By Georgina Maka’a
AS Japan begun its gradual release of treated nuclear waste-water into the Pacific Ocean, Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare reiterated his government’s strong stance against the decision.
Arriving back from the 22nd Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders meeting in Vanuatu on Monday, Sogavare said the MSG leadership condemned the action of the Japanese Government.
“We urged Japan not to discharge the treated water until and unless the Fukushima Nuclear treated water was unquestionably proven to be safe by science,” Sogavare told reporters on arrival at the airport.
“We further called on Japan to respect both regional and international treaties and frameworks which the Pacific Islands States have adopted to address nuclear issues in the Pacific Ocean,” he added.
Sogavare insisted the decision by Japan to dispose of the waste-water into the Pacific Ocean is not comparable to other discharges.
“We are dealing with the repercussions of a nuclear accident.
“The action is far from safe.
“Japan’s choice to release it into an ocean that is already heavily burdened by the effects of climate change, including acidification and warming, is a concern.
“This release will span decades and once it has been discharged, we will lose any control we might have had over its impact on our delicate ecosystems and economies,” Sogavare warned.
But Japan says its decision was based on science.
Its ambassador to Solomon Islands, Miwa Yoshiaki, told reporters in Honiara last week his government’s decision to discharge the treater nuclear waste-water was in line with international standards.
“We gave cooperated and explain everything surrounding the discharge to all governments of the Pacific,” Yoshiaki said.
“We have been transparent about our decision all along and made no secrets about it,” he added.
“We are a responsible country. We will closely monitor the release every step of the way.
“Any indication of threat to the ocean will result in an immediate stop of the process.
“We have asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be part of the monitoring process.”
In Tokyo, the Japanese Government says the water is safe, and many scientists agree.
The UN’s nuclear watchdog, IAEA, has also approved the plan.
But critics say more studies need to be done and the release should be halted.
More than a million tonnes of water stored at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which was destroyed during an earthquake and tsunami in 2011, will be discharged over the next 30 years.
China, which has been the most vocal of opponents since the plan was announced two years ago, called the water discharge an “extremely selfish and irresponsible act” and said Japan was “passing an open wound onto the future generations of humanity”.
Shortly afterwards, China’s customs office announced that an existing ban on seafood imports from Fukushima and some prefectures would be immediately extended to cover the whole of Japan to “protect the health of Chinese consumers”.
The move is calculated to inflict economic damage, and Japan has admitted that businesses will take a “significant” hit.
Mainland China and Hong Kong together import more than USD$1.1bn of seafood from Japan every year – making up nearly half of Japan’s seafood exports.
But analysts say that the reactions from China in particular, are as much motivated by politics as they are by genuine concerns.
Tokyo’s relationship to Beijing has deteriorated in recent years as it draws closer to the US and also shows support to Taiwan, a self-ruled island claimed by China.
In the Pacific, the issue has split Pacific leaders.
Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says he had read the IAEA Report and was satisfied the release is safe.
Scientists the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Secretariat appointed to look into the issue also appeared to be split on their views.
Two of the PIF panellists appointed by the Secretariat have said it has been an uphill battle trying to get information from Japan to verify safety.
They said there have been “red flags” in the data and one even criticised the IAEA, a move nuclear experts do not take lightly.
Other experts on the PIF panel said they had no issue with the release and no harm would come to the Pacific as a result, from a scientific standpoint.
Earlier, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair Mark Brown says releasing the treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean cannot be a breach of the Rarotonga Treaty as it’s a “controlled release and not a dump”.
The Treaty commits the Pacific to being nuclear free, and bans the dumping of nuclear waste in the region.
“No, I don’t think it would be in breach of the Treaty, if it’s well within the safety standards,” Brown told Radio New Zealand.
Brown, who is also the Cook Islands Prime Minister, expressed his confidence in the UN Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) findings in its latest report which finds that Japan’s plans meet international standards.
By Georgina Maka’a
AS Japan begun its gradual release of treated nuclear waste-water into the Pacific Ocean, Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare reiterated his government’s strong stance against the decision.
Arriving back from the 22nd Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders meeting in Vanuatu on Monday, Sogavare said the MSG leadership condemned the action of the Japanese Government.
“We urged Japan not to discharge the treated water until and unless the Fukushima Nuclear treated water was unquestionably proven to be safe by science,” Sogavare told reporters on arrival at the airport.
“We further called on Japan to respect both regional and international treaties and frameworks which the Pacific Islands States have adopted to address nuclear issues in the Pacific Ocean,” he added.
Sogavare insisted the decision by Japan to dispose of the waste-water into the Pacific Ocean is not comparable to other discharges.
“We are dealing with the repercussions of a nuclear accident.
“The action is far from safe.
“Japan’s choice to release it into an ocean that is already heavily burdened by the effects of climate change, including acidification and warming, is a concern.
“This release will span decades and once it has been discharged, we will lose any control we might have had over its impact on our delicate ecosystems and economies,” Sogavare warned.
But Japan says its decision was based on science.
Its ambassador to Solomon Islands, Miwa Yoshiaki, told reporters in Honiara last week his government’s decision to discharge the treater nuclear waste-water was in line with international standards.
“We gave cooperated and explain everything surrounding the discharge to all governments of the Pacific,” Yoshiaki said.
“We have been transparent about our decision all along and made no secrets about it,” he added.
“We are a responsible country. We will closely monitor the release every step of the way.
“Any indication of threat to the ocean will result in an immediate stop of the process.
“We have asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be part of the monitoring process.”
In Tokyo, the Japanese Government says the water is safe, and many scientists agree.
The UN’s nuclear watchdog, IAEA, has also approved the plan.
But critics say more studies need to be done and the release should be halted.
More than a million tonnes of water stored at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which was destroyed during an earthquake and tsunami in 2011, will be discharged over the next 30 years.
China, which has been the most vocal of opponents since the plan was announced two years ago, called the water discharge an “extremely selfish and irresponsible act” and said Japan was “passing an open wound onto the future generations of humanity”.
Shortly afterwards, China’s customs office announced that an existing ban on seafood imports from Fukushima and some prefectures would be immediately extended to cover the whole of Japan to “protect the health of Chinese consumers”.
The move is calculated to inflict economic damage, and Japan has admitted that businesses will take a “significant” hit.
Mainland China and Hong Kong together import more than USD$1.1bn of seafood from Japan every year – making up nearly half of Japan’s seafood exports.
But analysts say that the reactions from China in particular, are as much motivated by politics as they are by genuine concerns.
Tokyo’s relationship to Beijing has deteriorated in recent years as it draws closer to the US and also shows support to Taiwan, a self-ruled island claimed by China.
In the Pacific, the issue has split Pacific leaders.
Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says he had read the IAEA Report and was satisfied the release is safe.
Scientists the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Secretariat appointed to look into the issue also appeared to be split on their views.
Two of the PIF panellists appointed by the Secretariat have said it has been an uphill battle trying to get information from Japan to verify safety.
They said there have been “red flags” in the data and one even criticised the IAEA, a move nuclear experts do not take lightly.
Other experts on the PIF panel said they had no issue with the release and no harm would come to the Pacific as a result, from a scientific standpoint.
Earlier, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair Mark Brown says releasing the treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean cannot be a breach of the Rarotonga Treaty as it’s a “controlled release and not a dump”.
The Treaty commits the Pacific to being nuclear free, and bans the dumping of nuclear waste in the region.
“No, I don’t think it would be in breach of the Treaty, if it’s well within the safety standards,” Brown told Radio New Zealand.
Brown, who is also the Cook Islands Prime Minister, expressed his confidence in the UN Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) findings in its latest report which finds that Japan’s plans meet international standards.
Japan says release safe, as
Sogavare condemns decision
By Georgina Maka’a
AS Japan begun its gradual release of treated nuclear waste-water into the Pacific Ocean, Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare reiterated his government’s strong stance against the decision.
Arriving back from the 22nd Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders meeting in Vanuatu on Monday, Sogavare said the MSG leadership condemned the action of the Japanese Government.
“We urged Japan not to discharge the treated water until and unless the Fukushima Nuclear treated water was unquestionably proven to be safe by science,” Sogavare told reporters on arrival at the airport.
“We further called on Japan to respect both regional and international treaties and frameworks which the Pacific Islands States have adopted to address nuclear issues in the Pacific Ocean,” he added.
Sogavare insisted the decision by Japan to dispose of the waste-water into the Pacific Ocean is not comparable to other discharges.
“We are dealing with the repercussions of a nuclear accident.
“The action is far from safe.
“Japan’s choice to release it into an ocean that is already heavily burdened by the effects of climate change, including acidification and warming, is a concern.
“This release will span decades and once it has been discharged, we will lose any control we might have had over its impact on our delicate ecosystems and economies,” Sogavare warned.
But Japan says its decision was based on science.
Its ambassador to Solomon Islands, Miwa Yoshiaki, told reporters in Honiara last week his government’s decision to discharge the treater nuclear waste-water was in line with international standards.
“We gave cooperated and explain everything surrounding the discharge to all governments of the Pacific,” Yoshiaki said.
“We have been transparent about our decision all along and made no secrets about it,” he added.
“We are a responsible country. We will closely monitor the release every step of the way.
“Any indication of threat to the ocean will result in an immediate stop of the process.
“We have asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be part of the monitoring process.”
In Tokyo, the Japanese Government says the water is safe, and many scientists agree.
The UN’s nuclear watchdog, IAEA, has also approved the plan.
But critics say more studies need to be done and the release should be halted.
More than a million tonnes of water stored at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which was destroyed during an earthquake and tsunami in 2011, will be discharged over the next 30 years.
China, which has been the most vocal of opponents since the plan was announced two years ago, called the water discharge an “extremely selfish and irresponsible act” and said Japan was “passing an open wound onto the future generations of humanity”.
Shortly afterwards, China’s customs office announced that an existing ban on seafood imports from Fukushima and some prefectures would be immediately extended to cover the whole of Japan to “protect the health of Chinese consumers”.
The move is calculated to inflict economic damage, and Japan has admitted that businesses will take a “significant” hit.
Mainland China and Hong Kong together import more than USD$1.1bn of seafood from Japan every year – making up nearly half of Japan’s seafood exports.
But analysts say that the reactions from China in particular, are as much motivated by politics as they are by genuine concerns.
Tokyo’s relationship to Beijing has deteriorated in recent years as it draws closer to the US and also shows support to Taiwan, a self-ruled island claimed by China.
In the Pacific, the issue has split Pacific leaders.
Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says he had read the IAEA Report and was satisfied the release is safe.
Scientists the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Secretariat appointed to look into the issue also appeared to be split on their views.
Two of the PIF panellists appointed by the Secretariat have said it has been an uphill battle trying to get information from Japan to verify safety.
They said there have been “red flags” in the data and one even criticised the IAEA, a move nuclear experts do not take lightly.
Other experts on the PIF panel said they had no issue with the release and no harm would come to the Pacific as a result, from a scientific standpoint.
Earlier, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair Mark Brown says releasing the treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean cannot be a breach of the Rarotonga Treaty as it’s a “controlled release and not a dump”.
The Treaty commits the Pacific to being nuclear free, and bans the dumping of nuclear waste in the region.
“No, I don’t think it would be in breach of the Treaty, if it’s well within the safety standards,” Brown told Radio New Zealand.
Brown, who is also the Cook Islands Prime Minister, expressed his confidence in the UN Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) findings in its latest report which finds that Japan’s plans meet international standards.
