The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
Fukushima seafood businesses adapt as treated water release looms
By Takaki Tominaga FUKUSHIMA©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
46 Comments
Login to comment
Sanjinosebleed
If there was a better reason than this to stop all Nuclear plants still operating |I can't find it!
Larr Flint
They adapt to new reality without work as no one is going to buy products from that area.
I would never eat anything from Fukushima.
kurisupisu
After the disaster, the suspect vegetables,fruit and fish were sold all over Japan
Strange that a nuclear disaster would elicit such a response
Continued contamination doesn’t make the prefecture safer but more unsafe
Where is the radioactive debris being stored?
No news on that
What are the effects on the local population?
Very sparse on that added to which is a policy of NOT encouraging people to come forward for testing
The inhabitants of Fukushima must be extremely discouraged
Rodney
it’s not just Fukushima mate. Cancer causing radiation doesn’t stop at one particular prefectural border. Or coastline.
nosuke
Oh oh biohazard. Stay away from eating fish
Patricia Yarrow
..."other radioactive materials like cesium and strontium" are included in the water, along with the relatively safe (as I understand it) tritium. This is worrisome.
The usual whitewashing: "The Japanese government will aid fishermen through a new 50 billion yen in addition to a previously announced 30 billion yen fund, so they can deal with reputational damage..."
Right, how are they going to do that? A cute fish mascot with a little atomic symbol on its forehead?
Why not store the water in the local destroyed hamlets? Surely the mayors of those tiny towns with near zero inhabitants would come to the aid of the fisherman and Japan's reputation by hosting the towers of waste water?
SAME#
Why invest this money in this fishing industry, they should help them transition to another job. As pointed by others here, most of the people worry about the health risks and won't buy Fukushima or Fukushima adjacent products (fish, meat or fruits or vegetables).
dan
I avoid any food or drinks made in Fukushima.
It's a health hazard.
Disillusioned
How are they going to adapt? Are they going to sell imported fish? Nobody is going to eat anything caught off the east coast of Japan after they start releasing the water. Fish mongers from southern Chiba to Hokkaido are going to suffer greatly.
Trapped
It's pleasing to see that the fishing co-ops will be supported, but how about the tourism industry? Recreational fishermen, surfers, summer beach goers, etc will be less willing to frequent the East Coast at substantial loss to local eateries and lodges. Plus the mental pressure put upon those recreational users. Perhaps free wave machines and fishing parks are in order.
Clay
I'd advise more Fukushima fish sales to Restaurants, no transparency needed unlike grocery stores, DITTO for veggies, fruits, etc.
wallace
Processed food does not state of origin. Commercial rice is unmarked. Fish is marked by where it is landed not caught.
Hideomi Kuze
Far-right LDP government and Tepco of Japan who easily betrayed even promise with fishery groups always involve deception or falsehood to make dangerousness looks smaller.
For example, Contaminated liquid that LDP government and Tepco and major media of Japan call "treated water" directly touched melted reactor debris of Fukushima nuclear plants and contains many kinds of radioactivity except tritium, it's different to treated water from other nuclear plants.
Last month, at G7 environmental meeting, Japanese minister said that "releasing treated water to pacific was welcomed from other countries", but German minister denied it soon.
MiuraAnjin
So much fear of the unknown.
Sunken nuclear submarines such as the Komsomolets emit far higher levels of radiation from damaged reactors and nuclear weapons, yet the amount detectable just yards from the wrecks is negligible.
As Suzuki-san states; education is key.
Roy Sophveason
They actually do, by several means.
First of all, every year the fuel processing plants in La Hague and Sellafield are dumping roughly 400 times the amount of tritium into the the Irish Sea and the English Channel. The environment around their dumping outlet is monitored very closely, and so far there has not been any environmental impact.
Secondly, the amount of tritium in the waste water can be measured. It will not increase the amount of tritium in the sea water because the sea water already has more tritium in it than Fukushima's waste water does. The sea water is actually still recovering from the nuclear weapons tests of the '70s and '80s. In theory the waste water will actually lower the amount of tritium in the sea, but its amount is so small it will not make much of an impact.
Of course they do. They know how much they have right now, they have a valve, and there are strict plans about the amount of waste water they will release: about 22 Terabecquerel of tritium every year. That sounds a lot, but it's just about 60 milligrams. That's roughly the amount of tritium contained in 24 self-illuminating exit signs -- you know, those things that hang everywhere and are usually just thrown out and dumped into landfills.
As this article demonstrates, the waste water release is toxic ... but chiefly to the reputation of the food and tourist industry in Fukushima.
lunatic
Where is this data coming from?
Why won't you stop repeating the same unfounded data again and again.
Roy Sophveason
This particular datapoint comes from the Radiological report of the French environment from 2015 to 2017/Mission Report 2018 issued by the IRSN (L'Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire)
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:52054106 or https://www.mesure-radioactivite.fr/sites/default/files/styles/sites/public/irsn-envbilan-radiologique-france-2015-2017-en.pdf
Just because it doesn't fit your preconception doesn't make it "unfounded". Sorry.
Roy Sophveason
Let's see. They have been collecting water for ten years, and they plan to release the collected amount over ten years. After a lot of complicated math one might come to the conclusion that each year they will release about one year's worth of water.
Which means that even if they need to continue to produce waste water (which is pretty much a given, obviously), the amount they release per year will be constant, and constantly very low radioactive at the projected 22 TBq/year.
Of course one cannot do an environmental study of the future. That's why need to rely on the many environmental studies of the past. Environmental monitoring of the impact of radioactive liquid discharges has been done for decades. I cited one above. You need to keep in mind that it is not uncommon for facilities dumping radioactive waste water into the se, with much higher levels of radioactivity than the planned Fukushima waste water release.
If I actually had any chemistry knowledge I would know that ... suspensions would settle over time, and therefore are the easiest to remove? I would maybe even know the difference between a suspension and colloidal radionuclides?
Maybe.
Peter Neil
The tritium in storage has already decayed by half and will continue to decay.
The decay to a beta particle (electron) doesn’t even penetrate the skin and if ingested by sea life is excreted quickly - by the time it’s caught and shipped and cooked. And you’re going to excrete any infinitesimal concentration, too.
You could eat an olympic size pool of fish (the preferred volumetric unit for people now) and it would affect you less than that one airline flight and the gamma radiation you’re exposed to or the RF from holding your phone to your head- which you should not do.
Hysteria isn’t a good look. Stop it.
lunatic
The IAEA is not allowed to take samples on site.
All our estimates and assumptions are based on TEPCO's fabricated numbers.
TEPCO has been fabricating numbers since the beginning of the crisis.
wallace
IAEA has no power.
If the numbers are fabricated what is your source for them?
Roy Sophveason
On October 19, 2022, IAEA visited Fukushima Daiichi and witnessed, in person, TEPCO's sampling of the ALPS treated water from the measurement and verification facility. That was the third time the IAEA observed the sampling. Unless you believe that TEPCO's engineers are playing a sleight of hand magic trick when taking the samples in front of the IAEA's officials' eyes, and it's only valid if the officials dip their hands into the waste water themselves, that should really be good enough for you.
That doesn't make any sense, though. Any fabrications would be eventually be discovered when they are actually releasing the water and independent sources can and will confirm what they are releasing at the point of release. Which, again, includes the IAEA and several other environmental organisations.
lunatic
The IAEA is insisting in every report and public appearance that they want to take samples on site by themselves.
Doesn't that rise any red flag on you?
Why ain't you asking for more transparency and less red tape?
Roy Sophveason
They are monitoring, in person, the taking of samples.
They are monitoring the taking of samples in person.
They are, in person, monitoring the taking of samples.
I'm running out of permutations here, please tell me you understood one of those sentences.
wallace
The IAEA exists to promote nuclear energy.
I can't ask for anything I don't have that influence and I doubt anyone here does although at least one Indian worker was posting here.
Where are the sources iAEA wants to take samples from?
lunatic
On site. Every tank, puddle, and body of water there.
Haven't we learnt anything since TEPCO was downsizing the radiation numbers after the Fukushima meltdown?
They were sharing the data.
What they didn't tell you is that the data was taken 2m over the ground.
Roy Sophveason
Wait what? wallace is actually arguing *against*** **me.
Please take this in the most nonconfrontional way, but: Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension? It would explain your constant severe misinterpretation of the available source material.
wallace
I am not arguing against anyone. Just posting my opinions.
wallace
lunatic
where are your sources stating IAEA wants to take water samples? Never read any.
I don't mean the water, the request for testing the water.
Their figures quickly became truful once they understood the serious of the situation. If anything, it has become more difficult finding the data, its there but not designed to encourage people.
The normal level for reading radiation is 2 meters, the level we breathe.
SAFECAST and Greenpeace also made reading at that level which allows for measuring by mobile car.
lunatic
Let's put it in the simplest way possible.
Last reports from IAEA are consistently asking for permission to take samples themselves.
I've been telling you ever since, but you don't seem to understand the gravity of that statement.
https://japantoday.com/category/picture-of-the-day/koreans-protest-fukushima-water-release-1#comment-3613322
wallace
lunatic
can you provide an actual link to the IAEA reports so I can read them?
lunatic
Last Official Report from IAEA [Question 9]
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2022/infcirc1007.pdf
TEPCO already lost our trust.
We won't forgive them this quickly.
That's not the way it's done. It should be measured at ground level.
What's up with smaller people?
Our kids are playing in public parks and eating their bento sitting on the ground.
Roy Sophveason
You keep saying that, and I keep asking you for a source that corroborates that. I'm still waiting.
(JFTR, the source you keep citing disjointed sentences from doesn't. That's a transcript of a Q&A between China, Russia and Japan, the IAEA was not involved and not the questioner.)
wallace
lunatic
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2022/infcirc1007.pdf
Thank you for the link, Read question 9. Does not say TEPCO denied IAEA.
"TEPCO’s monitoring results will be reviewed by IAEA experts, and cross-checked by
third-party institutions, as a means to demonstrate that the analysis has been reliably
performed and that the obtained analysis values are appropriate"
*
*
For many people, that is true.
It is the way it is done the world over because we don't breathe at ground level.
Your kids are not in Fukushima I would guess. Most of the country only has background radiation levels. Check for yourself.
http://jciv.iidj.net/map/
lunatic
In the www.iaea.org you can read all reports.
The link above is the official TEPCO answer to the IAEA question.
Is even more clarifying than the other one-way reports from IAEA.
lunatic
Political lingo is difficult to catch, let me remark the important bit for you.
[Question]
Will the Japanese side allow experts from the relevant countries to sample the nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea on site?
[Answer]
Samples to be analyzed by TEPCO and its outsourcing contractors
Looks like we both were wrong on this one. Official answer is 1m. ...genitalia level, they say.
Roy Sophveason
No. It is not. It is Japan's (not TEPCO's) answer to either Russia or China's question (the transcript does not make it clear which one, or both, asked). The IAEA was not involved, it just received that transcript by way of its permanent office in Japan and decided to circulate it amongst its members.
You also keep calling it an "official report", which it isn't. It is an information circular, which one could gather from its title, "Information Circular".
You keep misrepresenting this document, over and over and over. It is not what you are saying it is. It is not from who you're saying it is from. It doesn't say what you're saying it does.
If you want a real report, here's the latest one, fittingly titled "Report 3: Status of IAEA’s Independent Sampling, Data Corroboration, and Analysis":
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/3rd_alps_report.pdf
xin xin
All uneducated, irrational fears or fear mongering. Fukushima fish has been eaten all over Japan for some years now with no abnormality.
lunatic
yeah!
that's the thing about radiation.
the health degradation piles up and is only noticeable decades after the exposure.
wallace
lunatic
I am a former electrical engineer with experience in a very wide field including generation but not nuclear. I was here in 2011 and followed that I have read every majority report since including writing articles for Reuters. More recently I have stopped reading most of them.
Which prefecture do you live in I expect you have a radiation counter, given your concerns over your children? If not you can buy one from SAFECAST.
There are numerous radiation devices around Fukushima measuring 1 meter. Unless in an area of high levels, I don't think it matters much, and certainly not outside the contaminated areas of Fukushima.
Have you spent any time in those Fukushima areas? if not you have nothing to fear.
For four years, I have been having cancer treatment. I am now clear. But with all the scans and treatment I have more radiation than walking around most areas of Fukushima.
lunatic
If you are really a men of science, please don't be apologetic to TEPCO.
We must force them to be 100% transparent.
When the TEPCO apologies and the bowing starts on National TV, it will be too late.
Please don't trumpet any TEPCO numbers/declarations on social media like they were reliable.
Always double check before posting.
wallace
lunatic
Whenever was I apologetic?
Are you Japanese, otherwise foreigners have no power to force the government or TEPCO to do anything.
They have already do that
I don't have any social media
Always double check before posting.
I usually do.
Which prefecture do you live in and do you have a Gieger Counter? Have you been to Fukushima?
lunatic
Tokyo, with 2 small kids.
You can imagine my deception when the real data got leaked 2 months after the triple Meltdown.
And here we go again, same people in charge is about to deceive us again.
wallace
lunatic
then you are very safe In Tokyo with radiation background levels less than many other countries.