UNCLOSDebate
Climate idea
Climate idea
Pia Jensen
192 w
UNCLOSDebate Access & Civil Society
Because Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) intends to dump radioactive waste from the destroyed nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, I am interested in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In twitter I found an UNCLOS account, @unclosdebate. No recent tweets from them, so I visited their website. I wanted to ask if TEPCO's plan is on their radar.
I found that I can't send a message to them because in both Safari and Firefox on iPad the form to submit does not function. Looked for a phone number and finding none, I looked at what they do (pic below). Then I looked at their contributors and was surprised at what I found - a profound lack of people from environmental organizations.
Looking at the authors' list is like reading a Whos Who of heads of state, government officials, university professors, lawyers, and military personnel. https://www.unclosdebate.org/authors
Questions:
* Is the UNCLOS debate open for members of the public, e.g. civil society, environmental organizations, ocean defenders?
* Is TEPCO's plan to dump radioactive waste into the Pacific ocean on your radar? Will there be a public debate about the applicability of UNCLOS in this situation?
* Is the unclosdebate.org registration and contact form optimized for iOS devices? The required Captcha does not appear in Safari or Firefox on iPad.
Do you agree?
83 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Watch our Latest Broadcasts!
We need to stop methane and #BuyMoreTime
We'll plant a tree for you
And together we've planted over 150,000 trees. One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
How does this work?
The Climate Action App
We plant a tree for every new user
•
192 w
Not climate related as it causes no co2 or methane output. False claim, there not dumping waste into the ocean, it is treated cooling-water mainly. Isotope tritium counts are lower then then the ocean water and is done over an extended period. Data on this is at TEPCO and investigated by the regulator as well as the IAEA. If unclos wants, that data there welcome to it as well.
•
192 w
Discharge of heated water from nuclear power plants alters ecosystems. Use of fossil fuels for back up systems has a ghg footprint. Decommissioning has a ghg footprint. Management of waste has a ghg footprint. The radioactive waste water is laden with multiple isotopes, not all of which the ALPS filters can remove. The facts are that ALPS has on occasion failed and there are more isotopes in the tanks than just tritium. "In addition to high levels of hazardous radionuclides such as strontium-90, TEPCO on 27 August 2020 acknowledged for the first time the presence of high levels of carbon-14 in the contaminated tank water." https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/2020/10/5e303093-greenpeace_stemmingthetide2020_fukushima_radioactive_water_crisis_en_final.pdf The regulator, NRA, and the IAEA have vested interests - a third party ought be involved in collecting and analyzing data and an assessment of the legal framework governing dumping of toxic waste into the ocean ought be conducted by a relevant legal concern.
•
192 w
@pia_jensen no, you are anti-nuclear and agitate anything towards that ideology. Wording it towards negativity and disregarding any professionalism of organisation, because they would have interests, in other words there corrupt in your opinion. This closes any rationality. And your fight is harming the climate and promoting fearmongering, IMHO. I find it unfortunate that i have to spend time on rebuking your statements on these topics. Ps:greenpeace is spreading fear and false information for decades about anything related to radioactivity, fear is there weapon.
•
192 w
@jehannes_ros As I said before, we just have to agree to disagree about nuclear energy. It is unfortunate that you feel you must take me to task and instead of providing factual statements to back you opinions, you choose to try and discredit me and those whose research is solid.
•
192 w
@pia_jensen i try to correct you on half truths from GP, greenpeace has always had a hand in that, there very good at that attention grabing. I wish you succesfull engadement with UNCLOS, as that may become a more factual debate as you claim. On facts: There are extensive science reports of the treated water release, You can find them (elsevier) from the official scientists and there affiliated institutions. One Webinar i'd like you see that gives a broad and detailed view of the situation, because i agree there is something we need to continue to handle. right. Please view it, its lead by journalist Miles O'Brien https://youtu.be/-3henMv3BkQ
•
192 w
@jehannes_ros I guess you don't want to address the fact that ALPS is not so great at filtering isotopes and instead you want me to watch Miles O'Brien, whose videos I've already viewed. And you don't want to address the fact that Fukushima is a climate issue as the decommissioning work does have a ghg footprint. Or, that Carbon14 presents serious problems for the ocean. I'm not here to get into debates with you. I hope you stop feeling like you need to police my posts. People here are smart enough to conduct their own research and come to their own conclusions.