Fukushima Radioactive Cooling Water To be Dumped Into The Ocean; Fishermen, Environmental Groups, And Coastal Businesses In Uproar
Posted by Malcolm on December 5, 2013 at 11:13am in Alternative Media, World Events & News
From http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/theyre-going-to-dump-the-fukushima-radiation-into-the-ocean/
They’re Going to Dump the Fukushima Radiation Into the Ocean
Dec 04, 2013 Washington's Blog Editorials 2
RINF Alternative News
Yup … They’re Going to Dump It
Tepco is planning on dumping all of the radioactive water stored at Fukushima into the ocean.
Others are pushing them to do this as well.
As EneNews reports:
Juan Carlos Lentijo, head of IAEA’s mission to Fukushima Daiichi, Dec. 4, 2013: “Controlled discharge is a regular practice in all the nuclear facilities in the world. And what we are trying to say here is to consider this as one of the options to contribute to a good balance of risks and to stabilize the facility for the long term.”
Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority, Dec. 4, 2013: “You cannot keep storing the water forever. We have to make choice comparing all risks involved.”
Xinhua, Dec. 4, 2013: Lentijo said that TEPCO should weigh the possible damaging effects of discharging toxic water against the total risks involved in the overall decommissioning work process. [...] Tanaka highlighted the fact that while highly radioactive water could be decontaminated in around seven years, the amount of water containing tritium will keep rising, topping 700,000 tons in two years. [...] nuclear experts have repeatedly pointed out that [tritium] is still a significant radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin. [...] fisherman, industries and fisheries bodies in the Fukushima area and beyond in Japan’s northeast, have collectively baulked at the idea of releasing toxic water into the sea [...] TEPCO will be duty-bound to submit assessments of the safety and environmental impact [...]NHK, Dec. 4, 2013: IAEA team leader Juan Carlos Lentijo [...] said it is necessary and indispensable to assess the impact the tritium discharge might have on human health and the environment, and to get government approval as well as consent from concerned people.
Japan Times, Dec. 4, 2013: “Of course . . . public acceptance for this purpose is necessary,” said Lentijo, adding strict monitoring of the impact of the discharge would also be essential.
AFP, Dec. 4, 2013: [L]ocal fishermen, neighbouring countries and environmental groups all oppose the idea.
In the real world, there is no safe level of radiation.
And there are alternatives.
Dr. Arjun Makhijani – a recognized expert on nuclear power, who has testified before Congress, served as an expert witness in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedings, and been interviewed by many of the largest news organizations – told PBS in March:
We actually sent a proposal to Japan two years ago, some colleagues of mine and I, saying you should park a supertanker or a large tanker offshore, and put the water in it, and send it off someplace else so that the water treatment and the water management is not such a huge, constant issue. But [the Japanese declined].
Unfortunately, Japan has devolved into a crony capitalist tyranny. Tepco – with no financial incentive to actually fix things – has been insanely irresponsible and has only been pretending to contain Fukushima. And see this.
So instead of doing something to contain the radiation, they’re going to dump it.
Postscript: In related news, the Japanese government has embarked on a massive program of burning radioactive waste throughout Japan … instead of encapsulating it in glass or otherwise containing it.
The official Washington's Blog blog can be found here.
Distributed by RINF Alternative News
Views: 2
You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!
Replies
The problem is that the radiation will eventually make it's way to the U.S. west coast per ocean current. And the knee-jerk liberals of California will probably respond to this with wanting to close down all nuclear power plants. This is opposed to the addressing of the problem per public safety hazards that involve the building or establishment of a nuclear plant near an earthquake fault zone (which never should have happened in the first place).