As we do every year, we are publishing messages from Ms. Ruiko Muto and Ms. Akiko Morimatsu on the anniversary of Fukushima, which we have translated into English(English translation by Nos Voisins Lointains 3.11). These messages are also available in Japanese (original), in German and in French.

A major nuclear accident fading from memory

Ruiko MUTO Resident of Fukushima Representative of the group of plaintiffs in the criminal trial against three ex-executives of TEPCO

Don’t dump radioactive water in the sea! (Ruiko on the left)

Fifteen years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the narrative of “Reconstruction” attempts to obscure the multitude of problems caused by the accident. It is assumed that these actual problems
did not occur.

On March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court definitively acquitted the former TEPCO executives, rejecting the appeal of the criminal proceedings. No one will therefore bear criminal responsibility for the disaster that released enormous quantities of radioactive material into the environment, rendering land uninhabitable and preventing many evacuees from returning to their homes. This follows the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, which set a legal precedent for all civil lawsuits, exonerating the State of all responsibility. Similarly, the appeal ruling in the lawsuit brought by TEPCO shareholders overturned the first-instance verdict ordering former executives to pay almost 83 billion USD. Since 2022, all rulings have therefore been unfavorable to the victims.

Meanwhile, along the coast, the acceleration of reconstruction is embodied by the “Fukushima Innovation Coast Plan.” Since 2015, a significant annual budget has been injected by the State into projects to develop cutting-edge technology companies. A research complex called “F-REI” is being built in the municipality of Namie, with a budget of around 637 million USD for the first seven years from 2023. F-REI plans to invite 50 teams of international researchers, and school facilities are being set up to host their families. However, some of the companies created on the site are already in financial difficulty. These projects, which could be described as “disaster capitalism,” are disconnected
from the real needs of the victims and do not seem to be providing any help to the disaster-stricken areas. Is this not disrespect for local democracy and the people of Fukushima?

At the same time, the authorities have decided, in the name of dismantling the crippled nuclear power plant and the reconstruction of the region, to discharge radioactive water stocked on the site into the
sea, and to reuse contaminated soil**. In other words, to re-disperse radioactive materials in sea and on land. The various ministries and the Fukushima Prefecture are deploying national propaganda to try to reassure the population, the younger generations in particular.

Major media outlets and communication agencies are fully engaged in creating and spreading this propaganda. By suppressing the victims’ concerns and questions, the authorities are violating the people’s rights,
especially concerning their health. After the accident, many of us developed various illnesses, including mental health issues, and some have died. But the only disease that is recorded is pediatric thyroid cancer, which is detected through the periodic health checks offered by the Prefecture, but only to those who were 18 years old or younger at the time of the accident. Even so, the authorities keep denying any health link to the nuclear accident.

In 2025, the government revised its basic energy plan, and nuclear power once again became a major source of electricity generation. A schedule for restarting the shut-down power plants was thus put in
place. The Onagawa plant in the neighboring Miyagi Prefecture had already restarted in 2024, and in another prefecture, Niigata, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant restarted in January 2026 but was
immediately shut down due to a technical problem. However, the operator TEPCO wants to restart it at all costs. Our region is therefore once again at risk of radiation exposure if / when a nuclear accident
occurs at these neighboring plants.

However, citizens are not giving up on protesting. In 2024, an investigative journalist revealed the close ties between large law firms, certain Supreme Court judges, and electric power companies (such as TEPCO) and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. In fact, some judges came from large law firms that counted TEPCO among their clients. Since then, numerous groups of plaintiffs and lawyers have organized “human chains around the Supreme Court” to demand judicial independence. Others are suing the State and TEPCO to stop the discharge of radioactive water into the ocean. Citizens’ meetings are being held to demand the safe decommissioning of the damaged plant. Last but not least, citizens of the municipality of Miharu have published a manual on the distribution of stable iodine in the event of another nuclear accident. Faced with the steamroller of the government and pro-nuclear forces and despite their overwhelming financial resources and power, we are resisting and continuing to move forward, step by step, toward a world free of nuclear power.

• The Fukushima Institute for Research, Education and Innovation
  ** Three-quarters of the approximately 14 million cubic meters of soil resulting from decontamination work with levels below 8000 Bq/kg, will be reused as fill material topped by uncontaminated soil.
  *** Miharu is one of only three municipalities that took the initiative to distribute iodine tablets to residents without
  waiting for Fukushima Prefecture’s orders. The tablets saturate the thyroid with stable iodine so that it won’t
  absorb radioactive iodine when it arrives from the accident.

Living free from exposure to radiation: a fundamental human right

Akiko MORIMATSU

Akiko, plaintiffs and supporters at the Osaka District Court

©Takezo Takahashi

In order to avoid exposure to radiation caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident which occurred in 2011, I still continue living in Osaka today, as an “internally displaced person*” with my two minor children. Immediately after the accident, we, as ordinary citizens, were not informed about radioactive contamination and thus suffered otherwise avoidable radiation exposure. We had no choice but to live on contaminated soil, breathe contaminated air, and drink contaminated water. I was breastfeeding my five-month-old daughter at the time, and it was only later that I realized I had exposed my children to radiation.

The authorities, who had assured the public that there would never be an accident, relaxed radiation exposure standards after the disaster to suit their own interests. Applying their economic logic, they imposed arbitrary boundaries to decide who would be recognized as a victim, thereby dividing the victims among themselves. However, fifteen years after the accident, many victims continue to suffer from its consequences, regardless of their victim status as determined by administrative zoning. The reason is simple: radioactive contamination remains. And because I do not want my children to be exposed to even one additional micro-sievert of unnecessary radiation, I continue to live as an internally displaced person without compensation.

We believe these fundamental rights of existence being violated: “not to be exposed to radiation” and “to enjoy good health.” Yet the Japanese justice system has endorsed the “safety standards” that the State unilaterally relaxed after the nuclear accident. And since the Supreme Court ruling in 2022, it has become extremely difficult for displaced people to obtain compensation in the civil lawsuits they file. This means that our human right to “avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation” is not respected in the Japanese judicial system.

The nuclear issue is above all a question of fundamental human rights. 

Eighty years after the end of World War II, and following the awarding of the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyō*, and the statements made by hibakusha that have drawn international attention to the issue of radiation exposure, I believe that Japan, drawing on the experiences of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Fukushima, must now take a leading role in working to establish a universal fundamental right for all people to be protected from radiation exposure.

Around the world, many people are speaking out against the damage caused by nuclear use – victims of nuclear testing, people exposed to radiation due to uranium mining, and those affected by environmental pollution caused by nuclear waste and contaminated water discharge into the ocean. All of these situations are, in a broad sense, examples of the spread of nuclear damage. Having lived through the Fukushima experience, we know that, whether for military or civil use, no one is safe from becoming a nuclear victim.

By establishing the right to live free from exposure to radiation as a universal human right, it becomes possible to diminish, as much as possible, nuclear damage on a global scale.

This is the future we must strive for. That is why we believe it is necessary to build bonds of solidarity with all victims of nuclear use around the world, so that we can work together to establish this universal right. 

* According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, internally displaced people have been forced to flee their homes by conflict, violence, persecution or disasters, however, unlike refugees, they remain within their own country.

** Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations, founded in August 1956.

Akiko Morimatsu is living as an internally displaced person since the accident, representing the group of plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit in Osaka. In 2018, she gave a speech at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva about the lives of internally displaced persons from Fukushima. She is a representative of the plaintiffs’ group of the lawsuits filed by victims of the Fukushima accident in the Osaka metropolitan area.

English translation : Nos Voisins Lointains 3.11

Introduction

©Takezo Takahashi

To date, approximately 30 class action lawsuits have been filed against the Japanese State and TEPCO[1] throughout the country, involving more than 10,000 people. Three appeal judgments have recognized the liability of the State and TEPCO. These are the “Give us back our livelihoods, give us back our region” trial in 2020, the Chiba lawsuit and the Ehime lawsuit in 2021. However, since the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in June 2022 rejecting the State’s liability in four class action lawsuits (the three above plus the Gumma lawsuit[2]), lower courts have delivered successive rulings rejecting the State’s liability.

The Kansai[3] region class action lawsuit, which serves as the “rear guard” among class action lawsuits has come to an end after a long run of more than 12 years since the complaint (first phase) was filed on September 17, 2013. During this period, all 79 plaintiff households were questioned. While in other lawsuits, interrogation of plaintiffs is often conducted only for some of them, the Osaka District Court followed a particularly thorough procedure, which is quite unusual. The interrogation of the plaintiffs took place at a monthly pace from May 2011 to September 2025. While the presiding judge often changes during proceedings, in the case of the Kansai region trial, there was no change and the same presiding judge conducted all the interrogation proceedings.

The trial closed on December 24, and the verdict is scheduled for September 2, 2026.

We are publishing here the closing statements of Akiko Morimatsu, the representative of the group of plaintiffs. Ms. Morimatsu is also a delegate of the federation of groups suing TEPCO and the Japanese State.

---

[1] Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

[2] Unlike the three appeals, Gumma’s appeal did not obtain recognition of the State’s liability at the Tokyo Court of Appeals in 2021.

[3] The Kansai region includes six prefectures, including Osaka and Kyoto.

---

The closing statements of Akiko Morimatsu

I am Akiko Morimatsu, plaintiff number 1-1.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my closing statements in court.

1. Family separation and loss of peaceful life

I left the city of Koriyama in Fukushima Prefecture and moved to Osaka with my two children. Even today, we continue to live as evacuees, just me and my children. 
My husband stayed in Fukushima, and our family has now been separated for 14 years and 9 months.
My children, who were 0 and 3 years old at the time of the earthquake, are now 15 and 17.
They are currently in their third year of junior high school and second year of high school, a very sensitive time in their lives. Although their father is in good health, he cannot be there to give them advice and answer their questions about life. For 14 years, he has not been able to see his children grow up day by day, and we have not been able to share the joys and sorrows of raising children. They have lost everything that made up a peaceful family life, that is, “moments when all family members gather to spend pleasant times talking and relaxing.” This is an obvious damage caused by the nuclear accident.

2. Sincere desire to avoid radiation exposure

Despite everything, we continue to live in a state of evacuation of mother and children. This is due to the radioactive fallout over a wide area, including the city of Koriyama in Fukushima Prefecture, as a result of the accident that occurred on March 11, 2011, at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. We continue to remain evacuated because radioactive contamination “exists” in this region. We continue to live in evacuation because we want to avoid any unnecessary exposure to radiation.

And it was precisely because it was not a “mandatory evacuation” that we made the difficult decision to self-evacuate without my husband, which was the last resort. According to the latest figures available from the Reconstruction Agency on December 5, 2025 – Number of people evacuated nationwide – 26,597 people are still in evacuation, including those who have self-evacuated from areas outside the mandatory evacuation zones. Despite this considerable number, the government has implemented virtually no systems or measures to protect evacuees over the past 14 years.
We were constrained to self-evacuate using our own resources. This was not a voluntary evacuation. It placed us in a very difficult situation. The cause of this situation is clearly the radioactive contamination resulting from the nuclear accident, which is itself the result of national nuclear policy. However, despite this causality obvious to everyone, the authorities have made no effort to establish accurate statistics on the evacuation related to the nuclear accident or to understand the reality of the evacuation of mother and children. And we continue to be exposed to discrimination and harassment.

3. Imposing radiation exposure: violation of the “right of self-determination”

I did not evacuate in a state of panic.

I decided to proceed with the evacuation based on the standards and rules in effect on March 11, 2011, and I declare that I intend to continue the evacuation taking into account the objective facts concerning the contamination.

The radiation exposure limit for the general public was previously set at one millisievert per year, but it was raised to 20 millisieverts per year after March 11, 2011. Although we are told that this is not a problem, it is impossible to accept or tolerate such a measure. Why should Fukushima be the only place to accept high exposure doses, while the limit remains one millisievert for the rest of Japan? This is blatant discrimination.

There is also a misconception regarding voluntary evacuation.
It is believed that those who chose to do so had the choice between leaving or staying. It is believed that their decision to leave was made of their own free will and on their own responsibility, and that they therefore suffered no prejudice since they acted on their own initiative.

This is clearly wrong. We weren’t given a choice between evacuation or not, but were forced to choose between two painful, undesirable options: “continue to be exposed to radiation” or “self-evacuate if we don’t want to be exposed.” This was a sudden, urgent decision disrupting our previously peaceful lives.

I have no intention of resigning myself to suffering the damage imposed by the perpetrators themselves, who not only make no mention of it, but also unilaterally decide on the “acceptable level of exposure” “to be tolerated.”

4. “Public communications” do not tell us the truth.

During the interrogation, the lawyers of the defendant Tokyo Electric Power Company presented the “information leaflet” from the municipality we had left behind and repeated arguments such as “Didn’t you read the information leaflet?” or “It says it’s safe,” as if to make us understand that we should trust the leaflet.

I would like to ask the judges a question. 

Does promoting “festivals” and “school entrance ceremonies” in “information leaflets” make the radioactive contamination disappear? In voluntary evacuation zones, there are people who remain for various reasons. As long as there are people living there, festivals are held to admire the cherry blossoms, and fireworks are set off during summer festivities. With slogans such as “Ganbarō Tōhoku” (Let’s go, Tōhoku!) and the huge budgets allocated to reconstruction, it is possible to organize large events and create a festive atmosphere, as if the region had been completely “reconstructed.”

“Public communication” consists of the State and administrations informing the people (citizens) of what they want them to know, using tax money. I am familiar with the terms “propaganda” and “communiqués from imperial headquarters” during the war, and I am aware of the role they played in history. “Public communication,” which consists of the State and administrations conveying only what they want the people to know, has not provided us with any of the truths that we, the evacuees, wanted to know.

Moreover, in the city of Koriyama, which I fled, it was not until 2018 that outdoor school sports days resumed without time restrictions in the morning and afternoon ( that is, 7 years after the nuclear accident).


At the time of the evacuation, it was estimated that thyroid cancer in children affected only one or two people in a million. However, according to the results of a health survey of residents in Fukushima Prefecture, which at the time had only 370,000 children under the age of 18, nearly 400 cases have been recorded to date, which is clearly a significant increase. Radioactivity does not stop at prefectural borders, but Fukushima is the only prefecture where large-scale medical examinations are carried out at the expense of the State. It should be remembered that children who were between the ages of 6 and 16 at the time of the accident filed a class action lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power Company, claiming that their thyroid cancer was caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident. The children’s testimonies show that they were exposed without any protection, whereas children are particularly vulnerable to radiation. Today, they regret not having been protected. They say that they “knew nothing and were exposed without any protection to the rain and wind” and that “their parents told them not to go outside, but they went out to play with their friends anyway.” 

5. Questions to the judges

Your Honors, I ask you to imagine the situation as human beings, putting yourselves in the shoes of the people affected in their daily lives. Would you really want to raise your children in a place where it is impossible to hold school sports days outdoors?
I don’t know if you have children. But you too were once children. Do you remember having time limits imposed on outdoor play, including on school sports days? Have you ever thought about the burden of living every day in fear, wondering whether what you touch or eat is harmful to your health, whether there is a risk of radiation?
 Furthermore, if you were told that radioactive substances had been detected in the tap water you drink every day, would you be able to continue drinking it? Put yourselves in their shoes, imagine the faces of your parents who raised you, and think about it.
Isn’t it the normal rational feeling of any parent not to want to expose their child to any unnecessary exposure, even in the order of microsievert?

It is not a question of whether the radiation dose is low or high, but rather whether or not one is exposed.
It is up to me to decide whether or not I will be exposed. Isn’t this a situation where one can exercise one’s “right to self-determination” guaranteed by the Constitution?

6. Please put an end to this despair

I am not saying that I want to evacuate blindly, nor that I want to continue evacuating at all costs.

I repeat this again and again.
The right to escape radiation exposure and enjoy good health is nothing less than the most important fundamental right concerning people’s lives and health.
I believe that this right must be recognized equally for all.

It is perfectly natural, as human beings, to want to avoid any radiation exposure, and this should be recognized equally for everyone.
Furthermore, it is perfectly natural, as parents, to want to minimize potential health risks for children who still have their whole future ahead of them. I don’t think there is a single parent who does not want their child to grow up in good health.
There should be no shadow of uncertainty, no fear of radiation exposure, no worry about health.

During the trial, despite all the objective evidence presented regarding the contamination, the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company, both responsible for the accident and wishing to minimize its significance, set the compensation criteria themselves, which influenced the court’s compensation decisions. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the court is truly impartial.

Evacuation also involves costs. In the case of mother and children self-evacuation, a typical form of displacement following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, living expenses are doubled because families are separated into two geographically distinct households. The costs associated with family reunification must be borne by the families themselves. Reducing the costs associated with father-children reunification means imposing a heavy psychological burden on children by depriving them of their father’s presence. Without the nuclear accident, no one would have voluntarily chosen to relocate and break up their home. All of this clearly constitutes damage caused by the nuclear accident. For our family, this was the best possible solution—taken involuntarily—to escape radiation exposure, that is to say, it was a radioprotection measure.

On June 17, 2022, the Supreme Court handed down an unjustified and logically unconvincing ruling, refusing to recognize the State’s liability. Since then, lower courts have delivered numerous unjustified judgments minimizing the actual damages. However, regardless of the sentence pronounced by the courts, the damages suffered by the victims of radioactive contamination due to the nuclear accident are not going to disappear. I am still forced to live in exile today, and it is with great pain that I make the decision to continue my exile. In other words, the damages caused by the nuclear accident continues uninterrupted, even as I speak to you now.

Every time an unjust verdict is handed down, I am plunged back into despair by the judicial system itself. And all I feel is a sense of crisis, because humanity is giving up its right to avoid unnecessary exposure.

President Matsumoto Nobuyuki, Judge Terada Kohei on the right, Judge Shimizu Kohei on the left, please do not plunge the victims of the nuclear accident further into despair.

Do not deprive us of the right to be protected from radiation exposure and to enjoy good health.

Is there anything more valuable than human life and health?

I sincerely hope that the decision will confirm the principle that measures to avoid radiation exposure and protect life are paramount, and that this principle will be respected above all else.

Akiko MORIMATSU

Representative, Plaintiff Group of the Kansai Nuclear Disaster Compensation Lawsuit

Representative, Association of Evacuees from the Great East Japan Earthquake “Thanks & Dream”

Sayonara Nukes Berlin, together with Yosomono-net, a worldwide anti-nuke network of Japanese people living abroad , has issued the following statement of protest against the government’s decision to release of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean.

 

Fukushima, Japan: Radioactively contaminated water dumped into the Pacific Ocean?

Japan is planning to dump diluted, filtered and still radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi (FD) nuclear power plant into the ocean this summer.

What’s happening in Fukushima?

After the massive earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, a major nuclear accident occurred at the FDNPP, resulting in hydrogen explosions and core meltdowns. This resulted in a massive release of radioactive materials into the environment, contaminating air, soil, water, and food on land and sea, and continues to do so today.

More than 12 years later, the nuclear emergency declaration issued at the time remains in place, and more than 20,000 people are officially registered as evacuees. The population of the mandatory evacuation zones of Fukushima are subjected to an annual exposure limit of 20 millisieverts, 20 times the former legal civilian limit. This is the same as the limit for nuclear workers and it also applies to children, young people, and pregnant women.

What is to be discharged into the sea?

The damaged reactors must continue to be cooled with water, although closed cooling circuits have been destroyed. Due to rainwater and groundwater pouring in, the amount of contaminated water is increasing every day. At present, more than 1.3 million tons of contaminated water are stocked in tanks. Japan wants to discharge this water, filtered and diluted, into the sea.

What the Japanese government, IAEA and TEPCO say

The water with radionuclides would be treated with the ALPS filtering system “up to the limit of harmlessness.” Mainly, only the isotope tritium would remain, which cannot be filtered out. All nuclear power plants in the world routinely discharge water containing tritium. All radionuclides contained would be treated to be below the relevant limit, and the water would be heavily diluted before discharge into the sea. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has given its blessing to this plan. TEPCO says it would soon run out of space for storage at the site.

What problems and risks the project conceals

The water stored at Fukushima Daiichi is liquid radioactive waste that has come in contact with melted fuel rods and cannot be compared to the tritiated water released during normal reactor operation. It is often said that tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, is the only nuclide that remains after treatment, but in fact, in addition to tritium, the water contains cesium-134 and cesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60, carbon-14, and iodine-129 and more.

However, the effect of tritium on the ecosystem and the food chain is far too little studied, and the few existing study results are hardly taken into account. At what quantity may something be assessed as “harmless,” and by whom? For the release of radioactive substances into the environment, Japan has determined the activity concentration limit for each radionuclide, which is supposed to correspond to the concentration of that radionuclide at which the average dose rate of 1 millisievert per year would be reached if one ingested 2 liters of that water daily for 70 years. That means the estimates of long-term effects are not considered. Far too little research has been done on how individual radionuclides behave in seawater, accumulate in the food chain, and what damage they might do. Even if the concentration were diluted, tritium would be discharged into the sea at a total rate of 22 trillion becquerels per year. Whether diluted or dispersed, the amount would remain the same.

The half-life of tritium is 12 years; Strontium 90, 28.8 years; carbon 14, 5730 years and iodine 129, 15.7 million years.

Precautionary and preventive principles

From the point of view of radiation protection, the water at FD must continue to be kept in tanks under strict control. In case of doubt, the principles of precaution and prevention should apply!

One reason for concern is the increase in fish contaminated with cesium 134/137 caught in neighboring ports. In June 2023, a high contamination of 18,000 becquerels per kilo was even measured in a black rockfish. This indicates that an uncontrolled leak of contaminated water is continuing. Without thoroughly investigating and taking measures against this, it would be unethical to discharge contaminated water into the sea.

“Mental decontamination” and “reputational damage”

Instead of protecting the population against delayed health impacts from radiation, the Japanese government prefers to spread a fairy tale. “A little radioactivity is harmless, rather fear is the evil of the problem.” Instead of more accurate health studies and measurements of radioactive contamination, a series of “mental decontamination” campaigns are supposed to combat “psychosomatic” effects. Strong public messages in the form of manipulative advertisements are repeated on a grand scale with one-sided conclusions by pro-nuclear scientists. People’s legitimate fears are dismissed as panic about radiation and demonized as “reputational damage” (against food staples, Fukushima residents and territory) that would prevent the economic growth and reconstruction of Fukushima.

IAEA and the promotion of atomic energy

The task of the IAEA, founded in 1957 following the “Atoms for Peace” program, to promote the civil use of atomic energy, is not “radiation protection.” It sets rules for the extent to which radiation risks should be considered “negligible.” The IAEA Review of Safety Related Aspects does not take into account possible long-term effects on the marine ecosystem. Why should its final report be understood as permission to dump contaminated water into the sea?

Out of sight, out of mind?

Neighboring countries and the South Pacific Island states are right to protest against Japan’s plan. UN experts are also expressing concern about the potential dangers to human health and the environment. If dumping were to begin, it would serve as a precedent for future ocean disposal of contaminated water. In fact, for more than three decades in the future, Japan wants to further pollute the sea, which is connected to all the other seas in the world, and which already suffers greatly from various environmental impacts. The sea is not a waste disposal site. It is irresponsible to spread more contamination instead of isolating it as much as possible. But TEPCO and the Japanese government prefer to cover up the obvious accident consequences, such as numerous contaminated water tanks, by disposing the toxins into the sea. We must never accept this!

Therefore, we demand:

• No discharge of radioactive water into the sea, whether at Fukushima or elsewhere
• Establishment of monitoring and research systems worldwide for all nuclear facilities by independent organizations for monitoring and analysis of ecosystem changes and people’s health impacts
• Transparent communication and publication of research and monitoring results

For the French version of the statement, please visit :  https://yosomono-net.jimdofree.com/

Sources:

http://oshidori-makoken.com/

https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/committee/fukushimahyougikai/2021/23/shiryou_04_2.pdf

https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-de/de04-02.html

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/04/japan-un-experts-say-deeply-disappointed-decision-discharge-fukushima-water

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf