One of the most interesting topics is the Japanese government's decision to release the contaminated water used to cool the reactors damaged by the Fukushima nuclear accident into the Pacific Ocean.
The daily maintenance of the Fukushima Daiichi plant generates the equivalent of 140 tons of contaminated water, which - despite being treated in the reclamation plants, continues to contain tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Just over 1,000 tanks have accumulated in the area adjacent to the plant, the equivalent of 1.25 million tons of liquid, and according to the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the tanks will reach the maximum capacity allowed. by the summer of 2022.
The communication comes from a press conference held by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who met with executive members, including Industry Minister Hiroshi Kajiyama, to formalize the decision, which comes exactly 10 years after the March 2011 catastrophe. Such is the uproar aroused in the opposition, from public opinion to the fishing industry passing through the representatives of local agriculture, who still see vividly in their memories the disastrous accident of 2011.
A strong and conflicting reaction to the decision of the Japanese government has been had in recent hours by the governments of the states bordering the Pacific Ocean and by the Japanese NGOs, extremely concerned that the spill into the sea of what they are, at all the effects of radioactive waste, even if diluted to the point of not being considered a danger to human health, can lead to long-distance environmental consequences that are devastating from an ecological and economic point of view.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a 2011 nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. The event was caused by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.
The South Korean Foreign Ministry summoned Japanese Ambassador Koichi Aiboshi and presented a formal protest after Koo Yun Cheol, Minister for Government Policy Coordination, said Seoul "strongly opposes" the release of more than 1.25 at sea. millions of tons of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
China has urged Japan not to release the radioactive water treated and accumulated in the plant over 10 years "without authorization" from other countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency (Aiea) into the sea. "China reserves the right to give further responses" to Tokyo's move, Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said.
"We are aware of the decision taken by the government of Japan" to dump the radioactive waters of the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean. A spokesman for the European Commission said this in response to a question from journalists. "The Commission expects the Japanese authorities to guarantee full safety in the spill operation in full compliance with its national and international obligations - added the spokesperson -. Full transparency in this type of operation is important. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep in touch with our Japanese counterparts ".
Greenpeace Japan strongly condemns the decision of the government led by Prime Minister Suga to have more than 1.23 million tons of radioactive wastewater stored in tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant discharged into the Pacific Ocean. This is what is stated in a note from the organization. "This decision completely ignores the human rights and interests of the people of Fukushima and in general of Japan and the part of Asia bordering the Pacific," argues Greenpeace. "The Japanese government has once again disappointed the citizens of Fukushima," said Kazue Suzuki of Greenpeace Japan's climate and energy campaign. "The government - he continues - has taken the totally unjustified decision to deliberately contaminate the Pacific Ocean with radioactive water. It has ignored both the risks associated with radiation exposure and the evidence of sufficient availability of contaminated water storage at the site. nuclear power and surrounding districts. Instead of using the best existing technology to minimize the risks of radiation exposure by storing the water for the long term and treating it properly to reduce contamination, it was decided to go for the cheaper option, discharging the water. water in the Pacific Ocean ". Greenpeace, the note reads, supports the people of Fukushima, including fishing communities, in their efforts to stop these plans.
One analysis, in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, stated that Government agencies and TEPCO were unprepared for the "cascading nuclear disaster" and the tsunami that "began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima". In March 2012, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that the government shared the blame for the Fukushima disaster, saying that officials had been blinded by a false belief in the country's "technological infallibility", and were taken in by a "safety myth". Noda said "Everybody must share the pain of responsibility.
What will be the future of international treaties between these actors? What will be decided on the international political front of the Japanese government's need to dispose of the radioactive waste accumulated in recent years? And how much longer can this situation go on before generating other and much more serious international frictions?
International water legislation clearly states that it is necessary to avoid as much as possible that the actions of a state have repercussions on other states that directly overlook the same aquifer, even and above all since it is an ocean, as in the case of the Pacific Ocean.
Above all, it will also be important to assess the environmental impact of these radioactive waste spills, as well as the economic impact at the level of the populations who, with fishing and activities closely linked to the ocean, live and prosper there.
Personally I wonder how the relations between the various protagonists of this story will evolve, especially considering the mainly economic relations between Japan and Western countries.
Will we witness the classic case of the unequal treatment of a "friendly" state to the detriment of public health and the environment?
I will try to keep an eye on the situation, trying to deepen, where possible, with the legal and political implications, of an issue that, unfortunately, will go unnoticed to most.
Comments