Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Expert Comment On Release of Waste Water From Fukushima Into The Sea
Expert Comment On Release of Waste Water From Fukushima Into The Sea
Expert Comment On Release of Waste Water From Fukushima Into The Sea
Associate Professor Nigel Marks, Professor in Physics & Astronomy, Curtin University, Perth,
Australia, said:
“Japan is about to start releasing treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power
plant into the Pacific Ocean. At first, this sounds like a terrible idea, but in fact, it is sensible
and safe. Similar releases have occurred around the world for decades, and nothing bad has
ever happened.
“The radioactivity in the Fukushima water is almost entirely tritium, a form of hydrogen. For
scale, the Pacific Ocean contains 8,400 grams of pure tritium, while Japan will release 0.06
grams of tritium every year. The minuscule amount of extra radiation won’t make the tiniest
jot of difference. A lifetime’s worth of seafood caught a few kilometres from the ocean outlet
has the tritium radiation equivalent of one bite of a banana.
“In South Korea and Pacific Rim nations, a disinformation campaign has whipped the public
into a frenzy about the release. In truth, almost everything is radioactive, including the
Pacific Ocean, where tritium accounts for a modest 0.04% of total radioactivity. Increasing
this tiny amount by a tiny amount is hardly end-of-the-world stuff. It is time for informed
scientists to stand up and be counted, and face down the doomsayers.”
Tony Irwin, Honorary Associate Professor, Australian National University and Technical
Director of SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd and Chair of Engineers Australia Sydney
Division Nuclear Engineering Panel, Canberra, Australia, said:
“The Fukushima water discharge is not an event without precedent. Nuclear power plants
worldwide have routinely discharged water containing tritium for over 60 years without
harm to people or the environment, most at higher levels than the 22 TBq per year that is
planned at Fukushima.
“For comparison, in South Korea the Kori plant discharged 91 TBq in 2019, more than four
times the planned Fukushima discharge. Provided the levels of all dangerous radioisotopes
are below regulatory levels, the planned discharge at Fukushima is very conservative. So the
key question is do TEPCO accurately measure what is in the tanks to be discharged?
“The IAEA have carried out a series of missions. Their latest report, issued May 2023,
reviews the determination of radionuclides in ALPS-treated water. Samples were taken from
the first batch of ALPS-treated water expected to be discharged into the sea and
independently analysed by TEPCO, by the IAEA at its labs in Monaco, Seibersdorf and
Vienna, and in third-party labs in France, South Korea, Switzerland and the USA. The results
show a very high level of agreement between all the labs. Importantly, neither the IAEA, nor
the participating third-party laboratories, detected any additional radionuclides (i.e.
radionuclides beyond what is included in the source term) at significant levels.
“The planned discharge is ultra-conservative.”
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-release-of-waste-water-from-fukushima-into-the-
sea-expected-later-this-year/
Comprehension Questions
1. What topic does the article discuss?
2. What is the Japanese government's plan regarding the Fukushima nuclear site wastewater?
3. According to Professor Smith, has there been any significant impact on ecosystems from
similar releases in other parts of the world?
4. Does Professor Smith suggest exploring other options for the wastewater disposal?
5. Why does the United States and France release their wastewater?
6. What does the Chinese government plan to do regarding the Fukushima wastewater?
7. What is the plan of the Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Japanese Government
regarding wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant?
8. 8. Has the International Atomic Energy Agency verified the safety and regulatory standards
of the Japanese government's plan?
9. 9. Does Professor Hooker foresee any environmental or human health impacts from the
wastewater disposal plan?
10. 10. What is an alternative method for wastewater disposal proposed by the Pacific Island
Forum Scientific Panel?