https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/04/25/commentary/japan-commentary/fukushima-radiation-3-11-nuclear-energy-radioactive-water-iaea/
"On April 13, the Japanese government announced that it had approved a plan by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco) to discharge treated water currently being stored in tanks at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean.
....
The 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant caused tremendous environmental, economic and societal hardship. Many of these problems have been addressed creatively and industriously, but, 10 years later, many huge challenges still remain and will continue to remain for decades to come.

The cleanup of the accumulated contaminated water being stored on site is both a technical and socioeconomic challenge. At present, approximately 1.2 million tons of this water is stored in more than 1,000 large tanks at the plant, and the amount increases daily.
....
Tepco proposes that once treated to remove all radionuclides besides tritium (a radioactive form of hydrogen, which is considered one of the least dangerous to health), it can be diluted with seawater to very small concentrations and gradually released into the Pacific Ocean. The dilution and discharge option, recommended by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority as far back as 2014, was one of several evaluated by official committees in Japan, and was selected on the basis of technical feasibility, time, cost and safety.
....
The IAEA and the United States have expressed support for the release plan. But even at this late date, no clear technical plan or environmental impact study has been made public, and the proposal has been developed without any significant consultation with neighboring countries, the international community or even stakeholders in Japan.

Because of this, several nations, notably South Korea and China, have expressed their opposition. The Japanese fishing industry, which fears that the global market for all Japanese seafood products, not just those from Fukushima, will suffer irreparable harm, has also expressed firm opposition. The discharge proposal should be considered a transnational release of radioactive material, and existing IAEA agreements, among others, stipulate that concerned nations and other stakeholders should be consulted in such cases.

In particular, IAEA guidelines stipulate that special provisions are needed when a release can conceivably have radiological impacts outside the territory or jurisdiction of the country in which it originates. No one has credibly argued that the proposed discharge from the Fukushima No. 1 power plant will not impact, be detectable in or cause concern to other countries.

On the contrary, countries around the Pacific rim in particular are justified in demanding to be consulted even if the impacts are estimated to be small. "

John Kerry, US climate change representative to the Shanghai in his reply to
the media question said Japan has been transparent with their decision to
dump the water to the sea.

Seriously speaking, he talked cock as he knows nothing of what is
transparent with regards to the ultimate outcomes and consequences of the
fishes and sea creatures and species in the sea.

Henceforth, until there is further proof in the depth of seas and in the
supply of fishes and seaweeds as food to consumers, they should not allow
Japan to do the harmful thing to human foods.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:4d59442b-4d96-46c4-a692-36f9c0ba5778n@googlegroups.com...

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/04/25/commentary/japan-commentary/fukushima-radiation-3-11-nuclear-energy-radioactive-water-iaea/
"On April 13, the Japanese government announced that it had approved a plan
by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco) to discharge treated water
currently being stored in tanks at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant
into the Pacific Ocean.
....
The 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant caused
tremendous environmental, economic and societal hardship. Many of these
problems have been addressed creatively and industriously, but, 10 years
later, many huge challenges still remain and will continue to remain for
decades to come.

The cleanup of the accumulated contaminated water being stored on site is
both a technical and socioeconomic challenge. At present, approximately 1.2
million tons of this water is stored in more than 1,000 large tanks at the
plant, and the amount increases daily.
....
Tepco proposes that once treated to remove all radionuclides besides tritium
(a radioactive form of hydrogen, which is considered one of the least
dangerous to health), it can be diluted with seawater to very small
concentrations and gradually released into the Pacific Ocean. The dilution
and discharge option, recommended by both the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority as far back as 2014, was
one of several evaluated by official committees in Japan, and was selected
on the basis of technical feasibility, time, cost and safety.
....
The IAEA and the United States have expressed support for the release plan.
But even at this late date, no clear technical plan or environmental impact
study has been made public, and the proposal has been developed without any
significant consultation with neighboring countries, the international
community or even stakeholders in Japan.

Because of this, several nations, notably South Korea and China, have
expressed their opposition. The Japanese fishing industry, which fears that
the global market for all Japanese seafood products, not just those from
Fukushima, will suffer irreparable harm, has also expressed firm opposition.
The discharge proposal should be considered a transnational release of
radioactive material, and existing IAEA agreements, among others, stipulate
that concerned nations and other stakeholders should be consulted in such
cases.

In particular, IAEA guidelines stipulate that special provisions are needed
when a release can conceivably have radiological impacts outside the
territory or jurisdiction of the country in which it originates. No one has
credibly argued that the proposed discharge from the Fukushima No. 1 power
plant will not impact, be detectable in or cause concern to other countries.

On the contrary, countries around the Pacific rim in particular are
justified in demanding to be consulted even if the impacts are estimated to
be small. "

Bloomberg headline:
"China Dares Japanese Officials to Drink Fukushima Wastewater"

If Japanese officials believe science is on its side, why can't they
accept the challenge?

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:26:36 PM UTC-4, bizarre wrote:
> John Kerry, US climate change representative to the Shanghai in his reply to
> the media question said Japan has been transparent with their decision to
> dump the water to the sea.
>
> Seriously speaking, he talked cock as he knows nothing of what is
> transparent with regards to the ultimate outcomes and consequences of the
> fishes and sea creatures and species in the sea.
>
> Henceforth, until there is further proof in the depth of seas and in the
> supply of fishes and seaweeds as food to consumers, they should not allow
> Japan to do the harmful thing to human foods.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:4d59442b-4d96-46c4...@googlegroups.com...
> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/04/25/commentary/japan-commentary/fukushima-radiation-3-11-nuclear-energy-radioactive-water-iaea/
> "On April 13, the Japanese government announced that it had approved a plan
> by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco) to discharge treated water
> currently being stored in tanks at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant
> into the Pacific Ocean.
> ...
> The 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant caused
> tremendous environmental, economic and societal hardship. Many of these
> problems have been addressed creatively and industriously, but, 10 years
> later, many huge challenges still remain and will continue to remain for
> decades to come.
>
> The cleanup of the accumulated contaminated water being stored on site is
> both a technical and socioeconomic challenge. At present, approximately 1.2
> million tons of this water is stored in more than 1,000 large tanks at the
> plant, and the amount increases daily.
> ...
> Tepco proposes that once treated to remove all radionuclides besides tritium
> (a radioactive form of hydrogen, which is considered one of the least
> dangerous to health), it can be diluted with seawater to very small
> concentrations and gradually released into the Pacific Ocean. The dilution
> and discharge option, recommended by both the International Atomic Energy
> Agency and the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority as far back as 2014, was
> one of several evaluated by official committees in Japan, and was selected
> on the basis of technical feasibility, time, cost and safety.
> ...
> The IAEA and the United States have expressed support for the release plan.
> But even at this late date, no clear technical plan or environmental impact
> study has been made public, and the proposal has been developed without any
> significant consultation with neighboring countries, the international
> community or even stakeholders in Japan.
>
> Because of this, several nations, notably South Korea and China, have
> expressed their opposition. The Japanese fishing industry, which fears that
> the global market for all Japanese seafood products, not just those from
> Fukushima, will suffer irreparable harm, has also expressed firm opposition.
> The discharge proposal should be considered a transnational release of
> radioactive material, and existing IAEA agreements, among others, stipulate
> that concerned nations and other stakeholders should be consulted in such
> cases.
>
> In particular, IAEA guidelines stipulate that special provisions are needed
> when a release can conceivably have radiological impacts outside the
> territory or jurisdiction of the country in which it originates. No one has
> credibly argued that the proposed discharge from the Fukushima No. 1 power
> plant will not impact, be detectable in or cause concern to other countries.
>
> On the contrary, countries around the Pacific rim in particular are
> justified in demanding to be consulted even if the impacts are estimated to
> be small. "

On 30/4/2021 6:45 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> Bloomberg headline:
> "China Dares Japanese Officials to Drink Fukushima Wastewater"
>
> If Japanese officials believe science is on its side, why can't they
> accept the challenge?
>
>
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:26:36 PM UTC-4, bizarre wrote:
>> John Kerry, US climate change representative to the Shanghai in his reply to
>> the media question said Japan has been transparent with their decision to
>> dump the water to the sea.
>>
>> Seriously speaking, he talked cock as he knows nothing of what is
>> transparent with regards to the ultimate outcomes and consequences of the
>> fishes and sea creatures and species in the sea.
>>
>> Henceforth, until there is further proof in the depth of seas and in the
>> supply of fishes and seaweeds as food to consumers, they should not allow
>> Japan to do the harmful thing to human foods.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "ltlee1" wrote in message
>> news:4d59442b-4d96-46c4...@googlegroups.com...
>> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/04/25/commentary/japan-commentary/fukushima-radiation-3-11-nuclear-energy-radioactive-water-iaea/
>> "On April 13, the Japanese government announced that it had approved a plan
>> by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco) to discharge treated water
>> currently being stored in tanks at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant
>> into the Pacific Ocean.
>> ...
>> The 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant caused
>> tremendous environmental, economic and societal hardship. Many of these
>> problems have been addressed creatively and industriously, but, 10 years
>> later, many huge challenges still remain and will continue to remain for
>> decades to come.
>>
>> The cleanup of the accumulated contaminated water being stored on site is
>> both a technical and socioeconomic challenge. At present, approximately 1.2
>> million tons of this water is stored in more than 1,000 large tanks at the
>> plant, and the amount increases daily.
>> ...
>> Tepco proposes that once treated to remove all radionuclides besides tritium
>> (a radioactive form of hydrogen, which is considered one of the least
>> dangerous to health), it can be diluted with seawater to very small
>> concentrations and gradually released into the Pacific Ocean. The dilution
>> and discharge option, recommended by both the International Atomic Energy
>> Agency and the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority as far back as 2014, was
>> one of several evaluated by official committees in Japan, and was selected
>> on the basis of technical feasibility, time, cost and safety.
>> ...
>> The IAEA and the United States have expressed support for the release plan.
>> But even at this late date, no clear technical plan or environmental impact
>> study has been made public, and the proposal has been developed without any
>> significant consultation with neighboring countries, the international
>> community or even stakeholders in Japan.
>>
>> Because of this, several nations, notably South Korea and China, have
>> expressed their opposition. The Japanese fishing industry, which fears that
>> the global market for all Japanese seafood products, not just those from
>> Fukushima, will suffer irreparable harm, has also expressed firm opposition.
>> The discharge proposal should be considered a transnational release of
>> radioactive material, and existing IAEA agreements, among others, stipulate
>> that concerned nations and other stakeholders should be consulted in such
>> cases.
>>
>> In particular, IAEA guidelines stipulate that special provisions are needed
>> when a release can conceivably have radiological impacts outside the
>> territory or jurisdiction of the country in which it originates. No one has
>> credibly argued that the proposed discharge from the Fukushima No. 1 power
>> plant will not impact, be detectable in or cause concern to other countries.
>>
>> On the contrary, countries around the Pacific rim in particular are
>> justified in demanding to be consulted even if the impacts are estimated to
>> be small. "

Biden should ask Japan PM Suga to take a drink of even the diluted
radioactive waste water to see if he would turn into a monster with
cancerous cell in all parts of his body.

John Kerrie of US should drink for the US climate change and report back
how he feels after he drank the diluted wastewater drink that was
proposed by PM Suga be to thrown to the sea.