IAEA Official: “What we are trying to say is consider” putting all the toxic Fukushima water in Pacific — Impact on human health must be monitored — Nearby countries all against it (PHOTO)

Published: December 4th, 2013 at 1:25 pm ET


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.”

Presentation by Lake Barrett, currently a Tepco adviser (2011)

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.

See also: [intlink id=”gundersen-they-want-to-dump-all-fukushimas-radioactive-water-into-pacific-tepco-it-will-be-diluted-then-released-professor-suggests-pumping-it-out-in-deep-ocean-videos” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Published: December 4th, 2013 at 1:25 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Japan Study: “Contamination levels are possibly higher than Chernobyl” from Fukushima disaster — Human health must be carefully and continuously monitored — Highly contaminated river soil in Tokyo metropolitan area October 22, 2013
  2. Scientists: ‘Spheres’ of radioactive material from Fukushima reported for first time — Ball-like particles composed of cesium, iron, zinc — Solid and insoluble in water — Impact on human health needs to be examined (PHOTOS) October 24, 2013
  3. Washington Post: It’s an environmental disaster, radioactivity levels in ocean hundreds of times above normal — NHK: Countries around Pacific worried about ongoing Fukushima leaks, gov’t wants testing up to 3,000 km offshore (VIDEO) October 22, 2013
  4. Record cesium levels at Pacific Ocean sampling location north of Fukushima plant — Spikes to 6,900 Bq/m³ from ‘not detected’ in one day March 17, 2014
  5. Jiji: Cover-up of true radiation levels Fukushima residents were exposed to? WHO accused of underestimating disaster’s impact on human health December 15, 2012

177 comments to IAEA Official: “What we are trying to say is consider” putting all the toxic Fukushima water in Pacific — Impact on human health must be monitored — Nearby countries all against it (PHOTO)

  • eyesopennND

    I believe they built a few tanks just for face and been dumping the rest. That's why they built them so it would keep us from asking where they've been storing this. But a question of mine is , can radioactive water distill itself ?

  • markww markww

    I wrote over a year ago how to build a filter system,to get rid of the radiation


  • unincredulous unincredulous

    So, is the IAEE going to fine them the usual fine for toxic emissions? Are they going to let coal companies dump CO2 and whatever they want into the air? After all, CO2 gets "diluted" in the air, too. —or is this special deal only for the nuke industry? Not arguing for either, just crossed my mind. Don't want the nuke industry to rewrite reality here and show this as "normal" on the books.

  • Seeker

    Weren't the IAEApologists supposed to report on the work at #4 in late Nov.? Why the sudden silence?

    I do admit to not listening to Shimatsu every Mon at Rense–it makes me nonfunctional it's so sad.

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Give Peace a Chance
    – John Lennon

    Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
    Radism, Cancerism, Toxism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
    This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
    All we are saying is give nukes a chance
    All we are saying is give nukes a chance

    Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
    Prime Minister, Sinister, sequesters and Canisters,
    Liars, Buyers, Geigers, and Diapers, Bye bye, Bye byes
    All we are saying is give nukes a chance
    All we are saying is give nukes a chance

    (Let me tell you now)
    Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
    Revolution, Evolution, Masturbation, Radiation, Regulation,
    disintegrations, remediations, United Nations, corrupted nations
    All we are saying is give nukers a chance
    All we are saying is give nukers a chance

    Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
    Arnie and Maggie, Timmy Leary, Mochizuki,
    Caring for others, Bobby Dylan, William Cooper,
    Radiated sailors, Norman Mailer, Titanic and iceburg, Hare Krishna
    Hare Hare Krishna
    All we are saying is give nukers a chance
    All we are saying is give nukers a chance

  • 富岡_Blue_Heron 富岡_Blue_Heron

    The next suggestion:
    Oh, why don't we just bulldoze the whole steaming pile into the Pacific? We have reached the border of Feasibility and will cast (your) fate to the winds…

  • srlf

    No way! This idea is unconscionable!
    Japan should keep building storage tanks until their failed nuclear facilities are decommissioned! Where is the accountability? The General Electric Corporation, and its shareholders, which designed the flawed reactors should have to foot some of that bill as well. Or, does crime pay now? If so, all bets are off.
    GE designers resigned in the face of GE's pushing through the flawed Mark I reactor that was exported to Fukushima and around the U.S. They knew it would probably cause major problems. That is criminal activity on the part of GE in my book.

    • 富岡_Blue_Heron 富岡_Blue_Heron

      "…does crime pay now?"


    • babbo dorian babbo dorian

      Well… I guess that maybe GE should store all the pured water into billions of tanks…. until no more water in oceans…. and then?
      Or a solution is available or …. will be available in …. when?

    • hogy

      Hey–doesn't most civilian, especially white collar bureaucrat, crime pay?

  • Sol Man

    It is not the Pacific Ocean, it is the One Global Ocean.

  • newsblackoutUSA newsblackoutUSA

    The IAEA is a Cartel along with the NRC. This will kill the Pacific and then the world

    "We will respond by considering the advice" from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a news conference.

    Juan Carlos Lentijo, who led an IAEA team to Japan, said in Tokyo on Wednesday that "controlled discharge is a regular practice in all the nuclear facilities in the world," and suggested the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant mull it as an option.

    The operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co, has been struggling to deal with a massive amount of radioactive water at the plant, which suffered meltdowns at three of its six reactors after being hit by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

    The IAEA team spent 10 days observing the decommissioning process at the Fukushima plant, 230 kilometres north-east of Tokyo.

  • JimSavetp

    I need to know the detail of your filtering idea. Am I near the mark (no pun) when I say you might need large amounts of power to pump, filter and sequestrate ?
    I am an inventor in the UK and what I’ve tried to get across is the means to do what Edison could have done if only he’d stopped dwelling on his popularity.
    I suspect I’m treading on hallowed ground here ; NASA has the means to reduce frictional losses in generators to an insignificant level. Look up FES. It’s not the storage bit I’m interested in, but the friction reduction.
    I’ve found it’s possible to reduce induction braking to insignificance. Put the two together ?
    I posted some time ago and asked several questions. As the stuff is already there it is obvious that it can only be removed by filtering. But if you have as much fire power to remove it as gravity has had to get it there then there might be a chance that it can be removed ?
    I wonder if we have the time, of course, but, with a massive effort, a multiplicity of low power pump/filter/sequestrate devices could be deployed to save the ocean(s) and the wildlife ?
    The powers-at-be (if that is how we might refer to them at this juncture) could save face ?

  • 2015 Update – Total Fukushima Radiation Released Into Ocean, Air, Groundwater, Storage Tanks, etc; via @AGreenRoad

  • Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations, CIA, Journalism And The 1%, Whistleblowers, Voting, Elections And Solutions