Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by Leave a Comment

Fukushima Waste Water: “The ocean is not Japan’s trash can”

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Robert Hunziker
 “A Japanese official said it’s okay if you drink this water. Then please drink it,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a news briefing.
— Washington Post, April 14, 2021

By now, the world knows all about the decision by Japan to dump radioactive waste water into the Pacific Ocean beginning in two years. According to Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, the treated and diluted water will be “safe to drink.” Mr. Aso claimed further that Japan should have started releasing it into the ocean earlier. (“China to Japan: If Treated Radioactive Water From Fukushima is Safe, ‘Please Drink It,’” Washington Post, April 15, 2021)

In response, Chinese Foreign Minister Lijian Zhao said, “The ocean is not Japan’s trash can.”

Mr. Zhao may have stumbled upon the best solution to international concerns about Tepco’s (Tokyo Electric Power Company) planned dumping of radioactive waste water into the Pacific. Instead, Tepco should remove it from the storage tanks at Fukushima Daiichi and deliver it to Japan’s water reservoirs where, similar to the ocean, it will be further diluted, although not quite as much. After all, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Japanese government are full of praise and confidence about how “harmless” the radioactive water will be. Let Japan drink it and/or use it for crop irrigation.

Japan has approximately 100,000 dams — roughly 3,000 of which are over 50 feet tall — for flood control, water supply, and hydroelectric power. Some are used exclusively for irrigation of crops. These reservoirs are more than adequate to handle Tepco’s “harmless” radioactive waste water. In a straightforward approach, Japan should use water trucks to haul the Fukushima radioactive water to various dam reservoir locations throughout the country. The bigger the reservoir, the better it’ll be for dumping and dilution purposes.

For example, one of the largest drinking water reservoirs in Japan is Ogouchi Reservoir, which holds 189 million tons of drinking water for Tokyo. Tepco is currently storing 1.3 million tons of the waste water at Fukushima Daiichi and nearing full capacity. The Ogouchi alone should be able to handle at least 1/4 and maybe up to 1/2 of the radioactive water without any serious consequences, especially as both the IAEA and the government of Japan have clearly given thumbs-up. No worries, it’s safe.

The citizens of Tokyo should be okay with this plan since their own government and the IAEA and the United States have reassured the world that dumping Fukushima’s radioactive water into a large body of water is safe — in fact, safe enough to drink. Voila! Problem solved!

With the blessing of the IAEA and the United States, via Biden’s Climate Envoy John Kerry, Japan’s government plans to start releasing radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi’s water storage tanks into the sea effective 2022, allegedly removing the toxic deadly isotopes like cesium-137, leaving behind less deadly toxic tritium. Why not dump that “harmless water” (according to Japan’s own statements) into their water systems rather than into the sea? It doesn’t make sense to dump drinkable water (according to Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister) that simply needs a bit of dilution in a larger body of water, like the sea, when reservoirs are nearby to put it to good use and of adequate size to effectively dilute the toxic water, similar to the ocean.

Identical 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 emits relatively weak beta radiation and does not have enough energy to penetrate human skin. The main health risks are ingesting or breathing the tritium-laced water in large quantities.

Cancer is the main risk for humans ingesting tritium. When tritium decays it emits a low-energy electron that escapes and slams into DNA, a ribosome, or some other biologically important molecule. Unlike other radionuclides, tritium is usually part of water, so it ends up in all parts of the body and therefore, it can promote any kind of cancer. (“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 high-energy radiation such as gamma rays. Low-energy electrons produce a greater impact because at the end of their atomic-scale trip, they deliver most of their ionizing energy in one relatively confined track, rather than shedding energy all along their path like a higher-energy particle. Of course, scientists say any amount of radiation exposure poses a health risk. (How Radiation Threatens Health, Scientific American, March 15, 2011)

“Tritium is very mobile and can enter biological systems and has the potential to damage living cells.”(Kevin Bundy, et al, “Tritium, Health Effects and Dosimetry,” Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, 2012 edition)

“Tritium can potentially be hazardous to human health because it emits ionizing radiation, exposure to which may increase the probability that a person will develop cancer during his or her lifetime. For this reason, it is very important that human exposure to any radioactive material, such as tritium, is minimized within reason.” (Health Physics Society, “Tritium,” Fact Sheet, rev. January 2020)

Perhaps Tepco, the government of Japan, the United States, and the IAEA are counting on the hedged statement in the previous paragraph as their primary rationale for dumping radioactive waste into a larger body of water: It’ll be “minimized within reason.” Hmm.

In fact, as The Hill reports: “The storage tanks now hold seawater that has been used to continue cooling the reactor cores, and this water is contaminated with such radionuclides as cesium-137, carbon-14, tritium (including the more dangerous ‘organically bound tritium’), strontium-90, cobalt-60, iodine-129, plutonium-239 — and over 50 other radionuclides. Some of this has reportedly been removed, but some has not (e.g. radioactive tritium and carbon-14). Tepco, which owns Fukushima and is now responsible for the cleanup (that is likely to last the remainder of this century), didn’t admit until 2018 that the wastewater contains significant amounts of radioactive carbon-14. As carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, is known to bio-accumulate in marine ecosystems, and to cause cellular and genetic impairment, this is a very serious concern.” (Rick Steiner, “The Danger of Japan Dumping Fukushima Wastewater into the Ocean,” The Hill, April 17, 2021)

According to The Hill, Tepco’s treatment system is subpar and likely not up to the task of thorough filtering.

Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, asks, “Would this open the door for any country to release radioactive waste to the ocean that is not part of normal operations?” (“Japan Plans to Release Fukushima’s Wastewater into the Ocean,” Science, April 12, 2021)

Reportedly, Japan’s government did not consult its neighbors about the plan. China issued a warning, “The international community is watching,” calling on Tokyo to “fulfill its international responsibilities to the environment.” A harsh South Korean Foreign Ministry complaint said Japan will “directly and indirectly affect the safety of the people and the neighboring environment … difficult to accept … without sufficient consultation of neighbors.” Meanwhile, local Japanese fishermen are fit to be tied because dumping radioactive water into the ocean is essentially a death sentence for their industry.

On the other hand, the IAEA is just fine with the scheme since it meets “global standards.” The agency says it’s normal for nuclear reactors around the world to release some amount of tritium into the seas. There is nothing positive about that, nothing whatsoever.

Tepco has invented a filtering program it named Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) that purportedly “removes 62 isotopes from the water,” all except tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen and cannot easily be filtered out of water. 

Marine scientists and Greenpeace-Japan have repeatedly criticized the adequacy of the ALPS filter/removal process, noting that many highly toxic, deadly radioactive isotopes remained in the waste water. (“Treated water at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive,” Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 2018)* Tepco has pledged to re-filter over 70% or 875,000 tonnes of its radioactive waste water.

It is highly unlikely that the international community, other than the United States, will ever be comfortable with Japan’s decision to dump toxic radioactive water into the sea. Therefore, the country should take it upon itself to dispose of all radioactive water in their extensive network of water reservoirs.

Of course, nuclear power advocates argue that it’s insane to dump the radioactive water into any body of water other than the ocean because its massive circulation capabilities will disperse the radioactive water throughout the world. But, that’s precisely what other countries do not want!

Deliberately, Japan has made the problem a simple one to deal with by publicly admitting that the treated water will be harmless, good enough to drink. As follows, they can keep it. Enough said!

Postscript: “Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso repeated his claim April 16 that it is safe to drink treated radioactive water accumulating at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after China asked him to personally prove it.” (“Taro Aso Repeats Claim That Treated Fukushima Water is Good to Drink,” Jakarta Post, April 16, 2021)

— Robert Hunziker of Los Angeles wrote this comment for CounterPunch, April 23, 2021

*Editor’s note. Please see also: “Opening the floodgates at Fukushima,” Science, Aug. 7, 2020 • “Mix of contaminants in Fukushima wastewater, risks of ocean dumping,” Science Daily, Aug. 6, 2020 • “Fukushima nuclear plant owner apologizes for still-radioactive water,” Reuters, Oct. 11, 2018 • “Treated water at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive: Tepco,” Japan Times, Sept. 29, 2018 • “All options need to be weighed for Fukushima plant tainted water,” Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 6, 2018 • “Residents blast water-discharge method at Fukushima plant,” The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 31, 2018

by Leave a Comment

Fukushima Waste Filter Leaves Corrosive Radioactive Sludge

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

Ever wonder what happens with the radioactive materials that Tokyo Electric Power Co. said it would remove using a filter system from its 1.25 million tons of Fukushima waste water? The cesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60, ruthenium-106, carbon-14, tritium, iodine-129, plutonium-239, and dozens of other isotopes end up as highly radioactive sludge collected by the Advanced Liquid Processing System. And although the ALPS system has failed to remove these deadly isotopes from 70 percent of the water, the “clean-up” system has so far produced some 3,000 large containers filled with the radioactive sludge. Approximately 875,000 tons of waste water stored in large tanks must be refiltered, which will produce more “hot” sludge.

In June, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority announced that 31 of the 3,000 containers holding this deadly sludge were corroded badly enough that they must be replaced, the daily Mainiichi Japan reported. The authority also warned that another 56 cylinders would need replacing within two years.

Each waste cylinder is reportedly about 5 feet in diameter and 6.2 feet tall. So, with about 30 cubic feet of hot sludge each, the 3,000 cans hold at least 90,000 cubic feet of highly radioactive waste that will require expensive permanent isolation.

Because of its corrosiveness and extremely long-lived radioactivity, this waste will require monitoring and repeated re-packaging in perpetuity — an expense not included when nuclear power advocates report electric rates to customers.

by 1 Comment

Reassessing Tritium’s Threats to Humans and the Environment

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Ian Fairlie

Tritium decays via beta particle emissions and can be more dangerous than most X-rays. It has a radioactive half-life of 12.3 years. While most of its atoms will have decayed in ten half-lives (123 years), many scientists believe it might take 20 half-lives (246 years) or more to reach safe levels. The safety of tritium after centuries depends partly on how much was emitted, since a small fraction of a large amount can still be very hazardous.

Tritium’s gaseous form, tritium oxide (i.e., radioactive water or radioactive water vapor), enters the body by inhalation, ingestion, or absorption through the skin. Tritium in the body immediately mixes with body fluids and is dispersed widely because water is found everywhere in our bodies. Once inside the body, it becomes organically bound and can concentrate in cells and certain organs.

Because of its long half-life, it resides in tissues and organs for extended periods. This can increase cancers and congenital malformations for those living near nuclear facilities. 

For most of the 20th century, tritium was often dismissed as a “weak” radionuclide which led many to underestimate its hazards. All this changed in the 21st century when scientists began to realize that tritium is much more dangerous than previously suspected. Although tritium is a low-range beta [particle] emitter, it can be very harmful as an internal emitter (when it gets inside the body). … It is also quite dangerous because it remains in the body for long periods.

Studies reveal that tritium is one of the most common internal emitters found in humans. As an internal emitter, tritium can alter cellular DNA and cause a variety of damaging health effects. One of the most significant effects is cancer which sometimes takes years to develop. Many epidemiological studies have reported increases in cancers and congenital malformations among people living near nuclear facilities.

The new concern about tritium is partly because all nuclear facilities emit very large amounts of tritium. In its elemental form, tritium diffuses through most containers, including those made of steel and concrete. Tritium is difficult to contain, and in its oxide form it is generally not detected by commonly used survey instruments. … large amounts are produced in nuclear reactors. It contaminates the concrete structures at nuclear power reactors so that the older the station, the more the contamination. Large amounts of tritium continue to be released for decades after a reactor is closed.

We now know that tritium has an exceptionally high molecular exchange rate with stable hydrogen atoms thus making it extremely mobile in the environment. Emissions from nuclear facilities can rapidly contaminate all biota in adjacent areas. Tritium binds with organic matter to form organically bound tritium.

Tritium is the only one of the three hydrogen isotopes that is radioactive. It is an essential component of every nuclear weapon.

— Dr. Ian Fairlie is a radiation biologist and author of “The Other Chernobyl Report,” updated as “TORCH-2016: An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,” of March 2016

by 2 Comments

Navy Commanders’ Public Brawl over Legality of Nuclear Attack Orders

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By John LaForge

In a rare, publicly aired dispute between Naval command officers over responsibility for nuclear weapons attacks, two retired British submarine commanders have openly attacked each other’s views in writing. The online confrontation opened a window to the tortured thinking inside high-level preparations for attacks using thermonuclear weapons.

The headline in The Ferret in Scotland: “Trident commanders ‘not legally responsible’ for nuclear attack.”

The very public verbal brawl — between Rear Admiral John Gower, a former submarine commander and retired leading ministry official, and retired submarine Commander Robert Forsyth — appeared on the website of the Nautilus Institute, a California-based non profit, in an exchange of six lengthy letters between September 2019 and January 2020. 

What caused the uproar was Adm. Gower’s claim that British submarine captains do not have any right to question, much less refuse, an order to launch their nuclear weapons.

A view of the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin.

Adm. Gower wrote: “The military has no formal role in the advice or decision upon whether to launch” nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, which are all on its Trident submarines. “There was then, and there is now, no latitude for a CO (or XO) [commanding officer or executive officer] to delay or refuse a launch order on any basis,” he wrote.

Gower’s position creates — in the phrase coined by Professor Robert J. Lyfton — an “atrocity producing situation” by institutionalizing blind obedience. And the world knows what this led to in Hitler’s fascist regime. The claim that submarine commanders have no choice but to obey when ordered to attack with nuclear weapons is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Charter, Principles and Judgment. 

It was Gower’s shocking assertion that such orders cannot be disobeyed that forced Cdr. Forsyth to publicly lambast his comrade in arms.

“We knew our missiles were targeted to take out Moscow — the so called ‘Moscow Criterion’ — and that this would cause appallingly disproportionate and indiscriminate deaths to millions of the civilian population by blast and fire immediately and, for decades to come, through radiation,” Cdr. Forsyth wrote. “We knew that such a strike would be well outside any accepted international humanitarian law.”

“This is factually wrong,” Adm. Gowers replied, although he admitted that authoritative warnings about unlawful indiscriminate destruction have existed for decades, writing, “Although the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] made statements in 1945 and 1950 on the consequences of atomic weapons use, these were not legal judgments.”

Cdr. Forsyth answered explicitly pointing to the law imposed by the Allies on the defeated Nazis:

“Nuremberg Principle IV states, ‘The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.’ Unquestioning obedience to a superior’s order is not enough. The UK Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict itself states that military commanders ‘… have a responsibility to cancel or suspend the attack if it turns out that the object to be attacked is going to be such that the proportionality rule would be breached.’ So it is the CO himself who must make a considered and informed decision as to whether he should obey the order.”

To this Adm. Gower rejoined: “Successive Attorneys General … have maintained confidence in their judgment that in the extreme circumstances where the employment of the nuclear weapons might be justified, they can be so employed in ways consistent with IHL” [International Humanitarian Law].

Cdr. Forsyth rejected this claim writing, “Rear Admiral Gower states that he is prepared to put his faith in the Attorney General’s infallibility, and that a Trident CO can similarly assume that any order to fire will be fully compliant with International Humanitarian Law. He suggests that as a ‘lay’ person I should not question the Government’s legally obtained position. To which I say, ‘What about Iraq 2003 and the Chilcot Inquiry?’” The reference is to the July 2016 House of Commons report that castigated and condemned the UK’s role in the US-led military bombardment and occupation of Iraq.

Forsyth continued: “Rear Admiral Gower suggests that the COs of [nuclear-armed subs] are absolved of any responsibility because they do not have knowledge of the targets or other specifics of the attack nor have any discretion in carrying out the order. However, there is no reference to such words in the Nuremberg Principles.” Cdr. Forsyth reminded Gower of military personnel’s responsibility under international law to disobey unlawful orders “provided a moral choice was in fact possible.” He wrote, “The CO needs to know the facts to make a moral choice; moreover, he has discretion by virtue of his Captain’s Key which must be turned to give his permission to fire. … The CO could well be placed in involuntary legal jeopardy if he obeys without question not knowing the facts.”

Adm. Gower then resorted to name calling, having lost the argument on the legal basis. Gower wrote, “Those who seek unilateral disarmament of the UK have begun to use this personal threat against the [commanding officer] as a means of undermining the moral component of the deterrent.”

But Cdr. Forsyth wasn’t distracted. “The crucial question,” he concluded, “is whether Adm. Gower’s statement that a military commander with the responsibility and discretion to withhold fire is, as he asserts, uniquely exempt from the provisions of the Nuremberg Principles and Article 33 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

In an email, Professor Francis Boyle at the University of Illinois provided one answer to the crucial question: “The Nuremberg Charter and Judgment were unanimously approved by a UN General Assembly Resolution making them customary international law.”

To read the full exchange see: https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/united-kingdom-nuclear-weapon-command-control-and-communications/

by Leave a Comment

German High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal by Nuclear Resisters

 Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court issued a blunt rejection of an appeal from nuclear weapons resisters, on May 4, 2021, without presenting any explanation of its decision. The court did note that under federal law, “reasons need not be given for a decision refusing to accept a constitutional complaint.” 

Stefanie Augustin of Dortmund, Marion Küpker of Hamburg, and Margriet Boss of Amsterdam were convicted last year in Cochem District Court of property damage and trespass at the Büchel Air Force Base, charges that came after the 18-person go-in action of July 15, 2018. Stefanie and Marion appealed, first to the Regional Court in Koblenz which ruled against them, then to the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, the Germany equivalent of the US Supreme Court.

The high court said that its judges unanimously agreed that “the constitutional complaint is not accepted for decision” and that there is “no longer any legal remedy at national level.” This finality means the two may now appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, on the grounds that German courts have all unfairly refused to consider the international humanitarian laws and other treaties that forbid any planning and preparations for unlawful, indiscriminate military attacks. The European Court strictly limits the number of appeals it agrees to hear using a stringent set of judicial requirements.

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected