For nearly a decade the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has been streaming radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. As it happens, TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) struggles to control it. Yet, the bulk of the radioactive water is stored in more than 1,000 water tanks.
Assuredly, Japan’s government has made an informal decision to dump Fukushima Daiichi’s radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. A formal announcement could come as early as this year. Currently, 1.2 million tonnes of radioactive water is stored.
The problem: TEPCO is running out of storage space.
Government of Japan’s solution: Dump it into the Pacific Ocean.
Third-party expert solutions: Build more storage tanks.
Environmental groups insist there is no reason why additional storage tanks cannot be constructed outside the perimeter of the plant. They accuse the government of seeking the cheapest and quickest solution to the problem. All along, authorities have promised the site will be safe in 40 years. Really, only 40 years!
According to IAEA’s Director General Grossi, who visited Fukushima in February 2020, dumping radioactive water that is mainly contaminated with tritium meets global standards of practice. (Source: Michael Jacob in Tokyo, What! Is Japan Really Planning to Dump Radioactive Water From Fukushima Into the Ocean? Sweden-Science-Innovation, June 10, 2020)
In that regard, advocates of nuclear power utilize a subtle storyline that convinces, and deceives, the public into accepting nuclear power, however reluctantly. It goes something like this: “There’s nothing to worry about. Nuclear power plants routinely release tritium into the air and water. There is no economically feasible way to remove it. It’s normal, a standard operating procedure.” Nevertheless, as shall be explained in more detail forthwith, there is nothing positive about that posture, absolutely nothing!
According to TEPCO, all radioactive isotopes will be removed, except tritium, which is hard to separate. Still, similar to all radioactive substances, tritium is a carcinogen (causes cancer), a mutagen (causes genetic mutation), and a teratogen (causes malformation of an embryo).
The good news: Tritium is relatively weak beta radiation and does not have enough energy to penetrate human skin. The principal health risks are ingesting or breathing the tritium.
TEPCO has deployed an Advanced Liquid Processing System that purportedly removes 62 isotopes from the water, all except tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen and cannot easily be filtered out of water.
However, the filtration system has been plagued by malfunctions. According to Greenpeace International, within the past two years TEPCO admitted to failures to reduce radioactivity to levels below regulatory limits in more than 80% of the storage tanks. Reported levels of Strontium-90 (a deadly isotope) were more than 100 times regulatory standards with some tanks at 20,000 times.
“They have deliberately held back for years detailed information on the radioactive material in the contaminated water. They have failed to explain to the citizens of Fukushima, wider Japan and to neighboring countries such as S. Korea and China that the contaminated water to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean contains dangerous levels of carbon-14. These, together with other radionuclides in the water will remain hazardous for thousands of years with the potential to cause genetic damage. It’s one more reason why these plans have to be abandoned.” (Source: Fukushima Reactor Water Could Damage Human DNA if Released, Says Greenpeace, The Guardian, October 23, 2020)
Cancer is the main risk to humans ingesting tritium. When tritium decays it emits a low-energy electron (roughly 18,000 electron volts) that escapes and slams into DNA, a ribosome or some other biologically important molecule. And, unlike other radionuclides, tritium is usually part of water, so it ends up in all parts of the body and therefore, in theory, can promote any kind of cancer. But that also helps reduce the risk because tritiated water is typically excreted in less than a month. (Source: Is Radioactive Hydrogen in Drinking Water a Cancer Threat, Scientific American, Feb. 7, 2014)
Some evidence suggests beta particles emitted by tritium are more effective at causing cancer than the high-energy radiation such as gamma rays. Low-energy electrons produce a greater impact because it doesn’t have the energy to spread its impact. At the end of its atomic-scale trip it delivers most of its ionizing energy in one relatively confined track rather than shedding energy all along its path like a higher-energy particle. This is known as “density of ionization.” As such, scientists say any amount of radiation poses a health risk.
According to Ian Fairlie, Ph.D. (Imperial College/London and Princeton University), a radiation biologist and former member of the 3-person secretariat to Britain’s Committee Examining the Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters: “At the present time, over a million tonnes of tritium-contaminated water are being held in about a thousand tanks at the site of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan. This is being added to at the rate of ~300 tonnes a day from the water being pumped to keep cool the melted nuclear fuels from the three destroyed reactors at Fukushima. Therefore new tanks are having to be built each week to cope with the influx.” (Source: Ian Fairlie, The Hazards of Tritium, March 13, 2020)
Furthermore, radioactive contaminants in the tanks, such as nuclides like caesium-137 (an extremely deadly isotope) and strontium-90 (which is equally deadly) in reduced concentrations still exist in unacceptable high levels. According to Fairlie: “These problems constitute a sharp reminder to the world’s media that the nuclear disaster at Fukushima did not end in 2011 and is continuing with no end in sight.”
“There are no easy answers here. Barring a miraculous technical discovery which is unlikely, I think TEPCO/Japanese Gov’t will have to buy more land and keep on building more holding tanks to allow for tritium decay to take place. Ten half-lives for tritium is 123 years: that’s how long these tanks will have to last – at least. This will allow time not only for tritium to decay, but also for politicians to reflect on the wisdom of their support for nuclear power.” (Fairlie)
Meanwhile, over the course of seemingly endless years, Fukushima Daiichi remains “the world’s most dangerous active time bomb” for several reasons, and spent fuel rods are at the top of the list.
In addition to the 800 tons of lava-like molten fuel, aka: corium, (the big meltdown) in the three reactor containment vessels, the crippled reactor buildings contain more than 1,500 units of used nuclear fuel rods in open pools of water and must be kept cool at all times or all hell breaks loose. Loss of water from structural damage or another major earthquake (the structures are already seriously compromised) could expose the fuel rods, resulting in uncontrolled massive release of sizzling radiation that could be worse than the original meltdown, possibly exposing Tokyo to an emergency mass evacuation event with people running and screaming.
Tokyo Electric Power has plans for complete removal of the dangerous fuel rods by 2031. That work is being carried out remotely from a control room about 500 metres distance due to extraordinarily high radiation levels inside the reactor buildings.
Dismally, a perverse endlessness overhangs Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011), earmarking these nuclear power meltdowns as the worst industrial accidents in human history.
Yet, with 440 operating nuclear plants worldwide, and 50 new plants under construction, there are plans to build a few hundred more.
Good luck
Robert Hunziker, MA, economic history DePaul University, awarded membership in Pi Gamma Mu International Academic Honor Society in Social Sciences is a freelance writer and environmental journalist who has over 200 articles published, including several translated into foreign languages, appearing in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He has been interviewed on numerous FM radio programs, as well as television.
SIGN UP FOR COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
There have been some horrendous, despicable killings by Muslim extremists in France. Such killings must be condemned.
French president Emmanuel Macron played the victim card, saying that France “will not give into terrorism.” Yet when 21st century France engages in overseas militarism, otherwise known as state terrorism, in places with large Muslim populations – places that never attacked France — such as Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen then what is to be expected? Is it okay for France to engage in militarism abroad and expect no blowback on French soil? Must not the French terrorism be condemned?
The embattled, unpopular French president has seized upon the gruesome killings to denounce terrorism and championed “French values,” such as freedom of speech. [1]
Once again the controversial publication Charlie Hebdo has provoked a lethal response.
The publication of cartoons defaming the prophet Mohammed, as any clued-in person could easily have predicted, have stirred heated Muslim protests. These provocative cartoons are defended as free speech. I am all for defending the right to free speech. I am not in favor of stupid speech, speech designed to belittle and incur the wrath of a particular group. I would certainly caution against the freedom to say what one wants knowing that it will result in violence and deaths.
But the French, especially its politicians, are hypocrites. If free speech allows one to impugn one religion, then then that right to impugn must be allowed for all religions. Take the case of French comedian Dieudonné. He has been convicted in court eight times for upsetting Jewish sentiment and has consequently been embargoed by many venues where he would normally ply his trade.
Many years earlier, professor Robert Faurisson, an extreme skeptic of the typical Holocaust narrative, was hit wth by judicial proceedings, was fined, and lost his job. Is this respect for free speech? Professor Noam Chomsky experienced blowback for supporting free speech in the case of Faurisson. Chomsky held, “… it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense.” [2]
As for France defending freedoms, The Times of Britain notes,
French authorities have been accused of “judicial harassment” in a damning Amnesty report that claims more than 40,000 people were convicted during the gilet jaune (yellow vest) and pension reform protests in 2018 and 2019 “on the basis of vague laws” aimed at restricting their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
The controversial media outlet Charlie Hebdo is not about either free expression or speech. It fired a cartoonist for alleged anti-Semitism. [3] On its face, Charlie Hebdo signals that Islamophobia is kosher, but Judeophobia is haram.
Macron said “France is under attack.” [4] Were Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen not under attack when the French sent their guns to these countries? [5]
Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: kimohp@gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen.
ENDNOTES
- Agence France-Presse,“‘Nous ne cèderons rien’ sur les valeurs françaises, assure Macron” TVA Nouvelles, 29 October 2020.
- Noam Chomsky, “Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression,” Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense, 11 October 1980.
- See “‘Charlie Hebdo’ condamné pour le licenciement abusif du dessinateur Siné,” Le Monde, 10 December 2009.
- “Attentat de Nice – ‘La France est attaquée’, 7 000 militaires déployés, les églises et les écoles sous surveillance : ce qu’il faut retenir des annonces d’Emmanuel Macron” L’Indépendant, 29 October 2020.
- Note some of these 21st century conflicts are still ongoing.
The 2020 presidential race has shaped itself similar to the 2016 race ─ neither candidate has shown ability or credentials that satisfy a majority of the electorate. Their choice is not to select the more qualified of two highly qualified, their choice is to accept the candidate who has the lesser disqualifications. As of October 29, the choice tends toward Joe Biden, the reasons being the former Vice-President is genuine, empathetic, experienced, and affable. His ancient ties to the conventional center of the Democratic Party give Biden a base but alienate many voters attached to the Democratic Party Left and independents of all stripes.
Donald Trump’s policies during his erratic tenure have pleased a wide range of the electorate — those tired of the continuous foreign interventions, unresolved immigration crisis, and loss of American industrial employment to overseas laborers. On the surface, Trump has brought the troops home, arranged deals with Middle East nations and Israel that show attention to Middle East happenings, and, in his own way, modified trade issues and confronted China’s actions that might reduce U.S. hegemony. Trump’s base considers him being proactive, facing the challenges, and issuing commands, while Biden is considered as a continuation of Democratic liberal rhetoric and desultory action. The reasons for rejecting Trump are due to his mendacious, deceitful, and egocentric nature, his demonstration of little care for the American public and excessive attention to himself. Constantly applauding his administration’s efforts in extravagant terms, and taking credit for all accomplishments has left doubt that any accomplishment is actually due to his efforts, especially when he exhibits lack of basic knowledge on most vital topics, one example being his statement that the Chinese are paying for the tariffs when the importer pays the tariff.
Noting the nature of the election ─ two undesirable candidates vying for the least unpleasant appearance ─ expected campaign strategy would be to reshape negatives to appear more positive and reshape opponent’s positives to appear more negative. Instead, Trump and Biden have directed their appeals to their already committed bases and not to the independent and uncommitted voters.
Trump could have gathered many more votes by doing two simple actions:
(1) By delaying a recommendation for a new Supreme Court Justice until after the election, he would have shown himself capable of compromising with the opposition, to not being polarizing, and to treating the electorate with consideration ─ let the voters decide.
(2) By admitting that the CoVid-19 epidemic demands more government effort, a national plan, and less citizen complacency, he would have shown regard for people’s health ahead of business health.
Neither action would have disturbed one vote in his pocketed base and would have changed the minds of many independent and inclined Biden voters.
Biden has not countered public approval for Trump’s unproven accomplishments.
(1) “Best economy the world has ever seen.” Biden has not stressed that almost all U.S. presidents have had the “Best economy the world has ever seen.” The Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates and pumping dollars into the money supply and his administration’s large deficit spending are responsible for moving the economy (by an average of only a meager 2.5 percent annually) and only reducing unemployment by one percent from the previous administration, which reduced it by seven percent
(2) Entangling America from military engagements. Biden has not shown that Trump brought the U.S. close to war with North Korea, only to back off and allow Kim Jung-Il to perfect his nuclear arsenal and increase ballistic missile range so his military can threaten America. Meanwhile, leaving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allowed Iran to return to development of nuclear weapons, a condition that the JCPOA impeded.
Biden’s response to another of Trump’s negatives ─ mishandling of the CoVid-19 epidemic ─ has been repetitive but without substance. He has failed to produce the alarming statistics in bold words and print — positive cases and hospitalization per testing have steadily increased, and the U.S. death rate is one of the highest in the world.
A last minute Trump effort to attach the former Vice President to questionable actions of his son, Hunter Biden, may sway voters and Biden has not used available information to offset the damage. Charge that an email shows that Biden met with a Ukrainian business associate of his son is dubious and unproven. Read V.Podharsky’s message carefully. It is vague and subject to interpretation.
From: Vadym Pozharskyi
Subject: Meeting for coffee?
Date: April 17, 2015 at 6:00:51 AM PDT
To: Hunter Biden
Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together. It’s really an honor and pleasure. As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee. What do you think? I could come to your office somewhere around noon or so, before or on my way to airport.
Best ,
V
Pozharsky does not say he met Joe Biden; he says. “As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee.” The wording indicates he has not seen Hunter or Joe Biden, only spoken with Hunter, who invited Vadym to DC and was providing an opportunity for the Russian to meet the Vice-President.
Robert Hunter Biden, in a message to his associate, Devon Archer, contradicts accusations that Biden became Obama’s emissary to Ukraine in order to force Ukraine president, Petro Poroshenko, to remove Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, rumored to be investigating corruption in Burisma, a company in which Robert Hunter Biden had been given a Board seat.
From: Robert Biden
Date: April 13, 2014 at 12:43 AM
To: Devon
…Our guy (ED: Vadym Pozharskyi from Burisma) needs to set himself up as the anti- Victor Pinchuk (coal and steel oligarch- pro Russian Yanukuvich supporter). The best way to weather the storm btw is to throw all in with the chocolate king (President Poroshenko). Even if he loses to Tymosheko (unlikely per polls as of today), Poroshenko is a safe ally that could help protect him from the vultures of the moment.
If Poroshenko’s prosecutor was investigating Burisma and endangering Robert Hunter Biden, why would Robert Hunter designate Poroshenko as “a safe ally” and support Poroshenko?
To the writer’s knowledge, neither Joseph Biden, his campaign strategists, his allies and the press have seized upon these two pieces of evidence that deflate the insinuation that Joseph Biden was involved in any corruption, due to his son’s business relationships. Relatives of presidents — Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s children, Richard Nixon’s brother, Jimmie Carter’s brother, George H. W. Bush’s son, Bill Clinton’s wife — to name a few, have engaged in activities that involved influence, but did not infer corruption by the president. Relatives of top office holders are daily approached for favors and it becomes impossible to refuse big money and determine when illegal boundaries have been crossed. For sure, FDR, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Biden did not financially benefit from their relatives actions.
Donald Trump has a solid base of supporters and a solid echelon of those who detest his personal characteristics and will vote for Biden. The former VP has a solid base of registered Democrats and a solid echelon of those who detest what they perceive as liberal hypocrisy and will vote for Trump. Remained to vote are those who detest both Trump and liberals and who may not vote or will choose the lesser of two evils. Trump’s and Biden’s campaigns mostly appealed to their solid bases and insufficiently addressed the doubts of the uncommitted, the electorate sector that could determine the election.
The 2020 presidential election will be remembered as having ill-considered candidates and inept campaign strategies.
Dan Lieberman edits Alternative Insight, a commentary on foreign policy, economics, and politics. He is author of the non-fiction book: A Third Party Can Succeed in America, a Kindle: The Artistry of a Dog, a Kindle: Not Until They Were Gone, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name).
Dan can be reached at alternativeinsight@earthlink.net
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.