Tumgik
#power emerges from primes
headspace-hotel · 11 months
Text
It's easy to see how chemophobia became so widespread to the point that companies advertise their products as containing "only ingredients you can pronounce." It's wretched that this spawned the antivax movement and other similar movements, but there are incredibly good historical reasons behind WHY people are terrified of "chemicals."
Reasons like: Agent Orange, DDT, Superfund sites, any of a wide range of incidents where chemical companies—in many cases, knowingly—poisoned people and communities because Number Go Up. History has shown again and again that companies do not give a fuck about ruining people's lives exposing them to toxic substances.
Unfortunately these people live in a world where EVERYTHING around them contains ingredients they can't pronounce and there is very little knowledge of basic chemistry, and a person has no choice but to either develop life-altering paranoia about contamination, or just settle into a sense of (naive?) security about the Chemicals in the world around them.
So these powerful cultural memories (and totally rational distrust of Bayer, DuPont, and Monsanto) have been hijacked to Sell Product (No chemicals! Ingredients you can pronounce! All Natural! Organic!) and/or been channeled into some horrible and ultimately baseless movements that, these days, form a pipeline straight into fascism.
Alex Jones' anxiety about chemicals "turning the freakin' frogs gay" is part of The Anxiety about a world that is now made of ingredients we can't pronounce. Our world is now made of very different physical stuff than the world of our ancestors, and it makes total sense for panicky reactionaries to blame sexualities, genders, religions, and ways of existence they don't understand on the strange, unprecedented "chemicals" that have intruded into the material components of the world around them.
The material changes to our lives mesh quite nicely with the paranoia of fascism. People, without any scientific expertise that would inform them, decide that "natural" things are good and "artificial" things are bad, and this leads people to reject very simple, comprehensible, and well-understood processes like "heating something up, but not quite to boiling, and letting it cool down" (pasteurization) in favor of "contracting bovine tuberculosis."
But it's not that natural is good and artificial is bad, it's that natural is, at least in theory, understandable, and artificial is bound only to the laws that tell DuPont it must disclose what is in a product being sold and test the product for harms to human and animal life—and the power of those laws to actually control DuPont. Hemlock and nightshade can be recognized and avoided, but a Product emerges from an Amazon Prime box in a curiously sterile afterbirth of plastic and foam, stinking of acrid VOC's that some people enjoy in the form of the "new car smell."
And we know that nature has no shortage of things that kill us that we CAN'T readily detect with our senses, like lead and uranium, but before mining for coal and metals ripped open our Earth and pumped thousands upon thousands of tons of toxic waste up from its depths, any given creek or patch of dirt in Eastern Kentucky was at least less likely to be dangerously toxic and radioactive.
This definitely fuels the blind and often dangerous urge to go back to a time when things were "simpler." It lubricates the slide down into reactionary bigotry a little bit, this abundance of ways the world has gone Wrong and has been irreparably changed.
It gets harder and harder to say "No, natural is not always good/bad, no, unnatural is not always good/bad" and be listened to. Our world is far, far harder to understand now in some ways, but we have to try, and that's a hard sell.
2K notes · View notes
narumi-gens · 3 months
Text
yandere!morax/zhongli x adeptus gn!reader note: takes place in the aftermath of the archon war
morax finds you where he always does on the few occasions he allows you time to yourself, kneeling in the garden with your hands folded in your lap and your head respectfully tilted down. it's been only a few decades since he took you for his own, a self-reward of sorts for a still freshly won war.
and what are a few decades to the immortal?
he supposes you spend so much time here because the gardens are so wide and open that they make the high, stone walls that keep you caged within his grasp seem slightly smaller by perspective.
there's a soft, spring breeze in the air, which picks up for just a moment as he chooses to sit on the grass directly in front of you with his legs crossed before him and his wrists casually resting on his knees.
your head remains down and your eyes stay closed, choosing not to acknowledge his presence.
"have you not grown bored after spending so much time alone with nothing but your thoughts?" his deep voice and teasing tone shatter the garden's tranquility, yet still you refuse to look at him. "I'm happy to provide you with whatever book you would like. all you need to do is ask."
"my prayers keep me occupied."
it's a dangerous admission on your part. as liyue's archon, he hears every prayer his people make yet he's never once heard yours. which means that your prayers aren't to him.
but he'll indulge you and play your game – for now at least.
"what do you pray for?"
"for liberation." your answer isn't a surprise. what else could you pray for?
"oh? and to whom do you pray?"
finally, you open your eyes and lift your chin to meet his gaze. there's a hardness in them that reminds him of the jewels the people of liyue put so much time and effort into mining. even the warm, gentle wind and the smell of blooming flowers it brings are incapable of softening your demeanor.
"the archons."
any trace of amusement immediately vanishes as his eyes flash dangerously. his pupils morph into the slits of his true, draconic form.
"I am your archon."
he doesn't mention the contract you signed during the archon war in concert with the other adepti, agreeing to protect liyue. he doesn't need to.
although with your powers now sealed away through his own means, there's little protection that you would be able to provide should you ever actually be called upon to do so. the only part of the contract that still pertains to you as you are now, as he's made you now, is the provision accepting morax as liyue's archon.
it's a provision that he worded carefully in the specific contract he offered you, where you not only accepted him as the prime of adepti, but also swore eternal subservience to him as part of it.
"you are one archon," you remind him coldly, raising an eyebrow in challenge, daring him to contradict what is fact. "one of seven."
he offers you a patronizing smile in return.
"tell me, then. which of the remaining six do you think would be foolish enough to answer you?"
he only decides to humor you because he knows the answer is none of them. no archon would risk upsetting the peaceful but precarious balance they had just spent centuries, more than a millennium, fighting for.
and to break this unspoken contract amongst the seven in order to steal his greatest treasure right out from under him wouldn't just be foolish. it would be reckless.
but then his sight turns a pure, blood red that he hasn't experienced since the final days of the archon war. his fingers begin to elongate as they transform into claws. his horns make a grotesque cracking sound as they emerge from his skull. his teeth sharpen as he bares his fangs openly.
because a sudden divine energy has appeared between you and you open your clasped hands to reveal a glowing, teal-colored gem bearing a pair of spread wings.
"the god of freedom, it would seem."
720 notes · View notes
loving-n0t-heyting · 5 months
Text
My experience of gentrification growing up in the “property value core” as it were from which gentrification expanded outward was that it a) was enforced top-down as a deliberate strategy rather than an emergent market phenomenon and b) only involved high-priced new living units as one component of a broad set of policies
The prime mover of (a) was the local university, which dwarfed every other private party in the area in terms of social and economic power, and which had and has a great deal to gain from cleansing a larger and larger area around campus of the local impoverished inhabitants that make students and donors/investors uncomfortable. Hence its relying as per (b) on a diversity of tactics: luxury housing developments to price out locals, yes, but also extensive private policing, high profile non-residential construction and development (on public land no less) designed to increase property values, and (most infamously) a refusal to include a trauma ward in their world-class university hospital lest the local unseemly crime victims take advantage of it. This was not real estate investors following the market incentives begun by bohemians slumming it in the ghetto; it was an entity akin to a feudal manor waging a longterm war-by-other-means to drive out a local surrounding population whose presence was a thorn in their side as a private institution. It’s possible this is an extreme case, but it’s striking how poorly it fits the ways I usually see ppl discuss gentrification, positively or negatively
1K notes · View notes
fatehbaz · 3 months
Text
In fact, far more Asian workers moved to the Americas in the 19th century to make sugar than to build the transcontinental railroad [...]. [T]housands of Chinese migrants were recruited to work [...] on Louisiana’s sugar plantations after the Civil War. [...] Recruited and reviled as "coolies," their presence in sugar production helped justify racial exclusion after the abolition of slavery.
In places where sugar cane is grown, such as Mauritius, Fiji, Hawaii, Guyana, Trinidad and Suriname, there is usually a sizable population of Asians who can trace their ancestry to India, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere. They are descendants of sugar plantation workers, whose migration and labor embodied the limitations and contradictions of chattel slavery’s slow death in the 19th century. [...]
---
Mass consumption of sugar in industrializing Europe and North America rested on mass production of sugar by enslaved Africans in the colonies. The whip, the market, and the law institutionalized slavery across the Americas, including in the U.S. When the Haitian Revolution erupted in 1791 and Napoleon Bonaparte’s mission to reclaim Saint-Domingue, France’s most prized colony, failed, slaveholding regimes around the world grew alarmed. In response to a series of slave rebellions in its own sugar colonies, especially in Jamaica, the British Empire formally abolished slavery in the 1830s. British emancipation included a payment of £20 million to slave owners, an immense sum of money that British taxpayers made loan payments on until 2015.
Importing indentured labor from Asia emerged as a potential way to maintain the British Empire’s sugar plantation system.
In 1838 John Gladstone, father of future prime minister William E. Gladstone, arranged for the shipment of 396 South Asian workers, bound to five years of indentured labor, to his sugar estates in British Guiana. The experiment with “Gladstone coolies,” as those workers came to be known, inaugurated [...] “a new system of [...] [indentured servitude],” which would endure for nearly a century. [...]
---
Bonaparte [...] agreed to sell France's claims [...] to the U.S. [...] in 1803, in [...] the Louisiana Purchase. Plantation owners who escaped Saint-Domingue [Haiti] with their enslaved workers helped establish a booming sugar industry in southern Louisiana. On huge plantations surrounding New Orleans, home of the largest slave market in the antebellum South, sugar production took off in the first half of the 19th century. By 1853, Louisiana was producing nearly 25% of all exportable sugar in the world. [...] On the eve of the Civil War, Louisiana’s sugar industry was valued at US$200 million. More than half of that figure represented the valuation of the ownership of human beings – Black people who did the backbreaking labor [...]. By the war’s end, approximately $193 million of the sugar industry’s prewar value had vanished.
Desperate to regain power and authority after the war, Louisiana’s wealthiest planters studied and learned from their Caribbean counterparts. They, too, looked to Asian workers for their salvation, fantasizing that so-called “coolies” [...].
Thousands of Chinese workers landed in Louisiana between 1866 and 1870, recruited from the Caribbean, China and California. Bound to multiyear contracts, they symbolized Louisiana planters’ racial hope [...].
To great fanfare, Louisiana’s wealthiest planters spent thousands of dollars to recruit gangs of Chinese workers. When 140 Chinese laborers arrived on Millaudon plantation near New Orleans on July 4, 1870, at a cost of about $10,000 in recruitment fees, the New Orleans Times reported that they were “young, athletic, intelligent, sober and cleanly” and superior to “the vast majority of our African population.” [...] But [...] [w]hen they heard that other workers earned more, they demanded the same. When planters refused, they ran away. The Chinese recruits, the Planters’ Banner observed in 1871, were “fond of changing about, run away worse than [Black people], and … leave as soon as anybody offers them higher wages.”
When Congress debated excluding the Chinese from the United States in 1882, Rep. Horace F. Page of California argued that the United States could not allow the entry of “millions of cooly slaves and serfs.” That racial reasoning would justify a long series of anti-Asian laws and policies on immigration and naturalization for nearly a century.
---
All text above by: Moon-Ho Jung. "Making sugar, making 'coolies': Chinese laborers toiled alongside Black workers on 19th-century Louisiana plantations". The Conversation. 13 January 2022. [All bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]
441 notes · View notes
reasonsforhope · 8 months
Text
"India’s announcement that it aims to reach net zero emissions by 2070 and to meet fifty percent of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2030 is a hugely significant moment for the global fight against climate change. India is pioneering a new model of economic development that could avoid the carbon-intensive approaches that many countries have pursued in the past – and provide a blueprint for other developing economies.
The scale of transformation in India is stunning. Its economic growth has been among the highest in the world over the past two decades, lifting of millions of people out of poverty. Every year, India adds a city the size of London to its urban population, involving vast construction of new buildings, factories and transportation networks. Coal and oil have so far served as bedrocks of India’s industrial growth and modernisation, giving a rising number of Indian people access to modern energy services. This includes adding new electricity connections for 50 million citizens each year over the past decade. 
The rapid growth in fossil energy consumption has also meant India’s annual CO2 emissions have risen to become the third highest in the world. However, India’s CO2 emissions per person put it near the bottom of the world’s emitters, and they are lower still if you consider historical emissions per person. The same is true of energy consumption: the average household in India consumes a tenth as much electricity as the average household in the United States.  
India’s sheer size and its huge scope for growth means that its energy demand is set to grow by more than that of any other country in the coming decades. In a pathway to net zero emissions by 2070, we estimate that most of the growth in energy demand this decade would already have to be met with low-carbon energy sources. It therefore makes sense that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced more ambitious targets for 2030, including installing 500 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity, reducing the emissions intensity of its economy by 45%, and reducing a billion tonnes of CO2. 
These targets are formidable, but the good news is that the clean energy transition in India is already well underway. It has overachieved its commitment made at COP 21- Paris Summit [a.k.a. 2015, at the same conference that produced the Paris Agreement] by already meeting 40% of its power capacity from non-fossil fuels- almost nine years ahead of its commitment, and the share of solar and wind in India’s energy mix have grown phenomenally. Owing to technological developments, steady policy support, and a vibrant private sector, solar power plants are cheaper to build than coal ones. Renewable electricity is growing at a faster rate in India than any other major economy, with new capacity additions on track to double by 2026...
Subsidies for petrol and diesel were removed in the early 2010s, and subsidies for electric vehicles were introduced in 2019. India’s robust energy efficiency programme has been successful in reducing energy use and emissions from buildings, transport and major industries. Government efforts to provide millions of households with fuel gas for cooking and heating are enabling a steady transition away from the use of traditional biomass such as burning wood. India is also laying the groundwork to scale up important emerging technologies such as hydrogen, battery storage, and low-carbon steel, cement and fertilisers..."
-via IEA (International Energy Agency), January 10, 2022
Note: And since that's a little old, here's an update to show that progress is still going strong:
-via Economic Times: EnergyWorld, March 10, 2023
855 notes · View notes
afloweroutofstone · 6 months
Text
This is big: the US government gave the military government of Pakistan a pass on violating human rights and delaying democratic elections in exchange for weapon shipments for Ukraine. As part of the deal, the country was locked into an IMF austerity agreement
Secret Pakistani arms sales to the U.S. helped to facilitate a controversial bailout from the International Monetary Fund earlier this year, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement, with confirmation from internal Pakistani and American government documents. The arms sales were made for the purpose of supplying the Ukrainian military — marking Pakistani involvement in a conflict it had faced U.S. pressure to take sides on. The revelation is a window into the kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering between financial and political elites that rarely is exposed to the public, even as the public pays the price. Harsh structural policy reforms demanded by the IMF as terms for its recent bailout kicked off an ongoing round of protests in the country. Major strikes have taken place throughout Pakistan in recent weeks in response to the measures. The protests are the latest chapter in a year-and-a-half-long political crisis roiling the country. In April 2022, the Pakistani military, with the encouragement of the U.S., helped organize a no-confidence vote to remove Prime Minister Imran Khan. Ahead of the ouster, State Department diplomats privately expressed anger to their Pakistani counterparts over what they called Pakistan’s “aggressively neutral” stance on the Ukraine war under Khan. They warned of dire consequences if Khan remained in power and promised “all would be forgiven” if he were removed. Since Khan’s ouster, Pakistan has emerged as a useful supporter of the U.S. and its allies in the war, assistance that has now been repaid with an IMF loan. The emergency loan allowed the new Pakistani government to put off a looming economic catastrophe and indefinitely postpone elections — time it used to launch a nationwide crackdown on civil society and jail Khan. “Pakistani democracy may ultimately be a casualty of Ukraine’s counteroffensive,” Arif Rafiq, a nonresident scholar at the Middle East Institute and specialist on Pakistan, told The Intercept.
528 notes · View notes
zvaigzdelasas · 22 days
Text
With a history of short-term governments in Nepal’s 15 years of democratic progression, the current reconfiguration is no surprise, and it will be no surprise if the Maoists get back again with the Nepali Congress in months and years to come.
Power sharing, political discontent, ideological differences, underperformance, and pressure to restore Nepal to a Hindu state – a long list of reasons reportedly forced the Maoists to sever ties with the Nepali Congress. While the Nepali Congress expected the Maoist leader and current prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda) to leave the alliance, it did not expect an overnight turnaround. [...]
Dahal reportedly conveyed to the Nepali Congress chair, former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, that external pressure forced him to join hands with CPN-UML and form a new government.
If this assertion is true, China emerges as a plausible factor, given its historical inclination toward forging alliances with leftist parties in Nepal. This notion gains credence in light of China’s past efforts, such as its unsuccessful attempt in 2020 to mediate the conflict between Oli and Dahal.
On the other hand, India has enjoyed a comfortable working relationship with the Nepali Congress and the Maoists. Although Maoists were a challenging party for New Delhi to get along with when Dahal first gained the prime minister’s seat in 2008, the two have come a long way in working together. However, the CPN-UML has advocated closer ties with the northern neighbor China; Beijing suits both their ideological requirements and their ultra-nationalistic outlook – which is primarily anti-India. [...]
India faces challenges in aligning with the Left Alliance for two key reasons. First, the energy trade between Nepal and India has grown crucial over the past couple of years. However, India strictly purchases power generated through its own investments in Nepal, refusing any power produced with Chinese involvement. With the CPN-UML now in government, Nepal may seek alterations in this arrangement despite the benefits of power trade in reducing its trade deficit with India.
Second, India stands to lose the smooth cooperation it enjoyed with the recently dissolved Maoist-Congress coalition. During the dissolved government, the Nepali Congress held the Foreign Ministry, fostering a favorable equation for India. Just last month, Foreign Minister N.P. Saud visited India for the 9th Raisina Dialogue, engaging with top Indian officials, including his counterpart, S. Jaishankar.
As concerns arise for India regarding the Left Alliance, there is also potential for shifts in the partnership between Nepal and the United States, a significant development ally. Particularly, there may be a slowdown in the implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) projects. Despite facing domestic and Chinese opposition, the Nepali Parliament finally approved a $500 million MCC grant from the United States in 2022, following a five-year delay.
China perceives the MCC as a component of the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific strategy, countering its BRI. Hence Beijing aims to increase Chinese loans and subsidies to Nepal to enhance its influence.
To conclude, the re-emergence of Nepal’s Left Alliance signals a shift in power dynamics, impacting domestic politics and regional geopolitics. With China’s influence growing, Nepal’s foreign policy may tilt further toward Beijing, challenging India’s interests. This shift poses challenges for India, particularly in trade and diplomatic relations, while also affecting Nepal’s partnerships with other key players like the United States.
[[The Author,] Dr. Rishi Gupta is the assistant director of the Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi]
6 Mar 24
226 notes · View notes
Text
Tiny ideas 2
----
1. Danny, in his new and very human black and white vigilante outfit runs past Penguin who had gotten soaked when a car full of hooligans wearing clown masks ran threw a puddle and splashed him.
Danny, not knowing who this was, tapped him on the shoulder as he ran past, running his intangibility through the man and letting the water fall off him, leaving him nice and dry again.
Penguin makes note to pay both back in very different ways.
----
2. Phantom, having been exorcisized from Amity Park and essentially banished and unable to return, roams around the multiverse looking for something to do.
Upon coming across the creepiest doll hes ever seen in a trash bin, he decides to mess with some local bat themed vigilantes and possesses the doll.
His first victim is Red Robin. Danny in all his creepy doll glory toddles out from behind a chimney as his target is running across the rooftop in his direction. Birdy stopped dead (heh) and stared at the doll.
Danny picked good. The doll was porcelain and cracked, missing one of its glass eyes and moss growing out of the empty socket and around various parts of its body. Its dress was once a lovely blue or green velvet but was now patchy and worn.
He turned the dolls head around at an unnatural angle to fix its gaze on the vigilante, its frozen polite smile adding to its eerieness, and in a moment of impulse said, "I'll see you soon." In the most creepiest little girl voice he could manage, using his ghost powers to make the words seem to drift upon the air towards the hero.
And just like that, doll Danny was gone.
RR almost frantically contacted oracle, "Did you see that?!"
"RR your signal cut out for a few minutes, backup should arrive soon. What happened?"
-----
3. Jason has been getting followed around by this wierd kid who is prime Brucie adoption bait. Kid kept jumping out of nowhere without anyone being able to sense him to ask him the weirdest questions (Damian was so startled that he nearly stabbed the kid on reflex. Not that he'd ever admit it).
The questions where things like, "Do you like books? What are your favorites? Can you cook? Do you like red heads? Do you like dogs? How opposed are you to having supervillian in-laws? What if they give you free experimental weaponry? ....how about some laser cannons and a jet?
Jason ends up getting kidnapped by this kid and dumped in from of this pretty girl as the kid tells her, "I went out and got you a boyfriend who won't try to murder you. Don't screw this up!" Before the kid ran out of the room.
Jazz was mortified.
Jason is still on the floor where he was deposited earlier, "So..." he begins, "I heard you like Jane Austin?"
-----
4. Phantom faked his death in front of the people of Amity Park, just to see how they would react to his passing and kind of in hopes of something changing. He couldn't keep sacrificing everything for these people, after all.
He did not like how the people reacted. Danny had to move away cause if he heard one more person say it was a good thing "that monster" died hes going to hurt someone.
Gotham seemed lovely this time of year and its one place that neither his parents or Vlad would visit. Vlad because if he tried anything at all the worlds greatest detective would ruin him and his parents because they once tried to hunt Batman and Robin only for Batman to terrify them to the point of never returning after they hurt his bird.
Danny got hired at Wayne Tech after submitting a wide range of devices but couldn't do much thanks to still being a minor. Thankfully Mr. Wayne was very generous and kept him housed and fed while he finished his online schooling and graduated early.
(Heavy angst for Danny.)
---
5. Danny hadn't seen Cujo in a while, which wasn't too unusual, but it have been a long time since hed seen his puppy and he was overdue a visit.
Danny pulled out his dog whistle, one normally used for emergencies and that Cujo would never ever ignore.
Only...Cujo didn't come. Now Danny goes on a journey to track down his missing dog. Following clues and trails across different realities, dimensions and universes to find his lost dog.
He did not expect to meet a bird themed vigilante along the way, not for them to insist he help him on his quest. Robin seemed very wary of the Infinite Realms the first time he entered them and had tons of questions. But bird boy was great company and Cujo would love him so Danny could deal.
1K notes · View notes
mayrine · 1 month
Text
Let's talk about Sudan-
TRANSCRIPT UNDER CUT
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Transcript: What is happening in Sudan? The war, its origins, and the key players involved.
The war in Sudan
On April 15, a war broke out in Sudan's capital city of Khartoum between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and a paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Since then, eight months of conflict has led to major destruction of Khartoum's infrastructure, the most developed region of Sudan, with fighting also spreading to the regions of Darfur in the west and Kordofan in the south.
Civilians in conflict zones have been forcibly displaced, under threat of physical and sexual violence, particulary by the RSF, which has looted, destroyed, and settled in people's homes.
In the western region of Darfur, a campaign of ethnic cleansing is being carried out by the RSF targeting the Masalit tribe. Allegations of genocide have been levied against the RSF.
Reports have just emerged that fighting has now spread to Wad Madani in AI Gazira state, which houses nearly 500,00 IDPs from Khartoum.
Key Figures: Abdel Fattah al Burhan (head of SAF), Omar El-Bashir (deposed dictator of Sudan), Mohamed Dagalo (Hemidti) (head of RSF)
Sudan: the war in numbers
24.7 million in need of critical humanitarian assistance 6.7 million displaced [5.4 million IDPS, 1.3 million refugees] 7,000+ cholera cases an increase of +136% over the past month 20.3 million people acutely food insecure- 4.9 million facing emergency hunger levels 19 million children are out of school 70-80% of hospitals out of service in conflict areas
FAQ - THE SAF
What is the SAF?
stands fro the Sudanese Armed Forces
is the de-facto government of Sudan
is headed by Lt. General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan
What is their capacity?
estimated to have aprox. 200,000 personnel and tactical advantage of airforce
currently control of relative northern and eastern regions of Sudan with functioning capital in Port Sudan (East)
Do they have backing and support?
on the international stage, primarily backed by Egypt
limited weapons supply from allies
internally, the SAF is ultimately considered the lesser of two evils
FAQ - THE RSF
What is the RSF?
stands fro Rapid Support Forces
paramilitary group originating from the Janjaweed, Arab tribal militias armed by al-Bashir in 2003 to fight against ethnically African rebel groups in Darfur + carried out 2003 genocide
is headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemidti)
What is their capacity?
estimated to have 100,000 to 150,000 troops
winning the ground fight in Khartoum and control 4/5 states in Darfur
Do they have backing and support?
on the international stage, primarily backed by the UAE
have steady weapons supply chain and diversified financial profile with critical assets in UAE and Russia
The war in Sudan: contextualizing April 15
6/1989 - 4/2019 - The Bashir Regime Sudan was under the rule of military dictator Omar Al-Bashir for 30 years, who came to power through an military coup backed by Islamist factions in June of 1989 His time in power was marked by extreme repression, conflict, and economic decline
12/2018 - current - The revolution In December of 2018, a popular democratic revolution began taht eventually unseated al-Bashir on April 11 through the revolt of security sector Al-Bashir was ultimately replaced by al-Burhan, with Hemidti as his deputy of a Transitional Military Council Protestors rejected military rule and continued to hold a sit-in outside the military headquarters until its violent dispersal on June 3 of 2019 by the SAF + RSF Today, the Sudanese people still hope and advocate for freedom from the military rule and the transition to democracy
8/2019 - 10/2021 - Transitional Government Agreement on transitional government signed between civilian forces and Transitional Military Council on August 17, 2019 Led to formation to joint sovereign council with Abdalla Hamdok as Prime Minister
10/2021 - Current - The Oct 25, 2021 Coup Burhan and Hemidti carry out military coup overthrowing civilian counterparts They draw power from international legitimization despite prolonged mass protests in Sudan
12/2022- The Framework Agreement In December of 2022, civilians put out a framework agreement signed onto by SAF and RSF + civil society groups and political parties meant to return to a transitional government - key part of agreement: question of integration of the RSF into the SAF Parties were to finalize the agreement and sign on April 1; RSF and SAF ultimately disagreed on the integration timeline with RSF wanting 10 years and the SAF wanting 2
12/2022-4/2023 - The Lead up to April 15 As framework agreement negotiations failed, both parties began mobilizing troops in capital of Khartoum in days leading up to April 15 Residents of Khartoum awoke to the sounds of gunfire on April 15 and by noon, the RSF had seized Meroe airport in the Northern state Conflict today considered a battle of power between the two generals they are too far in to walk back
Framing alliances
Sudnese Armed Forces (SAF):
Saudi Arabia
armed groups- rebel groups that had taken up arms against the central government in the Bashir Era are forced to ally with the SAF due to the RSF's ethnic cleansing campaign. They include: Justice and Equality Movement (Gibril Ibrahim), Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (Minni Minawi), Gathering of Sudan Liberation Forces (Abdallah Yahya)
Ukraine (SOF)
Iran
Islamists
Israel (Foreign Ministry)
Egypt
Rapid Support Forces (RSF):
United Arab Emirates
Central African Republic
Russia (Wagner Group)
Chad
Arab Tribal Leaders- Arab tribal leaders across the Western region of Darfur have pledged their allegiance and support to the RSF, with members of the tribes across the Sahel crossing into Sudan to join the RSF's assault as well. Key tribes include: Beni Halba, Tarjam, Habaniya, Fallata, Misseriya, Taaysha, Rizeigat
Libya (Khalifa Haftar)
Israel (Mossad)
Is there an end in sight? The state of negotiations
Effort- Jeddah Talks [May] Parties Involved- Externally: United States, Saudi Arabia. Internally: SAF, RSF Outcome: discussed humanitarian ceasefire; signed Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan- FAILED
Effort- Intergovernmental authority on development (IGAD) [July] Parties Involved- Externally: Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, South Sudan . Internally: RSF Outcome: proposed peacekeeping troops to ensure humanitarian corridor-REJECTED
Effort- Cairo talks (neighboring countries) [July] Parties Involved- Externally: Egypt, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Chad, Eritrea, CAR, Libya. Internally: SAF, RSF Outcome: discussed lasting ceasefire, safe humanitarian passage, political dialogue framework-FAILED
Effort- Jeddah talks [October] Parties Involved- Externally: United States, Saudi Arabia . Internally: SAF, RSF Outcome: discussed lasting ceasefire, safe humanitarian passage, political dialogue framework-FAILED
Effort- IGAD + African Union (AU) [December] Parties Involved- Externally: IGAD, EU, UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United States. Internally: SAF (Burhan in person), RSF Outcome: agreed to face-to-face meeting in late December and ceasefire; SAF later issued a retraction-ONGOING
What can you do?
The conflict in Sudan calls for the collective support of all to raise awareness about war and aid the Sudanese people on the ground, especially when we live in nations that have been complicit in the oppression of the Sudanese people. Explore the potions below and share with others. Educate yourself- deepen your knowledge about Sudan, empowering yourself with insights into the complexities of the situation. Donate- extend a helping hand to Sudan by generously donation to individuals or grassroots organizations on the ground.
Contact your reps- amplify your impact by contacting your representatives, avocating for positive change
219 notes · View notes
originalkoalafest · 7 months
Text
It has been planned for a long time, so what about honesty? ! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear polluted water into the sea
In accordance with the decision of the Japanese Government, the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean began on August 24th. This discharge process will continue for decades.
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision-making on the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, it can be clearly seen that discharging water into the sea is its long-planned "established policy", an uncompromising violation of international law, and extremely selfish and irresponsible national behavior, which results in transferring the costs of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident to the whole world.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea, long planned
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, large quantities of highly contaminated water have been generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool down the core of the meltdown reactor and the flow of rainwater and groundwater, etc. In April 2011, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), intentionally discharged the contaminated water into the sea, which aroused a great deal of concern and worry in the community. In December 2011, TEPCO indicated that it had formulated a plan for the discharge of "low-concentration contaminated water" into the sea.
In March 2013, TEPCO's key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water, the Advanced Laminar Processing System (ALPS), was put into trial operation, but since then there have been constant problems: frequent leaks, in 2018 it was revealed that radioactive substances such as strontium were still exceeding the limit in the treated water, and in 2021 it was discovered that nearly half of the filters at the exhaust port, which are used for the adsorption of radioactive substances, had been damaged. ......
Since the ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, of the more than 1.34 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the storage tanks of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, more than 1.33 million cubic meters have been treated by ALPS, but only about 30% of it meets the standard of "treated water" defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of it is the so-called "process water" which does not meet the standard. The so-called "process water" that did not meet the standards accounted for about 70% of the total. Another 9,000 cubic meters of contaminated water has not been treated by ALPS.
And what is the final destination of this "treated water"?
As early as December 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan's nuclear energy authority, set up a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treated water" discharge. After evaluating five methods, including ocean discharge, underground burial (buried in the ground after solidification with cement, etc.), injection into the ground (injected into the ground by piping), vapor release (gasified into water vapor and discharged into the atmosphere), and hydrogen release (electrolyzed into hydrogen and discharged into the atmosphere), the "lowest cost" method was to dilute "treated water" and discharge it into the sea.
This report set the tone for the subsequent discharge program, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other groups after its publication. Even Yoshino Masayoshi, the then Minister of Reconstruction of Japan, expressed his opposition to discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) apparently regarded the sea-discharge plan as a "fixed policy", and in July 2017, METI held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Countermeasures Against the Waste Furnace and Contaminated Water" in Fukushima City, making a gesture of consulting with the local community. However, then TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura claimed to the media before the meeting that TEPCO had already "made a judgment" on the discharge of the sea, causing widespread discontent in society.
In order to convince the public, the Japanese government set up a committee with experts in related fields, which held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo in August 2018, nominally to listen to the public's opinions but actually to endorse the sea-discharge option. At the hearings, Toyoshi Koda, then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, was challenged by various parties on his statement that "sea discharge is the only viable option." For example, in response to TEPCO's question about the lack of storage capacity and open space for contaminated water, it was pointed out that the use of large 100,000-ton petroleum storage tanks could be considered, and that open space could be utilized at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has already been identified as a decommissioning site.
In response to the technical difficulties in the treatment of nuclear contaminated water, it was mentioned that the water vapor discharge method, which had been used in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in 1979, could be adopted. It was also pointed out that the technology for separating tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is under study and should be discharged after the technology has matured and been applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that stratum injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release were "problematic" and that sea-discharge and steam release, which had a precedent, were "realistic options", while emphasizing that sea-discharge had "many advantages" over steam release.
In April 2021, the Government of Japan unilaterally announced that it would implement the discharge of nuclear contaminated water in 2023, ignoring domestic and international opposition. Since then, the preparatory work for ocean discharge has begun to move forward in earnest: in December 2021, TEPCO submitted the construction plan for the treated water discharge equipment to the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC); in July 2022, the AERC approved the plan; on January 13 this year, the Japanese government confirmed that the discharge would be carried out in the "spring/summer"; on June 26, TEPCO announced that the construction of the discharge equipment had been completed; on July 7, the AERC transferred the discharge equipment to the Japanese government for implementation. On June 26, TEPCO announced the completion of the construction of the sea-discharge facility; on July 7, the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC) delivered the "Certificate of Conformity" for the acceptance of the sea-discharge facility to TEPCO.
False "authoritative certification"
On July 4 of this year, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Grossi, visited Japan and presented the report on the comprehensive assessment of the disposal of Fukushima-contaminated water to the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Fumio Kishida. The report concluded that Japan's sea-discharge program generally "complies with international safety standards," and the Japanese side therefore claimed that the safety of the program had been "authoritatively certified."
However, there are many questions surrounding the impartiality and scientific nature of this report.
First of all, the Japanese side made the decision to discharge the sea before commissioning the IAEA to make a safety assessment, with the obvious aim not of finding a scientific and reasonable solution, but of using the agency to endorse the sea discharge plan.
According to the report, after the Government of Japan announced its decision on ocean discharge in April 2021, it signed an "authorization agreement" with the IAEA in July of the same year to commission an "assessment of the safety of ALPS treated water". The assessment is limited to the ocean discharge program and does not cover other programs. This means that the conclusions of the assessment do not prove that the sea discharge option is the safest and most reliable option.
Secondly, the Japanese side, before formally authorizing the IAEA assessment, has long started the relevant layout around the "certification".
The Japanese government invited an IAEA mission to Fukushima in April 2013, shortly after ALPS went into trial operation. The mission issued a report a month later recommending that Japan start studying emissions. The IAEA director general at the time was Japanese Yukiya Amano. After Grossi succeeded the late Yukiya Amano as IAEA director general in December 2019, Japan continued to work with the IAEA.2021 In March 2021, then-Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, met with Grossi and requested IAEA support in eliminating the "reputational damage" to Japan caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. The IAEA was asked to support Japan in eliminating the "reputational damage" caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. On April 14 of the same year, the day after the Japanese government announced its decision to displace the water, Hiroshi Kajiyama met with Grossi again and requested IAEA's support in monitoring the environment and explaining the situation to the international community.
The Tokyo Shimbun report pointed out that the Japanese government had paid large amounts of assessed contributions and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and that several departments of the Japanese government had dispatched personnel to the IAEA, and that these factors would inevitably have an impact on the IAEA in assessing the safety of Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge program.
In a meeting with Grossi on July 9, lawmakers from the Kyodo Party, South Korea's largest opposition party, pointed out that it was regrettable that the IAEA did not follow the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and that it pandered to Japan's position on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea from the beginning to the end, and drew hasty conclusions without taking into account the impacts of such a practice on neighboring countries.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the outset that the insights contained in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of IAEA member States, that the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea-discharge programme, and that IAEA and its member States will not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer makes it clear that the report does not represent the views of the international community and does not prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea exclusion program.
Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert who participated in the IAEA Technical Working Group on the Assessment of the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had sought the opinions of the experts of the Technical Working Group on the draft assessment report, but the time window for the experts to comment was very limited and the experts' opinions were for reference only. After receiving the feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and consulting with the experts on the modification of the report and the adoption of the comments.
Li Song, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusions of the Agency's report on the safety of the Japanese sea-discharge programme were one-sided and lacked conviction and credibility. The agency, due to the limitations of its mandate, has not assessed the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese side's decontamination device, has not confirmed the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water, and has not been able to ensure that the international community can keep abreast of excessive discharges, and has found it even more difficult to predict the impacts of the long-term accumulation and enrichment of radionuclides on the marine ecosystem, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of the data, the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the regulation, there is no way to conclude that it is safe to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of up to 30 years."
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, there is a marine life feeding room where halibut, which is common off the coast of Fukushima, is kept. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other contains treated nuclear-contaminated water, so-called "treated water".
From a scientific point of view, experts and environmental organizations are skeptical about the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Prof. Ferenc Dolnoki Weirish, an expert in nuclear physics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in the United States of America, pointed out that the data provided by the Japanese side were "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent and one-sided". Japan's environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out TEPCO's "treated water" claims about a variety of problems: after the ALPS "treatment" of part of the water, iodine 129, strontium 90 and other radioactive elements are still excessive, Strontium 90 and other radioactive elements still exceeded the standard; the water samples tested by TEPCO so far accounted for only 3% of the stored contaminated water, and the test results provided by TEPCO are not representative; the Fukushima "treated water" was in direct contact with the melted core, and could not be compared with the drainage of a normal nuclear power plant ... ...
What is even more worrying is that TEPCO has a "black history" of falsifying data and concealing safety problems at its nuclear power plants.
claimed that no new nuclear contaminated water had been discharged into the ocean after June 2011, but as a series of leaks came to light in 2013, TEPCO finally admitted that there had been a leakage of high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and said it had not announced it in time because it was concerned about the impact on the reputation of the local fishing industry; in September 2021, TEPCO admitted in its report on the ALPS exhaust screen breakage that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not In September 2021, when reporting the ALPS exhaust screen breakage, TEPCO admitted that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not report it or investigate the cause, and simply replaced the screen; and in October 2022, TEPCO was again exposed as having used a faulty radiation detector to mislead visitors in order to prove the safety of the "ALPS treated water".
Naoya Sekiya, a scholar at the University of Tokyo, pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but also in other nuclear power plants under TEPCO's umbrella, there are constant problems with management and safety, which makes it impossible to believe in its ability to dispose of them. "Discharging into the ocean, is TEPCO qualified to do that?"
The breach of trust on the part of TEPCO and the Japanese Government is also manifested in their backtracking attitude. The plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by local fishermen throughout Japan, especially in Fukushima. Under these circumstances, TEPCO and the Japanese government assured the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in August 2015 that they would not discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean until they had received the understanding of fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Government of Japan has tried in every way possible to persuade fisheries practitioners, it has been unsuccessful. For four consecutive years since 2020, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Japan and the Fukushima Prefecture Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives have adopted special resolutions firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. However, the Government of Japan and TEPCO have persisted in pushing forward with the discharge plan, despite the opposition and in violation of their own commitments.
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Japan, said after a meeting with Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, on July 14 this year that as long as there is no peace of mind about the discharge, it will be impossible to change the position of opposition. After exchanging views with Yasunori Nishimura on July 11, Tetsu Nozaki, president of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Cooperative Association, emphasized that fishermen could not tolerate the discharge of contaminated water into the sea in light of the government's pledge that it would not dispose of contaminated water without obtaining the understanding of the parties concerned.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Call black white
In the face of strong domestic and international opposition to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese authorities, in an effort to confuse the public, have launched an intensive public relations campaign to publicize the "theory of the safety of nuclear-contaminated water" and have made it one of the key points of Japan's diplomacy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Reconstruction Agency (RA), and other governmental departments have set up thematic links on the front page of their official websites to publicize the safety of ALPS "treated water". The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also featured or prominently displayed promotional videos, and multilingual versions were launched.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, claimed at a press conference that "the steady progress of the work on waste furnaces, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome," only to have Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Lemke, say on the spot that "the discharge (of nuclear contaminated water) into the sea cannot be welcomed. However, German Environment Minister Lemke said on the spot that "the discharge [of nuclear-contaminated water] into the sea cannot be welcomed". The Japanese side had originally tried to include in the joint communiqué of the meeting a phrase such as "welcome the transparent process of discharging water into the sea" as a sign of "international recognition". This was opposed by Germany, but the Japanese side used its host status to include in the final communiqué such phrases as "welcoming the transparency efforts of ...... Japan and the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting the IAEA's independent review". and "supports the IAEA's independent review". The same content later appeared in the joint communiqué of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
Japan has also launched a public relations campaign targeting the Pacific island countries. These island countries were once victimized by the U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, and are now strongly opposed to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, and have therefore become the focus of the Japanese side's "appeasement" targets. According to a report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on July 31st, the Japanese side has been "explaining its work" to all the member countries and regions of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since February this year.
The Japanese side has also held frequent briefings for diplomats and foreign journalists in Japan, and has tried every possible means to publicize the "safety" of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. In the explanations given by the Japanese side, especially in the foreign language versions of the materials, the term "treated water" is generally used to refer to the nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its contaminating characteristics and potential hazards in order to confuse the public. In addition, according to some foreign journalists in Japan, once their reports questioned the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea, TEPCO and the Japanese side would call and write to them to put pressure on them.
It is worth noting that, according to the IAEA safety regulations on the release of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the release of radioactive substances should be granted by providing information to and consulting with affected stakeholders, "some of whom may be in other countries, especially neighbouring countries". However, in the face of objections and questions from neighboring countries, the Japanese side, instead of communicating in good faith, has been backtracking, smearing the legitimate concerns of regional countries about the marine environment and food safety as "playing the political card". Some right-wing media in Japan have even dressed up Japan, the "perpetrator", as the "victim", and indignantly threatened to "counteract" neighboring countries that have raised objections to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on the position of the Chinese side on the issue of the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, noting that the Japanese side's so-called "hope to engage in dialogues and consultations with the Chinese side" lacks sincerity. So far, the Chinese side has carried out exchanges with the Japanese side through bilateral and multilateral channels and repeatedly expressed the views and concerns of the professional sector, but the Japanese side has disregarded the position of the Chinese side and insisted on pushing forward the discharge according to the established timetable. "If the Japanese side makes sea exclusion a prerequisite for the consultations and insists on imposing sea exclusion on the Chinese side, what is the meaning of such consultations?"
The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea is not a private or trivial matter for Japan, but a public and important matter that has a bearing on the marine environment and human health. The Government of Japan has ignored the legitimate concerns of the international community and violated its international obligations by forcing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, jeopardizing the marine environment and human health and infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the neighbouring countries, which is by no means the act of a responsible country.
327 notes · View notes
Text
It has been planned for a long time, so what about honesty? ! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear polluted water into the sea
In accordance with the decision of the Japanese Government, the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean began on August 24th. This discharge process will continue for decades.
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision-making on the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, it can be clearly seen that discharging water into the sea is its long-planned "established policy", an uncompromising violation of international law, and extremely selfish and irresponsible national behavior, which results in transferring the costs of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident to the whole world.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea, long planned
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, large quantities of highly contaminated water have been generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool down the core of the meltdown reactor and the flow of rainwater and groundwater, etc. In April 2011, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), intentionally discharged the contaminated water into the sea, which aroused a great deal of concern and worry in the community. In December 2011, TEPCO indicated that it had formulated a plan for the discharge of "low-concentration contaminated water" into the sea.
In March 2013, TEPCO's key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water, the Advanced Laminar Processing System (ALPS), was put into trial operation, but since then there have been constant problems: frequent leaks, in 2018 it was revealed that radioactive substances such as strontium were still exceeding the limit in the treated water, and in 2021 it was discovered that nearly half of the filters at the exhaust port, which are used for the adsorption of radioactive substances, had been damaged. ......
Since the ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, of the more than 1.34 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the storage tanks of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, more than 1.33 million cubic meters have been treated by ALPS, but only about 30% of it meets the standard of "treated water" defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of it is the so-called "process water" which does not meet the standard. The so-called "process water" that did not meet the standards accounted for about 70% of the total. Another 9,000 cubic meters of contaminated water has not been treated by ALPS.
And what is the final destination of this "treated water"?
As early as December 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan's nuclear energy authority, set up a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treated water" discharge. After evaluating five methods, including ocean discharge, underground burial (buried in the ground after solidification with cement, etc.), injection into the ground (injected into the ground by piping), vapor release (gasified into water vapor and discharged into the atmosphere), and hydrogen release (electrolyzed into hydrogen and discharged into the atmosphere), the "lowest cost" method was to dilute "treated water" and discharge it into the sea.
This report set the tone for the subsequent discharge program, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other groups after its publication. Even Yoshino Masayoshi, the then Minister of Reconstruction of Japan, expressed his opposition to discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) apparently regarded the sea-discharge plan as a "fixed policy", and in July 2017, METI held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Countermeasures Against the Waste Furnace and Contaminated Water" in Fukushima City, making a gesture of consulting with the local community. However, then TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura claimed to the media before the meeting that TEPCO had already "made a judgment" on the discharge of the sea, causing widespread discontent in society.
In order to convince the public, the Japanese government set up a committee with experts in related fields, which held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo in August 2018, nominally to listen to the public's opinions but actually to endorse the sea-discharge option. At the hearings, Toyoshi Koda, then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, was challenged by various parties on his statement that "sea discharge is the only viable option." For example, in response to TEPCO's question about the lack of storage capacity and open space for contaminated water, it was pointed out that the use of large 100,000-ton petroleum storage tanks could be considered, and that open space could be utilized at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has already been identified as a decommissioning site.
In response to the technical difficulties in the treatment of nuclear contaminated water, it was mentioned that the water vapor discharge method, which had been used in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in 1979, could be adopted. It was also pointed out that the technology for separating tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is under study and should be discharged after the technology has matured and been applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that stratum injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release were "problematic" and that sea-discharge and steam release, which had a precedent, were "realistic options", while emphasizing that sea-discharge had "many advantages" over steam release.
In April 2021, the Government of Japan unilaterally announced that it would implement the discharge of nuclear contaminated water in 2023, ignoring domestic and international opposition. Since then, the preparatory work for ocean discharge has begun to move forward in earnest: in December 2021, TEPCO submitted the construction plan for the treated water discharge equipment to the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC); in July 2022, the AERC approved the plan; on January 13 this year, the Japanese government confirmed that the discharge would be carried out in the "spring/summer"; on June 26, TEPCO announced that the construction of the discharge equipment had been completed; on July 7, the AERC transferred the discharge equipment to the Japanese government for implementation. On June 26, TEPCO announced the completion of the construction of the sea-discharge facility; on July 7, the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC) delivered the "Certificate of Conformity" for the acceptance of the sea-discharge facility to TEPCO.
False "authoritative certification"
On July 4 of this year, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Grossi, visited Japan and presented the report on the comprehensive assessment of the disposal of Fukushima-contaminated water to the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Fumio Kishida. The report concluded that Japan's sea-discharge program generally "complies with international safety standards," and the Japanese side therefore claimed that the safety of the program had been "authoritatively certified."
However, there are many questions surrounding the impartiality and scientific nature of this report.
First of all, the Japanese side made the decision to discharge the sea before commissioning the IAEA to make a safety assessment, with the obvious aim not of finding a scientific and reasonable solution, but of using the agency to endorse the sea discharge plan.
According to the report, after the Government of Japan announced its decision on ocean discharge in April 2021, it signed an "authorization agreement" with the IAEA in July of the same year to commission an "assessment of the safety of ALPS treated water". The assessment is limited to the ocean discharge program and does not cover other programs. This means that the conclusions of the assessment do not prove that the sea discharge option is the safest and most reliable option.
Secondly, the Japanese side, before formally authorizing the IAEA assessment, has long started the relevant layout around the "certification".
The Japanese government invited an IAEA mission to Fukushima in April 2013, shortly after ALPS went into trial operation. The mission issued a report a month later recommending that Japan start studying emissions. The IAEA director general at the time was Japanese Yukiya Amano. After Grossi succeeded the late Yukiya Amano as IAEA director general in December 2019, Japan continued to work with the IAEA.2021 In March 2021, then-Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, met with Grossi and requested IAEA support in eliminating the "reputational damage" to Japan caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. The IAEA was asked to support Japan in eliminating the "reputational damage" caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. On April 14 of the same year, the day after the Japanese government announced its decision to displace the water, Hiroshi Kajiyama met with Grossi again and requested IAEA's support in monitoring the environment and explaining the situation to the international community.
The Tokyo Shimbun report pointed out that the Japanese government had paid large amounts of assessed contributions and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and that several departments of the Japanese government had dispatched personnel to the IAEA, and that these factors would inevitably have an impact on the IAEA in assessing the safety of Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge program.
In a meeting with Grossi on July 9, lawmakers from the Kyodo Party, South Korea's largest opposition party, pointed out that it was regrettable that the IAEA did not follow the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and that it pandered to Japan's position on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea from the beginning to the end, and drew hasty conclusions without taking into account the impacts of such a practice on neighboring countries.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the outset that the insights contained in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of IAEA member States, that the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea-discharge programme, and that IAEA and its member States will not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer makes it clear that the report does not represent the views of the international community and does not prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea exclusion program.
Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert who participated in the IAEA Technical Working Group on the Assessment of the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had sought the opinions of the experts of the Technical Working Group on the draft assessment report, but the time window for the experts to comment was very limited and the experts' opinions were for reference only. After receiving the feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and consulting with the experts on the modification of the report and the adoption of the comments.
Li Song, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusions of the Agency's report on the safety of the Japanese sea-discharge programme were one-sided and lacked conviction and credibility. The agency, due to the limitations of its mandate, has not assessed the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese side's decontamination device, has not confirmed the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water, and has not been able to ensure that the international community can keep abreast of excessive discharges, and has found it even more difficult to predict the impacts of the long-term accumulation and enrichment of radionuclides on the marine ecosystem, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of the data, the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the regulation, there is no way to conclude that it is safe to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of up to 30 years."
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, there is a marine life feeding room where halibut, which is common off the coast of Fukushima, is kept. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other contains treated nuclear-contaminated water, so-called "treated water".
From a scientific point of view, experts and environmental organizations are skeptical about the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Prof. Ferenc Dolnoki Weirish, an expert in nuclear physics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in the United States of America, pointed out that the data provided by the Japanese side were "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent and one-sided". Japan's environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out TEPCO's "treated water" claims about a variety of problems: after the ALPS "treatment" of part of the water, iodine 129, strontium 90 and other radioactive elements are still excessive, Strontium 90 and other radioactive elements still exceeded the standard; the water samples tested by TEPCO so far accounted for only 3% of the stored contaminated water, and the test results provided by TEPCO are not representative; the Fukushima "treated water" was in direct contact with the melted core, and could not be compared with the drainage of a normal nuclear power plant ... ...
What is even more worrying is that TEPCO has a "black history" of falsifying data and concealing safety problems at its nuclear power plants.
claimed that no new nuclear contaminated water had been discharged into the ocean after June 2011, but as a series of leaks came to light in 2013, TEPCO finally admitted that there had been a leakage of high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and said it had not announced it in time because it was concerned about the impact on the reputation of the local fishing industry; in September 2021, TEPCO admitted in its report on the ALPS exhaust screen breakage that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not In September 2021, when reporting the ALPS exhaust screen breakage, TEPCO admitted that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not report it or investigate the cause, and simply replaced the screen; and in October 2022, TEPCO was again exposed as having used a faulty radiation detector to mislead visitors in order to prove the safety of the "ALPS treated water".
Naoya Sekiya, a scholar at the University of Tokyo, pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but also in other nuclear power plants under TEPCO's umbrella, there are constant problems with management and safety, which makes it impossible to believe in its ability to dispose of them. "Discharging into the ocean, is TEPCO qualified to do that?"
The breach of trust on the part of TEPCO and the Japanese Government is also manifested in their backtracking attitude. The plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by local fishermen throughout Japan, especially in Fukushima. Under these circumstances, TEPCO and the Japanese government assured the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in August 2015 that they would not discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean until they had received the understanding of fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Government of Japan has tried in every way possible to persuade fisheries practitioners, it has been unsuccessful. For four consecutive years since 2020, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Japan and the Fukushima Prefecture Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives have adopted special resolutions firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. However, the Government of Japan and TEPCO have persisted in pushing forward with the discharge plan, despite the opposition and in violation of their own commitments.
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Japan, said after a meeting with Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, on July 14 this year that as long as there is no peace of mind about the discharge, it will be impossible to change the position of opposition. After exchanging views with Yasunori Nishimura on July 11, Tetsu Nozaki, president of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Cooperative Association, emphasized that fishermen could not tolerate the discharge of contaminated water into the sea in light of the government's pledge that it would not dispose of contaminated water without obtaining the understanding of the parties concerned.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Call black white
In the face of strong domestic and international opposition to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese authorities, in an effort to confuse the public, have launched an intensive public relations campaign to publicize the "theory of the safety of nuclear-contaminated water" and have made it one of the key points of Japan's diplomacy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Reconstruction Agency (RA), and other governmental departments have set up thematic links on the front page of their official websites to publicize the safety of ALPS "treated water". The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also featured or prominently displayed promotional videos, and multilingual versions were launched.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, claimed at a press conference that "the steady progress of the work on waste furnaces, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome," only to have Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Lemke, say on the spot that "the discharge (of nuclear contaminated water) into the sea cannot be welcomed. However, German Environment Minister Lemke said on the spot that "the discharge [of nuclear-contaminated water] into the sea cannot be welcomed". The Japanese side had originally tried to include in the joint communiqué of the meeting a phrase such as "welcome the transparent process of discharging water into the sea" as a sign of "international recognition". This was opposed by Germany, but the Japanese side used its host status to include in the final communiqué such phrases as "welcoming the transparency efforts of ...... Japan and the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting the IAEA's independent review". and "supports the IAEA's independent review". The same content later appeared in the joint communiqué of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
Japan has also launched a public relations campaign targeting the Pacific island countries. These island countries were once victimized by the U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, and are now strongly opposed to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, and have therefore become the focus of the Japanese side's "appeasement" targets. According to a report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on July 31st, the Japanese side has been "explaining its work" to all the member countries and regions of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since February this year.
The Japanese side has also held frequent briefings for diplomats and foreign journalists in Japan, and has tried every possible means to publicize the "safety" of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. In the explanations given by the Japanese side, especially in the foreign language versions of the materials, the term "treated water" is generally used to refer to the nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its contaminating characteristics and potential hazards in order to confuse the public. In addition, according to some foreign journalists in Japan, once their reports questioned the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea, TEPCO and the Japanese side would call and write to them to put pressure on them.
It is worth noting that, according to the IAEA safety regulations on the release of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the release of radioactive substances should be granted by providing information to and consulting with affected stakeholders, "some of whom may be in other countries, especially neighbouring countries". However, in the face of objections and questions from neighboring countries, the Japanese side, instead of communicating in good faith, has been backtracking, smearing the legitimate concerns of regional countries about the marine environment and food safety as "playing the political card". Some right-wing media in Japan have even dressed up Japan, the "perpetrator", as the "victim", and indignantly threatened to "counteract" neighboring countries that have raised objections to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on the position of the Chinese side on the issue of the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, noting that the Japanese side's so-called "hope to engage in dialogues and consultations with the Chinese side" lacks sincerity. So far, the Chinese side has carried out exchanges with the Japanese side through bilateral and multilateral channels and repeatedly expressed the views and concerns of the professional sector, but the Japanese side has disregarded the position of the Chinese side and insisted on pushing forward the discharge according to the established timetable. "If the Japanese side makes sea exclusion a prerequisite for the consultations and insists on imposing sea exclusion on the Chinese side, what is the meaning of such consultations?"
The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea is not a private or trivial matter for Japan, but a public and important matter that has a bearing on the marine environment and human health. The Government of Japan has ignored the legitimate concerns of the international community and violated its international obligations by forcing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, jeopardizing the marine environment and human health and infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the neighbouring countries, which is by no means the act of a responsible country.
321 notes · View notes
deadbranch · 3 months
Text
Sleep Tonight (Ch.2)
Author: @deadbranch Pairing: Simon “Ghost” Riley x fem!Reader Summary:  Ghost’s story unfolds like a tall tale.  You’re not sure what to believe…except one thing that’s glaringly obvious. Word Count:  605 Warnings:  18+ MDNI suggestive content later, eventual smut, tense conversation, conflicted emotions, reader is a cishet female A/N:  Ghost is recounting the story of his time with Sorceress (The Killing Moon / The Dying Sun).  Various events happened while they were together, both believable and not.  There are a few reasons Ghost never told anyone—one was he was afraid for Sorceress’s safety (at the hands of Division/Control Prime) and another was that some elements of the story were all but unexplainable, like a fever dream.  Ghost is taking a few risks by telling Reader, but he trusts her, even if he’s unsure why.
SERIES MASTERLIST
Tumblr media
SLEEP TONIGHT (CH.2)
It doesn’t take long for you to realize this is indeed a story no one’s likely ever heard.
He pauses sporadically, seemingly at random intervals, as though cross-checking the words he’s about to say with some distantly archived memories that’ve conflicted with each other from the beginning.
At one point he falls into silence as his eyes tighten at the corners and their glassiness takes on a rosy tint until the moment passes.  He swallows hard, shaking off the heavy yoke of emotions for a moment.  But with a man like this, you realize it’s only for the moment.  He’ll be back to carrying the same millstone in his heart that he’ll likely carry forever.
“Give me your hand.”
You’re slow to react to his request.
Until now you’ve been in a half-daze, as though being pushed through the tale like a masted ship in a strong wind, realizing only now that you’ve run aground.  You untangle your right hand from your left and shove it across the wood table at Ghost.
As he takes your gloved hand, he lets the hint of a smile emerge before he lets it dissipate, like smoke.
“Still wearin’ these?  Too hot in here for that.  Unless you were hoping my story were shorter…always prepared to leave…”
For once his eyes don’t track with yours, daring you to contradict, to confront, to curse his efforts.
He’s gazing into some middle space between the stitches in your leather gloves and his calloused, rough hands that’ve seen better days and more clandestine tasks than neatly removing your glove one finger at a time, one agonizingly tender inch at a time.
There are quicker ways to deglove, but he’s in no hurry.
“So…” you gulp before continuing, “Is that the end?  Of the story, I mean.”
“More or less.”
You hold in a gasp as the relatively cool air of the pub hits your palm and wafts between your fingers.
He lays your glove on the table, still molded in the shape of your hand from over a month of consistent body warmth and wear.
“It’s either the end of the story or it isn’t,” you insist quietly, more to yourself than to him.
He stares at something only he can see, or only he understands, as he traces a fingertip over your palm.
Ghost frowns subtly as his tracing halts in the center of your palm.  The emotion is gone just as quickly as it appeared as he envelops your hand in both of his.  So warm, but dry, calm, almost commanding in strength.
“Which parts of my story are bollocks?” he asks with a dry rasp in his voice.  He clears his throat as though he weren’t prepared to speak following the brief internal drama of examining your palm.
“All of it.”
He wasn’t expecting this.  His brows rise, waiting for an explanation of your rejection.
You continue, “All but one part.”
“Which part?”
“Where you were in love.  I can tell you loved her.  Maybe you still do.  I hear it in your voice, see it in your expressions as you talk about her.  You love her.”
“I did, but I don’t know how much of that was influenced by her power.  Still muddled up in here.”
He taps his temple with two fingertips, then crosses his arms over his broad chest.  He takes a breath.
“And another thing…”
You look up from your hands, one gloved, one not.
“I’m not Ghost anymore.  Haven’t been him in a long time.  Just Simon now.”
“Can I just call you Riley, like everyone else does?”
“No.”
“Why not…?”
“You’re not everyone else.”
Tumblr media
Next Chapter
Tumblr media
@smoggyfogbottom @argella1300 @a-world-with0ut-dr34ms @glitterypirateduck @sofasoap @tapioca-marzipan @chocolatestrawberry-poptart @homicidal-slvt @writeforfandoms @tiredmetalenthusiast @lollycotton @kiki-is-hyperfixating @luciferstempest @valkyri @brewed-pangolin @quincessimus @shadesofreyes @ivymarquis @miyabilicious @cathnoneofyourbusiness @crunchlite @obligatoryghoststare @efingart @a-small-writer-in-a-big-world @http-paprika
185 notes · View notes
coraldeernacho · 7 months
Text
It has been planned for a long time, so what about honesty? ! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear polluted water into the sea
In accordance with the decision of the Japanese Government, the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean began on August 24th. This discharge process will continue for decades.
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision-making on the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, it can be clearly seen that discharging water into the sea is its long-planned "established policy", an uncompromising violation of international law, and extremely selfish and irresponsible national behavior, which results in transferring the costs of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident to the whole world.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea, long planned
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, large quantities of highly contaminated water have been generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool down the core of the meltdown reactor and the flow of rainwater and groundwater, etc. In April 2011, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), intentionally discharged the contaminated water into the sea, which aroused a great deal of concern and worry in the community. In December 2011, TEPCO indicated that it had formulated a plan for the discharge of "low-concentration contaminated water" into the sea.
In March 2013, TEPCO's key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water, the Advanced Laminar Processing System (ALPS), was put into trial operation, but since then there have been constant problems: frequent leaks, in 2018 it was revealed that radioactive substances such as strontium were still exceeding the limit in the treated water, and in 2021 it was discovered that nearly half of the filters at the exhaust port, which are used for the adsorption of radioactive substances, had been damaged. ......
Since the ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, of the more than 1.34 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the storage tanks of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, more than 1.33 million cubic meters have been treated by ALPS, but only about 30% of it meets the standard of "treated water" defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of it is the so-called "process water" which does not meet the standard. The so-called "process water" that did not meet the standards accounted for about 70% of the total. Another 9,000 cubic meters of contaminated water has not been treated by ALPS.
And what is the final destination of this "treated water"?
As early as December 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan's nuclear energy authority, set up a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treated water" discharge. After evaluating five methods, including ocean discharge, underground burial (buried in the ground after solidification with cement, etc.), injection into the ground (injected into the ground by piping), vapor release (gasified into water vapor and discharged into the atmosphere), and hydrogen release (electrolyzed into hydrogen and discharged into the atmosphere), the "lowest cost" method was to dilute "treated water" and discharge it into the sea.
This report set the tone for the subsequent discharge program, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other groups after its publication. Even Yoshino Masayoshi, the then Minister of Reconstruction of Japan, expressed his opposition to discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) apparently regarded the sea-discharge plan as a "fixed policy", and in July 2017, METI held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Countermeasures Against the Waste Furnace and Contaminated Water" in Fukushima City, making a gesture of consulting with the local community. However, then TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura claimed to the media before the meeting that TEPCO had already "made a judgment" on the discharge of the sea, causing widespread discontent in society.
In order to convince the public, the Japanese government set up a committee with experts in related fields, which held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo in August 2018, nominally to listen to the public's opinions but actually to endorse the sea-discharge option. At the hearings, Toyoshi Koda, then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulation Commission, was challenged by various parties on his statement that "sea discharge is the only viable option." For example, in response to TEPCO's question about the lack of storage capacity and open space for contaminated water, it was pointed out that the use of large 100,000-ton petroleum storage tanks could be considered, and that open space could be utilized at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has already been identified as a decommissioning site.
In response to the technical difficulties in the treatment of nuclear contaminated water, it was mentioned that the water vapor discharge method, which had been used in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in 1979, could be adopted. It was also pointed out that the technology for separating tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is under study and should be discharged after the technology has matured and been applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that stratum injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release were "problematic" and that sea-discharge and steam release, which had a precedent, were "realistic options", while emphasizing that sea-discharge had "many advantages" over steam release.
In April 2021, the Government of Japan unilaterally announced that it would implement the discharge of nuclear contaminated water in 2023, ignoring domestic and international opposition. Since then, the preparatory work for ocean discharge has begun to move forward in earnest: in December 2021, TEPCO submitted the construction plan for the treated water discharge equipment to the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC); in July 2022, the AERC approved the plan; on January 13 this year, the Japanese government confirmed that the discharge would be carried out in the "spring/summer"; on June 26, TEPCO announced that the construction of the discharge equipment had been completed; on July 7, the AERC transferred the discharge equipment to the Japanese government for implementation. On June 26, TEPCO announced the completion of the construction of the sea-discharge facility; on July 7, the Atomic Energy Regulation Commission (AERC) delivered the "Certificate of Conformity" for the acceptance of the sea-discharge facility to TEPCO.
False "authoritative certification"
On July 4 of this year, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Grossi, visited Japan and presented the report on the comprehensive assessment of the disposal of Fukushima-contaminated water to the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Fumio Kishida. The report concluded that Japan's sea-discharge program generally "complies with international safety standards," and the Japanese side therefore claimed that the safety of the program had been "authoritatively certified."
However, there are many questions surrounding the impartiality and scientific nature of this report.
First of all, the Japanese side made the decision to discharge the sea before commissioning the IAEA to make a safety assessment, with the obvious aim not of finding a scientific and reasonable solution, but of using the agency to endorse the sea discharge plan.
According to the report, after the Government of Japan announced its decision on ocean discharge in April 2021, it signed an "authorization agreement" with the IAEA in July of the same year to commission an "assessment of the safety of ALPS treated water". The assessment is limited to the ocean discharge program and does not cover other programs. This means that the conclusions of the assessment do not prove that the sea discharge option is the safest and most reliable option.
Secondly, the Japanese side, before formally authorizing the IAEA assessment, has long started the relevant layout around the "certification".
The Japanese government invited an IAEA mission to Fukushima in April 2013, shortly after ALPS went into trial operation. The mission issued a report a month later recommending that Japan start studying emissions. The IAEA director general at the time was Japanese Yukiya Amano. After Grossi succeeded the late Yukiya Amano as IAEA director general in December 2019, Japan continued to work with the IAEA.2021 In March 2021, then-Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, met with Grossi and requested IAEA support in eliminating the "reputational damage" to Japan caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. The IAEA was asked to support Japan in eliminating the "reputational damage" caused by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water. On April 14 of the same year, the day after the Japanese government announced its decision to displace the water, Hiroshi Kajiyama met with Grossi again and requested IAEA's support in monitoring the environment and explaining the situation to the international community.
The Tokyo Shimbun report pointed out that the Japanese government had paid large amounts of assessed contributions and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and that several departments of the Japanese government had dispatched personnel to the IAEA, and that these factors would inevitably have an impact on the IAEA in assessing the safety of Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge program.
In a meeting with Grossi on July 9, lawmakers from the Kyodo Party, South Korea's largest opposition party, pointed out that it was regrettable that the IAEA did not follow the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and that it pandered to Japan's position on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea from the beginning to the end, and drew hasty conclusions without taking into account the impacts of such a practice on neighboring countries.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the outset that the insights contained in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of IAEA member States, that the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea-discharge programme, and that IAEA and its member States will not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer makes it clear that the report does not represent the views of the international community and does not prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea exclusion program.
Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert who participated in the IAEA Technical Working Group on the Assessment of the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had sought the opinions of the experts of the Technical Working Group on the draft assessment report, but the time window for the experts to comment was very limited and the experts' opinions were for reference only. After receiving the feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and consulting with the experts on the modification of the report and the adoption of the comments.
Li Song, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusions of the Agency's report on the safety of the Japanese sea-discharge programme were one-sided and lacked conviction and credibility. The agency, due to the limitations of its mandate, has not assessed the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese side's decontamination device, has not confirmed the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water, and has not been able to ensure that the international community can keep abreast of excessive discharges, and has found it even more difficult to predict the impacts of the long-term accumulation and enrichment of radionuclides on the marine ecosystem, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of the data, the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the regulation, there is no way to conclude that it is safe to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of up to 30 years."
At the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, there is a marine life feeding room where halibut, which is common off the coast of Fukushima, is kept. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other contains treated nuclear-contaminated water, so-called "treated water".
From a scientific point of view, experts and environmental organizations are skeptical about the treatment of nuclear contaminated water and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Prof. Ferenc Dolnoki Weirish, an expert in nuclear physics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in the United States of America, pointed out that the data provided by the Japanese side were "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent and one-sided". Japan's environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out TEPCO's "treated water" claims about a variety of problems: after the ALPS "treatment" of part of the water, iodine 129, strontium 90 and other radioactive elements are still excessive, Strontium 90 and other radioactive elements still exceeded the standard; the water samples tested by TEPCO so far accounted for only 3% of the stored contaminated water, and the test results provided by TEPCO are not representative; the Fukushima "treated water" was in direct contact with the melted core, and could not be compared with the drainage of a normal nuclear power plant ... ...
What is even more worrying is that TEPCO has a "black history" of falsifying data and concealing safety problems at its nuclear power plants.
claimed that no new nuclear contaminated water had been discharged into the ocean after June 2011, but as a series of leaks came to light in 2013, TEPCO finally admitted that there had been a leakage of high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and said it had not announced it in time because it was concerned about the impact on the reputation of the local fishing industry; in September 2021, TEPCO admitted in its report on the ALPS exhaust screen breakage that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not In September 2021, when reporting the ALPS exhaust screen breakage, TEPCO admitted that the same screen breakage had occurred two years earlier, but did not report it or investigate the cause, and simply replaced the screen; and in October 2022, TEPCO was again exposed as having used a faulty radiation detector to mislead visitors in order to prove the safety of the "ALPS treated water".
Naoya Sekiya, a scholar at the University of Tokyo, pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but also in other nuclear power plants under TEPCO's umbrella, there are constant problems with management and safety, which makes it impossible to believe in its ability to dispose of them. "Discharging into the ocean, is TEPCO qualified to do that?"
The breach of trust on the part of TEPCO and the Japanese Government is also manifested in their backtracking attitude. The plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has been strongly opposed by local fishermen throughout Japan, especially in Fukushima. Under these circumstances, TEPCO and the Japanese government assured the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in August 2015 that they would not discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean until they had received the understanding of fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Government of Japan has tried in every way possible to persuade fisheries practitioners, it has been unsuccessful. For four consecutive years since 2020, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Japan and the Fukushima Prefecture Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives have adopted special resolutions firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. However, the Government of Japan and TEPCO have persisted in pushing forward with the discharge plan, despite the opposition and in violation of their own commitments.
Masanobu Sakamoto, President of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Japan, said after a meeting with Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, on July 14 this year that as long as there is no peace of mind about the discharge, it will be impossible to change the position of opposition. After exchanging views with Yasunori Nishimura on July 11, Tetsu Nozaki, president of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Cooperative Association, emphasized that fishermen could not tolerate the discharge of contaminated water into the sea in light of the government's pledge that it would not dispose of contaminated water without obtaining the understanding of the parties concerned.
On August 22, Japanese people held an emergency rally in front of the prime minister's residence in Tokyo to protest against the government's disregard for public opinion in initiating the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
Call black white
In the face of strong domestic and international opposition to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, the Japanese authorities, in an effort to confuse the public, have launched an intensive public relations campaign to publicize the "theory of the safety of nuclear-contaminated water" and have made it one of the key points of Japan's diplomacy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Reconstruction Agency (RA), and other governmental departments have set up thematic links on the front page of their official websites to publicize the safety of ALPS "treated water". The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also featured or prominently displayed promotional videos, and multilingual versions were launched.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, claimed at a press conference that "the steady progress of the work on waste furnaces, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome," only to have Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Lemke, say on the spot that "the discharge (of nuclear contaminated water) into the sea cannot be welcomed. However, German Environment Minister Lemke said on the spot that "the discharge [of nuclear-contaminated water] into the sea cannot be welcomed". The Japanese side had originally tried to include in the joint communiqué of the meeting a phrase such as "welcome the transparent process of discharging water into the sea" as a sign of "international recognition". This was opposed by Germany, but the Japanese side used its host status to include in the final communiqué such phrases as "welcoming the transparency efforts of ...... Japan and the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting the IAEA's independent review". and "supports the IAEA's independent review". The same content later appeared in the joint communiqué of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
Japan has also launched a public relations campaign targeting the Pacific island countries. These island countries were once victimized by the U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, and are now strongly opposed to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, and have therefore become the focus of the Japanese side's "appeasement" targets. According to a report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on July 31st, the Japanese side has been "explaining its work" to all the member countries and regions of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since February this year.
The Japanese side has also held frequent briefings for diplomats and foreign journalists in Japan, and has tried every possible means to publicize the "safety" of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. In the explanations given by the Japanese side, especially in the foreign language versions of the materials, the term "treated water" is generally used to refer to the nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its contaminating characteristics and potential hazards in order to confuse the public. In addition, according to some foreign journalists in Japan, once their reports questioned the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea, TEPCO and the Japanese side would call and write to them to put pressure on them.
It is worth noting that, according to the IAEA safety regulations on the release of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the release of radioactive substances should be granted by providing information to and consulting with affected stakeholders, "some of whom may be in other countries, especially neighbouring countries". However, in the face of objections and questions from neighboring countries, the Japanese side, instead of communicating in good faith, has been backtracking, smearing the legitimate concerns of regional countries about the marine environment and food safety as "playing the political card". Some right-wing media in Japan have even dressed up Japan, the "perpetrator", as the "victim", and indignantly threatened to "counteract" neighboring countries that have raised objections to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on the position of the Chinese side on the issue of the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, noting that the Japanese side's so-called "hope to engage in dialogues and consultations with the Chinese side" lacks sincerity. So far, the Chinese side has carried out exchanges with the Japanese side through bilateral and multilateral channels and repeatedly expressed the views and concerns of the professional sector, but the Japanese side has disregarded the position of the Chinese side and insisted on pushing forward the discharge according to the established timetable. "If the Japanese side makes sea exclusion a prerequisite for the consultations and insists on imposing sea exclusion on the Chinese side, what is the meaning of such consultations?"
The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea is not a private or trivial matter for Japan, but a public and important matter that has a bearing on the marine environment and human health. The Government of Japan has ignored the legitimate concerns of the international community and violated its international obligations by forcing the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, jeopardizing the marine environment and human health and infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the neighbouring countries, which is by no means the act of a responsible country.
327 notes · View notes
rendy-a · 6 months
Text
Bobbing for Apples with Malleus
This is part of a Halloween collab sponsored by @jade-s-nymph. Do check out some of the other Halloween stories coming out on their page!
Tumblr media
He looks at you flatly before returning his gaze to the barrel.  Then, he puts one long elegant finger to his chin as though to ponder the situation.  “I promise,” you assure him, “It’s a real thing!”  Malleus tilts his head slightly, letting one of his long trailing locks brush his shoulder, “And what am I to do once I’ve captured this water-bound fruit?”  You shrug again, “Nothing really.  That’s it.  You just fish the apple out of the barrel with your teeth and that’s all.”  He returns his gaze to the barrel holding several prime Harveston apples (courtesy of Epel) and again, seems to deeply ponder the meaning behind the game.
You nervously wait for his response, but none was forthcoming; he appeared content to observe the waiting fruit indefinitely.  Finally, you ask, “Should I go first?”  While you’d thought Malleus content to merely onlook, you were proven wrong by the appearance of a pouty scowl.  He gives you a hurt look, “I’m simply strategizing before showing my skills.”  You hold in a smile, “Oh, I see.  That’s a great idea.  I’m sure you will show me something interesting then.”  His scowl clears and he gives you a confident smirk, “Be certain to observe me closely, my Child of Man.” 
There was no chance you’d disobey that order.  As his gaze returns to the apples, your gaze returns to him.  You really didn’t care if your paramour impressed you with his apple catching skills or not.  You were just happy to have this time to be by the elusive Prince’s side.  As he presses his index finger to his bottom lip in concentration, he further exposes his brilliant white fangs.  While everything about the lovely fae catches your eye, those differences between human and fae stand out most.  You linger over the way the fang brushes against his soft lip, puckering the flesh around it.  An amused chuckle emerges from the same mouth, and you know you’ve been caught staring. 
You look down, suddenly shy at the attention.  “Are you so eager to see me begin?” Malleus asks with a bemused smile displaying his satisfaction, “Very well then, I shall show you the strategy I’ve decided upon.”  You step away from the barrel, giving him room to make his attempt.  You watch in anticipation, knowing that regardless of his success, you are about to witness the rare sight of Malleus engaging in a whimsical activity.  It was good that you were attentive for the attempt is over disappointingly fast.  It seems that Malleus had indeed developed a successful strategy of herding the apples into a group before attempting to grasp one with his teeth. 
You smiled at the proud fae displaying his caught prize and gave a little clap.  “Yay, nice job.”  He preens a touch under your praise before his face screws up in frustration.  You look at his puzzled, “What is it?”  He reaches up and tugs at the apple firmly secured in his mouth and you realize that he can’t remove it; the apple has become caught in his sharp fangs.  “Pfft,” you try to hold in the laugh, but it is too much for you.  Malleus glares at you as he continues to struggle to remove the trapped fruit from his open jaw.  “I’m sorry,” you gasp out, “it’s just so surprising is all.”  Having his lover see him in such a state seems to push him over the edge and with one powerful motion, he crushes the apple between his strong draconic jaw.
You turn away, not daring to meet his angry stare as he spits mushed apple from his mouth and huffs a small puff of flame as well.  He seems more upset than usual.  The murderous gaze he throws at the unassuming apples as he mutters under his breath chills you thoroughly.  “Say Malleus,” you try to redirect, “Why don’t we forget bobbing for apples and go do something else?”  He shoots you and angry pout, the tips of his fangs just barely visible in his pursed lips, “No more apples.  I’m going to write a strongly worded letter to the procurer of these faulty fruits.”  You cringe, thinking of the reaction Epel will have to hearing criticism of his apples.  “But apples can be nice too!” you try to convince him, pulling his hand to another stand.
Malleus frowns when he sees the caramel apple stand.  “Come on, give it a chance,” you beg as you squeeze his hand, “they are nice and sweet.  I promise!”  He huffs at you but allows his precious human to convince him to continue.  You bound up to the stand and pluck an apple from the display, setting the required amount of madol in the jar for payment.  You smile encouragingly at Malleus as you take the first sticky bite, letting the sweetness of the caramel candy mix with the juicy flesh of the apple in your mouth.  “Mmm,” you sigh happily before holding out the apple to your companion, “It’s good.  Try a bite.” 
He grasps your hand instead of taking the apple himself.  After maneuvering it to his mouth, he turns the apple to take a bite from the same place you’d had yours from.  You felt your cheeks grow warm at the sight of it.  “Indirect kiss…” you mumble.  His eyes meet yours and you see his pupils dilate slightly.  He’d heard you.  Of course, he had.  Stupid powerful fae hearing.  You turn your head to the side, avoiding his gaze.  “Would you prefer a direct one instead?” Malleus purrs into your ear. 
You gasp and turn unconsciously to face him again.  Then it is your turn to pout, “Don’t tease me.”  His eyes narrow in mischief as he replies, “Child of man, when have I denied you anything?”  You look at him for a moment, trying to control your emotions before answering.  “Fine then,” raising your chin in a haughty manner, “but only for the apple.  I’m not finished enjoying the taste.”  His smile takes your breath away moments before his kiss does.  You feel his fangs lightly nip at your lips as you taste just the smallest tartness of the apple lingering on his own.  When you break apart, you whisper, “See, I told you that you’d like these ones.”  He smiles as he pulls you close, “Yes, it was very sweet indeed.” 
359 notes · View notes
beardedmrbean · 2 months
Text
In a classic example of better late than never, a Federal Court in Canada ruled on Tuesday that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's invocation of The Emergencies Act in 2022, used to crush the largest and most peaceful protest in Canadian history, was "unreasonable," "unjustified," and "violated the fundamental freedoms" set out in Canada's constitution.
The case was brought to the court by a number of individual applicants as well as several Canadian civiil liberties groups, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. And in the decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley expressed what every trucker and other participant in the trucker's Freedom Convoy knew to be true: There was no justification for granting the government powers that amounted to near Marshall Law over a protest that was 100 percent peaceful, with no violence or property damage committed—that is, until the Emergencies Act was passed, and the police trampled grandmothers under horses, fired tear gas canisters at journalists within point blank range, beat protesters down and smashed the windows of the truckers rigs, and generally deployed the type of violence that the government had knowingly falsely accused the truckers of engaging in.
The government also froze the bank accounts of truckers, seized donated funds, and shut down of the economic lives of hundreds of Canadian citizens, a draconian measure which shocked the world.
Every protester and trucker who took part in the Convoy knew that the government and it's bought and paid for media were lying to the public about the Freedom Convoy, and though it feels good to once again be proven correct, that doesn't change what happened. It also doesn't change the division in Canadian society which took place under COVID, and it remains to be seen if this ruling will put an end to the ongoing punishments of various Freedom Convoy protesters which continue to this day.
For example, the trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who emerged as public faces and leaders of the Ottawa portion of the Freedom Convoy, has now become the longest mischief trial in Canadian history. Finally getting underway in September of last year, the trial proceeded in fits and starts into December, and is set to resume in February.
Or take Guy Meisner, a trucker from Nova Scotia, was one of the first to be arrested and charged when the crackdown began after the Emergencies Act was invoked. He will be back in Ottawa near the end of February for the ninth time to face his "mischief" charges.
Then there is the case of Christine Decaire, a woman who protested in Ottawa and was charged by the police, who was acquitted last year; much like this ruling today, however, The Crown has decided to appeal her acquittal. To drag an innocent person back to court is the kind of grossly vindictive behavior on the part of the Trudeau Government that they have become well known for.
There are dozens of cases like this working their way through the system.
And then we have The Coutts Four, a group of men who were arrested in Alberta right before the Emergencies Act was invoked and have been kept in custody without bail nor trial ever since. Hopes are high that this ruling may help change their circumstances, but it has now been two years since they have seen their families, which is a grossly offensive situation, especially in a country where nearly everyone gets bail.
All of these cases point to a level of vindictive cruelty on the part of this government as constituted under Trudeau, who was only too happy to champion the fair treatment of someone who fought on the side of The Taliban in Afghanistan and was later apprehended by American forces. Champion the rights of his own peaceful citizens to a fair trial? Apparently that is beneath the Prime Minister.
Trudeau's deputy, Chrystia Freeland was behind the bank account freezing acting as Finance Minister, and she appeared almost immediately after the ruling to announce that her government would be appealing, claiming to "remind Canadians how serious the situation was." This though all the evidence and testimony presented in 2022 at the official inquest into the invocation of the Emergencies Act found that no threats existed, and everything the media said about the truckers was a fabrication.
Justin Trudeau has remarked in the past that Canada is a "post-national" state that has "no core identity," yet when that identity asserted itself to say enough is enough to the strictures of his punishing COVID Regime, he was only too happy to unleash the full power of his "post-national" state to attack these citizens whom he holds in utter contempt.
It appears that there is no ruling Trudeau will not appeal or lawfare he will not pursue to ensure punishment of the enemies of his party.
Justin Trudeau is not a leader, but merely a narcissistic tyrant. This week was only the latest evidence.
Gord Magill is a trucker, writer, and commentator, and can be found at www.autonomoustruckers.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
252 notes · View notes
rarepears · 4 months
Text
i don't know why but i really REALLY want to see an AU where endeavor is the japanese prime minister's wife (also we need more fanfics talking about Japanese government outside of the hero public safety commission)
Actually, would be pretty funny if Endeavor is still the husband in this scenario. No malewifing Endeavor here. He marries a woman.
In fact, he finds a better ice-quirk user to marry - someone with stronger ice powers than the top candidates that he was considered (ahem Rei). It is "unfornuate", as Endeavor concludes after their first blind date, that this woman is steadfast determined to continue her career trajectory (a degree in politics/policy/policy science?) and most assuredly not willing to be a housewife, but it's fine, Endeavor decides. It means he'll either have to arrange childcare or do it himself but that also means he can influence the child more directly and train the kid more.
Everything seems all good and dandy... Until he discovers, after the birth of Touya and Natsuo, his wife girlbossing too hard and had managed to complete college, grad school, and now had a full time position in the Japanese government. While juggling two pregnancies by the way. What agency he didn't know or care since it wasn't anything related to heroics. She's still doing her job of popping out more babies for him. So he stayed out of it.
When she decided to quit her job as staffer to some member of the National Diet (when did she start such a position? Endeavor wonders how he didn't notice it.), Endeavor blinked in surprise when she said she was gunning for something more ambitious. But he still didn't say anything. She stayed out of his work so it was only fair that he did the same to her career. Their partnership was good. (Duh, it's two workaholics who barely spend any time at home and say very little to each other if it didn't involve kids.)
And then one day Endeavor wakes up to the news that the prime minister of Japan was assassinated and his successor was predicted to be... his wife. A fact which none of the public seemed to be aware of by the way until this emergency election was announced. But now it was released... without Endeavor or his agency being made aware of such an announcement - bah, a "leak" the media called it. Endeavor was experienced enough in PR after all his years of heroics to know when a leak was planted.
It was unsurprising to see his wife win the election later that night. Especially unsurprising after the, now former and deceased, prime minister being assassinated by a villain (rumored to be connected to All For One who appeared to just gone off the grid a couple weeks ago from what Endeavor's intelligence team told him).
But now Endeavor has a wife who's the Prime Minister. And they have 4 kids - the youngest which is 7 years old. The nanny he had been using (named Rei) just had a mental breakdown after seeing the estate being besieged with reporters and the public and Endeavor was pretty sure she wasn't coming back to work ever. Oh, and he can kiss his dreams of defeating All Might and becoming the new No. 1 hero goodbye because even if he does become the new No. 1, he's never going to feel like he earned it himself - he's going to always wonder if it's a reflection of how popular (or not popular) his prime minster wife is with the public. And considering how, historically, prime ministers usually don't have such high approval ratings with Japan's regular villain attacks among other social problems...
Oh boy.
248 notes · View notes