Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     James Smith is professor of environmental and geological sciences at Portsmouth University. He said that “in theory, you could drink this water”, because the contaminated water is already treated when it is stored and then diluted.
     David Baily is a physicist who runs a French laboratory which measure radioactivity. He said, “The key thing is how much tritium is there. At such levels, there is no issue with marine species, unless we see a severe decline in fish population, for instance.”
     However, some scientists say that we cannot predict the impact of releasing the contaminated water.
     Emily Hammon is an expert in energy and environmental law at George Washington University. She said, “The challenge with radionuclides (such as tritium) is that they present a question that science cannot fully answer; that is, at very low levels of exposure, what can be counted as ‘safe’? One can have a lot of faith in the IAEA’s work while still recognizing that compliance with standards does not mean that there are ‘zero’ environmental or human consequences attributed to the decision.”
     The U.S. National Association of Marine Laboratories released a statement in December of 2022 saying that it did not find Japan’s data convincing.
    Robert Richmond is a marine biologist at the University of Hawaii. He said, “We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle.”
     Environmental groups such as Greenpeace go even further as can be seen in a paper published by scientists at the University of South Carolina in April 2023. Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia. He says that tritium can have “direct negative effects” on plants and animals if ingested, including “reduced fertility” and “damage to cell structures, including DNA.”
     China has banned Japanese seafood because of the contaminated water release. Some commentators in the media believe that this could be a political move. Experts say that there is no scientific evidence backing concerns about seafood because the radiation release is so low.
     However, many people who work on coasts of the Pacific Ocean around the world every day still have concerns.
     Traditional female divers in South Korea known as “haenyeo” have expressed anxiety. Kim Eun-ah has been a diver in the waters off Jeju Island for six years. She said, “Now I feel it’s unsafe to dive in. We consider ourselves as part of the sea because we immerse ourselves in the water with our own bodies.”  Experts say that the contaminated water might be carried by ocean currents, particularly the cross-Pacific Kuroshio current. Fishermen have told interviewers that they fear their reputation has been permanently damaged. They are worried about their jobs.
     Mark Brown is the Pacific Islands Forum Chair and Cook Island Prime Minister. He says that he believes the released water meets international safety standards. He added that all nations across the region may not agree on the “complex” issue, but he suggested that they “assess the science.

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     Japan has begun releasing treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The release was opposed by China with a ban on Japanese seafood imports. There were also protests in Japan and South Korea.
     The United Nations’s (U.N.) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims that the released water will have “negligible” radiological impact on people and the environment.  However, many people wonder if it is really safe.
     In 2011, a earthquake followed by a tsunami wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The cooling system was destroyed which resulted in overheating of the reactor cores and contamination of water inside the facility with highly radioactive material.
     Since the disaster, TEPCO, the nuclear power plant company, has been pumping in water to cool down the reactors’ nuclear fuel rods. Every day, the plant produces more contaminated water which is stored in more than one thousand tanks. This is enough to fill five hundred Olympic swimming pools.
     Japan says that it needs the land currently occupied by the tanks to build new facilities required to safely decommission the plant. Japan has also raised concerns about the consequences if the tanks were to collapse in a natural disaster.
     Japan is releasing the contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean gradually. It has received approval from the IAEA for the release. The first release is one of four releases scheduled between now and the end of March 2024. It is estimated that the entire process will take at least thirty years.
     If Japan had been able to remove all radioactive elements from the contaminated water before sending it to the ocean, maybe there would not have been such a controversy.
     The problem is being caused by a radioactive isotope of hydrogen called tritium. Tritium atoms have two neutrons in the nucleus. It cannot be removed from the contaminated water because there is no technology able to do it. Instead, the contaminated water is diluted.
     The general consensus from experts is that the release is safe. However, not all scientists agree on the impact it will have. Tritium is present in water across the globe. Most scientists have argued that if the levels of tritium are very low, the impact will be minimal. However, critics say that more studies on how it could affect the ocean bed, marine life and humans are needed.
     The IAEA has a permanent office at Fukushima. It said that an “independent, on-site analysis” had shown that the tritium concentration in the water discharged was “far below the operational limit of 1,500 becquerels per liter (Bg/L)”. That is six times less than the World Health Organization’s limit for safe drinking water, which is at least 10,000 Bg/L.
     On August 25, the release of contaminated water began. TEPCO said that seawater samples taken on that day showed that radioactivity levels were within safe limits. The tritium concentration in the contaminated water was below 1,500 Bq/L. Japan’s environmental ministry said that it had also collected seawater samples from eleven different locations on the 25th. The results of the testing were released on August 27th.
Please read Part 2 next

     Westinghouse Electric Company and Energoatom, the state-owned nuclear utility of Ukraine, signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work on the development and deployment of the AP300tm small modular reactor. The agreement establishes a joint working group to cooperate on areas such as contracting, licensing and the local nuclear supply chain.
     Ukraine is pursuing carbon neutrality of its energy sector by 2050 and has plans to develop modern and safe nuclear power generation based on the latest advanced technologies. German Galushchenko is the Ukrainian Minister of Energy. He emphasized that the technology of small modular reactors is very promising for Ukraine. This is especially the case in terms of implementation of the national Ukrainian Energy Strategy until 2050. He added that “Ukraine has every prospect of becoming one of the leaders in clean energy and increasing nuclear generation capacity both through the construction of new large power units and deployment of small modular reactors with first units expected within the next ten years.”
    Galushchenko also noted that the localization of manufacturing is one of the most important components of these agreements. Ukraine has some of the most experienced nuclear experts in the world. Manufacturing the new small modular reactors in country will add to energy independence and security.
     Petro Kotin is the President of SE NNEGC “Energoatom”. He said, “Energoatom keeps working on new projects of advanced nuclear technologies, on which the energy security of Ukraine depends on in this challenging time. The company is doing its utmost to ensure that our country continues to move towards a carbon-free and clean future with nuclear energy as its integral part.” He went on to say that increasing the total capacity of nuclear power generation is vital for Ukraine as well. That is the reason why the construction of new nuclear power units has become part of the Energy Strategy of Ukraine until 2050.
     Patrick Fragman is the President and CEO of Westinghouse. He said, “Westinghouse is pleased to support the Ukrainian people and Energoatom with clean, reliable and secure energy. From nuclear fuel to plant services to electricity generation, Westinghouse is honored to be a trusted partner for Ukraine today and for decades to come. The AP300 SMR is the only SMR being developed which fully leverages the design, licensing pedigree, supply chain and exceptional record of the AP1000© design already in operation in five plants around the world, and another seven units at different stages of construction and commission.”
     Last May, Westinghouse launched the AP300 small modular reactor, a three hundred megawatt single-loop pressurized water reactor that is the only small modular reactor based on the design of currently operating full-sized nuclear power reactors, the proven and licensed AP1000 technology. Westinghouse is confident that design certification for the AP300 small modular reactor will be received by 2027. Construction of the first AP300 will begin by 2030. The first operating unit is planned to be available in the early 2030s. Energoatom and Westinghouse have already agreed to deploy nine Westinghouse AP1000 units in Ukraine.

     Senators on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have raised concerns that the U.S. fell short of its nuclear submarine target during a Wednesday morning hearing on a trilateral security partnership.
     In September of 2021, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. signed the defense deal referred to as AUKUS. They announced an arrangement for Australia to acquire “conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered” submarine capability through the AUKUS partnership in March of 2023. As part of that arrangement, Australia agreed to invest about three billion dollars in the first four years of the agreement into U.S. shipbuilding.
     The AUKUS agreement is intended to help Australia develop nuclear powered submarines while enabling allies to safely share the relevant technology with each other.
      During the Senate hearing, lawmakers questioned whether the U.S. had the capability to sell nuclear submarines to Australia. The U.S. Navy currently has forty-nine fast attack submarines. This puts it seventeen submarines short of the sixty-six vessel goal that the military branch has previously told Congress it required to properly defend the U.S.
     Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb) said, “We are grateful that the Australians want to invest $3 billion. What are we gonna have to invest to get to 66 submarines?”
     Mara Karlin is the Assistant Secretary of Defense. She said that the submarine industrial base was downsized after the Cold War. However, the current government’s investments allow for a substantial rebuild. Karlin said, “Post-Cold War, we closed down a whole bunch of the submarine industrial base and consolidated given the post-Cold-War peace dividend. There’s been really important investment by this Congress, by the administration to try to build it up and make sure that we can put it in the right places and then see what fruit grow from that. It is a priority, it will continue to be a priority going forward.”
     Senator Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn) shared a similar concern. He emphasized that the promise to sell submarines to Australia would put the U.S. Navy in a difficult position to reach the sixty-six submarine goal. Hagerty said, “Today, the Navy has 49 attack submarines, that’s roughly 25 percent short of its goal of 66 submarines. The pace of constructing submarines as I’ve read is maybe 1.2 submarines a year. By giving these submarines to Australia, that will put us three-to-four years behind in our production process. With the current production process and the proposed sale of submarines to Australia, the Navy will not be able to reach its goal of sixty-six submarines until 2049.”
     Karlin said that the Navy’s fleet could be strengthened and that the process is underway with Congressional and administrative support. She added that “We are all working through Congress’s really important support and through the administration to build up an industrial base that frankly was not strong as anyone hoped it to be.”
     Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) had a more positive outlook on the state of the AUKUS partnership. He argued that Australia’s three-billion-dollar investment into the shipbuilding industry would supercharge the U.S. production pace. He said that “If they make that investment, it will help us increase our pace of production. If they don’t make that investment, it will be harder to increase the pace of production. Each side has resources that can help each other. We have to get the timing right.” Kaine argued that Australia “not going to make the investment unless they have surety that there’s gonna be a deliverable for them. We should use this historic opportunity to enhance our ability to meet the production goals that we are talking about.”