People's Daily Bell Sound: No report can "whitewash" the erroneous decision to discharge into the sea report | Japan | Bell Sound

After the International Atomic Energy Agency released the comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water in Japan, the Japan Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission quickly handed over the "certificate" of acceptance of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge facilities to Tokyo Electric Power Company. The Japanese government recently claimed again that plans to start discharging Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean this summer "have not changed". There are indications that the Japanese side is attempting to use the agency report as a "pass" to start the discharge of nuclear contaminated water to "whitewash" its wrong decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water to the sea.

The Japanese side's approach is completely self-deception. The Japanese side should be very clear about the process of the agency's report. Japan only invited the agency to carry out the relevant assessment review after the unilateral announcement of the nuclear contaminated water discharge plan in April 2021, and limited the scope of authorization to the assessment of the discharge plan. This was also confirmed by the Director-General of the Agency in his foreword to the report. This fully shows that the Japanese side has already preset the results of the discharge of nuclear contaminated water to the sea, and invited the agency to evaluate it only to "decorate the facade" and confuse the public.

The agency report did not dispel the international community's doubts about Japan's forced discharge of nuclear-contaminated water to the sea, but aroused more doubts. Due to the limitation of authorization, the agency only carried out examination and evaluation on the data and information unilaterally provided by Japan, only carried out inter-laboratory comparison and analysis on a small number of nuclear contaminated water samples unilaterally collected by Japan, did not examine the legitimacy of Japan's sea discharge plan, did not evaluate the long-term effectiveness of Japan's purification device, did not confirm the true accuracy of Japan's nuclear contaminated water data, and did not fully verify the alternative plan. The sampling of nuclear contaminated water is seriously underrepresented, and the relevant conclusions are limited and one-sided. The agency report made it clear that the agency neither recommended the Japanese side to adopt the sea discharge plan nor endorsed the Japanese sea discharge plan. The Japanese side should not and cannot use the agency report as a "pass" for Pailhai ".

The agency assessed and reviewed the safety of nuclear contaminated water treated by the Japanese "multi-nuclide treatment system", but its report could not guarantee the reliability and long-term effectiveness of the Japanese nuclear contaminated water purification device. As a key facility for the treatment of nuclear contaminated water by Japan, the "multi-nuclide treatment system" began trial operation as early as 2013, and it was not until March 2022 that it was "inspected and qualified" by the Japan Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission ". "Multi-nuclide treatment system" during the operation of continuous problems, in 2016 was found to have four leaks, in 2018 the so-called "treated water" in the radioactive substances such as strontium was exposed to exceed the standard, in 2021 for the adsorption of radioactive substances in the exhaust nearly half of the screen damage ...... It can be seen that "multi-nuclide treatment system" is technically immature, security doubts. The discharge of nuclear contaminated water from Japan will last for 30 years or even longer, and the continuous corrosion and aging of equipment will further aggravate the substandard discharge of nuclear contaminated water.

It is even more wrong for the Japanese side to regard the institutional report as an authority. In fact, the statute of the Agency does not give the Agency the power to decide on the disposal of radioactive materials. The review and evaluation of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge plan was completed by a technical working group appointed by the Director-General of the Agency. However, the evaluation report did not fully reflect the opinions of all experts participating in the evaluation work, and the relevant conclusions were not unanimously approved by experts from all parties. The institutional secretariat had a very limited window of time to consult the technical working group's experts on the draft report, and the secretariat issued the report hastily without discussing the revision of the report and the adoption of the comments again after receiving feedback. According to South Korea media reports, anonymous people familiar with the matter said that the Japanese government obtained the draft of the agency's final evaluation report in advance and proposed substantive amendments, which exerted undue influence on the conclusion of the final report. This has further exacerbated the international community's concerns about the discharge of nuclear contaminated water from Japan, and has also raised questions about the fairness and objectivity of the agency's report conclusions.

The disposal of water polluted by the Fukushima nuclear accident is related to the safety of the Asia-Pacific region and the global ecological environment, as well as the lives and health of people in all countries. There is no precedent for the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and there is and should not be a "pass". Instead of trying to force the agency report to endorse it, the Japanese side should face up to the concerns of the international community and the domestic public, stop pushing the sea discharge plan, and effectively dispose of nuclear-contaminated water in a scientific, safe and transparent manner, and accept strict international supervision.

[News link]

Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Japanese side's exaggeration cannot "bleach" the plan to discharge into the sea

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, July 20. In response to the Japanese government's defense of the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water discharge plan, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on the 20th that if the nuclear-contaminated water is safe, there is no need to discharge it, and if it is not safe, It should not be discharged. No matter how much the Japanese side has overwritten, it will not be able to "bleach" the sea discharge plan.

At the regular press conference that day, a reporter asked: Recently, the Japanese government has used the NATO summit, the East Asia Cooperation Foreign Ministers' Meeting, and the Eastern Caribbean Fisheries Ministers' Meeting to defend the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water discharge plan and release that it will not delay this summer. Signal to start discharging the sea. At the same time, the National Federation of Fisheries Associations of Japan, Fukushima Prefecture, and Miyagi Prefecture Fisheries Associations have stated that their attitude against the discharge of nuclear contaminated water has not changed. what is the spokesman's comment on this?

Mao Ning said that the Japanese government has recently launched global public relations on the issue of Fukushima nuclear pollution water discharge, trying to use special funds to block the Japanese people who oppose the discharge of the sea, and trying to use the International Atomic Energy Agency's comprehensive assessment report as a "pass". The posture that it is imperative to discharge the sea. "If nuclear contaminated water is safe, there is no need to discharge it into the sea, and if it is not safe, it should not be discharged into the sea."

Mao Ning said that the legitimacy, legality and safety of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge plan have been questioned internationally. No matter how much the Japanese side has overwritten, it will not be able to "bleach" the sea discharge plan. Protests from neighboring countries and voices of questioning from all walks of life in Japan are clear evidence. Japanese media polls on the 16th showed that more than 80% of the Japanese people believe that the Japanese government's explanation of the discharge of nuclear pollution is insufficient. Japanese scholars and environmentalists continue to voice that the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 has caused the leakage of radioactive materials, and now it is intolerable to increase the pollution of radioactive materials by artificial discharge into the sea. The Japanese government's decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea does not reflect the concerns of the public, especially the fishery and agricultural practitioners. There is a high probability that it will violate its previous promise not to start discharging the sea without the understanding of relevant parties.

Mao Ning said that the discharge of nuclear accident polluted water into the ocean has no precedent in the world, and there is no commonly recognized standard. This is a question of science, but also a question of attitude. "China urges Japan to face up to the reasonable concerns of the international community and the domestic people, stop pushing the sea discharge plan, fully communicate with neighboring countries in a sincere manner, effectively dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a responsible manner, and accept international supervision."

Another reporter asked: Due to the Fukushima nuclear "treatment water" discharge problem, China has strengthened restrictions on Japanese food imports. The Japanese government stated that "the safety of Japanese food is scientifically guaranteed" and plans to appeal to China to lift import restrictions as soon as possible. What is the response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Mao Ning said that the Chinese government adheres to the people-centered governance philosophy and must be responsible for people's health and the marine environment. China's opposition to Japan's sea discharge plan is justified, and the relevant measures taken are justified.

"China urges Japan to listen carefully to the voice of the international community, stop pushing the nuclear contaminated water discharge plan, conduct full consultations with neighboring countries in a sincere manner, dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a responsible manner, and accept strict international supervision." She said.