Neighboring South Korea has retained a ban on imports of seafood from Japan’s Fukushima region imposed after the nuclear disaster and summoned a senior Japanese embassy official last year to explain how the Fukushima water would be dealt with.

https://michaelsavage.com/japan-panel-recommends-ocean-release-for-contaminated-fukushima-water/

(fukashima is a nuclear reactor built on the sea exposed to many tsunami - a recent one which caused a reactor breach and a meltdown and sizable radiation hazard. some say the reactor should never have been built. others say it "was thought to be safe")

should Japan be able to release it's brown problems on other nations ? or keep it internal to japan - the people who created the disaster?

?

with the radiation effect the fish - or are complaining countries just trying to get a leg up

NOTE HOW DEMOCRATS (toyota drivers) have kept the whole thing quiet in the news

all CEOs in japan were RULED NOT GUITY (of situating a nuke plant in a known disaster area - which they did knowingly), and lawsuits in usa california courts have all been quashed (note ca's economy esp. SF, pelosi area rides on toyota imports - we're talking ca, the state that sues it's power company continually)

any idea of any law or court in this situation is ridiculous - it won't stick - it would have to be "much bigger" move to protest it: with evidence shown to public, many countries insisting, etc

the 2011 plume reached california in 2014. the air plume predicted to impact california turned out to be miniscule according to CNN

the nasty details of the "remaining water" (rapped and ripe), how bad it it, and whether it will turn out to be "hardly countable once dispersed" ?

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT NEWS IS NOT ATTAINABLE in 2018. governments and news have too far a reach to mis-inform if there was a problem, competing governments have free ability to mis-inform about competitors "over nothing"

i have on good credibility this is what they are referring to - however i cannot say what might be in those containers or it's activity level

(proper working reactors regularly create barrels of waste - in the usa it was decided instead of being left in barrels on un-used lots it would be put mixed and paced into deep mines "back where it came from" so to speak)

are some of those barrels to be released barrels from fukashimas reactors that are "still operating normally" ? do they contain far less or more radiation?

(i GUARANTEE YOU the international law on normal reaction waste in the ocean is ABSOLUTELY NOT)

-----------------------------------
More than seven years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled No. 1 plant at a rate of around 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found.

(this doesn't answer the "what's in the barrel" question above - which is data hard to find)

https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-tip/faqs-radiation-from-fukushima/

(referring to collected water - the water used to cool the damaged reactor that is "still burning" and still needs water circulated that gets contaminated)


"but remains at levels above what the power plant is allowed by law to release (by international law)" (note the author first says it's just tritium then goes back on his statement saying other things remain)


(japan's fishing industry was halted for some years do to illegal levels of radiation in the caught fish. there is "a debate" (and mis-informatoin) as to what is in the barrels and who will get any elevation to what extent)

(however as i said above: who can say what is in which barrel or which foreign agency actually did a sample of any barrel?)

(how is this all being measured? probably the "curie" - the amount of radiation by one normal gram of uranium (so, iodine would be more grams to equal the same))

how many grams? well, they don't say

this report flip flops MORE THAN FISH as to what's in the barrels

"Is it safe to eat seafood from the Pacific?
Except for the vicinity of the reactors, seafood and other products taken from the Pacific should be safe for human consumption." (but will disperse so quickly that korea will never see elevated levels that can be detected by any normal science instruments)

and the problem is: korea's "papers on fukashima" differ - as to "what is legal and what are predictions"

(i can say - it's a small amount if your distant - and not everyone is distant. however you can say any nuke plant releasing a few barrels slowly in the ocean is "a small amount" which is outlawed - but this was an "incident" so should they be required to dispose of waste in the usual (not in the ocean) manner?)


the problem: these are in barrels there is no collection ability question. you need the curie decided on internationally as "not illegal for a reactor to release" and also the curie in those barrels.


read many articles they will always dance around the basic facts

"this is the exact same water regulation said had to be put into barrels during 2011. they've sought out and bribed every watchdog and now are about to release it"

"all they've recycled is the story of where this water CAME FROM"