting, identified that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had accomplished a intelligent job within the samples it supplied for testing, measuring solely 20 p.c of all of the water within the nuclear sewage storage tank, and offering solely 25 liters earlier than dilution as samples to 3rd events. However, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy plant has a complete of greater than 1.3 million tons of nuclear-contaminated water, and the pattern measurement is unbelievably small.
According to Liu Senlin, a Chinese professional who participated within the technical work of the IAEA evaluation, from a procedural viewpoint, though the IAEA Secretariat had solicited professional opinions from the technical working group on the draft report, there was truly little or no time left for consultants to guage.
The IAEA didn’t have sufficient time to conduct arguments, nor did it re-discuss with varied consultants after receiving suggestions. Reuters reported on July 7 that Grossi additionally hinted that the professional staff had variations on the content material of the report.
Professor Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, an American nuclear physicist who has performed four-year knowledge surveys on Fukushima nuclear sewage, pointed this out when speaking about nuclear sewage knowledge: “The biggest problem is that we don’t have any data at all. It is impossible to know what the contaminated water in the tank is, and the data on that water is incomplete, inaccurate and inconsistent.”
Arjun Makhijani, director of the U.S.Institute for Energy and EnvironmentResearch, additionally mentioned that nuclear sewage comprises extra varieties of radioactive substances than introduced. Due to inadequate processing capability and failure of multi-nuclides elimination tools, different nuclides are prone to be discharged on the similar time besides tritium. However, the ocean discharge plan formulated by the Japanese authorities has to date failed to supply ample scientific and factual foundation on this subject. It is troublesome to estimate what affect the ocean discharge habits may have on human beings.
Damaged reactors and tanks retailer handled radioactive water are seen at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, Fukushima, Japan, January 19, 2023. /CFP
12 years in the past, Japan acquired sympathy and help from all around the world due to the Fukushima nuclear accident. 12 years later, Japan selected to switch the danger of nuclear air pollution to all mankind.
Fukushima nuclear sewage is an unprecedented main disaster going through human society. It requires the worldwide neighborhood to barter and take care of it in a scientific, protected, and clear method, somewhat than merely “cleaning it out” in consideration of financial prices.
As a signatory to a sequence of worldwide legal guidelines and treaties such because the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on Nuclear Safety, and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Japan’s actions have critically deviated from its worldwide authorized obligations.
If the Japanese authorities is allowed to go its personal method and discharge nuclear sewage into the ocean on such a big scale, then the world could have opened a Pandora’s field filled with unknown disasters.
(If you wish to contribute and have particular experience, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to find the most recent commentaries within the CGTN Opinion Section.)
Source: CGTN