4 ms·

> Umm, what's the controversy here? Fear of radiation, fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say th

> Umm, what's the controversy here? Fear of radiation, fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will. Personally it seems safe to me and I’m confident the IAEA’s monitoring will be effective, but then again I’m living on the other side of the planet, so …

lifthrasiir 3y ago
> [...] fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will. Especially given the fact that Naoto Kan, the prime minister of Japan at the time of the Fukushima accident, had to go to the TEPCO HQ to force them to continue the response instead of giving up and watching a full meltdown. Japan has a lot to do in order to regain the lost trust.
- minebreaker 3y ago
  So sad that many Japanese saw it as a micro management and blamed him
- Prickle 3y ago
  Regaining trust is IMO, impossible with all current politicians. The government has basically designated the nuclear agency seat as a "Send the guy we don't like there" seat. Only incompetent idiots have been placed there since Fukushima. Add in all the BS red-tape that the government made up, the notoriously slow bureaucracy, and sometimes even sabotage? (Combine that with the new nuclear regulation agency created after Fukushima, which complicates it further) It's not happening without a strongman leading the charge and really forcing it. Would be great if we could copy-paste France's setup. But Japan is obtuse and inflexible.
Prickle 3y ago
To be fair, TEPCO is completely and absolutely untrustworthy. There is evidence of severe miss-management, as well as 2 cases where they deliberately ignored safety warning from government agencies. As a Japanese citizen, I would feel safer seeing the TEPCO corporation dismantled, and it's leadership behind bars. But the courts declared them not guilty. A late addition, but I should also add info about Onagawa Nuclear Powerplant. It survived the exact same disaster with no melt down, only because the manager staunchly refused to back down on constant safety training and disaster drills. Of course, to the frustration and chagrin of upper management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- ammo1662 3y ago
  https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230824/k10014172021000.html https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230824/k10014172021000.ht... and also https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20200210_alps.pdf https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi... They seems to be more willing to put money on propaganda instead of actually dealing with the problem. Just check the page 7. - Discharge into the sea: 3.4 billion yen - Vapor release: 34.9 billion yen - Hydrogen release: 100 billion yen - Underground burial: 243.1 billion yen And for propaganda, 70 billion yen
  - freetime2 3y ago
    Japan has spent more than ¥4 trillion on the decontamination effort so far. So it's definitely not true that they have spent more on propaganda than "actually dealing with the problem". > Total decontamination costs have exceeded 4 trillion yen as of the end of December. Going forward, additional costs are projected to grow by trillions of yen. [1] Is ¥70 billion a lot? Sure. But to put it in perspective, more than $14 billion (¥2 trillion) was spent on federal election campaigns in the US in 2020 [2]. Gaining public favor is expensive in a democratic country. And misinformation is a real problem with real costs (e.g. to Japan’s fishing industry) - so it makes sense economically as well as politically. [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United...
freetime2 3y ago
So people don't trust the Japanese government or TEPCO. That's fine, and that's why the IAEA is there monitoring. Don't trust the IAEA? I feel like anyone should be able to conduct independent testing on water and fish samples from the area.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  > Don't trust the IAEA? You can trust the IAEA to actually do monitoring, and also believe that monitoring might be not effective enough. The IAEA failed to effectively monitor the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade, so why should we expect the opposite? > I feel like anyone should be able to conduct independent testing on water and fish samples from the area. You have to tap into the wastewater source, which is much more hard to do independently and also why the IAEA had to show up. The wastewater will then be subject to the ocean currents, so the actual effect would be inconsistent and delayed (up to 10 years, according to simulations). At that point nothing could be done about the year-long dump.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > The IAEA failed to effectively monitor the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade, Wwhich decade was that then (more to the point why did they fail to monitor if they were montoring?) There's a big difference between easy monitoring of peacetime allied country nuclear reactors and monitoring the enrichment program of a country actively attempting to develp weapons grade material in the absence of any binding agreements.
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      > [Which] decade was that then (more to the point why did they fail to monitor if they were montoring?) 2009--2019 if my understanding is correct. Note that this period does overlap with major sanctions against Iran, and since the IAEA itself later acknowledged the breach of agreements in this period, it's fair to say that the IAEA monitoring was not as effective compared to Western intelligences. > There's a big difference between easy monitoring of peacetime allied country nuclear reactors and monitoring the enrichment program of a country actively attempting to develp weapons grade material in the absence of any binding agreements. This doesn't matter, because it does show that countries can hide (or more accurately, delay the detection of) evidences if they are really willing to do so. And the absence of any binding agreements actually gives Japan more incentive to do that.

lifthrasiir 3y ago

> [...] fear that the Japanese government / Fukushima’s owners can’t be trusted to release only what they say they will. Especially given the fact that Naoto Kan, the prime minister of Japan at the time of the Fukushima accident, had to go to the TEPCO HQ to force them to continue the response instead of giving up and watching a full meltdown. Japan has a lot to do in order to regain the lost trust.

minebreaker 3y ago
So sad that many Japanese saw it as a micro management and blamed him
Prickle 3y ago
Regaining trust is IMO, impossible with all current politicians. The government has basically designated the nuclear agency seat as a "Send the guy we don't like there" seat. Only incompetent idiots have been placed there since Fukushima. Add in all the BS red-tape that the government made up, the notoriously slow bureaucracy, and sometimes even sabotage? (Combine that with the new nuclear regulation agency created after Fukushima, which complicates it further) It's not happening without a strongman leading the charge and really forcing it. Would be great if we could copy-paste France's setup. But Japan is obtuse and inflexible.

Prickle 3y ago

To be fair, TEPCO is completely and absolutely untrustworthy. There is evidence of severe miss-management, as well as 2 cases where they deliberately ignored safety warning from government agencies. As a Japanese citizen, I would feel safer seeing the TEPCO corporation dismantled, and it's leadership behind bars. But the courts declared them not guilty. A late addition, but I should also add info about Onagawa Nuclear Powerplant. It survived the exact same disaster with no melt down, only because the manager staunchly refused to back down on constant safety training and disaster drills. Of course, to the frustration and chagrin of upper management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

ammo1662 3y ago
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230824/k10014172021000.html https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230824/k10014172021000.ht... and also https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20200210_alps.pdf https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi... They seems to be more willing to put money on propaganda instead of actually dealing with the problem. Just check the page 7. - Discharge into the sea: 3.4 billion yen - Vapor release: 34.9 billion yen - Hydrogen release: 100 billion yen - Underground burial: 243.1 billion yen And for propaganda, 70 billion yen
- freetime2 3y ago
  Japan has spent more than ¥4 trillion on the decontamination effort so far. So it's definitely not true that they have spent more on propaganda than "actually dealing with the problem". > Total decontamination costs have exceeded 4 trillion yen as of the end of December. Going forward, additional costs are projected to grow by trillions of yen. [1] Is ¥70 billion a lot? Sure. But to put it in perspective, more than $14 billion (¥2 trillion) was spent on federal election campaigns in the US in 2020 [2]. Gaining public favor is expensive in a democratic country. And misinformation is a real problem with real costs (e.g. to Japan’s fishing industry) - so it makes sense economically as well as politically. [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United...

freetime2 3y ago

So people don't trust the Japanese government or TEPCO. That's fine, and that's why the IAEA is there monitoring. Don't trust the IAEA? I feel like anyone should be able to conduct independent testing on water and fish samples from the area.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
> Don't trust the IAEA? You can trust the IAEA to actually do monitoring, and also believe that monitoring might be not effective enough. The IAEA failed to effectively monitor the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade, so why should we expect the opposite? > I feel like anyone should be able to conduct independent testing on water and fish samples from the area. You have to tap into the wastewater source, which is much more hard to do independently and also why the IAEA had to show up. The wastewater will then be subject to the ocean currents, so the actual effect would be inconsistent and delayed (up to 10 years, according to simulations). At that point nothing could be done about the year-long dump.
- defrost 3y ago
  > The IAEA failed to effectively monitor the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade, Wwhich decade was that then (more to the point why did they fail to monitor if they were montoring?) There's a big difference between easy monitoring of peacetime allied country nuclear reactors and monitoring the enrichment program of a country actively attempting to develp weapons grade material in the absence of any binding agreements.
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    > [Which] decade was that then (more to the point why did they fail to monitor if they were montoring?) 2009--2019 if my understanding is correct. Note that this period does overlap with major sanctions against Iran, and since the IAEA itself later acknowledged the breach of agreements in this period, it's fair to say that the IAEA monitoring was not as effective compared to Western intelligences. > There's a big difference between easy monitoring of peacetime allied country nuclear reactors and monitoring the enrichment program of a country actively attempting to develp weapons grade material in the absence of any binding agreements. This doesn't matter, because it does show that countries can hide (or more accurately, delay the detection of) evidences if they are really willing to do so. And the absence of any binding agreements actually gives Japan more incentive to do that.