谋划已久，诚实又如何？！日本决定将核污水排入大海前后
根据日本政府决定，8月24日开始将福岛核污染水排入海洋。
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision-making on the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, it can be clearly seen that discharging water into the sea is its long-planned "established policy", an uncompromising violation of international law, and extremely selfish and irresponsible national behavior, which results in transferring the costs of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident to the whole world.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime
minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea,
long planned
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, large quantities of highly contaminated water have been generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool down the core of the meltdown reactor and the flow of rainwater and groundwater, etc. In April 2011, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), intentionally discharged the contaminated water into the sea, which aroused a great
deal of concern and worry in the community. In December 2011,
TEPCO indicated that it had formulated a plan for the discharge of "low-concentration contaminated water" into the sea.
In March 2013, TEPCO's key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water, the Advanced Laminar Processing System (ALPS), was put into trial operation, but since then there have been constant problems: frequent leaks, in 2018 it was revealed that radioactive substances such as strontium were still exceeding the limit in the treated water, and in 2021 it was discovered that nearly half of the filters at the exhaust port, which are used for the adsorption of radioactive substances, had been damaged. ......
Since the ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, of the more than 1.34 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the storage tanks of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, more than 1.33 million cubic meters have been treated by ALPS, but only about 30% of it meets the standard of "treated water" defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of it is the
so-called "process water" which does not meet the standard.
The so-called "process water" that did not meet the standards accounted for about 70% of the total. Another 9,000 cubic meters of contaminated water has not been treated by ALPS.
And what is the final destination of this "treated water"?
As early as December 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan's nuclear energy authority, set up a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treated water" discharge. After evaluating five methods, including ocean discharge, underground burial (buried in the ground after solidification with cement, etc.), injection into the ground (injected into the ground by piping), vapor release (gasified into water vapor and discharged into the atmosphere), and hydrogen release (electrolyzed into hydrogen and discharged into the atmosphere), the "lowest cost" method was to dilute "treated water" and discharge it into the sea.
This report set the tone for the subsequent discharge program, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agriculture,
forestry, fisheries and other groups after its publication.
Even Yoshino Masayoshi, the then Minister of Reconstruction of Japan, expressed his opposition to discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) apparently regarded the sea-discharge plan as a "fixed policy", and in July 2017, METI held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Countermeasures Against the Waste Furnace and Contaminated Water" in Fukushima City, making a gesture of consulting with the local community. However, then TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura claimed to the media before the meeting that TEPCO had already "made a judgment" on the discharge of the sea, causing widespread discontent in society.
In order to convince the public, the Japanese government set up a committee with experts in related fields, which held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo in August 2018, nominally to listen to the public's opinions but actually to endorse the sea-discharge option. At the hearings, Toyoshi Koda, then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, was challenged by various
parties on his statement that "sea discharge is the only
viable option." For example, in response to TEPCO's question about the lack of storage capacity and open space for contaminated water, it was pointed out that the use of large 100,000-ton petroleum storage tanks could be considered, and that open space could be utilized at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has already been identified as a decommissioning site.
In response to the technical difficulties in the treatment of nuclear contaminated water, it was mentioned that the water vapor discharge method, which had been used in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in 1979, could be adopted. It was also pointed out that the technology for separating tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is under study and should be discharged after the technology has matured and been applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that stratum injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release were "problematic" and that sea-discharge and steam release, which had a precedent, were "realistic options", while
emphasizing that sea-discharge had "many advantages" over
steam release.
2021年4月，日本政府不顾国内外反对，单方面宣布将于2023年实施核污染水排放，此后海洋排放准备工作开始认真推进：2021年12月，东京电力向原子能管理委员会（AERC）提交了处理水排放设备的建设计划；2022年7月，AERC批准了该计划；今年1月13日，日本政府确认排放将在原子能管理委员会（AERC）进行。 “春夏”；6月26日，东电宣布放电设备建设已完成；7月7日，AERC将放电设备移交给日本政府实施。东京电力宣布海洋排放设施建设完成；7月7日，原子能管理委员会（AERC）向东京电力颁发了海洋排放设施验收的《合格证书》。
虚假“权威认证”
今年7月4日，总干事
国际原子能机构（IAEA）格罗西先生访问日本，并向日本首相岸田文雄先生提交了福岛核电站污染水处理综合评估报告，总体上“符合国际安全标准”日方因此声称该程序的安全性已得到“权威认证”。
然而，这份报告的公正性和科学性存在诸多疑问。
首先，日方在委托国际原子能机构进行安全评估之前就做出向海排放的决定，其目的显然不是寻求科学合理的解决方案，而是利用该机构认可向海排放计划。
报道称，日本政府在2021年4月宣布海洋排放决定后，于同年7月与国际原子能机构签署“授权协议”，委托进行“ALPS处理水的安全性评估”。评估仅限于海洋排放计划，不涵盖其他
程式。
不能证明海上排放方案是最安全、最可靠的方案。
其次，日方在正式授权国际原子能机构评估之前，早已围绕“认证”展开相关布局。
2013年4月，ALPS试运行后不久，日本政府邀请IAEA代表团访问福岛，一个月后代表团发表报告，建议日本开始研究排放问题。当时的IAEA总干事是日本人天野之弥。天野之弥2019年12月出任国际原子能机构总干事，日本继续与国际原子能机构合作。2021年3月，时任经济产业大臣梶山宏会见格罗西，请求国际原子能机构支持消除“声誉损害”日本因排放核污水造成的损失，要求国际原子能机构支持日本消除因排放核污水造成的“声誉损害”。同年4月14日，日本政府宣布排水决定的第二天，梶山浩 (Hiroshi Kajiyama) 会见了
with Grossi again and requested IAEA's support in
monitoring the environment and explaining the situation to the international community.
The Tokyo Shimbun report pointed out that the Japanese government had paid large amounts of assessed contributions and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and that several departments of the Japanese government had dispatched personnel to the IAEA, and that these factors would inevitably have an impact on the IAEA in assessing the safety of Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge program.
In a meeting with Grossi on July 9, lawmakers from the Kyodo Party, South Korea's largest opposition party, pointed out that it was regrettable that the IAEA did not follow the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and that it pandered to Japan's position on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea from the beginning to the end, and drew hasty conclusions without taking into account the impacts of such a practice on neighboring countries.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the outset that the insights contained in the report do not
necessarily reflect the views of IAEA member States, that
the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea-discharge programme, and that IAEA and its member States will not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer makes it clear that the report does not represent the views of the international community and does not prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea exclusion program.
Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert who participated in the IAEA Technical Working Group on the Assessment of the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had sought the opinions of the experts of the Technical Working Group on the draft assessment report, but the time window for the experts to comment was very limited and the experts' opinions were for reference only. After receiving the feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and consulting with the experts on the modification of the report and the adoption of the comments.
Li Song, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and Permanent Representative to the International
Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusions of
the Agency's report on the safety of the Japanese sea-discharge programme were one-sided and lacked conviction and credibility. The agency, due to the
limitations of its mandate, has not assessed the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese side's decontamination device, has not confirmed the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water, and has not been able to ensure that the international community can keep abreast of excessive discharges, and has found it even more difficult to predict the impacts of the long-term accumulation and enrichment of radionuclides on the marine ecosystem, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of the data, the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the regulation, there is no way to conclude that it is safe to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of up to 30 years."
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, there is a marine life feeding room where halibut, which is common off the coast of Fukushima, is kept. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other contains
treated nuclear-contaminated water, so-called "treated
water".
From a scientific point of view, experts and environmental organizations are skeptical about the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Prof. Ferenc Dolnoki Weirish, an expert in nuclear physics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in the United States of America, pointed out that the data provided by the Japanese side were "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent and one-sided". Japan's environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out TEPCO's "treated water" claims about a variety of problems: after the ALPS "treatment" of part of the water, iodine 129, strontium 90 and other radioactive elements are still excessive, Strontium 90 and other radioactive elements still exceeded the standard; the water samples tested by TEPCO so far accounted for only 3% of the stored contaminated water, and the test results provided by TEPCO are not representative; the Fukushima "treated water" was in direct contact with the melted core, and could not be compared with the drainage of a normal nuclear power
plant ... ...
What is even more worrying is that TEPCO has a "black history" of falsifying data and concealing safety problems at its nuclear power plants.
claimed that no new nuclear contaminated water had been discharged into the ocean after June 2011, but as a series of leaks came to light in 2013, TEPCO finally admitted that there had been a leakage of high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and said it had not announced it in time because it was concerned about the impact on the reputation of the local fishing industry; in September 2021, TEPCO admitted in its report on the ALPS exhaust screen breakage that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not In September 2021, when reporting the ALPS exhaust screen breakage, TEPCO admitted that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not report it or investigate the cause, and simply replaced the screen; and in October 2022, TEPCO was again exposed as having used a faulty radiation detector to mislead visitors in order to prove the safety of the "ALPS treated water".
Naoya Sekiya, a scholar at the University of Tokyo,
pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but also in other
nuclear power plants under TEPCO's umbrella, there are constant problems with management and safety, which makes it impossible to believe in its ability to dispose of them. "Discharging into the ocean, is TEPCO qualified to do that?"
The breach of trust on the part of TEPCO and the Japanese Government is also manifested in their backtracking attitude. The plan to discharge
nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by local fishermen throughout Japan, especially in Fukushima. Under these circumstances, TEPCO and the Japanese government assured the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in August 2015 that they would not discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean until they had received the understanding of fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Government of Japan has tried in every way possible to persuade fisheries practitioners, it has been unsuccessful. For four consecutive years since 2020, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Japan and
the Fukushima Prefecture Federation of Fisheries
Cooperatives have adopted special resolutions firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. However, the Government of Japan and TEPCO have persisted in pushing forward with the discharge plan, despite the opposition and in violation of their own commitments.
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Japan, said after a meeting with Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, on July 14 this year that as long as there is no peace of mind about the discharge, it will be impossible to change the position of opposition. After exchanging views with Yasunori Nishimura on July 11, Tetsu Nozaki, president of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Cooperative Association, emphasized that fishermen could not tolerate the discharge of contaminated water into the sea in light of the government's pledge that it would not dispose of contaminated water without obtaining the understanding of the parties concerned.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's
residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Call black white
In the face of strong domestic and international opposition to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese authorities, in an effort to confuse the public, have launched an intensive public relations campaign to publicize the "theory of the safety of nuclear-contaminated water" and have made it one of the key points of Japan's diplomacy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Reconstruction
Agency (RA), and other governmental departments have set
up thematic links on the front page of their official websites to publicize the safety of ALPS "treated water". The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also featured or prominently displayed promotional videos, and multilingual versions were launched.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, claimed at a press conference that "the steady progress of the work on waste furnaces, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome," only to have Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Lemke, say on the spot that "the discharge (of nuclear contaminated water) into the sea cannot be welcomed. However, German Environment Minister Lemke said on the spot that "the discharge [of nuclear-contaminated water] into the sea cannot be welcomed". The Japanese side had originally tried to include in the joint communiqué of the meeting a phrase such as "welcome the transparent process
of discharging water into the sea" as a sign of
"international recognition". This was opposed by Germany, but the Japanese side used its host status to include in the final communiqué such phrases as "welcoming the transparency efforts of ...... Japan and the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting the IAEA's independent review". and "supports the IAEA's independent review". The same content later appeared in the joint communiqué of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
Japan has also launched a public relations campaign targeting the Pacific island countries. These island countries were once victimized by the U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, and are now strongly opposed to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, and have therefore become the focus of the Japanese side's "appeasement" targets. According to a report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on July 31st, the Japanese side has been "explaining its work" to all the member countries and regions of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since February this year.
The Japanese side has also held frequent briefings for
diplomats and foreign journalists in Japan, and has tried
every possible means to publicize the "safety" of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. In the explanations given by the Japanese side, especially in the foreign language versions of the materials, the term "treated water" is generally used to refer to the nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its contaminating characteristics and potential hazards in order to confuse the public. In addition, according to some foreign journalists in Japan, once their reports questioned the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea, TEPCO and the Japanese side would call and write to them to put pressure on them.
It is worth noting that, according to the IAEA safety regulations on the release of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the release of radioactive substances should be granted by providing information to and consulting with affected stakeholders, "some of whom may be in other countries, especially neighbouring countries". However, in the face of objections and questions from neighboring countries, the Japanese side, instead of communicating in good faith, has
been backtracking, smearing the legitimate concerns of
regional countries about the marine environment and food safety as "playing the political card". Some right-wing media in Japan have even dressed up Japan, the "perpetrator", as the "victim", and indignantly threatened to "counteract" neighboring countries that have raised objections to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on the position of the Chinese side on the issue of the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, noting that the Japanese side's so-called "hope to engage in dialogues and consultations with the Chinese side" lacks sincerity. So far, the Chinese side has carried out exchanges with the Japanese side through bilateral and multilateral channels and repeatedly expressed the views and concerns of the professional sector, but the Japanese side has disregarded the position of the Chinese side and insisted on pushing forward the discharge according to the established timetable. "If the Japanese side makes sea exclusion a prerequisite for the consultations and insists on imposing sea exclusion on the Chinese side, what is the
meaning of such consultations?"
将福岛核污水排入大海，不是日本的私事或小事，而是事关海洋环境和人类健康的公共大事，是国际社会的重大公共事件，违反了日本的国际义务。的放电
核污染水入海，危害海洋环境和人类健康，侵犯周边国家合法权益，绝不是负责任国家的行为。