Japan's plan to discharge nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea has sparked strong opposition at home and abroad. In order to justify its actions, Japan invited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its discharge facilities, which were recognized by the IAEA. But is this result really credible?Has the IAEA been influenced by Japan?What do countries think about this?
During the trial operation of the discharge equipment in Japan, a team of experts from IAEA was specially invited to evaluate its pollution discharge plan. The IAEA released its assessment report on July 4, claiming that Japan's emissions plan meets international standards and that there are no problems. But this conclusion is not convincing, as there is evidence that the IAEA was induced and intervened by Japan.
At the press conference in Tokyo, a South Korean network ** reporter asked IAEA spokesman Grossi on the spot whether he had accepted a bribe of 1 million euros from Japan. Grossi denied the accusation but did not provide any evidence. However, some networks in South Korea have exposed the collusion between Japan and the IAEA. They claim that Japan sent huge sums of money to the IAEA through "donations" to obtain the first draft of the review report and make extensive revisions to it to cover up the dangers of the contaminated water. They have also published a number of relevant documents and records that are consistent with the IAEA's official report, suggesting that their claims are not unfounded.
Therefore, the results of the IAEA's assessment are not objective, but have been manipulated by Japan, and cannot be used as a basis for Japan's discharge of nuclear wastewater.
Japan's emissions plan has not only met with popular opposition, but also caused dissatisfaction among neighboring countries. Both South Korea and China have expressed strong views on Japan's approach and have questioned the IAEA's assessment report. They believe that the IAEA's assessment process and results have many problems, do not really take into account the potential risks and impacts of nuclear sewage discharge, do not have the consent of the relevant countries, and cannot represent the views of the international community.
South Korea's opposition parties pointed out that the IAEA's assessment report only conducted a superficial inspection of Japan's discharge facilities, and did not address key issues such as the degree of purification, discharge, scope of impact, and countermeasures of nuclear wastewater, nor did it give any scientific basis and data, and was only an empty report, which could not prove that Japan's discharge plan was safe. They believe that Japan is trying to use the reputation of the IAEA to justify its actions, but this is impossible because the IAEA is not a professional research institute, but an agency that guides and supervises the use of nuclear technology, and does not have the power to decide where the nuclear sewage goes.
Chinese authorities also said that the IAEA's assessment report did not provide legitimacy for Japan's emissions plan, because Japan had already ruled out other safer and more economical options when it was assessed, leaving the IAEA with no choice. Moreover, the opinions of all the evaluation experts were not reflected in the report, and many experts questioned and opposed the conclusions of the Japanese presentation, but they were ignored. China hopes that Japan will face up to the reasonable suggestions of all parties and reach consensus with its neighbors to find a better solution.
Japan's plan has also not received support from the domestic public, many of whom fear that the wastewater will have a serious impact on marine ecology and human health. According to a report by Japan, Japan is preparing to start officially discharging nuclear sewage in August, but people in Fukushima, Miyagi, Iwate and other places spontaneously held ** activities and submitted 3A letter signed by 30,000 people demanding that the plan to stop the sea discharge plan should be stopped. A survey conducted by Japan** showed that 40% of respondents were unequivocally opposed to discharging sewage into the sea.
However, Japan** disagrees, believing that the public has misunderstood the emission plan, and they claim that they will continue to explain the necessity and safety of the emission plan to the public and the international community in a transparent manner, and dispel their doubts. But their self-confidence was quickly shattered by the IAEA, because the IAEA made it clear at the press conference that their assessment report was not a support or permission for Japan's discharge of nuclear wastewater, but only a routine assessment, which could not represent the position of other countries, nor could it decide the fate of nuclear wastewater, it all depended on Japan's own choice.