Archive for the Fukushima nuclear plant Category

“US-Japanese Militarism and China’s Air-Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over Disputed Islets. Pretext for Another Pacific War?” by Yoichi Shimatsu []

Posted in Anti-China propaganda exposure, China, China-bashing, China-US relations, Diaoyu Islands, Encirclement of China, Fascism, Fasle flag, Fukushima nuclear plant, Heilongjiang Province, Japan, Liaoning Province, Nukes, Pentagon, Russia, Shenyang, Taiwan, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War on December 21, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

December 7, 2013

The White House refusal to recognize China’s new air-defense identification zone (ADIZ) is a knee-jerk reaction that reveals an astounding ignorance of historical, legal and geopolitical issues in Asia and the Pacific. The US-Japan Security Treaty, as a defense agreement to protect the Japanese homeland against foreign invasion, was never intended for settling boundary conflicts, as in the current cases of the Senkaku-Diaoyu islets dispute with China, the Tokishima-Tokdo tussle with South Korea and the Northern Territories-South Kurile claim against Russia…

…Japan has drawn its own ADIZ, modeling it after the 1945 airspace map drawn up by the U.S. occupation force. The Japanese claim includes not just those barren rocks but also a vast swath of far inside the continental shelf, which is claimed by China and South Korea. In 2011, Beijing and Seoul filed a joint position paper and complaint with the United Nations against Japanese encroachment across the continental shelf…

…More worrisome perhaps from the Chinese historical perspective is the potential for covert sabotage of one of Japan’s own passenger jets. A violent plane crash, blamed on Beijing, could rally international support for invoking the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty to launch a counterstrike against Beijing. Then [sic] notorious precedent for false-flag attacks was set in the 1931 Mukden Incident, when Imperial Army officers bombed the Japanese-owned South Manchurian Railroad (Mantetsu). The clandestine operation provided the pretext for an outright military invasion of northeast China. Soon after the plot was exposed in the world press, Japanese Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, former head of the Mantetsu, led the 1933 walk-out from League of Nations, which marked the actual start of World War II.

The legacy of the Manchurian covert operation is also a major chapter in the family history of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose grandfather Nobusuke Kishi became the finance and economy minister of the puppet state of Manchukuo as a direct beneficiary of that false-flag attack. Inside Manchuria, Kishi sponsored the infamous bioweapons Unit 731, which launched mass-murder attacks on populous cities with bubonic plague and Hanta virus. Simultaneously, Kishi served as wartime head of the Munitions Ministry, which developed an atomic bomb program on Konan (Hungnam Island) in northern Korea and inside Fukushima Prefecture .

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is an unrepentant admirer of his grandfather Kishi, often quoting his forebear on the necessity of nuclear weapons for Japan. The naval standoff around the Senkaku-Diaoyu islets, as a provocation campaign, is connected with the continuing nuclear armaments program centered in Fukushima Prefecture, where the military ran uranium and thorium mines in the late 1930s, under a secret project codenamed BUND-1.

The pall of secrecy is being reinforced by the Liberal Democratic Party, which has just rammed through a state secrets law aimed at suppressing whistleblowers and journalists on grounds of national security in foreign affairs. While the Senkaku-Diaoyu clash serves as a news diversion from the massive radioactive releases from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant, the maritime conflict also serves as a rallying point for Abe’s calls for “nuclear capability”.

The postwar “peace” Constitution, forbidding Japan from war as an instrument of state policy, was drafted with assistance from Americans aiming to prevent a repeat of the wartime horrors. However, a by-now forgotten point that needs reminding is that the United States was a de facto ally of Japanese militarist aggression in Manchuria, where U.S. Army observers and railway engineers with the Harriman-owned Union Pacific Railway were stationed until just before the Pearl Harbor attack…

…The only winner in the islets dispute is the Chinese navy, which by now has overwhelming and unquestioning domestic support for naval modernization and fleet expansion. Tokyo’s confrontational attitude has resurrected painful memories of past atrocities and imperialist arrogance during the two modern wars against China. It is just a matter time before an aging and less agile Japan slips badly, and the Chinese forces move in – hopefully for no more than those tiny outcrops.

The strategic pivot policy promises only costly military spending and humiliating setbacks ahead. Japanese policymakers should accept a world court judgment, if only to prevent future losses of legitimate national territory, which is more vulnerable than any military strategist is ready to admit in public. The long-term interests of Japan and the US are better served by a maritime security treaty and resource partnership with China and Russia, not a self-defeating rivalry against these East Asian powers.

If a strategic retreat is not implemented sooner than later, the Senkaku-Diaoyu dispute could rapidly escalate into the last battle of the Pacific War and the first shots fired in World War III. Diplomacy, as the art of compromise, is needed more than ever to prevent the unthinkable.

Yoichi Shimatsu, a Hong Kong-based journalist, is former editor of the Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo.

Excerpted by Zuo Shou

Full article link:


No Fukushima radiation threat to China waters: SOA [Xinhua]

Posted in China, Fukushima nuclear plant, Japan, Nukes on October 27, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

BEIJING, Oct. 10 (Xinhua) — Pollution from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear power plants are not threatening China’s territorial waters, China’s maritime authority said on Thursday.

A State Oceanic Administration press release said radioactive contaminants were detected in waters and fish in the ocean southeast of Fukushima, but that no impact on Chinese waters had been reported.

The latest data was collected via a 40-day monitoring of the Western Pacific Ocean conducted by the administration from April to June.

The administration has carried out regular monitoring of the ocean since the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011.

Article link:

Was Tokyo Olympics Bid Fixed by the International Olympic Committee’s Nuclear Lobby? []

Posted in Fukushima nuclear plant, Japan, Nukes, Spain, Turkey on October 27, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

I don’t see how anyone could hear of this decision and NOT think “WTF!?!” – Zuo Shou

By Yoichi Shimatsu


The lame acquiescence of International Olympic Committee to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s blatant lies about Fukushima radiation leaks being “under control” is an act of reckless negligence on the health risk to young athletes aiming for a spot at the 2020 Olympics.

The Olympic hosting rights was stolen from safer and better-off candidate cities Istanbul and Madrid by a well-financed lobbying effort from Japan’s national committee and the Education and Sports Ministry, which provides murky donations for sports programs in developing countries.

The hidden factor behind Tokyo’s campaign of radiation denial was the quiet support from the global nuclear industry acting through the IOC’s corporate sponsorship program. The political influence and corruption behind this campaign was so obvious that even the semi-governmental NHK television news has raised questions about bribery in the bidding process…

Full article link:

Japan nuclear disaster causes mutant butterfly – PHOTOS [People’s Daily]

Posted in Fukushima nuclear plant, Japan, Nukes on August 20, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

An undated handout photograph released by Joji Otaki, an associate professor of biology at the University of the Ryukyus on Aug.14, 2012, shows a healthy adult pale grass blue (Zizeeria maha) butterfly (top) and a mutated variety (bottom). (Photo/CFP)

Severe mutations were found in butterflies collected near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant according to Japanese news reports on Aug.13, 2012. Exposure to radioactive material from the nuclear accident has caused the mutations, according to the team of scientists conducting the survey published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Full photo article [August 15, 2012] here


from Zuo Shou

Looking at this, I can’t help but think of the old Japanese film “Mothra”, since the title creature was a symbol of anti-nukes, ecology and peace.  I think everybody who has seen it remembers “The Mothra Song” sung by Mothra’s tiny twin handlers to call the creature during crisis:

The Mothra Song:


Mosura ya Mosura
dongan kasakuyan indoo muu
rosuto uiraadoa, hanba hanbamuyan
randa banunradan tounjukanraa
kasaku yaanmu
Mosura ya Mosura
yasashisasae wasure
hito no kokoro inorinagara
utai, ai no uta


Mothra oh Mothra
Hear our call for you to save us
over time, over sea
like a wave you come
our guardian angel
Mothra oh Mothra
the people have forgotten kindness
their spirit falls to ruin
we shall pray for the people as we sing
this song of love

“The Mothra Song” from “Barry’s Temple of Godzilla” webpage here

Japan’s earthquake anniversary highlights lessons to be learned [Xinhua]

Posted in Fukushima nuclear plant, Japan, Naoto Kan, Nukes, Tokyo on March 11, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

I remember when the Chernobyl nuclear accident happened, it was exploited to the hilt as anti-communist, anti-Soviet propaganda. Funny how the capitalist media can’t apply the same standard to Japan’s Fukushima, which had at least the same level accident. – Zuo Shou

By Jon Day

TOKYO, March 10 (Xinhua) — The biggest earthquake since records began rocked Japan’s northeast seaboard on March 11 last year, triggering a colossal tsunami to surge inland and causing carnage in coastal cites unseen in this nation since WWII.

Within an hour of the initial quake hit, torrents of more than 10 meters in height breached sea defenses and tossed cars, boat and trains around like toys, leveled buildings and washed away everything in its path.

As of Friday, the official death toll was 15,854, with more than 3,167 people still unaccounted for. But the unfolding catastrophe did not end with just the quake and tsunami.

As the sea floor off the Tohoku coast shifted violently and unleashed the force of a magnitude-9.0 quake, the fourth largest in the world since 1900, the resulting torrent of water breached the primary and secondary defenses of a coastal nuclear power plant in Fukushima prefecture, located 240 kilometers northeast of Tokyo.

The vital cooling functions at the No.1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima were knocked out as the facilities’ basements housing key equipment quickly became inundated.


Just four hours after the tsunami hit the nuclear plant, the Japanese government feared the damage to the reactors was so severe that a full meltdown was possible and the then Prime Minister Naoto Kan was on the brink of issuing an emergency evacuation order for Tokyo.

“If temperatures in the reactor cores keep rising beyond eight hours, there is a possibility of meltdown,” a government official was quoted as saying during the first crisis meeting four hours after the earthquake struck.

However, the plant’s operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) only conceded there had been a partial meltdown and that radioactive substances had been released into the air, land and sea in May, nearly two months after the crisis began.

As spent nuclear fuel pools continued to deteriorate and following a number of hydrogen explosions and fires at reactor buildings at the plant, it was only on March 16 that the nation’s premier first warned his cabinet that the unfolding crisis was possibly on a par with the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

“The amount of radiation that could be released from those reactors could be larger than Chernobyl. We must keep cooling the reactors, whatever it takes. It’s going to be a long battle,” Kan was quoted as saying in the crisis meeting minutes, released just recently.

On March 25, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission produced a paper stating that the likelihood existed that the crippled Fukushima plant was potentially heading towards a “worst case scenario” and in that event 30 million people from the greater Tokyo area would have to be immediately evacuated.

The commission’s evaluation was kept under wraps for fear of mass public panic, compounded by daily news reports, both domestic and international, of conflicting information regarding the severity of the crisis and levels of leaked radiation.

The report, however, surfaced publicly in January much to the chagrin of both the Japanese and the international community and trust in the Japanese government’s handling of the crisis plummeted further amid harsh international and local criticism.


The nuclear disaster caused thousands of people to be displaced and rehoused in temporary shelters as the ineffective communication between the government’s nuclear agencies and the plant’s operator became publicly ridiculed, with discerning citizens deferring to international nuclear watchdogs like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more trustworthy information.

Indeed, Kan unceremoniously stepped down at the end of August to take responsibility for his government’s slow response to the nuclear crisis and inability to communicate clearly and effectively with TEPCO and his domestic nuclear agencies.

Japan’s current prime minister Yoshihiko Noda admitted during a recent press conference that the Kan government monumentally failed to respond to and deal with the triple disasters of last March and lambasted Kan and his cabinet for being sluggish in passing on vital information and for being overly reliant on “a myth of safety” regarding nuclear power.

“We can no longer make the excuse that what was unpredictable and outside our imagination has happened,” Noda said. “Crisis management requires us to imagine what may be outside our imagination.”

LESSONS LEARNED [? …take the following with a grain of salt – ZS]

The prime minister went on to say that through the ineptitude of the former administration, a number of important lessons have been learned. That would ensure that were a similar disaster to happen, the nation’s nuclear plants, following a series of stringent safety and stress tests, would be better equipped to deal with failing cooling systems, with potential power outages not resulting in reactors melting down, as was the case with Fukushima.

While the likelihood is that the complete decommissioning of the stricken reactors at the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant will take 30 years or more according to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, and public concerns about nuclear power have sparked intense debate on utilizing alternative energy sources. Noda stands charged to move forward practically and responsibly as he looks to bring the nation’s idled reactors back online.

“We can say in hindsight that the government, business and scholars had all been seeped in a myth of safety, but the responsibility must be shared,” the Japanese leader said.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

See also: “‘Planetary Genocide’: Fukushima One Year Later : The Poisoning of Planet Earth” by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri –

Japan, NATO to become closer [Voice of Russia]

Posted in DPR Korea, Fukushima nuclear plant, Japan, Kim Jong Il, NATO, Nukes, Tokyo, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA on February 8, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Dec. 28, 2011

Igor Siletsky

On Tuesday, the Japanese government has decided to partially lift a self-imposed 40-year ban on arms exports, which prohibited Japanese arms makers from joint development and export of military technology. Until now the US has been the only country with which Japan cooperated on military technologies with other countries than the US. Now, the Land of the Rising Sun has decided to expand its military cooperation which experts see as a bid to join the Euro ABM project.

The ban imposed in 1967 provided that Japan could not buy weapons from countries governed by the Communist regimes and countries, which were involved in military conflicts. Gradually Japan stopped military cooperation with all countries except the US.

But cooperation with Washington has never stopped. Back in the 1980s, Japanese companies supplied the US with 15 new technologies for their Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). At present, Tokyo in partnership with Washington, is developing a unit for an upgraded SM3 ship missile. This missile is expected to become one of the key components in the European anti-ballistic missile system. But the ban which prohibited Japan from selling arms to Europe, put a question mark over the supplies of these units to Europe. That is why the Japanese government has decided to lift the ban, which will enable Tokyo to cooperate on the development of military technologies with European and other countries.

Are the motives behind Tokyo’s decision mainly political or mainly economic? The Japanese defense companies have been lobbying the government to ease the ban as they are hoping to come to their niche on the global market. So the economic motives have played their role, the head of the Center for Political studies Vladimir Yevseev says:

“The economic reasons for lifting the ban have made a serious impact. Now the country is going through an extremely difficult period, which was first of all caused by the tragedy at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. So, an opportunity to sell its military developments as part of the plan to create anti-missile defense in Europe would benefit Tokyo economically.”

At the same time the political motives should be also taken into account. Japan is currently looking for new allies and is trying to strengthen ties with the old ones, the head of the Center for Japanese Studies Valery Kistanov says:

“Above all Japan wants to strengthen its military alliance with the US. Japan needs it amid current instability [sic] in the Asian Pacific region. It is concerned about the so-called Chinese military threat and the situation on the Korean peninsula after the death of Kim Jong-il. The government’s recent move is probably intended to show that Tokyo is loyal and committed to its alliance with the US.”

In all this experts can also see another tendency – Japan’s rapprochement with NATO. A close cooperation between Tokyo and Brussels would contribute to NATO’s expansion into the Asian Pacific region.

Article link:

“Russian chess: Russia moves to use economics to promote peace in Northeast Asia” by Tim Beal []

Posted in China, Cuba, Fukushima nuclear plant, George W. Bush, India, Iran, Japan, Lee Myung-bak, Obama, Pakistan, Russia, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, Sino-Korean Friendship, south Korea, Syria, Tokyo, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA, Venezuela on October 3, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

August 29, 2011

The visit of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to Russia in August 2011 received little attention in the international media, and most of the articles were uninformed…The North Korean and Russian media gave little detail and scant analysis. China was a bit better but tended to focus on the Six Party Talks, highlighting Kim (and Medvedev’s) commitment to resuming the talks without preconditions.1

This is understandable, given that the establishment of the Beijing talks, bringing together the two Koreas, and the major world powers –the US, Japan, Russia, and China – was a great achievement. Too great perhaps. It was noticeable how quickly the US used the Cheonan Incident in March 2010 to sink the talks. It is likely that the Obama administration realised that Bush had made a great strategic mistake in giving this diplomatic jewel to China and was glad of a pretext to let the talks wither.

In any case, Kim’s avowed commitment to the talks was not new; it restated statements made on visits to China, most recently in May, and was consistent with long-standing North Korean policy.2 The US, and South Korean, response was the same as before – no talks without preconditions.3 It is an old diplomatic technique; if you don’t want negotiations you merely set preconditions the other side cannot accept without forfeiting their objective for negotiating. It was a common feature of US strategy during the Bush administration.4 Obama was supposed to change all that:
… when asked in a July 23, 2008 presidential primary debate, “Would you be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” candidate Obama replied, “I would.”5
But President Obama is, as we well know now, not the same person as Candidate Obama.

However, the main problem with most of the media coverage was that it looked in the wrong direction and asked the wrong questions. Too often the focus was on Kim Jong Il rather than Medvedev, on North Korea rather than on Russia. It ascribed far too much freedom of action to Kim, a mistake that permeates discussion on North Korea and a subject to be taken up some other time. It portrayed Kim as the active initiator and Medvedev as the passive and compliant host.

In fact, a summit only takes place because both sides want it, and the bigger country has the stronger hand in determining that. There have been rumours in the past of an impending visit by Kim to Russia which have not eventuated.6 It may be that there have been requests since Kim’s previous visit in 2002, but only this time has Moscow said yes.

Kim’s reasons for the Russia visit are easy to discern. North Korea needs to develop commercial linkages with Russia to circumvent US-led sanctions which have such a devastating effect on its economy.7 It also needs Russia as an economic and political counterbalance to China. North Korea’s overdependence on China is increasingly evident. 8At the same time Kim does not want to alienate China so it was significant that he returned to Korea via China, significantly meeting with Dai Bingguo, China’s leading official for Korean affairs.9

That’s the easy part, but what about Russia? After all, just last year the Russian ambassador to Seoul was at pains to emphasise that his country was ‘not an ally’ of Pyongyang. 10 Now we have the Russian president describing it as a partner. 11 What has brought about this change? What have been the Russian objectives for the summit?

Russia’s strategy has two inter-related aspects – the economic and the geopolitical.

Russia wants to sell natural gas to South Korea. This could be shipped from Vladivostok but that would increase costs; the cheapest way is via a pipeline, and that would go through North Korea. The pipeline would be a major undertaking – 1,100 kms long, 700 of which would be through North Korea, and delivering 10 million cubic metres of gas a year.12 But it would complement existing pipelines to Europe and China so there would be no great technical barriers. South Korea itself is potentially a substantial market but the real prize is Japan, where it is anticipated that post-Fukushima antipathy to nuclear energy will boost demand for gas.13 And then there is the China factor. If Russia can develop substantial markets in South Korea and Japan this will give it leverage in what are reportedly tough negotiations with China over the price of gas imports from Russia.

If the gas pipeline goes through, so too do railways which have been bedevilled by the same political barriers. If the railway systems between the two Koreas are reconnected, and the North’s upgraded, then there is a huge rail network connecting South Korea (and perhaps Japan) with Russia and Europe via the Trans-Siberian, and China and beyond, to Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and one day to South Asia. The economic, and geopolitical, implications of this, what the late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung dubbed the ‘iron silk road’ are huge and in fact dwarf the impact of the gas pipeline.14 For the moment however, the emphasis is on the gas pipeline.

The economic imperative is clear, but it is complemented by a geopolitical one. Russia believes that a pipeline though North Korea to the south will help lock in peace on the peninsula. South Korea would get cheaper gas, North Korea would get transit fees and presumably gas as well. Both sides would have a strong inducement to keep the peace and avoid tension.15 The same goes for rail links. And there’s the rub, because this would be anathema to the United States.

The situation is analogous to the proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan and the objections are the same.16 The arrangement would strengthen an adversary producer (Russia, Iran), empower the intermediary country (North Korea, Pakistan) and make the consumer ally (South Korea, India) either vulnerable or less willing to accept US domination. The United States would lose leverage over the situation. A gas pipeline through the Korean peninsula has been talked about before, but has faltered on American objections.17 Will it be different this time?

It may well be. With both Russia and North Korea committed to the proposal it is difficult for South Korea openly to reject it. The economic benefits would be considerable and with National Assembly and presidential elections coming up in 2012 it could become awkward political issue. Similarly for the US; whatever pressure it might apply behind the scenes, it would have to be careful not to oppose it to openly for fear of re-igniting anti-Americanism – the massive demonstrations against imports of American beef in 2008 are a potent reminder of the dangers.18

However, the key factor is probably Dmitry Medvedev himself. It seems that Russia, like China, was much alarmed by the upsurge in tension on the Korean peninsula in 2010 produced by Lee Myung-bak’s confrontationist policies, which resulted in the first artillery exchange since the Korean War.19 On top of that he must have been annoyed by Lee’s attempt to use Russia to bolster his fabrication of the investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan. The South Korean military investigation pinned the blame on North Korea producing at the last moment, a couple of days before the report was scheduled to be released what they claimed to be a smoking gun – the remnants of a North Korean torpedo found, it was asserted, in the vicinity of the sinking.20

This failed to dispel public scepticism so Lee put pressure on Medvedev to send a Russian team to examine the South Korean evidence.21 It seems that the Russian investigators found the South Korean case so flawed that their report was never published, nor was it released to the South Korean government. Publically it was said that the evidence was ‘inconclusive’.22 Embarrassment all around. It could have been worse. Donald Gregg, a former American ambassador to Seoul, said that:

When I asked a well-placed Russian friend why the report has not been made public, he replied, “Because it would do much political damage to President Lee Myung-bak and would embarrass President Obama.”23

Leaks of the Russian report in the South Korean paper Hankyoreh showed why the Russian investigation was too explosive to publish. The Russians concluded that the Cheonan was probably accidentally sunk by a South Korea mine.24 They were also adamant that the torpedo remnant produced by the South could not have sunk the Cheonan (though a South Korean torpedo might conceivably have done so). But there was more. They said that the corrosion on the remnant showed it had been in the water for six months or more, not the two months between the sinking and its miraculous discovery.25 So it looks as if North Korea was not merely innocent, but also framed.

It is unlikely that Medvedev was much pleased by Lee’s attempt to involve Russia in this deception – a deception which raised the spectre of war on the peninsula, something which Russia (and China) feared greatly.26

It seems that the events of 2010 did much to concentrate minds in Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang. To this might be added the de facto Western invasion of Libya and a possible repeat in Syria.27 This is the background to Kim Jong Il’s visit to Russia (and China) and Medvedev’s initiatives. Gas and rail linkages have been talked about quite a bit over the last decade, without real progress. This time might indeed be different.

Article link, with footnotes: