Pacific civil society groups say 2025 has been a big year for the ocean.

Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) representative Maureen Penjueli said the Pacific Ocean was being hyper-militarised and there was a desire for seabed minerals to be used to build-up military capacity.

“Critical minerals, whether from land or from the deep ocean itself, have a military end use, and that’s been made very clear in 2025,” Penjueli said during the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) 2025 State of the Ocean webinar.

“They’re deemed extremely vital for defence industrial base, enabling the production of military platforms such as fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, submarines.

“2025 is the year where we see the link between critical minerals on the sea floor and use [in the] military.”

PANG’s Joey Tau said one of the developments had been the increase in countries calling for a moratorium or pause on deep sea mining, which was now up to 40.

“Eight of which are from the Pacific and a sub-regional grouping the MSG (Melanesian Spearhead Group) still holds that political space or that movement around a moratorium.”

Deep-sea mining rules
Tau said it came as the UN-sanctioned International Seabed Authority tried to come to an agreement on deep-sea mining rules at the same time as the United States is considering its own legal pathway.

“It is a bad precedent setting by the US, we hope that the ISA both assembly and the council would hold ground and warn the US.”

He said unlike US, China spoke about the importance of multilateralism and it for global partners to maintain unity within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreement which has not been ratified by the United States.

Also in February was the deep sea minerals talanoa, where Pacific leaders met to discuss deep sea mining.

“Some of our countries sit on different sides of the table on this issue. You have countries who are sponsoring and who are progressing the agenda of deep-sea mining, not only within their national jurisdiction, but also in the international arena,” Tau said.

In May, UN human rights experts expressed concern about the release of treated nuclear wastewater.

Japan’s government has consistently maintained the release meets international safety standards, and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency shows there is no measurable impact beyond Japan’s coastal waters.

Legal and moral problem
However, Ocean Vision Legal’s Naima Taafaki-Fifita said as well as being an environmental issue, it was also a legal and moral problem.

“By discharging these radioactive contaminants into the Pacific, Japan risks breaching its obligations under international law,” she said.

“[The UN special rapporteurs] caution that this may pose grave risks to human rights, particularly the rights to life, health, food and culture, not only in Japan, but across the Pacific.”

Taafaki-Fifita said it was a “deeply personal” issue for Pacific people who lived with the nuclear legacy of testing.

In September, what is known as the “High Seas Treaty” received its 60th ratification which means it will now be legally effective in January 2026.

The agreement allows international waters — which make up nearly two-thirds of the ocean — to be placed into marine protected areas.

Taafaki-Fitita said it was important that Pacific priorities were visible and heard as the treaty became implemented.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic.

Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling mid-air refuelling, bombs and an array of intelligence.

If successful they will destroy or, more likely, destabilise the uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, causing them to vibrate and spin uncontrollably, generating centrifugal forces that could rupture containment systems.

Spinning at more than 50,000 rpm it wouldn’t take much of a shockwave from a blast or some other act of sabotage to do this.

There may be about half a tonne of enriched uranium and several tonnes of lower-grade material underground.

If a cascade of bunker-busting bombs like the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators got through, the heat generated would be in the hundreds, even thousands, of degrees Celsius. This would destroy the centrifuges, converting the uranium hexafluoride gas into a toxic aerosol, leading to serious radiological contamination over a wide area.

The head of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, warned repeatedly of the dangers over the past few days. How many people would be killed, contaminated or forced to evacuate should not have to be calculated — it should be avoided at all cost.

Divided opinions
Some people think this attack is a very good idea; some think this is an act of madness by two rogue states.

On June 18, Israeli media were reporting that the US had rushed an aerial armada loaded with bunker busters to Israel while the US continued its sham denials of involvement in the war.

Analysts Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares warned this week of “Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims”.  They point out that for some decades now Netanyahu has warned that Iran is weeks or even days away from having the bomb, begging successive presidents for permission to wage Judeo-Christian jihad.

In Donald Trump — the MAGA Peace Candidate — he finally got his green light.

The centrifugal forces destabilising the Iranian state
The other — and possibly more significant — centrifugal force that has been unleashed is a hybrid attack on the Iranian state itself.  The Americans, Israelis and their European allies hope to trigger regime change.

There are many Iranians inside and outside the country who would welcome such a development.  Other Iranians suggest they should be careful of what they wish for, pointing to the human misery that follows, as night follows day, wherever post 9/11 America’s project to bring “democracy, goodness and niceness” leads.  If you can’t quickly think of half a dozen examples, this must be your first visit to Planet Earth.

Is regime change in Iran possible?
So, are the Americans and Israelis on to something or not? This week prominent anti-regime writer Sohrab Ahmari added a caveat to his long-standing call for an end to the regime.  Ahmari, an Iranian, who is the US editor of the geopolitical analysis platform UnHerd said:  “The potential nightmare scenarios are as numerous as they are appalling: regime collapse that leads not to the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the ascent to the Peacock Throne of its chubby dauphin, Reza, but warlordism and ethno-sectarian warfare that drives millions of refugees into Europe.

“Or a Chinese intervention in favour of a crucial energy partner and anchor of the new Eurasian bloc led by Beijing . . .  A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the Persian Gulf monarchies.”

Despite these risks, there are indeed Iranians who are cheering for Uncle Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).  Some have little sympathy for the Palestinians because their government poured millions into supporting Hamas and Hezbollah — money that could have eased hardship inside Iran, caused, it must be added, by both the US-imposed sanctions and the regime’s own mismanagement, some say corruption.

As I pointed out in an article The West’s War on Iran shortly after the Israelis launched the war: the regime appears to have a core support base of around 20 percent.  This was true in 2018 when I last visited Iran and was still the case in the most recent polling I could find.

I quoted an Iranian contact who shortly after the attack told me they had scanned reactions inside Iran and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government at this critical moment.  Like many, I suggested Iranians would — as typically happens when countries are attacked — rally round the flag.  Shortly after the article was published this statement was challenged by other Iranians who dispute that there will be any “rallying to the flag” — as that is the flag of the Islamic Republic and a great many Iranians are sick to the back teeth of it.

Some others demur:

“The killing of at least 224 Iranians has once again significantly damaged Israel’s claim that it avoids targeting civilians,” Dr Shirin Saeidi, author of Women and the Islamic Republic, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, told The New Arab on June 16.  “Israel’s illegal attack on the Iranian people will definitely not result in a popular uprising against the Iranian state. On the contrary, Iranians are coming together behind the Islamic Republic.”

To be honest, I can’t discern who is correct. In the last few of days I have also had contact with people inside Iran (all these contacts must, for obvious reasons, be anonymous).  One of them welcomed the attack on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps).  I also got this message relayed to me from someone else in Iran as a response to my article:

“Some Iranians are pro-regime and have condemned Israeli attacks and want the government to respond strongly. Some Iranians are pro-Israel and happy that Israel has attacked and killed some of their murderers and want regime change, [but the] majority of Iranians dislike both sides.

They dislike the regime in Iran, and they are patriotic so they don’t want a foreign country like Israel invading them and killing people. They feel hopeless and defenceless as they know both sides have failed or will fail them.”

Calculating the incalculable: regime survival or collapse?
Only a little over half of Iran is Persian. Minorities include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmen, Armenians and one of the region’s few post-Nakba Jewish congregations outside of Israel today.

Mossad, MI6 and various branches of the US state have poured billions into opposition groups, including various monarchist factions, but from a distance they appear fragmented. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) armed opposition group has been an irritant but so far not a major disruptor.

The most effective terrorist attacks inside Iran have been launched by Israel, the US and the British — including the assassination of a string of Iranian peace negotiators, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, nuclear scientists and their families, and various regime figures.

How numerous the active strands of anti-regime elements are is hard to estimate. Equally hard to calculate is how many will move into open confrontation with the regime. Conversely, how unified, durable — or brittle — is the regime? How cohesive is the leadership of the IRGC and the Basij militias? Will they work effectively together in the trying times ahead? In particular, how successful has the CIA, MI6 and Mossad been at penetrating their structures and buying generals?

Both Iran’s nuclear programme and its government — in fact, the whole edifice and foundation of the Islamic Republic — is at the beginning of the greatest stress test of its existence.  If the centrifugal forces prove too great, I can’t help but think of the words of William Butler Yeats:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity.

Peace and prosperity to all the people of Iran.  And let’s never forget the people of Palestine as they endure genocide.

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.

On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said: 

Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.

Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.

It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.

Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:

Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.

A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:

“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”

On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.

Yet the UK, USA and France blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning Israel’s actions.

It is worth noting how the The New York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:

Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.

Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective
In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.

In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.

In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.

Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.

Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.

By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.

Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.

American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.

In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.

In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.

Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.

An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.

With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.

One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.

Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.

So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.

One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.

In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.

The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”

20 years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Listen to the audio from 3:00 minutes in.

Over the last 24 hours, the atomic control agency IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) formed a view at its UN Geneva meeting, that there was so-called evidence that Iran had ‘undisclosed sites’ where uranium was identified.

Iran disputes this, and suggested today that the IAEA members were wrong.

It appears Israel identified a window of opportunity where it can strike Iran’s nuclear power generation infrastructure, assassinate its nuclear scientists, and destroy other sites that it insists are covert nuclear-development-sites.

But let’s be clear at this moment, it is not proven that Iran has or had a covert uranium enrichment operation in play.

ISRAEL CLAIMS:

Israel claims its attacks on Iran are justified as preemptive defence operations – but we need to understand here… preemptive defence in itself is not legal.

The problem on this aspect is Israel has arguably, long ago, crossed the Rubicon regarding International Law – especially in Gaza and the West Bank. So it’s reasonable to suggest; Israel is not deterred by the possibility of any future recourse being brought upon it by the international community.

CONTEXT:

Iran is believed to be not war-ready. But, Iran will respond. Its Supreme Leader stated it will respond. It remains to be seen how it will respond.

At this moment, there are reports in Israel that over 100 missiles are incoming from Iran to Israel.

We also know, Israel has weakened Hezbollah, especially within Lebanon. The strikes on Beirut earlier this month and prior were designed to weaken Hezbollah.

Further, Syria is in a state of transition.

This is the backdrop to Israel’s window of opportunity.

THE UNITED STATES:

The United States obviously knew a strike was imminent. It pulled non-essential personnel out of neighbouring Iraq and from the general region.

United States President Donald Trump has confirmed that there was communication on this offensive between Israel and the US, in the context of no-surprises.

Trump added that the US would help defend Israel, but it’s unclear what ‘defend’ actually means. The US appears to be waiting to see exactly how Iran responds.

The Trump Administration insists Israel’s decision to strike Iran was unilateral. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio said today: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.”

IRAN’S POSITION:

Last Sunday, the Iranian President said Iran was “ready for inspections” but added it is “unacceptable to deprive peoples of access to knowledge, technology and scientific achievements”.

*** Only yesterday Iran’s foreign minister stated that Iran and the US were close to a deal on its nuclear energy ambitions. In a statement he said: “Trump took office saying that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. In fact, this is in line with our own doctrine and could be the main basis for the deal.”

Perhaps Israel saw its window of opportunity narrowing.

Iran insists its nuclear energy programme has been transparent.

BACK-STORY:

In negotiations with United States envoys, Iran has been insisting that it has the right to enrich its uranium but insists this is for efficient energy generation.

Back in May Iran’s foreign minister said: To claim that any country that wants to enrich uranium has non-peaceful purposes is a “deliberate misconception”

He stressed. “There are states that enrich uranium but do not possess nuclear weapons.”

LEAKS ISRAEL GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE:

On June 7, Iran’s Intelligence Minister claimed Iran had acquired trove of Israel Government documents that detailed Israel’s nuclear program.

Iran described the intelligence as “sensitive and strategic” and one of the most significant intelligence leaks in Israel’s history.

The intelligence documents also detailed communications between Israel and the United States, Europe and other countries.

OTHER CONTEXT:

The Russian Federation announced this week that it was willing to assist Iran with its nuclear energy ambitions.

Listen to the audio from 3:00 minutes in.

Over the last 24 hours, the atomic control agency IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) formed a view at its UN Geneva meeting, that there was so-called evidence that Iran had ‘undisclosed sites’ where uranium was identified.

Iran disputes this, and suggested today that the IAEA members were wrong.

It appears Israel identified a window of opportunity where it can strike Iran’s nuclear power generation infrastructure, assassinate its nuclear scientists, and destroy other sites that it insists are covert nuclear-development-sites.

But let’s be clear at this moment, it is not proven that Iran has or had a covert uranium enrichment operation in play.

ISRAEL CLAIMS:

Israel claims its attacks on Iran are justified as preemptive defence operations – but we need to understand here… preemptive defence in itself is not legal.

The problem on this aspect is Israel has arguably, long ago, crossed the Rubicon regarding International Law – especially in Gaza and the West Bank. So it’s reasonable to suggest; Israel is not deterred by the possibility of any future recourse being brought upon it by the international community.

CONTEXT:

Iran is believed to be not war-ready. But, Iran will respond. Its Supreme Leader stated it will respond. It remains to be seen how it will respond.

At this moment, there are reports in Israel that over 100 missiles are incoming from Iran to Israel.

We also know, Israel has weakened Hezbollah, especially within Lebanon. The strikes on Beirut earlier this month and prior were designed to weaken Hezbollah.

Further, Syria is in a state of transition.

This is the backdrop to Israel’s window of opportunity.

THE UNITED STATES:

The United States obviously knew a strike was imminent. It pulled non-essential personnel out of neighbouring Iraq and from the general region.

United States President Donald Trump has confirmed that there was communication on this offensive between Israel and the US, in the context of no-surprises.

Trump added that the US would help defend Israel, but it’s unclear what ‘defend’ actually means. The US appears to be waiting to see exactly how Iran responds.

The Trump Administration insists Israel’s decision to strike Iran was unilateral. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio said today: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.”

IRAN’S POSITION:

Last Sunday, the Iranian President said Iran was “ready for inspections” but added it is “unacceptable to deprive peoples of access to knowledge, technology and scientific achievements”.

*** Only yesterday Iran’s foreign minister stated that Iran and the US were close to a deal on its nuclear energy ambitions. In a statement he said: “Trump took office saying that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. In fact, this is in line with our own doctrine and could be the main basis for the deal.”

Perhaps Israel saw its window of opportunity narrowing.

Iran insists its nuclear energy programme has been transparent.

BACK-STORY:

In negotiations with United States envoys, Iran has been insisting that it has the right to enrich its uranium but insists this is for efficient energy generation.

Back in May Iran’s foreign minister said: To claim that any country that wants to enrich uranium has non-peaceful purposes is a “deliberate misconception”

He stressed. “There are states that enrich uranium but do not possess nuclear weapons.”

LEAKS ISRAEL GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE:

On June 7, Iran’s Intelligence Minister claimed Iran had acquired trove of Israel Government documents that detailed Israel’s nuclear program.

Iran described the intelligence as “sensitive and strategic” and one of the most significant intelligence leaks in Israel’s history.

The intelligence documents also detailed communications between Israel and the United States, Europe and other countries.

OTHER CONTEXT:

The Russian Federation announced this week that it was willing to assist Iran with its nuclear energy ambitions.

One of Fiji’s three deputy prime ministers, Viliame Gavoka, has appealed to the country’s prime minister to review his stance on Japan’s disposal of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka supports Japan’s compliance with safety protocols outlined by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

However, Rabuka also spoke about the need for an independent scientific assessment.

He has also signed off on the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s Udaune Declaration on Climate Change, in which his fellow prime ministers of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Oslands and Vanuatu, and spokersperson of FLNKS of New Caledonia, “strongly urged Japan “not to discharge the treated water into the Pacific Ocean until and unless the treated water is incontrovertibly proven scientifically to be safe to do so and seriously consider other options like use in concrete”.

Japan has, however, already begun the release of the treated nuclear wastewater in spite of strong condemnation from the region and across the world.

Gavoka, who is also leader of the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), further highlighted the concerns of his party’s Youth section which also implored Rabuka to reconsider his position.

The SODELPA leader acknowledged the diversity of opinions within the coalition government and the allowance for conscience votes, underlining the dynamics of political relationships.

SODELPA general-secretary Viliame Takayawa is also concerned, particularly noting the view that Rabuka has taken on the role of a national leader.

He confirmed that the party intends to communicate directly with the prime minister on Tuesday to raise this pressing issue.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Japan yesterday began the decades-long release of more than one million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean in defiance of protests across the region.

Protesters in Auckland decried New Zealand’s “convenient silence” on Japan’s nuclear waste release at a rally.

Among the crowd was a young Pacific advocate who called on the New Zealand government to oppose the release.

“We’re calling for New Zealand to release a statement opposing the dump and then come up with a regional consensus that the leaders’ meeting [Pacific Islands Forum Summit] in November can accept,” said codirector Marco de Jong of Te Kuaka New Zealand Alternative.

At the Auckland protest on Friday morning, de Jong said New Zealand was taking the easy way out.

He said the government’s silence was convenient and left Pacific nations to fight on their own.

“The ocean is suffering, climate change is accelerating. And the Pacific is being rendered as a sacrifice zone, a military buffer and climate disaster area,” de Jong said.

‘Nuclear legacies’
“Things like the nuclear waste dump compound harms. There are nuclear legacies that have not been addressed. And this is part of a broader story.”

Aaron Lee, an Aucklander originally from South Korea, said the issue was causing tension back home.

“It should not be happening,” Lee said.

He said if it really was “clean water” and “clean treated wastewater”, why could not Japan use it in its agricultural lands?

Lee said protesters had been fiercely opposing the release in South Korea.

Auckland University sociology lecturer Dr Karly Burch told the protest: “it’s really important to put it in the context of nuclear imperialism and nuclear colonialism.”

“It involves targeting indigenous peoples and their lands and waters to sustain the nuclear production process,” she said.

Legal thresholds
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards were basically legal thresholds or standards, Dr Burch said.

“So they’re saying up to this amount, it’s legally allowable to pollute, it’s legally allowable to have bodies exposed to a certain amount of ionising radiation.”

“And so it’s really important that when we hear these things, when we hear these approvals, we’re thinking of them in legal terms, because that’s really what this is all about.”

She said the IAEA’s legal standards were “extremely narrow” in their focus.

The IAEA backs it’s standards the UN nuclear watchdog boss told RNZ in July 2023.

Despite assurances, protesters in and around the Pacific Ocean have hit the streets.

In Suva, hundreds of protesters gathered and chanted: “If it’s safe, put it in Japan.”

“Pacific Islands Forum, United Nations, We are the Pacific, We are angry,” protesters chanted.

And at least 16 protesters in Seoul were arrested as they attempted to enter the Japanese embassy.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

☢️ Fukushima protest march | 25/8/23#fyp #fiji #FukushimaNuclearWasteWater pic.twitter.com/zHvjem9wTD

— fijivillage (@fijivillage) August 24, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Japan’s release of more than one million tonnes of treated Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the Pacific is officially underway.

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings has confirmed that the disposal started at 1pm local time today.

“This is a big step and punctuating moment in the process of decommissioning,” TEPCO spokesperson Junichi Matsumoto told news media.

“We will have 30 years or so [to release the water], we will ensure safety and quality.

“We will accomplish this discharge, we have to buckle down ourselves and we have to do it with an intense attitude,” he said.

TEPCO said it was an important step towards decommissioning the destroyed Fukushima power plant after it was hit by a tsunami 12 years ago.

“Per day 460 tonnes is the amount of discharge. So if there are no troubles in about 17 days, 7800 cubic metres of water will be successfully discharged,” Matsumoto said.

Assurances given
Assurances were given in TEPCO’s latest media briefing that if unsafe levels of tritium were detected, the operation would stop until the water has been re-treated through its ALPS processing system and was safe.

Daily monitoring has begun and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also independently monitoring the process on site.

“So, after a sea water pump is operated regarding the vertical shaft, the monitoring will become in service,” Junichi Matsumoto said.

The treated water is being discharged “continuously”, he added.

Holding Japan ‘fully accountable’
Pacific leaders are committed to holding Japan accountable should anything go wrong, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Henry Puna said.

“We’ve done our best to get Japan not to commence the discharge, until there is full agreement that it’s verifiably safe to do so. But Japan has taken a sovereign decision.

“And you know that point is now past. What we need to focus on now is to hold Japan to account,” he said.

SHAME JAPAN!

NO FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR WASTE WATER IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN!

YOU CREATED THE PROBLEM, SOLVE IT PROPERLY ON YOUR OWN TERRITORY.

THIS REGION IS NOT YOUR DUMPING GROUND. pic.twitter.com/MK4WOeDU4c

— Pacific Feminist Community of Practice (@pacfemcop) August 15, 2023

Puna said Japan had made a guarantee that it would comply with international standards and the Pacific would be watching keenly to make sure it stayed that way.

“Since the announcement of the discharge in April 2021, our leaders have been busy engaging with Japan,” Puna said.

“The statements are very clear. Their collective statements expressing our concerns given our nuclear legacy issues and that position has never changed.”

Pacific leaders are to discuss the issue face-to-face in Rarotonga in November at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Japanese government spokesperson says it is “not wilfully trying to divide the Pacific” over the Fukushima treated nuclear wastewater release.

Japan is set to start discharging more than one million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow (local time).

This comes 12 years after a tsunami slammed the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting in what has been labelled as the largest civil nuclear energy disaster since Chernobyl.

Palau, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia have publicly backed the plan or at least placed their faith in Japan’s word that it will be safe.

The release is forecast to take 30 to 40 years to complete.

Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is the most recent Pacific leader to speak out in defence of Japan.

He said he is satisfied their plan is safe after reading the UN nuclear agency’s report.

Rabuka’s voice is important because he is in the Pacific Islands Forum leadership team — known as the Troika — as the past chair of the Forum. The other two are current chair Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and future chair, the Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni.

Since making that statement Rabuka has apologised for speaking ahead of the recent Troika meeting, but he has not backtracked on his view.

‘Discharged’ into Japan’s own backyard
Rabuka has taken to social media in response to criticism of his statement of support.

“Comparisons between the nuclear legacy in the Pacific and Japan’s nuclear wastewater release is fear-mongering,” he wrote.

He also said the wastewater was not being dumped but discharged into Japan’s “own backyard”, over 7000km from Fiji.

1/3 One of my critics at the weekend appeared to be somehow connecting the wastewater discharge with the cataclysmic power of the nuclear bombs dropped in the Pacific as part of weapons testing.

— Sitiveni Rabuka (@slrabuka) August 22, 2023

That in itself has been the centre of debate with nuclear activists continuing to call it a dump.

One nuclear expert appointed by the Pacific Islands Forum said there was an argument that it was a dump over a release.

But the International Atomic Energy Agency has gone to great lengths — even travelling to New Zealand and Rarotonga — to explain why this is not a dump.

Director-General Rafael Grossi told RNZ Pacific earlier this year that he condemned dumping which he said had happened in the past and was not the case for Japan’s plan.

Against and on the fence
Vanuatu’s Foreign Minister has drafted a declaration urging Japan to stop the discharge.

He wants the leaders of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) meeting in Port Vila today to support the declaration.

Tuvalu has also spoken out, expressing opposition to Rabuka’s stance.

Tuvalu’s Minister for Finance, Seve Paeniu told FBC News that if Japan was genuinely confident, why did it not consider disposing of it within its own lakes and waters.

TEPCO assures the Pacific
Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO) spokesperson Junichi Matsumoto told the first media briefing today that his team was “moving quickly” to prepare the release which would depend on the conditions.

“The final decision will be made on the morning of the [August] 24 based on the climate conditions or weather conditions,” he said.

“A very small amount will be carefully discharged using a two-step process.”

RNZ asked TEPCO about the nuclear legacy in the Pacific.

“To the members of the PIF, we have been providing explanations on the discharge into the sea,” Matsumoto said.

“So we would like to continue to provide the explanation on our initiative.

“And in terms of assurance, it may be a bit different in terms of nuance, but the result of sea area monitoring will be communicated.

Matsumoto said anyone wishing to could check the results of the sea area monitoring on the TEPCO website.

When questioned about when Pacific nations would see the effects of the release, he said that according to dispersion models particles would arrive on the shores of Papua New Guinea and Fiji in “a few years’ time or a few decades”.

“It will be impossible to distinguish that [discharged] tritium [in the Pacific Ocean] from that already existing in nature,” Matsumoto said.

A Japan government spokesperson said Tokyo was not wilfully trying to divide the Pacific and no compensation would be given to Pacific nations for potential reputational damage.

“The Japanese government has been taking opportunities at international conferences and at bilateral meetings to thoroughly and meticulously explain and disseminate information to the world through its website, as well as through social network media including X [formerly Twitter],” the spokesperson said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific anti-nuclear advocacy groups and campaigners have condemned Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s backing of Japan’s plans to release over one million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean.

On Thursday, Rabuka announced he was “satisfied” with Japan’s efforts to demonstrate that the release will be safe.

He said he had read the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report which “works for us” and that he “trusts their expert judgement and monitoring process”.

He also encouraged others to read the report.

“It is my job as a leader to treasure and reassure myself and to reassure you that I am paying close attention to this,” he said.

“With Japanese friends and other partners including the IAEA, I will personally be ensuring the highest possible standards of safety and protection for our vast liquid continent and under my leadership, Fiji will continue to defend our precious Pacific home.”

The IAEA has said Japan has checked off all boxes to ensure the imminent release of the treated nuclear waste would be consistent with international standards.

AFG Fiji ‘deeply concerned’
However, the Alliance for Future Generation Fiji said it was “deeply concerned” and “condemned” Rabuka’s stance.

The group is urging Rabuka to reconsider “and take a stronger position” on the issue.

AFG Fiji said releasing treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean would have “far-reaching consequences for the entire Pacific region and beyond”.

“This action has the potential to inflict lasting damage to marine ecosystems, threatening the livelihoods of countless communities that depend on the ocean for sustenance and economic well-being.

“Our concerns regarding this matter are deeply rooted in the Pacific Ocean as a source of identity for all Pacific communities,” AFG Fiji said.

“We urge the Fiji Prime Minister and by extension, his government, to reconsider its stance and take a stronger position in advocating for the implementation of alternative, safe, and sustainable solutions for the Fukushima nuclear wastewater.

“We also urge Pacific leaders to trust the independent panel of scientific experts, appointed by the Pacific Islands Forum to review the data and information provided by Japan. As members of the global community, it is our collective responsibility to uphold principles of environmental stewardship and to prioritize the health and safety of our oceans and the lives they sustain,” the NGO said.

The campaigners are also calling on the international community to show solidarity and “demand that Japan seeks alternative solutions to handle its nuclear waste responsibly”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Independent nuclear experts have offered to drink water and eat fish from the Pacific Ocean after Japan dumps its nuclear waste water into the Pacific.

Japan is planning to ditch over one million tonnes of ALPS-treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean over 30 to 40 years starting from sometime this year.

ALPS is an Advanced Liquid Processing System.

New Zealand and Australian experts told media at an online panel discussion hosted by NZ’s Science Media Centre that Japan had good intentions.

The experts said they believed that as long as the wastewater was tested before it was released the operation would be safe.

Two even went as far as saying they would “take a sip” of the treated wastewater.

“I would drink the water. I mean, it’s like going down to the beach and swallowing a mouthful of water when you’re swimming,” said University of Auckland physics senior lecturer Dr David Krofcheck.

“It’s saltwater. I prefer the desalinated before I drink it,” he added. Dr Krofcheck specialises in nuclear physics and natural radiation from the environment.

“Would I eat the fish? Yes, I would,” Adelaide University’s School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences associate professor Tony Hooker added.

‘The least bad option’
The contaminated water has been used to cool the melted reactor of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

More than 1000 tanks are now full and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of storage space.

Japan has said it will treat the water to ensure it is harmless. It will also dilute the water and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

Dr Krofcheck said that option was the “best one”.

“That’s probably the least bad option. Not that that’s a bad option. Because the dose, or the amount of tritium being diluted is so small. But I think the least bad option is releasing,” he said.

Ocean circulation modeller and researcher in Taiwan, Professor Chau-Ron Wu, told media he predicted the water from Fukushima would take 2-3 years to reach North America, one year to get to Taiwan and sweep across much of the Pacific.

No release date has been set, but associate professor Tony Hooker said that what was known is, “The water is going to be released in [northern hemisphere] summer 2023.”

“I think the release is imminent. And I guess that will be a decision for the Japanese government. Ultimately, they can make that decision. They don’t need to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other agency.”

Associate professor Hooker said that as long as it was only tritium and carbon 14 that’s released, and in small quantities, he is confident it would be safe.

Dr Krofcheck agrees: “I’m very comfortable with releasing it, as long as we can guarantee the Royal Science Society can guarantee that the nasty strontium, caesium, iodine, cobalt 60 can be removed”.

They will be removed by an ALPS.

“So, most of the ALPS processes are using a zeolite clay and which is very absorbent. Once the water has gone through that the radionuclides are bound to a solid, you can dry that out and store it as radioactive waste,” Hooker explained.

‘I really thought they reconsider it’
There is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the release project.

Japan is in talks with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and has been providing data to their independent expert panel to analyse, which Hooker is a part of.

He acknowledged those who want to end nuclear waste dumping, which he says already happens around the world.

“Whilst there’s no issues from a radiation safety perspective about putting this radiation into the sea, should there be some level of discussion or intensive research about how we can minimise disposing into the sea in the future?”

‘Retraumatising’ for Tahitian
A Mā’ohi anti-nuclear activist in Tahiti, Hinamoeura Cross, found the news of Japan pushing forward with its plans despite backlash retraumatising.

“I’m really shocked by what the Japanese are going to do. We know that they have planned that for many years, but I really thought that they will reconsider that,” Cross said.

For her, all nuclear issues are personal. Japan’s plans are of interest in particular as they impact on her ocean, the Pacific.

“I remember my great grandmother and my grandmother that were sick. Then my mum and my auntie, they had the thyroid cancer,” Cross said.

When Cross was aged about 10, her sister got sick and at 23-years-old she was diagnosed with leukaemia.

All of the women she loves and looked up to were “poisoned” by French nuclear testing in the Pacific, she said.

Now that she is a mother of two, her voice has become staunchly against nuclear colonialism. She wants better healthcare for survivors of French nuclear testing.

“I’m anxious about the health care of my children; are they going to be sick or not? We really need this healthcare in Tahiti because of the 193 nuclear bomb (tests that France detonated in the Pacific),” Cross said.

Pacific reacts to Japan’s plans
Pacific leaders have been voicing their views on the upcoming release, which Japan says it needs to do in an effort to make progress on decommissioning the power plant.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is the latest leader to issue his support after being assured of the project’s safety by Japan.

Safety is a sentiment echoed by TEPCO, the owners of the plant.

“The release into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear (plant) would be the most realistic approach,” TEPCO Chief Officer for ALPS treated water management Junichi Matsumoto told RNZ Pacific in January 2023.

The dumping operation is expected to take between 30 and 40 years as it needs to be treated by the ALPS system and then diluted by sea water to meet regulatory standards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is reviewing the processes.

The IAEA’s latest report has found TEPCO has managed to demonstrate it can measure the radionuclides in the treated water stored on site accurately and precisely.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As Pacific communities protest the Japanese government’s plan to dump more than a million tonnes of radioactive waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, Australian anti-nuclear activists are highlighting the complicity of Australian uranium exporting companies.

While the Fukushima Daiichi power station operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), claims that the water will be treated to reduce radioactive content, anti-nuclear activists have no faith in TEPCO’s assurances.

The Candlelight Alliance, a Korean community group in Sydney, is organising a protest outside the Japanese consulate this Saturday.

Spokersperson Sihyun Paik told Green Left: “We have a great fear that it may already be too late to stop Japan’s release of radioactively contaminated waste water into our largest ocean, an action by which every Pacific Rim nation will be impacted.

“There are serious, global ramifications,” he said. “It will directly endanger the marine life with which it comes into contact, as well as devastate the livelihoods of those reliant on such marine life, such as fisherfolk.

“All living organisms will be implicitly affected, whether it is the unwitting consumer of contaminated produce, or even beachgoers.

“The danger posed by the plan cannot be contained within just the Northeast Asia region. In two to three years, it will eventually reach and contaminate all ocean waters to certain, yet significant degrees according to scientists.

Korean fishery victims
“The local Korean fishery industry is the first commercial victim of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and it raised deep concerns to the Korean government immediately after the explosion of the nuclear reactors.

“This was in conjunction with Korea’s progressive action groups during the term of the previous Moon Jae-In administration.

“However, since the current administration (2022), the voice of protest has been extinguished at the government level, invariably raising suspicion of possible under the table dealings between Japan’s Kishida government and current Korean President Yoon [Suk Yeol] during the latter’s recent visit to Japan.”

Epeli Lesuma, from the Fiji-based Pacific Network on Globalisation, told Green Left that “for Pacific people the Ocean represents more than just a vast blue expanse that Japan can just use as a dumpsite.

“Our Ocean represents the economic, spiritual and cultural heart of Pacific countries.

“Pacific people know all too well the cost of nuclear testing and dumping. The Pacific was used as a nuclear test site by the UK, France and the USA who carried out a total of 315 tests on Christmas Island in Kiribati, Australia, Māohi Nui or French Polynesia and the Marshall Islands.

“These nuclear legacies have cost us countless lives and continue to impact the health and well-being of our people; it has impacted access to our fishing grounds and land to plant crops to support our families; and it has cost us our homes, with Pacific people displaced (on Bikini and Enewetak) due to nuclear contamination.

Japan, Pacific share trauma
“Japan and the Pacific share the trauma of nuclear weapons and testing.

“So it comes as a deep disappointment to us that the Japanese government would consider actions that threaten not only Pacific people and our Ocean but the health and well-being of all the planet’s oceans and the people who depend upon them.

“The Pacific Ocean also contains the largest tuna fish stocks which are a source of economic revenue for our countries. The Japanese government’s plans to dump its nuclear wastewater into our Ocean pose a direct threat to the economic prosperity of our countries and in turn our developmental aspirations as well as being a fundamental breach of Pacific people’s rights to a clean and healthy sustainable environment.”

Australian anti-nuclear activist Nat Lowrey delivered a statement of solidarity from the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance when she visited affected local communities in Fukushima in March.

The statement acknowledged that uranium from the Ranger and Olympic Dam mines was in TEPCO’s Fukushima reactors when the meltdowns, explosions and fires took place in March 2011.

The ANFA statement said that “Australian governments, and mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto, are partly responsible for the death and destruction resulting from the Fukushima disaster. They knew about the corruption in Japan’s nuclear industry but kept supplying uranium.”

Lowrey said that since it was Australian uranium that fuelled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, “the Australian government has a responsibility to stand with local communities in Fukushima as well as communities in Japan, Korea, China and Pacific Island states in calling on the Japanese government not to dump radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean”.

‘Fundamental self-determination right’
“We must support Pacific peoples’ fundamental right to their sovereignty and self-determination against Japan’s nuclear colonialism.

“If Japan is to go ahead with the dumping of radioactive waste, Australia should play a lead role in taking a case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea against Japan.”

Paik said no Australian government had taken serious action since the Fukushima disaster.

“Despite the Japanese government’s decision to release nuclear contaminated water into the ocean, no official statement or comment has been made by the [Anthony] Albanese government.

“We did not expect any form of government level protest on this issue due to conflicts of interest with Australia’s member status in the Quad partnership which is a key pillar in Australia’s foreign policy, and an influential determinant of our stance on nuclear energy.”

When the G7 met in Tokyo, the Japanese government urged the summit to approve the planned radioactive water release.

Tanaka Shigeru, from the Pacific Asia Resource Centre in Japan, said: “Japan did not get the approval by the G7 as it had hoped, but it stopped at saying the G7 will adhere to the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

‘IAEA approves release’
“The IAEA is of course approving of the release, so it is a way for them to say they have approved without explicitly saying so.”

Shigeru said that despite a three-year propaganda campaign over Fukushima, most people polled in Japan in April said that “the government has not done enough to garner the understanding of the public”.

Only 6.5 percent of those polled believe that the Japanese government has done enough.

Yet it has “done enough to keep people from the streets”, Shigeru said.

“While there are, of course, people who are still continuing the struggle, I must say the movement has peaked already after what has been a fervent three-year struggle.”

Japanese opponents of the radioactive water release, including fisherfolk, have been fighting through every administrative and legal step but now “there are no more domestic hurdles that the Japanese government needs to clear in order to begin the dumping”, Shigeru said.

“The opposition parties have been so minimised in Japan that there is very little realistic means to challenge the situation except for maybe international pressure. That is really the only thing standing in the way of the dumping.

Ambassador propaganda
“So Japan has been taking ambassadors from the Pacific nations on lucrative paid-for trips to Fukushima to spread the propaganda that the dumping will be safe.”

Lesuma confirmed the impact on swaying some Pacific Island governments, such as Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia.

“Pacific Islands Forum member states have been some of the most vocal opponents at the international level of the Japanese government’s plans to dump their nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean,” he said.

“The PIF leaders had appointed an Independent Panel of Experts who have engaged with TEPCO scientists and the IAEA to provide advice to Pacific governments on the wastewater disposal plans … the Panel has concluded unanimously that Japan should not release nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean and should explore other alternatives.

“The Fiji government has been one such Pacific government consistent in coming out strongly in opposing Japan’s plans.

“The PNG Fisheries Minister, Jelta Wong, has also been vocal and consistent in expressing his disapproval of the same, going as far as saying that the nuclear wastewater discharge would create a ‘Pacific Chernobyl’ with the potential to cause harm to Pacific people for generations to come.”

Peter Boyle is a Green Left activist and contributing writer. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Independent nuclear experts have offered to drink water and eat fish from the Pacific Ocean after Japan dumps its nuclear waste water into the Pacific.

Japan is planning to ditch over one million tonnes of ALPS-treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean over 30 to 40 years starting from sometime this year.

ALPS is an Advanced Liquid Processing System.

New Zealand and Australian experts told media at an online panel discussion hosted by NZ’s Science Media Centre that Japan had good intentions.

The experts said they believed that as long as the wastewater was tested before it was released the operation would be safe.

Two even went as far as saying they would “take a sip” of the treated wastewater.

“I would drink the water. I mean, it’s like going down to the beach and swallowing a mouthful of water when you’re swimming,” said University of Auckland physics senior lecturer Dr David Krofcheck.

“It’s saltwater. I prefer the desalinated before I drink it,” he added. Dr Krofcheck specialises in nuclear physics and natural radiation from the environment.

“Would I eat the fish? Yes, I would,” Adelaide University’s School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences associate professor Tony Hooker added.

‘The least bad option’
The contaminated water has been used to cool the melted reactor of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

More than 1000 tanks are now full and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of storage space.

Japan has said it will treat the water to ensure it is harmless. It will also dilute the water and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

Dr Krofcheck said that option was the “best one”.

“That’s probably the least bad option. Not that that’s a bad option. Because the dose, or the amount of tritium being diluted is so small. But I think the least bad option is releasing,” he said.

Ocean circulation modeller and researcher in Taiwan, Professor Chau-Ron Wu, told media he predicted the water from Fukushima would take 2-3 years to reach North America, one year to get to Taiwan and sweep across much of the Pacific.

No release date has been set, but associate professor Tony Hooker said that what was known is, “The water is going to be released in [northern hemisphere] summer 2023.”

“I think the release is imminent. And I guess that will be a decision for the Japanese government. Ultimately, they can make that decision. They don’t need to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other agency.”

Associate professor Hooker said that as long as it was only tritium and carbon 14 that’s released, and in small quantities, he is confident it would be safe.

Dr Krofcheck agrees: “I’m very comfortable with releasing it, as long as we can guarantee the Royal Science Society can guarantee that the nasty strontium, caesium, iodine, cobalt 60 can be removed”.

They will be removed by an ALPS.

“So, most of the ALPS processes are using a zeolite clay and which is very absorbent. Once the water has gone through that the radionuclides are bound to a solid, you can dry that out and store it as radioactive waste,” Hooker explained.

‘I really thought they reconsider it’
There is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the release project.

Japan is in talks with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and has been providing data to their independent expert panel to analyse, which Hooker is a part of.

He acknowledged those who want to end nuclear waste dumping, which he says already happens around the world.

“Whilst there’s no issues from a radiation safety perspective about putting this radiation into the sea, should there be some level of discussion or intensive research about how we can minimise disposing into the sea in the future?”

‘Retraumatising’ for Tahitian
A Mā’ohi anti-nuclear activist in Tahiti, Hinamoeura Cross, found the news of Japan pushing forward with its plans despite backlash retraumatising.

“I’m really shocked by what the Japanese are going to do. We know that they have planned that for many years, but I really thought that they will reconsider that,” Cross said.

For her, all nuclear issues are personal. Japan’s plans are of interest in particular as they impact on her ocean, the Pacific.

“I remember my great grandmother and my grandmother that were sick. Then my mum and my auntie, they had the thyroid cancer,” Cross said.

When Cross was aged about 10, her sister got sick and at 23-years-old she was diagnosed with leukaemia.

All of the women she loves and looked up to were “poisoned” by French nuclear testing in the Pacific, she said.

Now that she is a mother of two, her voice has become staunchly against nuclear colonialism. She wants better healthcare for survivors of French nuclear testing.

“I’m anxious about the health care of my children; are they going to be sick or not? We really need this healthcare in Tahiti because of the 193 nuclear bomb (tests that France detonated in the Pacific),” Cross said.

Pacific reacts to Japan’s plans
Pacific leaders have been voicing their views on the upcoming release, which Japan says it needs to do in an effort to make progress on decommissioning the power plant.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is the latest leader to issue his support after being assured of the project’s safety by Japan.

Safety is a sentiment echoed by TEPCO, the owners of the plant.

“The release into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear (plant) would be the most realistic approach,” TEPCO Chief Officer for ALPS treated water management Junichi Matsumoto told RNZ Pacific in January 2023.

The dumping operation is expected to take between 30 and 40 years as it needs to be treated by the ALPS system and then diluted by sea water to meet regulatory standards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is reviewing the processes.

The IAEA’s latest report has found TEPCO has managed to demonstrate it can measure the radionuclides in the treated water stored on site accurately and precisely.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz