Source: CCTV News Client
An abandoned log cabin near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The clock is still silently stuck in that nightmare moment 12 years ago.
On March 11, 2011, at 14:46 local time in Japan, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck the Pacific region of northeastern Japan, the epicenter was only 60 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and the strong earthquake caused the nuclear power plant reactor to automatically shut down.
Forty-six minutes later, at 15:32, the earthquake triggered a massive tsunami that flooded the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant with a 14-meter-high wave, and the plant lost power.
At about 20:00 on March 11, the reactor, which lost its cooling due to a power outage, began to melt the fuel rods.
Starting at 15:36 on March 12, hydrogen explosions occurred in units 1, 3 and 4 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
At 20:22 on March 12, in order to cool the reactor, the injection of seawater into the atomic furnace officially began. The resulting nuclear-contaminated water containing radioactive material continues to grow to this day.
Twelve years on, the contaminated water has accumulated to 1.3 million tons, and it is still increasing at a rate of 100 tons per day. How to dispose of such a large amount of nuclear-contaminated water tests the conscience and wisdom of decision-makers. The answer given by the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company was that it was filtered and diluted and discharged into the sea. Despite the premise of filtration and dilution, people still cannot understand why the world's highest nuclear accident caused by nuclear pollution water is discharged into the ocean shared by mankind. The controversy and discussion surrounding the discharge of the sea involves many aspects of science, society and law, and has also attracted fishermen, scientists, ordinary citizens and senior government officials.
Mari Kaieda is a member of the House of Representatives of Japan. At the time of the 2011 nuclear accident, he was Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, who participated in and directed the entire process of handling the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident.
Former Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Marisato Kaieda, a member of the House of Representatives of Japan: At this stage, there are still many unclear things about the discharge into the ocean, and there will be many people who are worried, after all, this is radioactive materials from a serious nuclear accident.
Since 2016, the Japanese government has been planning a plan to dispose of nuclear-contaminated water. It is Kaieda's successors in the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry who are implementing this plan.
Hiroshi Kajiyama, then Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry: In the report of the subcommittee (multinuclide removal device), the tank was predicted to be full in August of the following year (2022) at the time point in February last year (2020).
After many communications, our interview request has not yet been answered by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Tokyo Electric Power Company by the time the program is broadcast. We found their explanations for the issues from open sources.
Hiroshi Kajiyama: The small committee discussed five options. Listening to the opinions of all parties, the small committee went through 6 years of discussion. Taking into account various factors, including time constraints, I think it is appropriate to drain the sea.
Shortly after the nuclear accident, in order to deal with the growing amount of contaminated water, the Japanese government established two special subcommittees composed of government officials and relevant experts to discuss and evaluate the technology, cost and social impact of the treatment of contaminated water.
Ryota Koyama, a professor at Fukushima University, has been a member of the Small Committee of the Multinuclide Removal Device (ALPS) organized by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry since 2016.
Ryota Koyama, a professor at Fukushima University in Japan: The Small Committee on Multinuclide Removal Devices (ALPS) is a committee that includes the Prime Minister, and there are two subcommittees under it, one on technical issues related to how to deal with polluted water. For example: how much and how long it takes to discharge water treated by a multinuclide removal unit (ALPS) into the sea, and how much it would cost and how technically feasible it would be if it were buried underground.
After two and a half years of discussion, the Japanese Technical Committee came up with five treatment options. The first option is to inject the contaminated water into the strata at a depth of about 2,500 meters. The second option is to discharge into the ocean, diluting or separating radioactive material from the contaminated water and discharging it into the sea. The third solution, steam discharge, evaporates the nuclear-contaminated water and discharges it into the atmosphere through the exhaust pipe. The fourth solution, electrolytic release, is to discharge the generated hydrogen into the atmosphere by electrolytic reaction of the nuclear contaminated water. The fifth solution is to solidify and landfill, mixing materials such as nuclear contaminated water and cement into a solid state and burying them in the ground. The cost statistics on the table show that it costs the least to discharge into the ocean.
Reporter: The small committee discussed five treatment options for nuclear-contaminated water, can you tell us about the decision-making process at that time?
Ryota Koyama: For example, if you inject into a formation, will it mix with groundwater? Although there are precedents in the world, the practice of emitting into the atmosphere has not been implemented in Japan, so it may be very difficult to explain to the surrounding residents. And ocean emissions do have experience, so the cost is also very low.
Reporter: Is the reason for the decision to choose ocean emissions cost?
Ryota Koyama: The expert group did some cost calculations. For example, with the hydrogen separation method, it will cost about 100 billion yen, if buried in the ground, it will cost 240 billion yen, and discharging into the ocean, which has been done before, so about 3.4 billion yen is enough.
Kenichi Oshima is a professor at Ryukoku University and is known in the industry as "the first person to study the cost of nuclear power." He is also chairman of the Atomic Japan Citizens' Committee, and he and its experts have been following the high-profile discussion.
Kenichi Oshima, a professor at Japan's Ryukoku University: In terms of cost, the cheapest of the five options is the ocean emissions that TEPCO is currently trying, which is calculated to be 3.4 billion yen. This is a rough estimate, not sure if the calculation is appropriate, the result is very simple. Actually, I think that there should be such a process after carefully proposing the cost and listening to the opinions of other researchers and institutions. Unfortunately, the government's commission does not have such a process.
Ryota Koyama: The function of the committee is not to give an opinion on decisions that the government has already taken. However, looking at the work process of the technical committee and what Japan has done so far, I think it is mainly centered on the drainage of the sea.
As an expert member of the Nuclear Forces Citizens' Committee, Kawai observed the entire process of the technical committee's discussions.
Yasuro Kawai, member of the Atomic Power Citizens' Committee: The general public is not allowed to join the committee, but they can observe. That is why I and other members of civic groups and non-governmental organizations have been observing. We looked at what topics they discussed, understood the issues, and discussed with the so-called experts which of the various options was the best.
Reporter: You have observed the meetings of the technical committee many times, what was your impression at that time?
Yasuro Kawai: This is a kind of ceremony, and there was a formal discussion. Of course, there are those in the Committee who wish to avoid discharging the sea as much as possible. However, in the end, the majority of the members of the committee agreed to follow the plan proposed by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, concluded that drainage from the sea was the best option, and issued the report on behalf of the expert committee.
After the technical committee's report, Ryota Koyama's subcommittee on the Multinuclide Removal Unit (ALPS) will begin assessing the social impact of the report.
Reporter: How much authority did the ALPS subcommittee have to make decisions?
Ryota Koyama: There is no decision. By definition, the Multinuclide Removal Device (ALPS) subcommittee assesses the social impact of each of the five approaches, such as the social impact of discharging into the sea, how much trouble it will cause to other countries, and how much impact it will have on regional economies, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, or free trade, which are effectively included in the Recommendation.
Reporter: Why did you decide to drain the sea in the end?
Ryota Koyama: There have been many discussions, including this [drainage sea], such as this in the world, this in Asia, Japan has been doing this, and so on. But this time we have a nuclear accident, and there are advantages and disadvantages in the way we deal with it, such as the cost of the very cheap method, the impact will be great, and so on.
Reporter: What is your opinion on this situation?
Ryota Koyama: So we think that the impact of sea discharge will be huge, for example, the impact on the fishery is not limited to Fukushima, it may affect the entire Japanese fishery, including the influence of public opinion, and even overseas, because the sea is connected. South Korea, China and neighboring countries are also involved in fisheries. But the status quo is that not only Fukushima Prefecture, but all fishermen in Japan are still opposed, and negotiations with China and South Korea, the largest trading nations, have not progressed, and the timing of the discharge into the sea has not progressed. This was not expected. So there will be a lot of worry and anxiety, which will spark an international debate.
Sean Burney, a British nuclear environmental expert: The situation at Fukushima Daiichi is unique in that the contaminated water is water that has come into contact with the melted nuclear fuel, which is the nuclear fuel inside the reactor. This is not normal nuclear power plant operation.
Jay Karen, an oceanographer professor at the University of Victoria in Canada: All nuclear pollutants produced by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, no matter how they are disposed of, will have a certain impact on the environment. So the goal should be to minimize the environmental impact. I don't think there has been a complete assessment of other nuclear waste disposal methods.
Even in Japan, there are many voices of opposition to the decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Hideyuki Fu, co-representative of Japan's Nuclear Intelligence Unit: How does TEPCO judge whether it is reasonable or not? For example, the impact on fisheries has not been assessed. There will be another 30 years, the total amount of release is not clear, the radioactive material will continue to spread in the sea, and this spread, I think it will also have an impact on neighboring countries.
Japanese engineering expert Masashi Goto: No matter how vast the ocean is, how much impact will it have if it is discharged into the sea? It's all speculation now. Once the emissions are really discharged and there is a major accident, who will be liable? This is irreversible.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force in 1994 and has been ratified by more than 150 countries, including Japan. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, States have a general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. The Convention has an important guiding and adjudicative role in the treatment of marine pollution.
Former Judge of the United Nations International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Takanokoku: Japan is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It provides that States Parties shall not directly or indirectly transfer damage or danger from one area to another or transform one type of pollution into another.
Jun Takeuchi, head of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident Response Office of TEPCO: I think it is reasonable to disperse [the contaminated water] in the sea and discharge it in a way that does not affect people.
Jun Takeuchi is a member of Japan's Nuclear Regulation Commission, where he is responsible for the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident.
Jun Takeuchi: Even if there are people who object, our conclusion or position will not change. Our principle of action is to make independent judgments from the perspective of science and technology, so our judgment will not change because of what people think.
On April 13, 2021, then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga announced to the world the final decision of the Japanese government to drain the sea. This would set a precedent for the first time in human history to discharge polluted water from a major nuclear accident into the ocean.
Ryota Koyama: Proceeding with opposition is inconsistent with what is written in the ALPS subcommittee's proposal. What the Recommendation says is that consensus is a prerequisite for action, and the current situation is that it has not been implemented as we suggested.
Jay Cullen is a Canadian marine science expert. Since 2014, he has been tracking marine pollution caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident using seawater and marine fish as samples.
Jay Cullen: From my perspective, this is the worst-case scenario because we would have had the opportunity to take a different approach to avoid risk. I believe that even in the best of circumstances, effective monitoring can damage the reputation of the Japanese fishing industry. Any move to discharge more nuclear-contaminated water or pollutants from nuclear accidents into Japan's coastal and offshore waters risks undermining confidence in the fishing industry. Locals have given a lot, working hard to make ends meet, rebuild confidence and resume the seafood business. We really have to think about the Japanese who are still living by the sea, who are still struggling to recover from the tsunami and the nuclear crisis.
Fukushima Prefecture, hardest hit by the tsunami and nuclear pollution, has more than 160 kilometers of coastline and thousands of fishermen who depend on the sea for their livelihood. They are tossing between the hope of revival and the disappointment of the sea. After the nuclear power plant accident, TEPCO gave fishermen in Fukushima Prefecture fishing subsidies, and they rarely spoke to the media. Haruo Ono is a representative who dares to speak out in the face of the media.
Ono is 71 years old and has been fishing for 56 years since he was 15 years old. An earthquake changed his life, and the decision to drain the sea left him even more exhausted.
Haruo Ono, a fisherman from Fukushima Prefecture, Japan: In order to make a sound, I was interviewed by the media, and I was not very idle. Because we are fishermen, the sea is where we work. Life took a big turn, nothing was gone, the house was all washed away, and all that remained was a boat. Judging by the current situation, there is little point in risking your life to save the ship, and after 12 years, the situation has finally changed somewhat. This time, it is said that we will discharge polluted water into the sea in the spring and summer of this year, which is really unusual, and our fish cannot be sold, so why do such a thing? The state should protect us, we are victims, and we have been patient for ten years. If we go into the sea, we have to start from scratch.
Once a busy and thriving fishing port, it was almost quiet for a decade after the nuclear accident. Experimental fishing, which had resumed just two years ago, brought Ono and them back to the sea, but the decision to drain the sea left them in trouble again.
Haruo Ono: Those politicians say there is no problem, but he is poison after all, no matter how diluted he is, he is poison himself. Now plastic cannot be thrown into the sea, nothing can be thrown into the sea. Why can only tritium water be discharged into the sea? What they say is simply contradictory. I have three sons who are all fishing and I am worried that if the fish are discharged into the sea, they will not be sold, and they will be rearranged for 30 years. Young people in Fukushima may not do this profession anymore because there is no hope in sight. The current politicians and people at TEPCO are no longer there thirty or fifty years later. But we can only work in the sea, we can't leave here.
Kenichi Oshima: The victim suffers unilaterally, and the perpetrator is not harmed in any way. The fishermen's appeal is that they do not want to be discharged into the sea, so we should consider their voices. TEPCO and the state have made commitments to fishermen.
In August 2015, TEPCO responded to a petition from the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations by pledging in writing that it would not treat the contaminated water until it was understood by relevant personnel, including fishery practitioners.
Hiroshi Kajiyama: We will explain it carefully and try to gain understanding from all parties, including the local people.
TEPCO and METI have made a promise to fishermen's groups not to discharge the sea without their consent.
Hideyuki Shu, a Japanese non-profit organization co-representative of the Nuclear Intelligence Unit, has been engaged in research related to nuclear energy safety for more than 30 years.
Hideyuki: The Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Mr. Nishimura, met with representatives of fishermen from Fukushima Prefecture and did not reach an agreement. Because fishermen's backlash against releasing nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean has not changed. In this state of affairs where there is no agreement, but TEPCO's construction of sea drainage projects is progressing, which is a very strange situation.
Since he rarely went fishing at sea over the years, Ono developed the habit of climbing mountains. He said he especially enjoyed the feeling of overlooking the sea from the top of the hill. He said that he should exercise well and protect his hometown and this beautiful sea until he is 100 years old.
Haruo Ono: What happened to these promises when it came to saying that there would be absolutely no emissions? One cannot break one's promises. Even politicians and prime ministers cannot decide this. If we don't listen to our voices, we are the ones who use the ocean.
Haijiangtian: I also think [the government] broke its promise because they promised not to emit without the understanding of the people involved. When the opposition parties asked this question in the Diet, Prime Minister Kishida replied that they had not yet gained their understanding, but they promised to continue their efforts and hoped to fulfill their promises.
Haruo Ono: If the state breaks its promises like this, I think it will also affect the children, and no one trusts politicians, not even children. What happens if the state reneges on its promise to future-oriented people? Japan is a country governed by the rule of law.
Kenichi Oshima: I don't know what legally binding the commitments of TEPCO and the state are, but at least there is a moral responsibility to fulfill them, and they have said that they will fulfill them. I think the current behavior of TEPCO and the government is contradictory.
Haruo Ono: The ocean is used by all human beings, it must not be polluted, and the gods will be angry. Please come to the support of the whole world, there is no need to drain the sea at all, because there must be a way, with the wisdom of human beings in this era, I think there must be a way.
In the more than two years since the decision to drain the sea was announced, there has been no interruption in the voices of doubt and opposition. Judging from current developments, the original decision to drain the sea will not only affect Japan's fishery development and the recovery of the disaster-stricken areas, but also damage the international reputation of the Japanese government and TEPCO. So, in addition to draining the sea, is there any other more scientific and stable treatment plan?
Hideyuki: Various things have changed a lot from the original plan, the total budget was 3.4 billion yen at the time of the initial assessment, and then due to changes in emission methods, it reached 43 billion yen in just four years, and the original plan was 88 months, and now it is said that it will continue to be more than 30 years, which is completely different from the original plan. In that case, it is necessary to reconsider whether this is really the best way to go. Just insisting that "the original judgment was the most reasonable" is the biggest problem.
Naoaki Shibasaki is a professor at Fukushima University and a member of the Fukushima Prefectural Waste Furnace Decommissioning Safety Committee, responsible for verifying and studying data and materials released by TEPCO on nuclear-contaminated water, especially groundwater. After the nuclear accident, he visited the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant several times. The day before our interview, I just returned from the factory site.
Reporter: What is the current situation of polluted water?
Professor Naoaki Shibasaki of Fukushima University in Japan: Polluted water is still increasing. The proportion of groundwater in polluted water has not been well studied, but rainwater and groundwater together account for about 80% of the total polluted water.
After the Fukushima nuclear accident, a large amount of seawater was continuously injected into the reactor to continuously cool the melted core, and the infiltration of groundwater and rainwater also increased the total amount of contaminated water. Despite the measures taken by TEPCO, such as recycling cooling water and building a permafrost wall to block the inflow of groundwater, the contaminated water continues to be produced at a rate of hundreds of tons per day.
First of all, why is polluted water increasing? Because the water continues to cool the molten fuel fragments. If we stop cooling, the quality of the radioactive material may rise, so we are pouring water on it. It would be nice if that were all, it would have been nice to cycle in the same way, but now the situation is that the amount of polluted water is increasing due to groundwater infiltration.
Naoaki Shibasaki: My opinion is not to discharge into the sea. First, for the current increase in polluted water, let its new increment approach zero. In this case, as long as the currently polluted water is safely stored, it may not be necessary to discharge it into the sea.
Reporter: What specific suggestions do you have?
Naoaki Shibasaki: Instead of using a permafrost wall today, our proposal proposes to build a larger and deeper underground "shelter wall." The current permafrost wall has a circumference of about 1.5 kilometers, but our proposal is to build a larger shelter wall, about 3.7 kilometers long and 35 to 50 meters deep, deep underground and completely cut off from the water source. Of course, there will also be rainwater in the enclosed area, so the water entering the area is removed through a "collection well". We propose to combine these measures to significantly reduce the amount of groundwater flowing into buildings.
Kenichi Oshima: The permafrost wall was originally criticized, and its service life should be five or six years, not a permanent thing. It is not particularly difficult to build a concrete wall around, and Japanese construction companies can do it completely. However, TEPCO has consistently refused to take such a step.
In addition to cutting off groundwater sources and reducing the increase in polluted water, the most talked about by the public is to continue to store nuclear-contaminated water and wait for the emergence of new technological means and the natural decay of radioactive materials such as tritium.
Jean Suzuki, a former professor at the University of Tokyo: Small water tanks are used in the East Power Plant area, and they say that they can no longer be added when they are full. However, there are many large water tanks, such as the 100,000-ton oil tank near the port of Konahama, which contains oil.
Masashi Goto: Japan now has large tanks for oil like oil reserve bases. The capacity is 100,000 cubic meters, about 100,000 tons, as long as you make a dozen such large tanks, you can basically put them in. That is, while making such a large storage tank, long-term storage can be achieved while storing inside. The half-life (of tritium) is 12.3 years, and it is basically safe after decades and hundreds of years, which means that only need to make room for storage in large tanks, and there is no need to do anything else.
Reporter: Some citizen groups said through our interviews that they can add tanks for polluted water to store it for a long time.
Jun Takeuchi: We know there are many such opinions. But long-term storage adds to what TEPCO has to manage. On the other hand, the risk of leaving these radioactive wastes alone is higher in view of the need for safer storage of more dangerous nuclear fuel wastes.
Japanese media person Tatsuyoshi Kino: The Japanese government said that if the contaminated water is kept in storage tanks, the locals will feel uneasy and there will be public opinion influences, so it will be discharged into the sea. What is stored will have the influence of public opinion, the discharge of the sea will not have the influence of public opinion, I do not understand the logic, the language is very strange.
Masashi Goto: They say that even if you use a large storage tank, there is a risk of damage due to an earthquake, and it may be damaged. It's ridiculous to just say these words.
Jean Suzuki: Dangerous flammable things like oil are usually stored this way, so there's nothing to worry about using it.
In fact, in addition to blocking groundwater sources and large tank storage, experts seem to prefer mortar solidification. The proposal was proposed by chemical engineer Yasuro Kawai. Kawai has been designing and constructing nuclear facilities and energy-chemical plants for decades.
Yasuro Kawai: In November 2018, when there was a group of parliamentarians called the Congressional Natural Resources and Energy Survey Committee, I made my first speech on the proposal when the issue of polluted water was raised. The land storage plan, in which contaminated water is stored in large storage tanks, is the mortar curing case, mainly these two schemes.
Reporter: How exactly should mortar curing be carried out?
Yasuro Kawai: First a pit is made of concrete, contaminated water, sand, and cement are mixed, and then poured into the pit. The mixture hardens over time. If you leave it there for 100 or 200 years, tritium will be reduced to one thousandth of the original, and the amount of radiation will be reduced, so it will be safe. That is why the United States uses this method at the Savannah River Nuclear Power Plant. In addition, concrete pit and mortar construction is very simple.
Reporter: What is the reply of Tokyo Electric Power Company to the mortar solidification proposal you submitted?
Yasuro Kawai: In the first proposal of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, there was also a proposal for burial in which concrete would be placed underground, and it was abandoned because this option was more expensive. The Savannah River (scheme) is not all buried underground, and half is above ground, so it is cheaper. But as I said earlier, I think the government has not seriously studied this plan because of the cost gap between 160 billion yen and 3.5 billion yen.
From blocking groundwater to storing large tanks to solidifying mortar, each proposal is clear enough to change the final outcome of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. So why did the Japanese government and TEPCO turn a blind eye to these seemingly simple solutions and not respond?
On the official website of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, they explained that the waste furnace of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is a major prerequisite for the revival of Fukushima. However, there are more than 1,000 huge storage tanks, and there may be no space for necessary equipment and operations in the future. The disposal of "treated water" and the removal of water storage tanks are an indispensable part of waste furnaces and revival.
Tatsuyoshi Kino: TEPCO and the Japanese government say that because there is no storage space, they must emit emissions. They say this on the grounds of ensuring storage space for future nuclear fuel residues. But whether these residues can be taken out is completely unknown now, and it is unreasonable to ensure storage space for what is not known.
Yasuro Kawai: They want to wash away the contaminated water from Fukushima as soon as possible, so it will always be there whether it is stored on land for a long time or solidified with mortar. And I think it's good that it continues to exist, it's a negative legacy, and it's important that human mistakes in Fukushima become a memorial so that the next generation can learn the lessons.
Sean Bernie is a veteran nuclear environmental expert in the UK who has worked in Fukushima for nearly 30 years, starting in the mid-90s.
Reporter: In your opinion, why do the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company refuse to expand storage?
Sean Bernie: If they agree to store contaminated water, they acknowledge that they don't have a solution and they have to store it. This will overturn everything that came before, and all issues need to be revisited.
Sean Bernie: In 2011, the Japanese government was asked how long it would take to clean up the aftermath of the Fukushima accident. The Japanese government gives this estimate for 30 to 40 years. Since then, this statement has been repeatedly mentioned and turned into a mantra. This is not based on any real technical analysis, they are actually discovering new things every day now, they are learning about the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and they still have a lot to learn.
Reporter: When we consider the situation in Fukushima, is the timeline set by the Japanese government and TEPCO too hasty?
Sean Burney: For the last decade or more, the Japanese government has invented a myth that can completely cover up the disaster of three reactor meltdowns. The timetable given by the Japanese government is that from 2040 to 2050, the entire Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, including the reactor nuclear waste, everything will be removed from the nuclear power plant site and the entire Fukushima prefecture. But this is not based on facts. They don't really know what will happen to the Fukushima Daiichi over time.
Reporter: What should they do? What do you suggest?
Sean Burney: If the Japanese government can be honest with the Japanese people and the international community, they should say, "Actually, there is no way to solve the problem of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, we have to take a step back and reconsider."
Reporter: Why is the discharge of contaminated water into the sea an important part of the decommissioning process of waste furnaces?
Yasuro Kawai: What is the government thinking? Removing the fuel residue from a nuclear reactor and decommissioning the reactor creates the illusion that the Fukushima accident is over. Discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea and eliminate the presence of this water. The existence of contaminated water is the negative legacy of the Fukushima nuclear accident that I just mentioned, so it must be erased by draining it into the sea. Let people forget the memory of Fukushima.
According to public information, the trial operation of the nuclear contaminated water discharge equipment at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and all works related to the discharge of the sea are expected to be completed by the end of June. At the same time, the inspection and acceptance of Japan's Nuclear Regulation Commission and the IAEA's final assessment of the safety of the contaminated water are likely to be completed within June, which means that from the perspective of the Japanese government and TEPCO, all the prerequisites for the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will be met soon. At present, the National Federation of Fisheries Associations and the local people of Fukushima have repeatedly reiterated their opposition to the discharge of contaminated water into the sea. The governor of Miyagi Prefecture has also publicly requested that other methods of dealing with the sea continue to be explored. Regrettably, however, the Japanese government has always turned a deaf ear to these voices, bent on making the drainage of the sea a reality as soon as possible. (CCTV News Client)> [Editor: Yu Xiao]