Nuclear Monitor #909
PınarDemircan (Ph.D. in sociology), Independent Researcher Nukleersiz.org,Coordinator
Behind the disregarding objections of global civil society and transforming the ocean into a nuclear
waste dump lies a bigger goal inspired by capitalist practices that arise from its crisis: to achieve
another thereshold by normalization of cost-cutting measures for the sake of nuclear industry.
This article was originally published in a shortened version by the Yesil Gazette of Turkey.
While the climate crisis is rapidly turning forests and habitats of living creatures into coal and ashes in Turkiye, Greece, Canada and in the world’s seas, which are polluted with plastics and waste, these habitats are also recklessly covered with radioactivity due to profit and cost-centered policies. On the 24th of August, within the framework of the procedures carried out by the Japanese government and TEPCO, the discharge of 1.34 million tonnes of radioactive wastewater which is accumulated in tanks at the plant site was started.
The installation of a treatment system, costing a mere 23 million USD, and the discharge of wastewater without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), foregoing safer alternatives such as solidification of wastewater into construction materials or long-term storage costing 100 times more, constitutes ecocide. Obviously this method of release that was stated to last for 40 years, indicates a systemic assault on the global ecosystem that is longer and more severe than apparent.
Japan is not telling the truth about ‘purification’
The discharge process of the wastewater resulting from the complete meltdown of three reactor cores at Fukushima nuclear disaster started in 2011 is in the same danger level with the Chornobyl disaster. This fact highlights how it differs from the regular discharge processes of nuclear power plants and indicates the extent of danger that nuclear power plants are involved. Furthermore, the radioactive isotopes treated in the accumulated wastewater is only half of the true amount according to what was stated on the Japanese Ministry of the Environment’s website.
A detail that has been overlooked untill today is that there is no information regarding the amount of discharge, while it is announced there is 40-year time frame for the disposal of radioactive water into the ocean. This indicates that the discharge amount may even be equivalent to the period of for example 100 years despite the duration is declared as 40 years. In addition, since the present objections are disregarded, it is worth considering the potential impact of future oppositions at the end of the 40 years.
A threshold to be achieved
Apparently, over the next decade, the radioactive water discharged from Fukushima is anticipated to disseminate into multiple seas worldwide, encompassing the Marmara, Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Sea. A scientific research (1) suggests that the evaporation in these seas will escalate industrial radioactivity levels in the ecosystem. But why can TEPCO, the Japanese government, and the IAEA disregard the adverse impact which puts them in a responsible position in the potential increase in cancer, DNA damage, increased miscarriages, and issues with raising unhealthy future generations worldwide? Behind the disregarding objections of global civil society and transforming the ocean into a nuclear waste dump lies a bigger goal inspired by capitalist practices that arise from its crisis: to achieve another thereshold by normalization of cost cutting measures for the sake of nuclear industry.
It is also possible to consider the above statement with the possibility of adding the wastewater of other nuclear power plants across Japan to the 1 million 340 thousand tonnes of water accumulated in 10-12 years. While nuclear power plant operations are under higher costs and have to cope with four times cheaper renewable energy production costs, this action will create an ease for the nuclear industry. Crossing this threshold guarantees the capability to manage the hazards of the climate crisis to nuclear facilities since societal consent has been obtained for this plan of action. Imagine how beneficial it will be for he
nuclear industry as the IAEA promises to support it by assisting it consisting of 410 reactors operating worldwide, 50 reactors under construction, and 80 reactors (2) in various stages of maintenance, repair, decommissioning, and dismantling.
Rosatom belonged to Russia, the owner of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant of which the construction process reached final stage for the first reactor in Turkey, has a history of concealing accidents, such as the Mayak nuclear power plant accident, until the 1990s. Furthermore from 1948 to 2004 Rosatom discharged nuclear waste into the Techa River causing a questionable track record that suggests how legalization of nuclear discharge might be beneficial. It is also easy to predict the potential impact of this approach in the Mediterranean region by a nation with an underdeveloped democratic system and institutional dynamics dominated by political power (3). This is especially important since an exemption made for the Akkuyu NPP in the article which allows the discharge water of the facilities around the Mediterranean temperature of the plant and allow the sea temperature to reach up to 35 Celsius and poses serious ecological indicating that Turkiye violates Barcelona Agreement.
The Role of the IAEA
The example of Fukushima’s radioactive water discharege presents us a political power that has adopted the corporate management mantality prioritizing profits and interests under the guise of “efficiency” and profitability. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a vital role in ensuring that nuclear energy generation is conducted safely and within established guidelines. However, a leaked document (4) from the IAEA reveals that the agency, which declared its support for TEPCO and the Japanese government, advised them to refrain from making statements that could portray nuclear power plants negatively and disseminate information that influences the press and public opinion. As this scandal demonstrates how the IAEA, the Japanese government, and TEPCO are connected, it is important to consider the role of the IAEA as a highly regarded global organization.
It is noteworthy to mention the IAEA’s involvement in the nuclear industry stems from a confidential agreement WHA 12-40 (5) with the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1959. Stating that whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.
Consequently, the IAEA, established to promote the growth of nuclear power plants worldwide, refrains from disclosing any potential health hazards faced.
Obviously, it would be misleading to rely on the IAEA’s statements in which it was suggested that radioactive wastewater not posing any risk to global health. This
information strengthens the likelihood that the IAEA did not reveal valid and precise radiation data regarding the Chornobyl and Zaporizhia nuclear power plants during the Ukrainian war too.
As it is important to inform the global society that the IAEA, which focuses mainly on promoting nuclear power plants, should not be involved in discussions related to public health in line with the principle of separating responsibilities to avoid conflict of interest. Therefore, it is recommended that civil society to inform the international community about the content of the recently disclosed IAEA document and demand an end to the discharge of radioactive water from Fukushima into the ocean. Accordingly, it should be ensured that all processes involved in disposing of radioactive contamination in Fukushima are subject to internal and financial control measures performed by a minimum of two separate units.
At this stage, it is essential to take measures by clarifying the issues emphasized by the non-governmental organizations following the processes, and it should be ensured that realistic solutions can only be produced with the involvement of a consortium of the neighbouring countries such as South Korea, China, Taiwan and Pasific Islands. In this regard, the process management for the construction of the steel dome shelter , which was completed in 2016 with the financing of 40 countries coming together in 1997 to protect the exploded fourth reactor of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant from external weather conditions, can be taken as an example (6).
Undoubtedly, the economic and administrative control mechanism created for Chornobyl due to Ukraine’s lack of financial resources is not acceptable for the technology giant Japan, which bears the costs of the disaster on its own. However, since global society has not entirely shown its commitment to changing the system, an in-system solution can prevent adding the radioactive disaster to the climate crisis before the transformation of life on the planet hits the constraints. In other words, claiming efficiency and profitability institutionalization of the logic of “running the state like a business,” which has become the common discourse of political powers will at least help to achieve the rationality of emulated corporate management.
(1) Nie, B., Yang, J., Yuan, Y., & Li, F. (2021). Additional radiation dose due to atmospheric dispersion of tritium evaporated from a hypothetical reservoir. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 167, 109475.
(2) See https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/
(3) https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=7221&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5 , article33,table 2
(4) https://nuclear-news.net/2023/07/07/2-b1-iaea chief-rafael-grossi-says-hes-satisfied-with-j
(5) https://independentwho.org/en/who-and-aiea aggreement/
(6) https://www.bechtel.com/projects/chernobyl-shelter-and-confinement/
