Japanese expert: The Japanese government should consider alternative treatment options such as land-based storage of nuclear contaminated water. Japan | Fukushima | Storage
On July 24th, Global Times correspondent in Japan, Yue Linwei, attended an online seminar organized by the Japanese civil society organization, the Atomic Power Citizen Committee. During the seminar, several Japanese experts called on the government to reconsider the plan to discharge Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea. Japanese nuclear radiation measurement expert Mitsuko Amano pointed out in his speech that so far, Tokyo Electric Power Company has only analyzed a small part of the contaminated water storage tanks, and the data is seriously insufficient. Moreover, only the liquid in the middle layer of the nuclear contaminated water storage tank was sampled and analyzed, and the high concentration sludge and sediment located in the lower and bottom layers of the tank also lacked detection and analysis.
On July 20th, multiple citizen groups in Japan held a rally in the center of Tokyo to protest against the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company's strong plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea.
Amano Guang believes that the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water contains multiple radioactive isotopes. In addition, the amount of toxic chemicals such as cadmium and tellurium in nuclear fuel debris entering nuclear contaminated water has not been detected or analyzed at all. He warned that as nuclear fuel fragments age, it is possible for undetected radioactive isotopes to enter contaminated water, and that the risks of radioactive tritium to the environment and organisms need to be reassessed. The Japanese government should consider alternative treatment options such as land storage and concrete solidification for nuclear contaminated water from the perspective of protecting the livelihoods of local and surrounding fishing, aquaculture and other professionals in Fukushima.
Hiromi Hosokawa, emeritus professor of Kyoto essence University, said at the meeting that the preconditions for the Japanese government to select the sea discharge plan had changed dramatically. Firstly, the cost of sea discharge has significantly increased. In addition, the estimated discharge time has been extended from 91 months to 30 or even 40 years now. Comparing the current situation with several alternative solutions, it is necessary to reassess the disposal plan for nuclear contaminated water.
On the 18th, the Atomic Energy Citizen Committee issued a statement regarding the discharge of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea, stating that the International Atomic Energy Agency's assessment report cannot serve as a "scientific basis" for the discharge of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea. The Fukushima nuclear contaminated water comes from the Fukushima nuclear power plant that experienced a nuclear accident. The IAEA report lacks sufficient understanding of the severity of the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and its review cannot guarantee the actual safety of the discharge into the sea.
The document states that it is necessary for the government to comprehensively review the accident handling process at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, as forced discharge into the sea will hinder accident handling and post disaster recovery. The document emphasizes that currently, there are feasible alternative disposal options for nuclear contaminated water that do not require discharge into the sea. The Japanese government and TEPCO should study and implement alternative disposal plans based on the cessation of their sea discharge plan.
