# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School shootings in the US: Fast facts | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CNN is tracking school shootings across the United States. Follow the numbers here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thousands of children are recruited and used in armed conflicts across the world. Between 2005 and 2022, more than 105,000 children were verified as recruited and used by parties to conflict, although the actual number of cases is believed to be much higher.

Often referred to as "child soldiers," these boys and girls suffer extensive forms of exploitation and abuse that are not fully captured by that term. Warring parties use children not only as fighters, but as scouts, cooks, porters, guards, messengers and more. Many, especially girls, are also subjected to gender-based violence.

Children become part of an armed force or group for various reasons. Some are abducted, threatened, coerced or manipulated by armed actors. Others are driven by poverty, compelled to generate income for their families. Still others associate themselves for survival or to protect their communities. No matter their involvement, the recruitment and use of children by armed forces is a grave violation of child rights and international humanitarian law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children recruited by armed forces or armed groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of boys and girls are used as soldiers, cooks, spies and more in armed conflicts around the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas is so well-endowed that female swimmer Riley Gaines had "refrain from looking" at Thomas in the locker room they shared during a meet.

In a new podcast with Bill Maher dropping Sunday, Gaines, an advocate for women's sports, repeatedly declined to estimate Thomas' size but explained it is in proportion to the frame of a "6-foot-4 male."

Gaines tied against Thomas in the 2022 NCAA Championships and since has become an outspoken activist against biological men in women's sports - saying it was unfair and that changing alongside Thomas in the locker room was weird and awkward.

Some swimmers undressed in the janitor's closet to avoid Thomas.

"That was a situation I tried to refrain from looking at entirely," Gaines said, according to a transcript of the Club Random podcast obtained first by the Daily Mail.

"We can't unsee it. Being in that space with a male, it's like a bad car wreck."

Maher repeatedly grilled Gaines to detail the genitalia of Thomas, who joined the University of Pennsylvania women's swim team after competing for three years on the men's squad.

"I was trying to run away from this question," Gaines answered.

"6-foot-4 male. Use your imagination," she said.

Gaines believes biological males' greater strength and endurance make competition with women unfair - and her view has stirred controversy.

In April, Gaines was "ambushed and physically hit" by a mob of trans-rights protesters who stormed her speech about protecting women's sports at San Francisco State.

By the conclusion of Thomas's swimming career at UPenn in 2022, Thomas' rank skyrocketed from 65th for men to 1st in the female 500-yard freestyle, and from 554th for men to 5th for women in the 200-yard freestyle.

"I think even using the term trans woman is giving Thomas some of our languages as women," Gaines said in the podcast. "I think trans women is a subset of male. I do not believe trans women are women."

Last week, former UPenn swimmer Paula Scanlan told The Post she "had nightmares for weeks" after sharing a locker room with Thomas.

At the March 2022 championship in Atlanta, Thomas won the women's 500-yard freestyle, becoming the first trans woman to claim a national title in swimming and becoming a symbol of trans athletes.

Trans rights activists say trans women are real women and must be included in sports.

Gaines, who comes from Tennessee and swam for the University of Kentucky team, said America needs "more masculine men" and praised World War II veterans.

"That's the last time we had strong men," she said.

"Think about this: 1940s, World War II. Men lied about their age to get in to enlist. Now, in 2023, we have men lying about their sex to get into women's sports or women's prisons or domestic shelters or sororities or bathrooms, locker rooms."

She blames society for rebranding "masculinity as toxic and bad and undesirable."

In June, the world swimming's governing body effectively banned transgender women from competing in women's events.

The International Swimming Federation members widely adopted a new "gender inclusion policy" that only permits swimmers who transitioned before age 12 to compete in women's events.

The organization also proposed an "open competition category."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lia Thomas so 'well-endowed' I had to 'refrain from looking': Riley Gaines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maher repeatedly asks Gaines to say more about the physique of Thomas, who joined the University of Pennsylvania women's swim team after competing for three years on the men's squad. 'We can't unsee...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender Discrimination Causes Inequality Between Girls and Boys Around the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender discrimination impacts millions of girls and boys around the world, denying them basic human rights like education, income equality, and a life free of violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
school shooting, in the typical case, an event in which a student at an educational institution-an elementary, middle, or high school or a college or university-shoots and injures or kills at least one other student or faculty member on the grounds of that institution. Such incidents usually involve multiple deaths. Rampage school shootings are a type of school shooting where no single or specific individual is targeted by the shooter. Although school shootings occur worldwide, the United States has been the scene of the vast majority of the attacks, especially since the late 20th century.

School shootings

Although school shootings have a long history in the United States, the 1990s were a pivotal point, with high-profile occurrences in such cities as Pearl, Mississippi (1997); West Paducah, Kentucky (1997); Springfield, Oregon (1998); and Jonesboro, Arkansas (1998). However, it was the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999 that brought particular urgency to the issue. In that attack, two students-Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold-killed 13 people before taking their own lives. The shootings garnered massive media attention and sparked a national debate on gun violence. In addition, some schools began taking extra security precautions.

Despite such efforts, school shootings continued, with multiple attacks taking place each year. In 2007 there were about 10 such shootings, the most notable of which occurred at Virginia Tech, where 32 people were killed before the gunman, Cho Seung-Hui from South Korea, took his own life. Later high-profile attacks included an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed 27 people before committing suicide; shortly before the attack he had also killed his mother in their home. The shooting garnered particular attention due to the age of the victims: 20 of those killed were 6-7 years old.

Risk factors for school shooters

Given the prevalence of such shootings, many journalistic and scholarly investigations focused on identifying the major risk factors for becoming a school shooter. Most studies identified extreme social rejection and bullying as key risk factors. Social rejection, perpetrated by peers, often included romantic rejection. Bullying took numerous forms, both verbal and physical, and was heavily characterized by actions and words meant to humiliate the victim. Other research-identified risk factors included the availability of guns and the consumption of violent media (especially violent video games, but also violent music, television shows, and films).

Significantly, a more recently identified risk of would-be school shooters was bullying and social rejection that challenged boys' masculinity, particularly in the form of "gay-baiting." Other masculinity-driven taunting of boys who became shooters included mocking their physical bodies with labels such as scrawny, little, short, fat, skinny, chubby, or small. Shooters were often the most bullied male members in the school, and the primary bullies of future school shooters were often the most popular male youths in the school, typically the male athletes and "preppies." Thus, when the bullying victims became shooters, they often attacked the popular males who bullied them. However, the shooters were also likely to attack others with low status in the school, and it was not unusual for school shooters to espouse racist (e.g., Nazi) dogmas.

In addition, it was noted that some of the shooters suffered from psychological problems. In the case of Newtown's Lanza, medical experts had diagnosed him with various psychiatric disorders, but they had largely been untreated. Cho also had a history of mental illness, and in 2005, two years before his attack at Virginia Tech, a court had found him to be a danger to himself.

Race, gender, class, and school shootings

The majority of school shootings are committed by white middle-class males living in suburban or rural areas. In attempting to explain this phenomenon, some researchers argued that African American parents recognized the need to prepare their children to face not only bullying but also humiliating racist comments and acts from the dominant culture. They frequently emphasized to their children that racist behaviours are wrong and that their children need not feel alone in their struggle.

Research on the predominantly or exclusively white communities where the white male middle-class school shooters resided painted a very different picture. Parents and school staff in these areas indicated that they offered little or no opportunity either to stop the intense bullying or to help the victims process the emotions and identify strategies for responding. Because the boys were sometimes ashamed to report these violations of their masculinity, parents and school staff were often ignorant of, or ignored, the daily demoralizing, humiliating, and taunting environments embedded in the school and community cultures where the white school shooters lived. Thus, some future school shooters were left to determine on their own how to negotiate their feelings of intense rejection and discrimination relating to their social standing in their schools and among their peers-they were on their own in defending their sense of self in the context of their often extreme physical and verbal bullying and severe personal humiliation.

Media portrayals of school shootings

Research on media representations of school shootings suggested that in the case of white suburban school shootings, newspaper articles were written in a manner more likely to foster sympathy for the shooters. In the case of Klebold and Harris, the shooters at Columbine, they were often portrayed as bullied youths who were victims of a society inundated with violent video games and handguns, blocked from the entitlements their social status typically promised.

Articles on African American urban shootings, however, were found to be shorter, and they portrayed urban crime as "reality." Furthermore, the research indicated that the media were more likely to stress the need to pursue the shooters and hold them accountable. For example, the media largely portrayed the 1992 school shooting by Joseph White-a 15-year-old African American male who shot and killed another 15-year-old black male and injured two other students at his Chicago high school-as random and without provocation. However, the resulting court case indicated the shooter was responding to the reality of the prevalent dangerous youth and gang culture in which he lived.
Joanne Belknap Tanya Greathouse The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School shooting | Definition, Examples, Causal Factors, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School shooting, in the typical case, an event in which a student at a school shoots and injures or kills at least one other student or faculty member on the grounds of that school. Although school shootings occur worldwide, the United States has been the scene of the vast majority of the attacks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animals have been eating, or ingesting, plastic and other marine debris for a long time. The ingestion of plastic by wildlife was first observed in 1966, when researchers found plastic container lids and toys in dead Laysan albatross chicks. These observations happened more than 20 years before the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was discovered. A review by Kuhn and van Franeker found that over 700 species, including seabirds, fish, turtles, and marine mammals, have been confirmed to eat plastic. That number will likely increase over time as wildlife continues to encounter our trash.

Debris items may be mistaken for food and ingested, or may be accidentally ingested when mixed with or attached to an animal's natural food. Because many plastics float, break into small, easily eaten pieces, and are colorful, they are more likely to attract hungry animals than other types of marine debris. Eating plastic may lead to loss of nutrition, internal injury, intestinal blockage, starvation, and even death. We know that ingested plastic is harmful to animals, and research is still being conducted to figure out all the effects, especially to communities and wild populations.

What happens when an animal eats plastic?

Plankton, shellfish, birds, fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles from all parts of the globe and from various depths of the ocean have been confirmed to ingest plastic debris. The amount and type of plastic they eat often relates directly to the animal's feeding behavior. Passive feeders, or animals that filter their food from water or soil, may unintentionally eat microplastics with their food. Animals that are active feeders, that search for and capture their food, ingest plastic not only accidentally while feeding, but also any debris inside of their prey.

Some animals are able to release debris without passing it fully into the digestive system, such as birds that can regurgitate, or throw up indigestible materials. Debris can also pass completely through the digestive system for many animals depending on its shape and size. If an animal is not able to regurgitate or pass marine debris through their system, it can cause serious health problems. Sharp or rough plastic marine debris can create cuts in the digestive system, leading to infection and internal bleeding. It can also block their digestive system, making them feel full, reducing their urge to eat, and making it difficult for the animal to get the nutrients they need.

Plastic can also carry harmful pollutants. They may absorb pollutants that are in the water around them, or release chemicals that are added to plastics during production to make them colorful or flexible. These chemicals may enter the body of an animal if ingested. Whether an animal eats the plastic itself, or eats an animal that has already eaten plastic, there could be possible health impacts on marine wildlife. Although wildlife may be exposed to these contaminants from plastics, more research is needed to understand how they might be affected, depending on the size of the plastics and how long they stay in an animal.

How does plastic marine debris impact different types of animals?

Sea Turtles: All seven species of sea turtles have been confirmed to eat marine debris. Sea turtles most commonly try to eat plastic sheeting and plastic bags, which may resemble their jellyfish prey. This type of debris can get stuck in their digestive system, making them feel full. Since they no longer feel hungry, they lose the urge to feed which can lead to poor nutrition and starvation. A review by Kühn and van Franeker estimated that 32% of turtles have plastic marine debris in their stomachs. Learn more about how ingesting marine debris affects turtles with the University of North Carolina Wilmington's MarineQuest Turtle Trash Collectors Interactive Video.

Birds: The impacts of marine debris to birds are well studied. A review by Kühn and van Franeker found that over 40% of seabird species studied have ingested plastic. Albatrosses, fulmars, and shearwaters are among the seabird species that may be most affected by marine debris as it can get stuck entering their gizzard or in their gizzard, a section of the stomach that grinds food, and cannot easily pass through the digestive system. Laysan albatross chicks that ingested large amounts of plastic have been found to have lower weights, as the plastic in their stomach keeps them from eating a full meal. Adults not only build nests using collected debris, but pass any ingested debris on to their offspring when the chicks are fed.

Marine Mammals: Many species of marine mammals have also been confirmed to eat marine debris. A review by Kühn and van Franeker found that 69 species of marine mammals have been found to ingest debris - that's 56% of all marine mammals! This includes 44 species of odontocetes (toothed whales), manatees, and multiple seal species. Marine mammals are highly protected, which can make it difficult to research them. Most research on marine mammals takes place after an animal dies, making it difficult to understand what marine debris live animals eat. However, we do know that because baleen whales filter extremely large amounts of water while feeding, they may get plastic debris entangled in their baleen plates.

How does plastic ingestion affect the food web?

Plastics that are transported by surface currents will collect more debris in areas where currents meet, called convergence zones. In these areas, there are lots of nutrients, and the algae and phytoplankton at the base of the complex marine food web gather here. As areas with readily available food sources, they attract marine life across the food web, from tiny zooplankton to large marine mammals. Larger amounts of marine debris also collect in these areas where animals are most likely to look for food and feed, increasing the likelihood that they may accidentally eat plastics and marine debris.

Although some animals may be more likely to eat plastic than others, this material can stay in their bodies for a long time, and may even travel through the food web. An example of how plastics can move through the food web starts with algae. Algae can stick and grow on floating microplastics. Filter feeders like oysters, scallops, and mussels then eat the algae and the microplastic at the same time. From there, the little bits of plastic may travel all the way up the food chain, from blue crabs, to small fish who are eaten by large predators such as seals, sharks, and dolphins.

Plastics can also carry harmful pollutants or absorb pollutants and/or chemicals that are in the water around them. They can also release these chemicals into the water or sediment around them. However, more research is needed to better understand how chemicals can move through the food web and impact wildlife.

How can I help prevent wildlife from eating plastic?

To prevent marine debris, we need to understand where it is coming from. It's hard to identify specific sources, but we know that marine debris can enter our waterways and ocean in a variety of ways. Preventing marine debris is key to solving the problem over time and you can learn more about How to Help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn what happens when wildlife eat, or ingest, marine debris.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The shocking number of animal cruelty cases reported every day is just the tip of the iceberg-most cases are never reported. Unlike violent crimes against people, cases of animal abuse are not compiled by state or federal agencies, making it difficult to calculate just how common they are. However, we can use the information that is available to try to understand and prevent cases of abuse.

Who abuses animals?

Cruelty and neglect cross all social and economic boundaries and media reports suggest that animal abuse is common in both rural and urban areas.

Intentional cruelty to animals is strongly correlated with other crimes, including violence against people.

Hoarding behavior often victimizes animals. Sufferers of a hoarding disorder may impose severe neglect on animals by housing far more than they are able to adequately take care of. Serious animal neglect (such as hoarding) is often an indicator of people in need of social or mental health services.

Surveys suggest that those who intentionally abuse animals are predominantly men under 30, while those involved in animal hoarding are more likely to be women over 60.

Most common victims

The animals whose abuse is most often reported are dogs, cats, horses and livestock. Undercover investigations have revealed that animal abuse abounds in the factory farm industry. But because of the weak protections afforded to livestock under state cruelty laws, only the most shocking cases are reported, and few are ever prosecuted.

Organized cruelty

Dogfighting, cockfighting and other forms of organized animal cruelty go hand in hand with other crimes, and continues in many areas of the United States due to public corruption.

The HSUS documented uniformed police officers at a cockfighting pit in Kentucky.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has prosecuted multiple cases where drug cartels were running narcotics through cockfighting and dogfighting operations.

Dozens of homicides have occurred at cockfights and dogfights.

A California man was killed in a disagreement about a $10 cockfight bet.

The HSUS's investigative team combats complacent public officials and has worked with the FBI on public corruption cases in Tennessee and Virginia. In both instances, law enforcement officers were indicted and convicted.

Correlation with domestic violence

Data on domestic violence and child abuse cases reveal that a staggering number of animals are targeted by those who abuse their children or spouses.

There are approximately 70 million pet dogs and 74.1 million pet cats in the U.S. where 20 men and women are assaulted per minute (an average of around 10 million a year).

In one survey, 71 % of domestic violence victims reported that their abuser also targeted pets.

In one study of families under investigation for suspected child abuse, researchers found that pet abuse had occurred in 88 % of the families under supervision for physical abuse of their children.

To put a stop to this pattern of violence, the Humane Society Legislative Fund supported the Pets and Women's Safety (PAWS) Act, introduced to Congress in 2015 as H.R. 1258 and S.B. 1559 and enacted as part of the farm bill passed by Congress and signed by President Trump in 2018. Once fully enacted, the PAWS Act helps victims of domestic abuse find the means to escape their abusers while keeping their companion animals safe-many victims remain in abusive households for fear of their pets' safety.

State legislative trends

The HSUS has long led the push for stronger animal cruelty laws and provides training for law officials to detect and prosecute these crimes. With South Dakota joining the fight in March of 2014, animal cruelty laws now include felony provisions in all 50 states.

First vs. subsequent offense

Given that a fraction of animal cruelty acts are reported or successfully prosecuted, we are committed to supporting felony convictions in cases of severe cruelty.

49 states have laws to provide felony penalties for animal torture on the first offense.

Only Iowa doesn't have such a law.

Animal cruelty laws typically cover intentional and egregious animal neglect and abuse.

Changes in federal tracking

On January 1, 2016, the FBI added cruelty to animals as a category in the Uniform Crime Report, a nationwide crime reporting system commonly used in homicide investigations. While only about a third of U.S. communities currently participate in the system, the data generated will help create a clearer picture of animal abuse and guide strategies for intervention and enforcement. Data collection covers four categories: simple/gross neglect, intentional abuse and torture, organized abuse (such as dogfighting and cockfighting) and animal sexual abuse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facts, statistics and trends of animal abuse, animal cruelty and abused animals in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why It Matters | India has lost 668,400 ha of forest cover in the last 30 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India ranked the second highest for the rate of deforestation among 98 countries after losing 668,400 hectares of forest cover in the last 30 years, a report said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TOPSHOT - Assa Traore (C), the sister of Adama Traore, who died in police custody in 2016 and the ... [+]
AFP via Getty Images

There is often discussion about racism in the U.S., and rightfully so. But research supports that racism is not only an issue in America. It is a malignancy that exists worldwide and should be treated as such. Last month, several videos of Africans being treated inhumanely in Ukraine were another sobering reminder about why racism must be addressed as a global issue and not only a domestic concern.

Late February, several videos went viral on social media of Black women and young girls in Ukraine being exposed to extreme racism. One video showed several African women stranded at a Ukrainian border in almost below freezing weather. Various celebrities and public figures quickly commented in response to the heartbreaking video. White House Correspondent and Political Analyst April Ryan said,"They said women and children are allowed in, just not black women and children. Are there any orgs that we can work with to help to shelter these people?"

Contributing writer for THE ATLANTIC and podcast host, Jemele Hill tweeted,"This is why racism must be seen as a global problem. Absolutely disgraceful." The specific video was of an African woman looking for shelter at a hostel while holding a two-month-old infant in frigidly cold weather conditions. The second video showed a Ukrainian police officer pushing a young Black girl off a train that was on its way to transport women and children to safety.

April Ryan commented on Instagram,

"Once again, our Black brothers and sisters are being pushed to the sidelines and denied their own safety. Remember, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. This is why we must continue fighting for equality for people of color across the globe!!"

But others argue that the treatment of African women and children in Ukraine should be no surprise. Global racism has been an ongoing issue. Ukraine specifically has continued to wrestle with constant racially motivated attacks against non-Ukrainian residents. Research examining racism in Ukraine has found that very little has been done to address the ongoing racial tension and that authorities have not yet adopted a "comprehensive body of civil and administrative anti-discrimination laws." Anti-Semitism is prevalent in the country. Yet, very few are held accountable and prosecuted for making antisemitic statements or publishing antisemitic literature.

There are also large cohorts of skinheads and neo-nazis in Kyiv and throughout other parts of the country who have violently targeted Tatars and Jews. And again, law enforcement has done very little. African and Asian individuals living in the country have also experienced devastating racism and discrimination. Although the African population in Ukraine is very small, they are highly visible and vulnerable targets of racism and xenophobia. Making the rate of violence against this group significantly high.

But, Ukraine is not alone. Racism has been a recurring component of European history. Using the Implicit Bias Association Test, a study of social attitudes conducted at Harvard University from 2002 to 2015 identified the countries in Europe with the highest incidents of racial bias, based on data from 288,076 Europeans. The weakest racial discrimination was found in Serbia and Slovenia, and the most substantial racial bias was found in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, and Malta. The Pew Research Center released Denmark as the third most racist country in western Europe - reporting that 29% of the residents have negative views about Blacks, Muslims, Jews, or members of the LGBTQIA community. More specifically, the same study also found that almost 75% of Denmark residents rated Romas as "totally negative," and 45% held negative perspectives towards Muslims.

Other parts of the world also have severe issues with racism. Just last year, on the eve of the Lunar New Year, the Chinese state broadcaster CCTV televised its annual live variety show. Hundreds of millions of viewers watched in confusion - and some - in outrage as Chinese dancers performed the "African Song and Dance" to celebrate African culture in Black face. Although some viewers quickly expressed deep displeasure over the performance, anti-Blackness is nothing new in China. In an article, opinion columnist Yaqiu Wang wrote, "for those who think the official line from Beijing is bad, check out the Chinese internet, where the rampant racism against Black people is often too appalling to repeat." Wang described numerous other extreme instances of racism, including in a south Guangzhou city where Chinese authorities started a campaign requiring African residents to "forcibly" be tested for COVID-19 and ordered them to remain in quarantine in designated hotels.

Landlords even went as far as to evict African tenants, forcing them to sleep on the streets, shops, or hotels. During this time, some restaurants even refused to serve Black customers. Mind you; these requirements were not enforced onto Chinese residents. Sadly, structural racism and individual acts of blatant egregious racism can be seen worldwide and have devastated various racial and ethnic groups. As we continue to fight against racism and ultimately for equity in America, let us not forget other parts of the world in which members from marginalized groups are living in impoverished conditions in addition to being exposed to heinous acts of discrimination and racism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Racism Should Be Seen As A Global Issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent viral footage of inhumane treatment of African women in Ukraine sparks a discussion about why racism should be addressed as a global issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should male athletes who identify as transgender compete in women's sports?

If you've listened to any major news outlets recently, you'd hear a resounding "yes." Athletes who identify as-then compete against-the opposite sex are often celebrated in the media.

Collegiate athlete Lia Thomas, a male swimmer from the University of Pennsylvania, was applauded after winning the NCAA women's championship in the 500-yard freestyle in March 2022. CeCe Telfer, a male runner, was similarly commended after winning the NCAA Division II national championship in the women's 400-meter hurdles in 2019. And the media cheered as Laurel Hubbard, a 43-year-old male weightlifter from New Zealand, became the first athlete to compete against the opposite sex in the Olympics during the 2021 Tokyo Games.

You'll notice that all these athletes have one thing in common: they are all males competing in women's sports. It's not often that you hear of a controversy involving female athletes competing in men's sports. And the reason for that is simple and obvious: males have a physical advantage over females in athletics.

But those who simply state this truth are often met with vile attacks online and in the media. That's because the fact that men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses has become taboo in our culture today. But this difference isn't a bad thing-and it's necessary that we recognize it to preserve the integrity of women's sports.

Below, we'll unpack why male athletes have immense physical advantages over female athletes and how women are harmed when they are forced to compete against men.

Is it fair for males to compete in women's sports? Here's the science.

Is it fair for male athletes to compete against female athletes? No. And that answer isn't just based on common sense-the science is conclusive.

Some activists claim that males who receive cross-sex hormones and artificially lower their testosterone levels should be allowed to compete against females. But recent studies have proven that these methods do not negate the performance gap between the sexes. Forcing females to compete against males strips them of their right to a fair playing field.

An expert report by Dr. Gregory A. Brown, an exercise science professor at the University of Nebraska, sheds some light on how policies that allow men to compete against women harm female athletes.

Dr. Brown cites research showing that allowing males to compete against female athletes in track and field could allow "many who would not be considered top tier male performers" to replace the world's most skilled female athletes on the podium. For example, in 2017 alone, well over 5,000 males, including some under 18 years old, ran 400-meter times that were faster than the personal bests of U.S. Olympic gold medalists Sanya Richards-Ross and Allyson Felix.

Dr. Brown's report shows that policies allowing males to compete in women's sports would do even greater harm to female athletes in a variety of other sports.

Similarly gifted and trained males have physical advantages over females-from greater height and weight and larger, longer, and stronger bones to larger muscles and higher rates of metabolizing and releasing energy. These innate physiological traits result in greater muscle strength; stronger throwing, hitting, and kicking; higher jumping; and faster running speeds for males, all of which create an athletic edge over females.

For example, despite greater body weight, males have a roughly 15-20 percent jumping advantage over women. When examining the vertical jump needed in volleyball, one study found that on average male players jumped 50 percent higher during an "attack" at the net than female players.

Even if male athletes are receiving androgen inhibitors and cross-sex hormones, it will not reverse the distinct advantage males have over females.

In another report, Dr. Brown elaborates: "[I]t is obvious that some effects of male puberty that confer advantages for athletic performance-in particular bone size and configuration-cannot be reversed once they have occurred." He goes on to demonstrate how puberty creates height and mass differences that provide a significant athletic advantage for males. And no amount of testosterone blockers can compensate for that advantage.

Dr. Brown also cites five separate studies to further prove this point. One study was even conducted by researchers who were sympathetic to transgender ideology. But despite the researchers' personal opinions, the scientific facts required them to recognize that the irreversible physical differences between males and females "provide a strong argument that [males] have an intolerable advantage over [females]."

For the past several decades, female athletes have seen their opportunities grow steadily. The average number of collegiate women's sports teams has more than tripled since Congress passed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

And in that same time span, women have also been given the opportunity to compete in more events at the Olympics. In fact, many of America's most famous Olympic athletes are women, such as Serena Williams, Simone Biles, and Katie Ledecky.

But Dr. Brown's research shows that if female athletes are forced to compete against males, even these Olympians would not have a fair chance to compete. And young girls would never get the opportunity to fulfill their dreams, no matter how hard they work.

Title IX and the history of women's sports

In today's world, it's difficult to imagine that there was a time when women and girls didn't have many opportunities to play sports.

But before the 1970s, the concept of women's sports was not widespread at all. In fact, sporting events for girls were almost nonexistent. During the 1971-1972 school year, only 7 percent of high school athletes were girls. In the 2010-2011 school year, by comparison, girls made up over 41 percent of all high school athletes.

So, what changed after 1972?

Congress passed Title IX-a piece of legislation intended to give women and girls equal opportunities in education. Since its passage into law, women have been given exponentially more opportunities to play organized sports.

Title IX changed the game and opened many new opportunities for women and girls.

Males have taken titles from female athletes

Scientific studies are a great resource in showing that males have a biological advantage over females in athletics, but we don't need a study to tell us just how discouraging it is for female athletes to compete and lose to males.

Since 2017, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) has allowed males who identify as girls to compete in high school women's sports, putting female athletes at an automatic disadvantage in their own sports.

Selina Soule is one such athlete. Selina is a dedicated sprinter. When she competed in high school, she devoted countless days, nights, and weekends to train in order to shave mere fractions of a second off her race times. She trains to win. But when she stepped up to the starting blocks at the beginning of a race, she knew that the odds were against her.

Since the CIAC's policy change, male athletes who identity as female won race after race, collecting state titles along the way. In fact, since the CIAC changed its policy, two male athletes have taken 15 state titles that were previously held by nine different girls in 2016.

Here are just a few of these championship titles:

At the 2018 CIAC State Open Championship, two males took first and second place in the women's varsity 100-meter dash.

At the 2019 Indoor Track Championship, a male athlete won both the women's 55-meter dash and the women's 300-meter dash.

At the 2019 CIAC Combined State Open Championship, a male athlete won the women's 200-meter dash.

Beyond the state level, one of these male athletes went on to win the women's 200-meter dash at the 2019 New England Interscholastic Track and Field Championships.

It shouldn't be surprising that male athletes can outrun female athletes.

What is surprising is that officials from the CIAC are allowing males to deprive so many girls of the championship titles they've trained so hard to achieve. They're stripping girls of opportunities-not just on race day but for their future college scholarships, athletic careers, and more.

After months of training for the 55-meter dash, Selina placed just one spot away from qualifying for the final and a chance to compete for a spot in the New England regional championships, where many college scouts attend.

Two male athletes had taken first and second in that race. Had they not been permitted to do so, Selina likely would have competed at the regional championships in front of college scouts.

States are passing bills addressing transgender athletes in women's sports

Selina is far from the only female athlete who has been forced to compete against males. And Connecticut is far from the only state where this is happening.

Thankfully, many states are taking a stand for fairness in women's sports. States including Mississippi, Montana, Arkansas, and Florida passed legislation that keep males from competing against women.

For example, in 2020, Idaho passed the Fairness in Women's Sports Act. This law ensures that only females are competing in sports designated for girls and women.

Shortly after Idaho passed the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit. It is attempting to strike down the law and subject female athletes to unfair competitive conditions that prioritize gender ideology over biological realities.

Similarly, in 2021, West Virginia passed a law to protect athletes like Lainey Armistead. Like Selina, Lainey has been fiercely dedicated to her sport since childhood-in her case, soccer. "I have made many sacrifices over the course of my athletic career to play the sport that I love," she explains.

But soon after West Virginia passed this commonsense law to ensure a level playing field for athletes like Lainey, the ACLU sued yet again. Alliance Defending Freedom filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Lainey.

Thankfully, in January of 2023, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lainey and dissolved the preliminary injunction that was initially put in place, allowing the Save Women's Sports Act to go fully into effect.

But the ACLU appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which granted a temporary injunction to allow a young male athlete in West Virginia to compete against women while the case is on appeal.

ADF is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the 4th Circuit's injunction and make it clear that West Virginia is free to allow only female athletes to compete in women's sports.

Athletic events that allow males to compete against women

Men and women are not interchangeable. It's a fact of both science and common sense that they differ in many ways. And when males who identify as female are permitted to compete in women's sports, it is women and girls who suffer.

Female athletes in contact sports face safety risks when they are forced to compete against males. And women and girls across the board will see their athletic and academic opportunities limited. They will be stepping up to compete knowing that they do not have a fair chance to win. And for many women, athletics are their best bet for a college scholarship.

Below is a list of 25 different sports leagues and conferences that have allowed males to compete in women's sports.

And this list is likely not even exhaustive.

1. Women's basketball - A 50-year-old, 6-foot-6-inch man, who played on a college men's team 30 years prior, has played on a women's junior college basketball team.

2. Women's beach handball - A male athlete, who formerly played on an NCAA Division III women's soccer team, has also played for Team USA Women's Beach Handball.

3. Women's bodybuilding - A male who had competed in men's bodybuilding in the past started competing as a woman.

4. Women's cricket - Two male athletes have competed on women's cricket teams, one in Australia and one in England.

5. Women's cross country - A male runner has competed on an NCAA Division I women's cross country team and was once named the conference's "Women's Athlete of the Week."

6. Women's cycling - Several male athletes have participated in women's cycling events (examples here and here).

7. Women's dance - A male dancer is training to dance professionally as a female ballerina.

8. Women's dodgeball - A male athlete who once competed on the Canadian men's dodgeball team later competed on Canada's women's team.

9. Women's football - Several male athletes who had previously competed on men's football teams have also competed in women's football (examples here and here).

10. Women's golf - A male athlete was approved to compete in the Ladies European Tour in 2004. And another male athlete was permitted to compete in the 2020 Women's World Long Drive Competition.

11. Women's hockey - A male hockey player participates in the Canadian Women's Hockey League.

12. Women's MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) - A male MMA fighter who competes as a woman broke a female opponent's eye socket and gave her a concussion.

13. Women's powerlifting - A male powerlifter competed as a female and broke several records before being disqualified.

14. Women's roller derby - A male athlete has been part of a women's roller derby team that won the world championships three times. And another male athlete is poised to be the next women's roller derby star.

15. Women's rowing - Two male athletes were part of a rowing team that competed in a women's boat race in Canada.

16. Women's rugby - Several male athletes compete on women's rugby teams. One has even been celebrated for injuring female opponents.

17. Women's running - Three male runners were permitted to qualify and race as women at the 2018 Boston Marathon.

18. Women's soccer - A male athlete earned a spot on an NCAA Division III women's soccer team.

19. Women's softball - A male high school student earned one of 15 spots on the girls' varsity softball team.

20. Women's swimming - A male swimmer competed on the men's team for three years before competing on the women's team.

21. Women's tennis - This male tennis player competed in the 1977 U.S. Open as a woman.

22. Women's track and field - Two male athletes dominated the girls' high school competitions in Connecticut. A male athlete in Alaska competed and placed at the girls' state championships. And another male college athlete won the 400-meter hurdles at the NCAA Division II women's national championships.

23. Women's volleyball - A male athlete has competed on an NCAA Division III women's volleyball team. Male athletes have also competed on women's professional teams in the U.S. and Brazil.

24. Women's weightlifting - This Australian weightlifter set masters world records in the women's category despite being a male.

25. Women's wrestling - A male has competed in women's professional wrestling.

We cannot pretend this isn't happening.

The end of women's sports?

While some female athletes have taken a brave stand for fairness in women's sports, many others have been hesitant to speak out. And it's no wonder why.

Those who dare to question whether males should be allowed to compete against females are ridiculed and bullied. Activists lashed out against tennis legend Martina Navratilova when she wrote that it's "cheating" for a man to compete as a woman.

Likewise, when Selina and other female competitors have voiced their criticism, they have been portrayed as sore losers.

Since when does speaking the truth make you a sore loser?

It is a physiological fact that men and women are built differently. Men have more muscle mass and a higher bone density, making them physically stronger than women.

And as Navratilova pointed out, "Simply reducing hormone levels - the prescription most sports have adopted - does not solve the problem. A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood. Training increases the discrepancy."

No amount of training can change the fact that males have a physiological advantage over females in most sports.

That's why we have separate men's and women's sports. But somehow, the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurry. And women and girls are suffering the consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Male Athletes Who Identify as Transgender Should Not Compete in Women's Sports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should transgender athletes compete in women's sports? Here's why males will always have an advantage over females in athletics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
International Trade Administration | Trade.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The solid waste management sector in India has witnessed significant growth in recent years due to the government's push towards cleanliness and sanitation. Increasing population and rapid urbanization have resulted in a substantial increase in the amount of waste generated, leading to the need for efficient and sustainable waste management practices. The government's Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) has provided a boost to the sector, resulting in a surge in demand for waste management solutions. The market for solid waste management in India is expected to grow at a CAGR of 7.5% during the forecast period (2021-2026), driven by factors such as increasing urbanization, rising awareness of waste management, and growing investments in waste management infrastructure.

Market Overview:

Due to rapid urbanization, economic growth and higher rates of urban consumption, India is among the world's top 10 countries generating municipal solid waste (MSW). According to a report by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), India generates over 62 million tons (MT) of waste in a year. Only 43 MT of total waste generated gets collected, with 12 MT being treated before disposal, and the remaining 31 MT simply discarded in wasteyards. Most of the waste generated remains untreated and even unaccounted for. Inadequate waste collection, transport, treatment, and disposal have become major causes for environmental and public health concerns in the country.

A study featured in the Journal of Urban Management (December 2021) reports that the 62 MT of waste generated annually includes 7.9 MT of hazardous waste, 5.6 MT of plastic waste, 1.5 MT of e-waste, and 0.17 MT of biomedical waste. The Indian Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) recently projected that annual waste generation in India will increase to 165 MT by 2030. Hazardous, plastic, e-waste, and bio-medical waste generated is expected to increase proportionately, as well.

The market for solid waste management in India can be segmented into various categories, such as collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal. The collection and transportation segments account for the largest share of the market due to the lack of proper collection and transportation infrastructure. The treatment and disposal segments are expected to witness significant growth during the forecast period due to the increasing focus on sustainable waste management practices.

In India solid waste management (SWM) has been traditionally viewed as the responsibility of local municipal authorities or urban local bodies (ULBs). However, very few municipal authorities have set up proper waste processing centers, while even fewer have adequate waste disposal facilities in place. For reasons ranging from poor financial resources to lack of scientific and technical knowledge of waste management, municipal governments in most Indian cities struggle to manage the solid waste generated in their respective cities.

Over the past decade the government of India, in collaboration with state governments and union territories (UTs), has initiated projects such as the Swachh Bharat mission in 2014 and the development of 100 smart cities across the country, initiated in 2015. With the three basic principles of circular economy (i.e., reduce, reuse, and recycle) in mind, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change also amended India's SWM rules in 2016. These initiatives, combined with strict enforcement of the updated SWM rules by the CPCB, encourage every ULB in India to develop integrated waste management systems, wet and dry segregation, source-specific collection, home composting/biomethanation, and material and energy recovery from waste.

However, there is substantial variation in technologies adopted for SWM across different states and UTs in India. For example, composting as a technology for solid waste processing has been adopted by all 28 states and 8 UTs, but waste-to-energy (W2E) plants have been set up in only 10 states/UTs and biomethanation can only be found in 22 states/UTs in the country.

Conclusion:

The solid waste management sector in India is expected to witness significant growth in the coming years, driven by factors such as increasing urbanization, rising awareness of waste management, and growing investments in waste management infrastructure.

U.S. companies offering innovative technologies, equipment, and cost-efficient waste handling systems and solutions - especially for waste sorting; recycling of plastic, tire, e-waste, and batteries; construction waste management, landfill design and technologies; and solutions generating energy from waste - will find multiple opportunities in India.

For entry into the Indian market, U.S. companies are advised to identify quality partners who understand the market and are well-versed in procurement issues. Strategic planning, due diligence, and consistent follow-ups are required for doing business successfully in India.

U.S. companies may consider the following local trade shows to showcase their technologies and meet Indian business partners:

The experienced U.S. Commercial Service team in India can assist with market entry or expansion in the Indian subcontinent. U.S. businesses providing technologies and solutions in the sector and interested in the India market should contact their nearest U.S. domestic office or the environment technologies team at the U.S. Commercial Service in India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The increasing importance of scientific and efficient management of solid waste in India presents opportunities for U.S. technology companies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.

The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).

All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage in the accident - 2719 MWe net.

After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid-December.

Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.

There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the return of many.

Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami.

The Great East Japan Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 did considerable damage in the region, and the large tsunami it created caused very much more. The earthquake was centred 130 km offshore the city of Sendai in Miyagi prefecture on the eastern coast of Honshu Island (the main part of Japan), and was a rare and complex double quake giving a severe duration of about 3 minutes. An area of the seafloor extending 650 km north-south moved typically 10-20 metres horizontally. Japan moved a few metres east and the local coastline subsided half a metre. The tsunami inundated about 560 km ² and resulted in a human death toll of about 19,500 and much damage to coastal ports and towns, with over a million buildings destroyed or partly collapsed.

Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake. The operating units which shut down were Tokyo Electric Power Company's (Tepco's) Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, 3, and Fukushima Daini 1, 2, 3, 4, Tohoku's Onagawa 1, 2, 3, and Japco's Tokai, total 9377 MWe net. Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5&6 were not operating at the time, but were affected. The main problem initially centred on Fukushima Daiichi 1-3. Unit 4 became a problem on day five.

The reactors proved robust seismically, but vulnerable to the tsunami. Power, from grid or backup generators, was available to run the residual heat removal (RHR) system cooling pumps at eight of the eleven units, and despite some problems they achieved 'cold shutdown' within about four days. The other three, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power at 3.42 pm, almost an hour after the earthquake, when the entire site was flooded by the 15-metre tsunami. This disabled 12 of 13 backup generators onsite and also the heat exchangers for dumping reactor waste heat and decay heat to the sea. The three units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions. Electrical switchgear was also disabled. Thereafter, many weeks of focused work centred on restoring heat removal from the reactors and coping with overheated spent fuel ponds. This was undertaken by hundreds of Tepco employees as well as some contractors, supported by firefighting and military personnel. Some of the Tepco staff had lost homes, and even families, in the tsunami, and were initially living in temporary accommodation under great difficulty and privation, with some personal risk. A hardened onsite emergency response centre was unable to be used in grappling with the situation, due to radioactive contamination.

Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami, but there have been no fatalities from the nuclear accident.

Among hundreds of aftershocks, an earthquake with magnitude 7.1, closer to Fukushima than the 11 March one, was experienced on 7 April, but without further damage to the plant. On 11 April a magnitude 7.1 earthquake and on 12 April a magnitude 6.3 earthquake, both with the epicentre at Fukushima-Hamadori, caused no further problems.

The two Fukushima plants and their siting

The Daiichi (first) and Daini (second) Fukushima plants are sited about 11 km apart on the coast, Daini to the south.

The recorded seismic data for both plants - some 180 km from the epicentre - shows that 550 Gal (0.56 g) was the maximum ground acceleration for Daiichi, and 254 Gal was maximum for Daini. Daiichi units 2, 3 and 5 exceeded their maximum response acceleration design basis in an east-west direction by about 20%. The recording was over 130-150 seconds. (All nuclear plants in Japan are built on rock - ground acceleration was around 2000 Gal a few kilometres north, on sediments).

The original design basis tsunami height was 3.1 m for Daiichi based on assessment of the 1960 Chile tsunami and so the plant had been built about 10 metres above sea level with the seawater pumps 4 m above sea level. The Daini plant was built 13 metres above sea level. In 2002 the design basis was revised to 5.7 metres above, and the seawater pumps were sealed. In the event, tsunami heights coming ashore were about 15 metres, and the Daiichi turbine halls were under some 5 metres of seawater until levels subsided. Daini was less affected. The maximum amplitude of this tsunami was 23 metres at point of origin, about 180 km from Fukushima.

In the last century there have been eight tsunamis in the region with maximum amplitudes at origin above 10 metres (some much more), these having arisen from earthquakes of magnitude 7.7 to 8.4, on average one every 12 years. Those in 1983 and in 1993 were the most recent affecting Japan, with maximum heights at origin of 14.5 metres and 31 metres respectively, both induced by magnitude 7.7 earthquakes. The June 1896 earthquake of estimated magnitude 8.3 produced a tsunami with run-up height of 38 metres in Tohoku region, killing more than 27,000 people.

The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed and sited in the 1960s were considered acceptable in relation to the scientific knowledge then, with low recorded run-up heights for that particular coastline. But some 18 years before the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge had emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami of some 15.7 metres at the Daiichi site. However, this had not yet led to any major action by either the plant operator, Tepco, or government regulators, notably the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Discussion was ongoing, but action minimal. The tsunami countermeasures could also have been reviewed in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines which required taking into account high tsunami levels, but NISA continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures such as moving the backup generators up the hill, sealing the lower part of the buildings, and having some back-up for seawater pumps, despite clear warnings.

A report from the Japanese government's Earthquake Research Committee on earthquakes and tsunamis off the Pacific coastline of northeastern Japan in February 2011 was due for release in April, and might finally have brought about changes. The document includes analysis of a magnitude 8.3 earthquake that is known to have struck the region more than 1140 years ago, triggering enormous tsunamis that flooded vast areas of Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. The report concludes that the region should be alerted of the risk of a similar disaster striking again. The 11 March earthquake measured magnitude 9.0 and involved substantial shifting of multiple sections of seabed over a source area of 200 x 400 km. Tsunami waves devastated wide areas of Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures.
(See also background on Earthquakes and Seismic Protection for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan)
Events at Fukushima Daiichi 1-3 & 4

It appears that no serious damage was done to the reactors by the earthquake, and the operating units 1-3 were automatically shut down in response to it, as designed. At the same time all six external power supply sources were lost due to earthquake damage, so the emergency diesel generators located in the basements of the turbine buildings started up. Initially cooling would have been maintained through the main steam circuit bypassing the turbine and going through the condensers.

Then 41 minutes later, at 3:42 pm, the first tsunami wave hit, followed by a second 8 minutes later. These submerged and damaged the seawater pumps for both the main condenser circuits and the auxiliary cooling circuits, notably the residual heat removal (RHR) cooling system. They also drowned the diesel generators and inundated the electrical switchgear and batteries, all located in the basements of the turbine buildings (the one surviving air-cooled generator was serving units 5&6). So there was a station blackout, and the reactors were isolated from their ultimate heat sink. The tsunamis also damaged and obstructed roads, making outside access difficult.

All this put reactors 1-3 in a dire situation and led the authorities to order, and subsequently extend, an evacuation while engineers worked to restore power and cooling. The 125-volt DC back-up batteries for units 1&2 were flooded and failed, leaving them without instrumentation, control or lighting. Unit 3 had battery power for about 30 hours.

At 7:03 pm Friday 11 March a nuclear emergency was declared, and at 8:50pm the Fukushima prefecture issued an evacuation order for people within 2 km of the plant. At 9:23 pm the prime minister extended this to 3 km, and at 5:44 am on 12 March he extended it to 10 km. He visited the plant soon after. Later on Saturday 12 March he extended the evacuation zone to 20 km.

Inside the Fukushima Daiichi reactors

The Fukushima Daiichi reactors were GE boiling water reactors (BWRs) of an early (1960s) design supplied by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi, with what is known as a Mark I containment. Reactors 1-3 came into commercial operation 1971-75. Reactor capacity was 460 MWe for unit 1, 784 MWe for units 2-5, and 1100 MWe for unit 6.

When the power failed at 3:42 pm, about one hour after shutdown of the fission reactions, the reactor cores would still have been producing about 1.5% of their nominal thermal power, from fission product decay - about 22 MW in unit 1 and 33 MW in units 2&3. Without heat removal by circulation to an outside heat exchanger, this produced a lot of steam in the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) housing the cores, and this was released into the dry primary containment (PCV) through safety valves. Later this was accompanied by hydrogen, produced by the interaction of the fuel's very hot zirconium cladding with steam after the water level dropped.

As pressure started to rise here, the steam was directed into the suppression chamber/wetwell under the reactor, within the containment, but the internal temperature and pressure nevertheless rose quite rapidly. Water injection commenced, using the various systems provide for this and finally the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). These systems progressively failed over three days, so from early Saturday water injection to the RPV was with fire pumps, but this required the internal pressures to be relieved initially by venting into the suppression chamber/wetwell. Seawater injection into unit 1 began at 7:00 pm on Saturday 12, into unit 3 on Sunday 13 and unit 2 on Monday 14. Tepco management ignored an instruction from the prime minister to cease the seawater injection into unit 1, and this instruction was withdrawn shortly afterwards.

Inside unit 1, it is understood that the water level dropped to the top of the fuel about three hours after the scram (about 6:00 pm) and the bottom of the fuel 1.5 hours later (7:30 pm). The temperature of the exposed fuel rose to some 2800°C so that the central part started to melt after a few hours and by 16 hours after the scram (7:00 am Saturday) most of it had fallen into the water at the bottom of the RPV. After that, RPV temperatures decreased steadily.

As pressure rose, attempts were made to vent the containment, and when external power and compressed air sources were harnessed this was successful, by about 2:30 pm Saturday, though some manual venting was apparently achieved at about 10:17 am. The venting was designed to be through an external stack, but in the absence of power much of it apparently backflowed to the service floor at the top of the reactor building, representing a serious failure of this system (though another possibility is leakage from the drywell). The vented steam, noble gases and aerosols were accompanied by hydrogen. At 3:36 pm on Saturday 12, there was a hydrogen explosion on the service floor of the building above unit 1 reactor containment, blowing off the roof and cladding on the top part of the building, after the hydrogen mixed with air and ignited. (Oxidation of the zirconium cladding at high temperatures in the presence of steam produces hydrogen exothermically, with this exacerbating the fuel decay heat problem.)

In unit 1 most of the core - as corium, composed of melted fuel and control rods - was assumed to be in the bottom of the RPV, but later it appeared that it had mostly gone through the bottom of the RPV and eroded about 65 cm into the drywell concrete below (which is 2.6 m thick). This reduced the intensity of the heat and enabled the mass to solidify.

Much of the fuel in units 2&3 also apparently melted to some degree, but to a lesser extent than in unit 1, and a day or two later. In mid-May 2011 the unit 1 core would still have been producing 1.8 MW of heat, and units 2&3 about 3.0 MW each.

In mid-2013 the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) confirmed that the earthquake itself had caused no damage to unit 1.

In unit 2, water injection using the steam-driven back-up water injection system failed on Monday 14, and it was about six hours before a fire pump started injecting seawater into the RPV. Before the fire pump could be used RPV pressure had to be relieved via the wetwell, which required power and nitrogen, hence the delay. Meanwhile the reactor water level dropped rapidly after backup cooling was lost, so that core damage started about 8 pm, and it is now understood that much of the fuel then melted and probably fell into the water at the bottom of the RPV about 100 hours after the scram. Pressure was vented on Sunday 13 and again on Tuesday 15, and meanwhile the blowout panel near the top of the building was opened to avoid a repetition of the hydrogen explosion at unit 1. Early on Tuesday 15, the pressure suppression chamber under the actual reactor seemed to rupture, possibly due to a hydrogen explosion there, and the drywell containment pressure inside dropped. However, subsequent inspection of the suppression chamber did not support the rupture interpretation. Later analysis suggested that a leak of the primary containment developed on Tuesday 15. Most of the radioactive releases from the site appeared to come from unit 2.

In unit 3, the main backup water injection system failed at about 11:00 am on Saturday 12, and early on Sunday 13 water injection using the high pressure system failedalsoand water levels dropped dramatically. RPV pressure was reduced by venting steam into the wetwell, allowing injection of seawater using a fire pump from just before noon. Early on Sunday venting the suppression chamber and containment was successfully undertaken. It is now understood that core damage started about 5:30 am and much or all of the fuel melted on the morning of Sunday 13 and fell into the bottom of the RPV, with some probably going through the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel and onto the concrete below.

Early on Monday 14 PCV venting was repeated, and this evidently backflowed to the service floor of the building, so that at 11:00 am a very large hydrogen explosion here above unit 3 reactor containment blew off much of the roof and walls and demolished the top part of the building. This explosion created a lot of debris, and some of that on the ground near unit 3 was very radioactive.

In defuelled unit 4, at about 6:00 am on Tuesday 15 March, there was an explosion which destroyed the top of the building and damaged unit 3's superstructure further. This was apparently from hydrogen arising in unit 3 and reaching unit 4 by backflow in shared ducts when vented from unit 3.

Units 1-3: Water had been injected into each of the three reactor units more or less continuously, and in the absence of normal heat removal via external heat exchanger this water was boiling off for some months. In the government report to the IAEA in June it was estimated that to the end of May about 40% of the injected water boiled off, and 60% leaked out the bottom. In June 2011 this was adding to the contaminated water onsite by about 500 m ³ per day. In January 2013 4.5 to 5.5 m ³/h was being added to each RPV via core spray and feedwater systems, hence 370 m ³ per day, and temperatures at the bottom of RPVs were 19 °C in unit 1 and 32 °C in units 2&3, at little above atmospheric pressure.

There was a peak of radioactive release on Tuesday 15, apparently mostly from unit 2, but the precise source remains uncertain. Due to volatile and easily-airborne fission products being carried with the hydrogen and steam, the venting and hydrogen explosions discharged a lot of radioactive material into the atmosphere, notably iodine and caesium. NISA said in June that it estimated that 800-1000 kg of hydrogen had been produced in each of the units.

Nitrogen was being injected into the PCVs of all three reactors to remove concerns about further hydrogen explosions, and in December this was started also for the pressure vessels. Gas control systems which extract and clean the gas from the PCV to avoid leakage of caesium were commissioned for all three units.

Throughout 2011 injection into the RPVs of water circulated through the new water treatment plant achieved relatively effective cooling, and temperatures at the bottom of the RPVs were stable in the range 60-76 °C at the end of October, and 27-54 °C in mid-January 2012. RPV pressures ranged from atmospheric to slightly above (102-109 kPa) in January, due to water and nitrogen injection. However, since they were leaking, the normal definition of 'cold shutdown' did not apply, and Tepco waited to bring radioactive releases under control before declaring 'cold shutdown condition' in mid-December, with NISA's approval. This, with the prime minister's announcement of it, formally brought to a close the 'accident' phase of events.

The AC electricity supply from external source was connected to all units by 22 March. Power was restored to instrumentation in all units except unit 3 by 25 March. However, radiation levels inside the plant were so high that normal access was impossible until June.

Event sequence following earthquake (timing from it: 14:46, 11 March)

By March 2016 total decay heat in units 1-3 had dropped to 1 MW for all three, about 1% of the original level, meaning that cooling water injection - then 100 m ³/d - could be interrupted for up to two days.

Results of muon measurements in unit 2 in 2016 indicate that most of the fuel debris in unit 2 is in the bottom of the reactor vessel.

Tepco has written off the four reactors damaged by the accident, and is decommissioning them.

Summary: Major fuel melting occurred early on in all three units, though the fuel remained essentially contained except for some volatile fission products vented early on, or released from unit 2 in mid-March, and some soluble ones which were leaking with the water, especially from unit 2, where the containment is evidently breached. Cooling is provided from external sources, using treated recycled water, with a stable heat removal path from the actual reactors to external heat sinks. Access has been gained to all three reactor buildings, but dose rates remain high inside. Tepco declared 'cold shutdown condition' in mid-December 2011 when radioactive releases had reduced to minimal levels.

(See also background on nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi.)

Fuel ponds: developing problems

Used fuel needs to be cooled and shielded. This is initially by water, in ponds. After about three years underwater, used fuel can be transferred to dry storage, with air ventilation simply by convection. Used fuel generates heat, so the water in ponds is circulated by electric pumps through external heat exchangers, so that the heat is dumped and a low temperature maintained. There are fuel ponds near the top of all six reactor buildings at the Daiichi plant, adjacent to the top of each reactor so that the fuel can be unloaded underwater when the top is off the reactor pressure vessel and it is flooded. The ponds hold some fresh fuel and some used fuel, the latter pending its transfer to the onsite central used/spent fuel storage. (There is some dry storage onsite to extend the plant's capacity.)

At the time of the accident, in addition to a large number of used fuel assemblies, unit 4's pond also held a full core load of 548 fuel assemblies while the reactor was undergoing maintenance, these having been removed at the end of November, and were to be replaced in the core.

A separate set of problems arose as the fuel ponds, holding fresh and used fuel in the upper part of the reactor structures, were found to be depleted in water. The primary cause of the low water levels was loss of cooling circulation to external heat exchangers, leading to elevated temperatures and probably boiling, especially in the heavily-loaded unit 4 fuel pond. Here the fuel would have been uncovered in about 7 days due to water boiling off. However, the fact that unit 4 was unloaded meant that there was a large inventory of water at the top of the structure, and enough of this replenished the fuel pond to prevent the fuel becoming uncovered - the minimum level reached was about 1.2 m above the fuel on about 22 April.

After the hydrogen explosion in unit 4 early on Tuesday 15 March, Tepco was told to implement injection of water to unit 4 pond which had a particularly high heat load (3 MW) from 1331 used fuel assemblies in it, so it was the main focus of concern. It needed the addition of about 100 m ³/day to replenish it after circulation ceased.

From Tuesday 15 March attention was given to replenishing the water in the ponds of units 1, 2&3 as well. Initially this was attempted with fire pumps but from 22 March a concrete pump with 58-metre boom enabled more precise targeting of water through the damaged walls of the service floors. There was some use of built-in plumbing for unit 2. Analysis of radionuclides in water from the used fuel ponds suggested that some of the fuel assemblies might have been damaged, but the majority were intact.

There was concern about the structural strength of unit 4 building, so support for the pond was reinforced by the end of July.

New cooling circuits with heat exchangers adjacent to the reactor buildings for all four ponds were commissioned after a few months, and each reduced the pool temperature from 70 °C to normal in a few days. Each has a primary circuit within the reactor and waste treatment buildings and a secondary circuit dumping heat through a small dry cooling tower outside the building.

The next task was to remove the salt from those ponds which had seawater added, to reduce the potential for corrosion.

In July 2012 two of the 204 fresh fuel assemblies were removed from the unit 4 pool and transferred to the central spent fuel pool for detailed inspection to check damage, particularly corrosion. They were found to have no deformation or corrosion. Unloading the 1331 spent fuel assemblies in pond 4 and transferring them to the central spent fuel pool commenced in mid-November 2013 and was completed 13 months later. These comprised 783 spent fuel plus the full fuel load of 548.

The next focus of attention was the unit 3 pool. In 2015 the damaged fuel handling equipment and other wreckage was removed from the destroyed upper level of the reactor building. Toshiba built a 74-tonne fuel handling machine for transferring the 566 fuel assemblies into casks and to remove debris in the pool, and a crane for lifting the fuel transfer casks. Installation of a cover over the fuel handling machine was completed in February 2018. Removal and transferral of the fuel to the central spent fuel pool began in mid-April 2019 and was completed at the end of February 2021.

The onsite central spent fuel pool in 2011 held about 60% of the Daiichi used fuel, and is immediately west (inland) of unit 4. It lost circulation with the power outage, and temperature increased to 73 °C by the time mains power and cooling were restored after two weeks. In late 2013 this pond, with capacity for 6840*, held 6375 fuel assemblies, the same as at the time of the accident. In June 2018, Tepco announced it would transfer some of the fuel assemblies stored in the central spent fuel pool to an onsite temporary dry storage facility to clear sufficient space for the fuel assemblies from unit 3's pool. The dry storage facility has a capacity of at least 2930 assemblies in 65 casks - each dry cask holds 50 fuel assemblies. Eventually these will be shipped to JNFL's Rokkasho reprocessing plant or to Recyclable Fuel Storage Company's Mutsu facility.

Summary: The spent fuel storage pools survived the earthquake, tsunami and hydrogen explosions without significant damage to the fuel, significant radiological release, or threat to public safety. The new cooling circuits with external heat exchangers for the four ponds are working well and temperatures are normal. Analysis of water has confirmed that most fuel rods are intact. All fuel assemblies have been removed from the unit 3&4 pools.

(See also background on Fukushima Fuel Ponds and Decommissioning section below.)

Radioactive releases to air

Regarding releases to air and also water leakage from Fukushima Daiichi, the main radionuclide from among the many kinds of fission products in the fuel was volatile iodine-131, which has a half-life of 8 days. The other main radionuclide is caesium-137, which has a 30-year half-life, is easily carried in a plume, and when it lands it may contaminate land for some time. It is a strong gamma-emitter in its decay. Cs-134 is also produced and dispersed; it has a two-year half-life. Caesium is soluble and can be taken into the body, but does not concentrate in any particular organs, and has a biological half-life of about 70 days. In assessing the significance of atmospheric releases, the Cs-137 figure is multiplied by 40 and added to the I-131 number to give an 'iodine-131 equivalent' figure.

As cooling failed on the first day, evacuations were progressively ordered, due to uncertainty about what was happening inside the reactors and the possible effects. By the evening of Saturday 12 March the evacuation zone had been extended to 20 km from the plant. From 20 to 30 km from the plant, the criterion of 20 mSv/yr dose rate was applied to determine evacuation, and is now the criterion for return being allowed. 20 mSv/yr was also the general limit set for children's dose rate related to outdoor activities, but there were calls to reduce this. In areas with 20-50 mSv/yr from April 2012 residency is restricted, with remediation action taken. See later section on Public health and return of evacuees.

A significant problem in tracking radioactive release was that 23 out of the 24 radiation monitoring stations on the plant site were disabled by the tsunami.

There is some uncertainty about the amount and exact sources of radioactive releases to air (see also background on Radiation Exposure).

Japan's regulator, the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), estimated in June 2011 that 770 PBq (iodine-131 equivalent) of radioactivity had been released, but the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC, a policy body) in August lowered this estimate to 570 PBq. The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent. Most of the release was by the end of March 2011.

Tepco sprayed a dust-suppressing polymer resin around the plant to ensure that fallout from mid-March was not mobilized by wind or rain. In addition it removed a lot of rubble with remote control front-end loaders, and this further reduced ambient radiation levels, halving them near unit 1. The highest radiation levels onsite came from debris left on the ground after the explosions at units 3&4.

Reactor covers

In mid-May 2011 work started towards constructing a cover over unit 1 to reduce airborne radioactive releases from the site, to keep out the rain, and to enable measurement of radioactive releases within the structure through its ventilation system. The frame was assembled over the reactor, enclosing an area 42 x 47 m, and 54 m high. The sections of the steel frame fitted together remotely without the use of screws and bolts. All the wall panels had a flameproof coating, and the structure had a filtered ventilation system capable of handling 40,000 cubic metres of air per hour through six lines, including two backup lines. The cover structure was fitted with internal monitoring cameras, radiation and hydrogen detectors, thermometers and a pipe for water injection. The cover was completed with ventilation systems working by the end of October 2011. It was expected to be needed for two years. In May 2013 Tepco announced its more permanent replacement, to be built over four years. It started demolishing the 2011 cover in 2014 and finished in 2016. In December 2019 it decided to install the replacement cover before removing debris from the top floor of the building. A crane and other equipment for fuel removal will be installed under the cover, similar to that over unit 4.

More substantial covers were designed to fit around units 3&4 reactor buildings after the top floors were cleared up in 2012.

A cantilevered structure was built over unit 4 from April 2012 to July 2013 to enable recovery of the contents of the spent fuel pond. This is a 69 x 31 m cover (53 m high) and it was fully equipped by the end of 2013 to enable unloading of used fuel from the storage pond into casks, each holding 22 fuel assemblies, and removal of the casks. This operation was accomplished under water, using the new fuel handling machine (replacing the one destroyed by the hydrogen explosion) so that the used fuel could be transferred to the central storage onsite. Transfer was completed in December 2014. A video of the process is available on Tepco's website.

A different design of cover was built over unit 3, and foundation work began in 2012. Large rubble removal took place from 2013 to 2015, including the damaged fuel handling machine. An arched cover was prefabricated, 57 m long and 19 m wide, and supported by the turbine building on one side and the ground on the other. A crane removed the 566 fuel assemblies from the pool and some remaining rubble. Spent fuel removal from unit 3 pool began in April 2019 and was completed in February 2021. Spent fuel removal from units 1&2 pools was scheduled in 2018, but is now scheduled to begin in 2023.

Maps from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tehcnology (MEXT) aerial surveys carried out approximately one year apart show the reduction in contamination from late 2011 to late 2012. Areas with colour changes in 2012 showed approximately half the contamination as surveyed in 2011, the difference coming from decay of caesium-134 (two-year half-life) and natural processes like wind and rain. In blue areas, ambient radiation is very similar to global background levels at <0.5 microsieverts per hour, which is equal to <4.4 mSv/yr.

Tests on radioactivity in rice have been made and caesium was found in a few of them. The highest levels were about one-quarter of the allowable limit of 500 Bq/kg, so shipments to market are permitted.

Summary: Major releases of radionuclides, including long-lived caesium, occurred to air, mainly in mid-March. The population within a 20km radius had been evacuated three days earlier. Considerable work was done to reduce the amount of radioactive debris onsite and to stabilize dust. The main source of radioactive releases was the apparent hydrogen explosion in the suppression chamber of unit 2 on 15 March. A cover building for unit 1 reactor was built and the unit is now being dismantled, a more substantial one for unit 4 was built to enable fuel removal during 2014. Radioactive releases in mid-August 2011 had reduced to 5 GBq/hr, and dose rate from these at the plant boundary was 1.7 mSv/yr, less than natural background.

Sequence of evacuation orders based on the report by The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission:

11 March
14:46 JST The earthquake occurred.
15:42 TEPCO made the first emergency report to the government.
19:03 The government announced nuclear emergency.
20:50 The Fukushima Prefecture Office ordered 2km radius evacuation.
21:23 The government ordered 3km evacuation and to keep staying inside buildings in the area of 3-10km radius.

12 March
05:44 The government ordered 10km radius evacuation.
18:25 The government ordered 20km evacuation.

15 March
11:01 The government ordered to keep staying inside buildings in the area of 20-30km from the plant.

25 March The government requested voluntary evacuation in the area of 20-30km.

21 April The government set the 20km radius no-go area.

Radiation exposure on the plant site

By the end of 2011, Tepco had checked the radiation exposure of 19,594 people who had worked on the site since 11 March. For many of these both external dose and internal doses (measured with whole-body counters) were considered. It reported that 167 workers had received doses over 100 mSv. Of these 135 had received 100 to 150 mSv, twenty-three 150-200 mSv, three more 200-250 mSv, and six had received over 250 mSv (309 to 678 mSv) apparently due to inhaling iodine-131 fumes early on. The latter included the units 3&4 control room operators in the first two days who had not been wearing breathing apparatus. There were up to 200 workers onsite each day. Recovery workers wear personal monitors, with breathing apparatus and protective clothing which protect against alpha and beta radiation. The level of 250 mSv was the allowable maximum short-term dose for Fukushima Daiichi accident clean-up workers through to December 2011, 500 mSv is the international allowable short-term dose "for emergency workers taking life-saving actions". In January 2012 the allowable maximum reverted to 50 mSv/yr.

No radiation casualties (acute radiation syndrome) occurred, and few other injuries, though higher than normal doses, were being accumulated by several hundred workers onsite. High radiation levels in the three reactor buildings hindered access there.

Monitoring of seawater, soil and atmosphere is at 25 locations on the plant site, 12 locations on the boundary, and others further afield. Government and IAEA monitoring of air and seawater is ongoing. Some high but not health-threatening levels of iodine-131 were found in March, but with an eight-day half-life, most I-131 had gone by the end of April 2011.

A radiation survey map of the site made in March 2013 revealed substantial progress: the highest dose rate anywhere on the site was 0.15 mSv/h near units 3 and 4. (Soon after the accident a similar survey put the highest dose rate at 300 mSv/h near rubble lying alongside unit 3.) The majority of the power plant area was at less than 0.01 mSv/h. These reduced levels are reflected in worker doses: during January 2013, the 5702 workers at the site received an average of 0.86 mSv, with 75% of workers recorded as receiving less than 1 mSv. In total, only about 2% of workers received over 5 mSv and the highest dose in January was 12.65 mSv for one worker.

Media reports have referred to 'nuclear gypsies' - casual workers employed by subcontractors on a short-term basis, and allegedly prone to receiving higher and unsupervised radiation doses. This transient workforce has been part of the nuclear scene for at least four decades, and at Fukushima their doses are very rigorously monitored. If they reach certain levels, e.g. 30 mSv but varying according to circumstance, they are reassigned to lower-exposure areas.

Tepco figures submitted to the NRA for the period to end January 2014 showed 173 workers had received more than 100 mSv (six more than two years earlier) and 1578 had received 50 to 100 mSv. This was among a total of 32,024, 64% more than had worked there two years earlier. Since April 2013 none of the 13,154 who had worked onsite had received more than 50 mSv, and 96% of these had less than a 20 mSv dose. Early in 2014 there were about 4000 onsite each weekday.

Summary: Six workers received radiation doses apparently over the 250 mSv level set by NISA, but at levels below those which would cause radiation sickness.

Radiation exposure and fallout beyond the plant site

On 4 April 2011, radiation levels of 0.06 mSv/day were recorded in Fukushima city, 65 km northwest of the plant, about 60 times higher than normal but posing no health risk according to authorities. Monitoring beyond the 20 km evacuation radius to 13 April showed one location - around Iitate - with up to 0.266 mSv/day dose rate, but elsewhere no more than one-tenth of this. At the end of July the highest level measured within 30km radius was 0.84 mSv/day in Namie town, 24 km away. The safety limit set by the central government in mid-April for public recreation areas was 3.8 microsieverts per hour (0.09 mSv/day).

In June 2013, analysis from Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) showed that the most contaminated areas in the Fukushima evacuation zone had reduced in size by three-quarters over the previous two years. The area subject to high dose rates (over 166 mSv/yr) diminished from 27% of the 1117 km ² zone to 6% over 15 months to March 2013, and in the 'no residence' portion (originally 83-166 mSv/yr) no areas remained at this level and 70% was below 33 mSv/yr. The least-contaminated area is now entirely below 33 mSv/yr.

In August 2011 The Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Radioactive Pollution was enacted and it took full effect from January 2012 as the main legal instrument to deal with all remediation activities in the affected areas, as well as the management of materials removed as a result of those activities. It specified two categories of land:
Special Decontamination Areas consisting of the 'restricted areas' located within a 20 km radius from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and 'deliberate evacuation areas' where the annual cumulative dose for individuals was anticipated to exceed 20 mSv. The national government promotes decontamination in these areas. These areas are subdivided into three: dose 1-20 mSv/yr (green); dose 20-50 mSv/yr (yellow); and dose over 50 mSv/yr and over 20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 years (red).
Intensive Contamination Survey Areas including the so-called Decontamination Implementation Areas, where an additional annual cumulative dose between 1 mSv and 20 mSv was estimated for individuals. Municipalities implement decontamination activities in these areas.

Following a detailed study by 80 international experts, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation's (UNSCEAR's) May 2013 Report to the General Assembly concluded: "No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident. The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants."

However, the report noted: "More than 160 additional workers received effective doses currently estimated to be over 100 mSv, predominantly from external exposures. Among this group, an increased risk of cancer would be expected in the future. However, any increased incidence of cancer in this group is expected to be indiscernible because of the difficulty of confirming such a small incidence against the normal statistical fluctuations in cancer incidence."

These workers are individually monitored annually for potential late radiation-related health effects. UNSCEAR's follow-up white paper in October 2015 said that none of the new information appraised after the 2013 report "materially affected the main findings or challenged the major assumptions of the 2013 Fukushima report."

By contrast, the public was exposed to 10-50 times less radiation. Most Japanese people were exposed to additional radiation amounting to less than the typical natural background level of 2.1 mSv per year.

In 2018 UNSCEAR decided to update the 2013 report to reflect the latest findings. In March 2021, UNSCEAR published its 2020 Report, which broadly confirms the major findings and conclusions of the 2013 report. The 2020 Report states: "No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. The Committee's revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible."

People living in Fukushima prefecture are expected to be exposed to around 10 mSv over their entire lifetimes, while for those living further away the dose would be 0.2 mSv per year. The UNSCEAR conclusion reinforces the findings of several international reports to date, including one from the World Health Organization (WHO) that considered the health risk to the most exposed people possible: a postulated girl under one year of age living in Iitate or Namie that did not evacuate and continued life as normal for four months after the accident. Such a child's theoretical risk of developing any cancer would be increased only marginally, according to the WHO's analysis.

Despite the conclusions of reports from UNSCEAR and the WHO, the Japanese government in 2018 acknowledged a connection between the death of a former plant worker and radiation exposure. The man had been diagnosed with lung cancer in February 2016.

Eleven municipalities in the former restricted zone or planned evacuation area, within 20 km of the plant or where annual cumulative radiation dose is greater than 20 mSv, are designated 'special decontamination areas', where decontamination work is being implemented by the government. A further 100 municipalities in eight prefectures, where dose rates are equivalent to over 1 mSv per year are classed as 'intensive decontamination survey areas', where decontamination is being implemented by each municipality with funding and technical support from the national government. Decontamination of all 11 special decontamination areas has been completed.

In October 2013 a 16-member IAEA mission reported on remediation and decontamination in the special decontamination areas. Its preliminary report said that decontamination efforts were commendable but driven by unrealistic targets. If annual radiation dose was below 20 mSv, such as generally in intensive decontamination survey areas, this level was "acceptable and in line with the international standards and with the recommendations from the relevant international organizations, e.g. ICRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR and WHO." The clear implication was that people in such areas should be allowed to return home. Furthermore the government should increase efforts to communicate this to the public, and should explain that its long-term goal of achieving an additional individual dose of 1 mSv/yr is unrealistic and unnecessary in the short term. Also, there is potential to produce more food safely in contaminated areas.

Radioactivity, primarily from caesium-137, in the evacuation zone and other areas beyond it has been reported in terms of kBq/kg (compared with kBq/m ² around Chernobyl. A total of 3000 km was contaminated above 180 kBq/m ², compared with 29,400 km from Chernobyl). However the main measure has been presumed doses in mSv/yr. The government has adopted 20 mSv/yr as its goal for the evacuation zone and more contaminated areas outside it, and supports municipal government work to reduce levels below that. The total area under consideration for attention is 13,000 km ². In 2016 the Ministry of Environment announced that material with less than 8 kBq/kg caesium would no longer be specified as waste, and subject to restrictions on disposal. It allowed use of contaminated soil for embankments, where the activity was less then 8 kBq/kg, and unrestricted use if less than 100 Bq/kg. Most of the stored wastes have decayed to below the 8 kBq/kg level.

Summary: There have been no harmful effects from radiation on local people, nor any doses approaching harmful levels. However, some 160,000 people were evacuated from their homes and only from 2012 were allowed limited return. As of July 2020 over 41,000 remained displaced due to government concern about radiological effects from the accident.

Public health and return of evacuees

Permanent return remains a high priority, and the evacuation zone is being decontaminated where required and possible, so that evacuees can return. There are many cases of evacuation stress including transfer trauma among evacuees, and once the situation had stabilized at the plant these outweighed the radiological hazards of returning, with 2313 deaths reported (see below).

In December 2011 the government said that where annual radiation dose would be below 20 mSv/yr, the government would help residents return home as soon as possible and assist local municipalities with decontamination and repair of infrastructure. In areas where radiation levels are over 20 mSv/yr evacuees will be asked to continue living elsewhere for "a few years" until the government completes decontamination and recovery work. The government said it would consider purchasing land and houses from residents of these areas if the evacuees wish to sell them.

In November 2013 the NRA decided to change the way radiation exposure was estimated. Instead of airborne surveys being the basis, personal dosimeters would be used, giving very much more accurate figures, often much less than airborne estimates. The same criteria would be used, as above, with 20 mSv/yr being the threshold of concern to authorities.

In February 2014 the results of a study were published showing that 458 residents of two study areas 20 to 30 km from the plant and a third one 50 km northwest received radiation doses from the contaminated ground similar to the country's natural background levels. Measurement was by personal dosimeters over August-September 2012.

By September 2020, 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture*, that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami, had been identified by the Japanese authorities. About 90% of deaths were for persons above 66 years of age. Of these, about 30% occurred within the first three months of the evacuations, and about 80% within two years.
* An additional 1454 disaster-related deaths have been reported among evacuees from other tsunami- and earthquake-related prefectures. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the over 19,500 that died in the actual earthquake and tsunami.
The premature disaster-related deaths were mainly related to (i) physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from care settings and homes; and (ii) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

However, the radiation levels in most of the evacuated areas were not greater than the natural radiation levels in high background areas elsewhere in the world where no adverse health effect is evident.

In its December 2018 report, the Fukushima prefectural government said that the number of 'indirect' deaths in the prefecture was greater than the number (1829) killed in the earthquake and tsunami. It put the figure then at 2259 (since revised up to 2313) as determined by municipal panels that examine links between the disaster's aftermath and deaths. The figure is greater than for Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, with 469 and 929 respectively, though they had much higher loss of life in the earthquake and tsunami - over 14,000. The disparity is attributed to the older age group involved among Fukushima's evacuated earthquake/tsunami survivors, about 90% of indirect deaths being of people over 66. Causes of indirect deaths include physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster, and suicides. Evaluation of 'indirect deaths' is according to a model developed by Niigata prefecture after the 2004 earthquake there ( Japan Times 20/2/14). As of July 2020, over 41,000 people from Fukushima were still living as evacuees.

Evacuees over a period of six years received ¥100,000 (about $1000) per month in psychological suffering compensation. The money was tax-exempt and paid unconditionally. In October 2013, about 84,000 evacuees received the payments. Statistics indicate that an average family of four has received about ¥90 million ($900,000) in compensation from Tepco. As of January 2021 the Fukushima accident evacuees had received ¥9.7 trillion in personal and property compensation.

The Fukushima prefecture had 17,000 government-financed temporary housing units for some 29,500 evacuees from the accident. The prefectural government said residents could continue to use these until March 2015 ( Japan Times 17/11/13). The number compared with very few built in Miyagi, Iwate and Aomori prefectures for the 222,700 tsunami survivor refugees there.

In April 2019, the first residents of Okuma, the closest town to the plant, were allowed to return home. In August 2022 the last remaining evacuation order - for Futaba, the town that hosts the Fukushima plant - was lifted.

According to a survey released by the prefectural government in April 2017, the majority of people who voluntarily evacuated their homes after the accident and who are now living outside of Fukushima prefecture do not intend to return. A Mainichi report said that 78.2% of respondents to the survey preferred to continue living in the area to which they had moved, while only 18.3% intended to move back to the prefecture. Of the voluntary evacuees still living in Fukushima prefecture, 23.6% planned to stay where they were, while 66.6% hoped to return to their original homes.

An August 2012 Reconstruction Agency report also considered workers at Fukushima power plant. Of almost 1500 surveyed, many were stressed, due to evacuating their homes (70%), believing they had come close to death (53%), the loss of homes in the tsunami (32%), deaths of colleagues (20%) and of family members (6%) mostly in the tsunami. The death toll directly due to the nuclear accident or radiation exposure remained zero, but stress and disruption due to the continuing evacuation remains high.

Tokyo's Board of Audit reported in October 2013 that 23% of recovery funding - about ¥1.45 trillion ($14.5 billion) - had been misappropriated. Some 326 out of about 1400 projects funded had no direct relevance to the natural disaster or Fukushima Daiichi accident (Mainichi 1/11/13).

Summary: Many evacuated people remain unable to fully return home due to government-mandated restrictions based on conservative radiation exposure criteria. 2313 premature disaster-related deaths were caused by the evacuations, with 90% of the deaths occuring in people aged 66 and older. Decontamination work is proceeding while radiation levels decline naturally. The October 2013 IAEA report made clear that many evacuees should be allowed to return home. As of July 2020, over 41,000 people from Fukushima were still living as evacuees.

Managing contaminated water

Removing contaminated water from the reactor and turbine buildings had become the main challenge by week 3, along with contaminated water in trenches carrying cabling and pipework. This was both from the tsunami inundation and leakage from reactors. Run-off from the site into the sea was also carrying radionuclides well in excess of allowable levels. By the end of March all storages around the four units - basically the main condenser units and condensate tanks - were largely full of contaminated water pumped from the buildings.

Accordingly, with government approval, Tepco over 4-10 April released to the sea about 10,400 cubic metres of slightly contaminated water (0.15 TBq total) in order to free up storage for more highly-contaminated water from unit 2 reactor and turbine buildings which needed to be removed to make safe working conditions. Unit 2 was the main source of contaminated water, though some of it comes from drainage pits. NISA confirmed that there was no significant change in radioactivity levels in the sea as a result of the 0.15 TBq discharge in April 2011.

By the end of June 2011, Tepco had installed 109 concrete panels to seal the water intakes of units 1-4, preventing contaminated water leaking to the harbour. From mid-June some treatment with zeolite of seawater at 30 m ³/hr was being undertaken near the water intakes for units 2&3, inside submerged barriers installed in April. From October, a steel water shield wall was built on the sea frontage of units 1-4. It extends about one kilometre, and down to an impermeable layer beneath two permeable strata which potentially leak contaminated groundwater to the sea. The inner harbour area which has some contamination is about 30 ha in area. The government in September 2013 said: "At present, statistically-significant increase of radioactive concentration in the sea outside the port of the Tepco's Fukushima Daiichi NPS has not been detected." And also: "The results of monitoring of seawater in Japan are constantly below the standard of 10 Bq/L" (the WHO standard for Cs-137 in drinking water). In 2012 the Japanese standard for caesium in food supply was dropped from 500 to 100 Bq/kg. In July-August 2014 only 0.6% of fish caught offshore from the plant exceeded this lower level, compared with 53% in the months immediately following the accident.

Long-term management and disposal

Tepco in 2011 built a new wastewater treatment facility to treat contaminated water. The company used both US proprietary adsorption and French conventional technologies in the new 1200 m ³/day treatment plant. A supplementary and simpler SARRY (simplified active water retrieve and recovery system) plant to remove caesium using Japanese technology and made by Toshiba and The Shaw Group was installed and commissioned in August 2011. These plants reduce caesium from about 55 MBq/L to 5.5 kBq/L - about ten times better than designed. Desalination is necessary on account of the seawater earlier used for cooling, and the 1200 m ³/day desalination plant produces 480 m ³ of clean water while 720 m ³ goes to storage. A steady increase in volume of the stored water (about 400 m ³/d net) is due to groundwater finding its way into parts of the plant and needing removal and treatment.

Some 1000 storage tanks were set up progressively after the accident, including initially 350 steel tanks with rubber seams, each holding 1200 m ³. A few of these developed leaks in 2013.

Early in 2013 Tepco started to test and commission the Advanced Liquid Processing System ( ALPS), developed by EnergySolutions and Toshiba. Each of six trains is capable of processing 250 m ³/day to remove 62 remaining radioisotopes. By the end of 2014, an ALPS of 500 m ³/d had been added, making total capacity 2000 m ³/d. The NRA approved the extra capacity in August 2014.

Earlier in September 2013 report from the Atomic Energy Society of Japan recommended diluting the ALPS-treated water with seawater and releasing it to the sea at the legal discharge concentration of 0.06 MBq/L, with monitoring to ensure that normal background tritium levels of 10 Bq/L are not exceeded. (The WHO drinking water guideline is 0.01 MBq/L tritium.) The IAEA supports release of tritiated water to the ocean, as does Dale Klein, chairman of Tepco's Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee (NRMC) and former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ALPS is a chemical system which removes radionuclides to below legal limits for release. However, because tritium is contained in water molecules, ALPS cannot remove it, which gives rise to questions about the discharge of treated water to the sea. Tritium is a weak beta-emitter which does not bio-accumulate (half-life 12 years), and its concentration has levelled off at about 1 MBq/L in the stored water, with dilution from groundwater balancing further release from the fuel debris.

In 2014 a new Kurion strontium removal system was commissioned. This is mobile and can be moved around the tank groups to further clean up water which has been treated by ALPS.

In June 2015 108 m ³/day of clean water was being circulated through each reactor (units 1-3). Collected water from them, with high radioactivity levels, was being treated for caesium removal and re-used. Apart from this recirculating loop, the cumulative treated volume was then 1.232 million cubic metres. In storage onsite was 459,000 m ³ of fully treated water (by ALPS), and 190,000 m ³ of partially-treated water (strontium removed), which was being added to at 400 m ³/day due to groundwater inflow. Almost 600 m ³ of sludge from the water treatment was stored in shielded containers.

In 2016 Kurion (now owned by Veolia) completed a demonstration project for tritium removal at low concentrations, with its new Modular Detritiation System (MDS),* in response to a ¥1 billion commission from METI.
* In this, an electrolyser produces hydrogen and oxygen, with the tritium reporting in the hydrogen. This is fed through a catalytic exchange column with a little water which preferentially takes up the tritium. The concentrated tritiated water is fed through a 'getter bed' of dry metal hydrate, where the tritium replaces hydrogen, and the material is stored, being stable up to 500 °C. It can be incorporated into concrete and disposed as low-level waste. The tritium is concentrated 1000 to 20,000 times. The MDS is the first system to be able economically to treat large volumes of water with low tritium concentrations, and builds on existing heavy water tritium removal systems. Each module treats up to 7200 litres per day.
In November 2019 the trade and industry ministry stated that annual radiation levels from the release of the tritium-tainted water are estimated at between 0.052 and 0.62 microsieverts if it were disposed of at sea and 1.3 microsieverts if it were released into the atmosphere, compared with the 2100 microsieverts (2.1 mSv) that humans are naturally exposed to annually.

In March 2020, TEPCO released a study in relation to two disposal methods of the ALPS-treated water - discharge into the sea and vapour discharge.

In April 2021 the Japanese government confirmed that the water would be released into the sea in 2023. In August 2021 Tepco announced plans for the construction of an undersea tunnel about 1 kilometre in length, which will allow the release of the water into an area where no fishing rights are in place. In May 2022 the NRA endorsed Tepco's plans.

ALPS-treated water is currently stored in more than 1000 tanks onsite with a storage capacity of 1.37 million cubic metres which are expected to reach full capacity by late 2023 or early 2024. Some of the ALPS treated water will require secondary processing to further reduce concentrations of radionuclides in line with government requirements.

In August 2023 the Japanese government asked Tepco to begin preparations for the release of the treated water, with the first water set to be discharged from 24 August 2023. Tepco plans to discharge the water using a two-step process. First, a small amount of treated water will be diluted with seawater and stored in a vertical discharge shaft in order to sample, measure and verify the tritium levels of the water. The water will then be discharged into the sea via the 1km undersea tunnel. The IAEA opened an office at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in July 2023 in order to continuously monitor and assess the activities related to the release of the treated water and ensure alignment with safety standards. The IAEA will also provide real-time monitoring data.

Apart from the above-ground water treatment activity, there is now a groundwater bypass to reduce the groundwater level above the reactors by about 1.5 metres, pumping from 12 wells and from May 2014, discharging the uncontaminated water into the sea. This prevents some of it flowing into the reactor basements and becoming contaminated. In addition, an impermeable wall was constructed on the sea-side of the reactors, and inside this a frozen soil wall was created to further block water flow into the reactor buildings.

In October 2013 guidelines for rainwater release from the site allowed Tepco to release water to the sea without specific NRA approval as long as it conformed to activity limits. Tepco has been working to 25 Bq/L caesium and 10 Bq/L strontium-90.

Summary: A large amount of contaminated water has accumulated onsite and has been treated to remove radioactive elements, apart from tritium. In April 2021, the Japanese government confirmed that the water would be released into the sea. Some radioactivity has already been released to the sea, but this has mostly been low-level and it has not had any significant impact beyond the immediate plant structures. Concentrations outside these structures have been below regulatory levels since April 2011. The release of the treated water will commence in August 2023 and will be continuously monitored by IAEA staff present at the site.

IRID and NDF involvement

The International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning ( IRID) was set up in August 2013 Japan by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japanese utilities and reactor vendors, with a focus on Fukushima Daiichi 1-4.

In September 2013 IRID called for submissions on the management of contaminated water at Fukushima. In particular, proposals were sought for dealing with: the accumulation of contaminated water (in storage tanks, etc); the treatment of contaminated water including tritium removal; the removal of radioactive materials from the seawater in the plant's 30 ha harbour; the management of contaminated water inside the buildings; measures to block groundwater from flowing into the site; and, understanding the flow of groundwater. Responses were submitted to the government in November.

In December 2013 IRID called for innovative proposals for removing fuel debris from units 1-3 about 2020.

In August 2014 the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation (NDF) was set up by the government as a planning body with management support for R&D projects, taking over IRID's planning role. It works with IRID, whose focus now is on developing mid- and long-term decommissioning technologies. The NDF also works with Tepco Fukushima Daiichi D&D Engineering Co., which has responsibility for operating the actual decommissioning work there. The NDF will be the main body interacting with the government (METI) to implement policy.

Fukushima Daiichi 5&6

Units 5&6, in a separate building, also lost power on 11 March due to the tsunami. They were in 'cold shutdown' at the time, but still requiring pumped cooling. One air-cooled diesel generator at unit 6 was located higher and so survived the tsunami and enabled repairs on Saturday 19, allowing full restoration of cooling for units 5&6. While the power was off their core temperature had risen to over 100 °C (128 °C in unit 5) under pressure, and they had been cooled with normal water injection. They were restored to cold shutdown by the normal recirculating system on 20 March, and mains power was restored on 21-22 March.

In September 2013 Tepco commenced work to remove the fuel from unit 6. Prime minister Abe then called for Tepco to decommission both units. Tepco announced in December 2013 that it would decommission both units from the end of January 2014. Unit 5 was a 760 MWe BWR the same as units 2-4, and unit 6 was larger - 1067 MWe. They entered commercial operation in 1978 and 1979 respectively. It is proposed that they will be used for training.

Remediation on site and decommissioning units 1-4

Tepco published a six- to nine-month plan in April 2011 for dealing with the disabled Fukushima reactors, and updated this several times subsequently. Remediation over the first couple of years proceeded approximately as planned. In August 2011 Tepco announced its general plan for proceeding with removing fuel from the four units, initially from the spent fuel ponds and then from the actual reactors. At the end of 2013 Tepco announced the establishment of an internal entity to focus on measures for decommissioning units 1-6 and dealing with contaminated water. The new company, Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination & Decommissioning Engineering Company, commenced operations in April 2014.

In June 2015 the government revised the decommissioning plan for the second time, though without major change. It clarified milestones to accomplish preventive and multi-layered measures, involving the three principles of removing the source of the contamination, isolating groundwater from the contamination source, and preventing leakage of the contaminated water. It included a new goal of cutting the amount of groundwater flowing into the buildings to less than 100 m ³ per day by April 2016. The schedule for fuel removal from the pond at unit 1 was postponed from late FY17 to FY20, while that for unit 2 was delayed from early FY20 to later the same fiscal year, and that at unit 3 from early FY15 to FY17. Fuel debris removal was to begin in 2021, as before. In September 2017 the government updated the June 2015 decommissioning roadmap, with no changes to the framework, and confirming first removal of fuel debris from unit 1 in 2021. Treatment of all contaminated water accumulated in the reactor buildings was to be completed by 2020.

However, Tepco's latest roadmap shows fuel removal from the pond at unit 1 is now expected FY27-28, and from unit 2 FY24-FY26. For unit 3, fuel removal was completed in February 2021.

Tepco has a website giving updates on decommissioning work and environmental monitoring.

Storage ponds: Debris has been removed from the upper parts of the reactor buildings using large cranes and heavy machinery. Casks to transfer the removed fuel to the central spent fuel facility have been designed and manufactured using existing cask technology.

In July 2012 two unused fuel assemblies were removed from unit 4 pond, and were found to be in good shape, with no deformation or corrosion. Tepco started removal of both fresh and used fuel from the pond in November 2013, 22 assemblies at a time in each cask, with 1331 used and 202 new ones to be moved. This was uneventful, and the task continued through 2014. By 22 December 2014, all 1331 used as well as all 202 new fuel assemblies had been moved in 71 cask shuttles without incident. All of the radioactive used fuel was removed by early November, eliminating a significant radiological hazard on the site. The used fuel went to the central storage pond, from which older assemblies were transferred to dry cask storage. The fresh fuel assemblies are stored in the pool of the undamaged unit 6.

Tepco completed moving fuel from unit 3 in February 2021. It will now focus on 292 used fuel assemblies and 100 new ones from unit 1, and then 587 used assemblies and 28 new ones from unit 2 will be transferred. The NRA has expressed concern about the unit 1 used fuel.

Reactors 1-3 order of work: The locations of leaks from the primary containment vessels (PCVs) and reactor buildings should first be identified using manual and remotely controlled dosimeters, cameras, etc., then the conditions inside the PCVs should be indirectly analysed from the outside via measurements of gamma rays, echo soundings, etc. Any leakage points will be repaired and both reactor vessels (RPVs) and PCVs filled with water sufficient to achieve shielding. Then the vessel heads will be removed. The location of melted fuel and corium will then be established. In particular, the distribution of damaged fuel believed to have flowed out from the RPVs into PCVs will be ascertained, and it will be sampled and analysed. After examination of the inside of the reactors, states of the damaged fuel rods and reactor core internals, sampling will be done and the damaged core material will be removed from the RPVs as well as from the PCVs. Updated plans are on the IRID website.

The four reactors will be completely demolished in 30-40 years - much the same timeframe as for any nuclear plant. As noted above, units 5&6 commenced decommissioning in 2014 and will be used for training.

Earlier, consortia led by both Hitachi-GE and Toshiba submitted proposals to Tepco for decommissioning units 1-4. This would generally involve removing the fuel and then sealing the units for a further decade or two while the activation products in the steel of the reactor pressure vessels decay. They can then be demolished. Removal of the very degraded fuel will be a long process in units 1-3, but will draw on experience at Three Mile Island in the USA.

Tepco has allocated ¥207 billion ($2.5 billion) in its accounts for decommissioning units 1-4. In March 2020, Tepco announced that ¥1.37 trillion ($12.6 billion) would be required for the removal of damaged fuel from units 2&3, with no estimates being made for the fuel in unit 1 which suffered the most damage of the three reactors.

The government has allocated ¥1150 billion ($15 billion) for decontamination in the region, with the promise of more if needed.

The Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (ANRE) calculated that as of January 2017 Tepco needed an estimated ¥22,000 billion ($190 billion), double the original estimate, to implement fuel debris removal, cleanup and for compensation to firms and individuals in Fukushima prefecture. Of this amount, Tepco would pay ¥16 trillion. Other Japanese nuclear operators would pay ¥4 trillion through the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corp (NDF), and the Japanese government would pay ¥2 trillion for cleanup in Fukushima prefecture.

A 12-member international expert team assembled by the IAEA at the request of the Japanese government carried out a fact-finding mission in October 2011 on remediation strategies for contaminated land. Its report focused on the remediation of the affected areas outside of the 20 km restricted area. The team said that it agreed with the prioritization and the general strategy being implemented, but advised the government to focus on actual dose reduction. They should "avoid over-conservatism" which "could not effectively contribute to the reduction of exposure doses" to people. It warned the government against being preoccupied with "contamination concentrations ... rather than dose levels," since this "does not automatically lead to reduction of doses for the public." The report also called on the Japanese authorities to "maintain their focus on remediation activities that bring the best results in reducing the doses to the public." A follow-up mission was carried out in October 2013.

Fukushima Daini plant

The four units at Fukushima Daini were shut down automatically due to the earthquake. The tsunami - here only 9 m high - affected the generators and there was major interruption to cooling due to damaged heat exchangers, so the reactors were almost completely isolated from their ultimate heat sink. Damage to the diesel generators was limited and also the earthquake left one of the external power lines intact, avoiding a station blackout as at Daiichi units 1-4. Staff laid and energized 8.8 km of heavy-duty electric cables in 30 hours to supplement power.

In units 1, 2&4 there were cooling problems still evident on Tuesday 15. Unit 3 was undamaged and continued to 'cold shutdown' status on the 12th, but the other units suffered flooding to pump rooms where the equipment transfers heat from the reactor heat removal circuit to the sea. Pump motors were replaced in less than 30 hours. All units achieved 'cold shutdown' by 16 March, meaning core temperature less than 100 °C at atmospheric pressure (101 kPa), but still requiring some water circulation. The almost complete loss of ultimate heat sink for a day proved a significant challenge, but the cores were kept fully covered.

Radiation monitoring figures remained at low levels, little above background.

There was no technical reason for the Fukushima Daini plant not to restart. However, Tepco in October 2012 said it planned to transfer the fuel from the four reactors to used fuel ponds, and this was done. In February 2015 the prime minister said that restarting the four units was essentially a matter for Tepco to decide. In July 2019 Tepco announced its decision to decommission the four reactors.

International Nuclear Event Scale assessment

Japan's Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency originally declared the Fukushima Daiichi 1-3 accident as level 5 on the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) - an accident with wider consequences, the same level as Three Mile Island in 1979. The sequence of events relating to the fuel pond at unit 4 was rated INES level 3 - a serious incident.

However, a month after the tsunami the NSC raised the rating to level 7 for units 1-3 together, 'a major accident', saying that a re-evaluation of early radioactive releases suggested that some 630 PBq of I-131 equivalent had been discharged, mostly in the first week. This then matched the criterion for level 7. In early June NISA increased its estimate of releases to 770 PBq, from about half that, though in August the NSC lowered this estimate to 570 PBq.

For Fukushima Daini, NISA declared INES level 3 for units 1, 2, 4 - each a serious incident.

Accident liability and compensation

Beyond whatever insurance Tepco might carry for its reactors is the question of third party liability for the accident. Japan was not party to any international liability convention but its law generally conforms to them, notably strict and exclusive liability for the operator. Early in 2015 Japan ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). Two laws governing liability are revised about every ten years: the Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage. Plant operator liability is exclusive and absolute (regardless of fault), and power plant operators must provide a financial security amount of JPY 120 billion ($1.5 billion) - it was half that to 2010. The government may relieve the operator of liability if it determines that damage results from "a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character" (which it did not do here), and in any case total liability is unlimited.

In mid-April 2011, the first meeting was held of a panel to address compensation for nuclear-related damage. The panel established guidelines for determining the scope of compensation for damage caused by the accident, and to act as an intermediary. It was established within the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), and was led by law professor Yoshihisa Nomi of Gakushuin University in Tokyo.

On 11 May 2011, Tepco accepted terms established by the Japanese government for state support to compensate those affected by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The scheme included a new state-backed institution to expedite payments to those affected by the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The body receives financial contributions from electric power companies with nuclear power plants in Japan, and from the government through special bonds that can be cashed whenever necessary. The government bonds total JPY 5 trillion ($60 billion). Tepco accepted the conditions imposed on the company as part of the package. That included not setting an upper limit on compensation payments to those affected, making maximum efforts to reduce costs, and an agreement to cooperate with an independent panel set up to investigate its management.

This Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation, established by government and nuclear plant operators, includes representatives from other nuclear generators and also operates as an insurer for the industry, being responsible to have plans in place for any future nuclear accidents. The provision for contributions from other nuclear operators is similar to that in the USA. The government estimates that Tepco will be able to complete its repayments in 10 to 13 years, after which it will revert to a fully private company with no government involvement. Meanwhile it will pay an annual fee for the government support, maintain adequate power supplies and ensure plant safety. Tepco estimated its extra costs for fossil fuels in 2011-12 (April-March) would be about JPY 830 billion ($11 billion).

On 14 June 2011, Japan's cabinet passed the Nuclear Disaster Compensation Bill, and a related budget to fund post-tsunami reconstruction was also passed subsequently.

In September 2011 the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation started by working with Tepco to compile a business plan for the next decade. This was approved by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) so that some ¥900 billion ($12 billion) could be released to the company through bonds issued to the Nuclear Damage Facilitation Fund to cover compensation payments to March 2012. The plan also involved Tepco reducing its own costs by ¥2545 billion ($33 billion) over the next ten years, including shedding 7400 jobs. This special business plan was superseded by a more comprehensive business plan in March 2012, involving compensation payments of ¥910 billion ($12 billion) annually. Tepco wanted to include an electricity rate increase of 17% in the plan, to cover the additional annual fuel costs for thermal power generation to make up for lost capacity at idled nuclear power plants.

In February 2012 METI approved a further ¥690 billion ($9 billion) in compensation support from the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund, subject to Tepco's business plan giving the government voting rights. In June 2012 shareholders voted to sell the Japanese government 50.11% of Tepco's voting shares and an additional 25.73% with no voting rights, for ¥1 trillion (about $13 billion), paid through the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund. This was effected at the end of July, so that Tepco then became government-controlled, at least temporarily. Tepco said it appreciated the chance to "transform to New Tepco".

The government and 12 utilities are contributing funds into the new institution to pay compensation to individuals and businesses claiming damages caused by the accident. It received ¥7 billion ($90 million) in public funds as well as a total of ¥7 billion from 12 nuclear plant operators, the Tepco share of ¥2379 million ($30 million) being the largest. The percentage of utility contributions was fixed in proportion to the power output of their plants, so Kansai Electric Power provided ¥1229 million, followed by ¥660 million by Kyushu Electric Power and ¥622 million by Chubu Electric Power. Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., which owns a used nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Aomori prefecture, provided ¥117 million to the entity. The utility companies also pay annual contributions to the body. Tepco is required to make extra contributions, with the specific amount to be decided later.

In June 2013 Tepco requested a further ¥666 billion ($6.7 billion) in government support through the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund, bringing the total amount requested by Tepco to ¥3.79 trillion ($40 billion). The company said that more than half of the request - some ¥370 billion ($4 billion) - resulted from the re-evaluation of the evacuation zone around the damaged plant and a re-examination of the estimated amount "regarding compensation for mental damages, loss or depreciation of valuables such as housing lands and buildings." About ¥43 billion ($430 million) was due to a higher estimate of compensation coming from damages to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries, as well as the food processing and distribution industries. This, it said, also resulted from "harmful rumours" about the possible health effects of consuming food products from the region near the damaged power plant. As restrictions on the transport of foodstuffs from the Fukushima area seemed set to continue, an additional ¥240 billion ($2 billion) was included to cover for the further compensation claims resulting from this.

By mid-May 2014, Tepco had paid ¥3808 billion ($40 billion) in compensation, fairly evenly split between businesses and individuals, based on decisions of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation, and covered by loans from the NDLF Fund. Some $16 billion of this was distributed evenly among 85,000 evacuees - $188,200 each person including children, as directed early in 2011.

In July 2015 the government approved Tepco's recovery plan, including compensation payments of ¥7075 billion ($57 billion), enabling it to receive ¥950 billion more than the ¥6125 billion estimated in April, according to METI.

As of January 2021 the Fukushima accident evacuees had received ¥9.7 trillion in personal and property compensation.

Earlier, in December 2013 the government raised the upper limit of its financial assistance to Tepco from ¥5 trillion to ¥9 trillion ($86 billion). Early in 2014 the government estimated it would take ¥11 trillion and 40 years to clean up the Fukushima site. The 2013 Japan trade deficit was ¥11.5 trillion.

In September 2019 Tokyo District Court acquitted three former executives - Tsunehisa Katsumata, Ichiro Takekuro and Sakae Muto - with failing to prevent the accident at the company's Fukushima Daiichi plant. The court found all three men not guilty of professional negligence resulting in death and injury and ruled that they could not have foreseen the earthquake and tsunami that led to the meltdown of three of the plant's reactors. In January 2023 the Tokyo High Court upheld the acquittal of the three former executives.

Inquiries and reports: the accident itself and decommissioning

In October 2014 the NRA published its Analysis of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS Accident interim report. A provisional translation in English was published in February 2015. This focuses on a number of questions which remained unexplained in the 2012 National Diet Investigation Commission report.

Earlier in May 2011 a team of 18 experts from 12 countries spent a week at the plant on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and that mission's final report was presented to the IAEA Ministerial Conference in Vienna in June. At the IAEA General Conference in 2012 the Director General promised a comprehensive report which would be "an authoritative, factual and balanced assessment, addressing the causes and consequences of the accident as well as the lessons learned." This report on The Fukushima Daiichi Accident was published in August 2015, accompanied by five technical volumes.

In February 2015 the IAEA completed its third review mission (as follow-up to that of late 2013, and involving some 180 experts from 42 IAEA member states and other organizations over two years) and reported on decommissioning to METI. In May 2015 its final report was delivered to member states, and was published in September. It was broadly positive regarding progress since 2013, but said that some challenging issues remain. It contains advisory points on topics such as long-term radioactive waste management, measures concerning contaminated water, and issues related to the removal of used fuel and fuel debris.

The Foreword to the Director General's report in 2015 states: "A major factor that contributed to the accident was the widespread assumption in Japan that its nuclear power plants were so safe that an accident of this magnitude was simply unthinkable. This assumption was accepted by nuclear power plant operators and was not challenged by regulators or by the government. As a result, Japan was not sufficiently prepared for a severe nuclear accident in March 2011." The accident exposed "certain weaknesses" in Japan's regulatory framework, with responsibilities divided among a number of bodies. It also said there were certain weaknesses "in plant design, in emergency preparedness and response arrangement and in planning for the management of a severe accident".

The Director General said: "I am confident that the legacy of the Fukushima Daiichi accident will be a sharper focus on nuclear safety everywhere. I have seen improvements in safety measures and procedures in every nuclear power plant that I have visited. There is widespread recognition that everything humanly possible must be done to ensure that no such accident ever happens again." He added: "This is all the more essential as global use of nuclear power is likely to continue to grow in coming decades." Furthermore, "there can be no grounds for complacency about nuclear safety in any country. Some of the factors that contributed to the Fukushima Daiichi accident were not unique to Japan. Continuous questioning and openness to learning from experience are key to safety culture and are essential for everyone involved in nuclear power."

The Executive Summary includes recommendations, but the following paragraphs indicate some salient points from the actual investigation.

Before the accident, there was a basic assumption in Japan that the design of nuclear power plants and the safety measures that had been put in place were sufficiently robust to withstand external events of low probability and high consequences. Because of the basic assumption that nuclear power plants in Japan were safe, there was a tendency for organizations and their staff not to challenge the level of safety. The reinforced basic assumption among the stakeholders about the robustness of the technical design of nuclear power plants resulted in a situation where safety improvements were not introduced promptly.

Before the accident, the operator had conducted some reassessments of extreme tsunami flood levels, using a consensus based methodology developed in Japan in 2002, which had resulted in values higher than the original design basis estimates. Based on the results, some compensatory measures were taken, but they proved to be insufficient at the time of the accident.

There were no indications that the main safety features of the plant were affected by the vibratory ground motions generated by the earthquake on 11 March 2011. This was due to the conservative approach to earthquake design and construction of nuclear power plants in Japan, resulting in a plant that was provided with sufficient safety margins. However, the original design considerations did not provide comparable safety margins for extreme external flooding events, such as tsunamis.

Despite the efforts of the operators at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to maintain control, the reactor cores in units 1-3 overheated, the nuclear fuel melted and the three containment vessels were breached. Hydrogen was released from the reactor pressure vessels, leading to explosions inside the reactor buildings in units 1, 3&4 that damaged structures and equipment and injured personnel. Radionuclides were released from the plant to the atmosphere and were deposited on land and on the ocean. There were also direct releases into the sea.

Venting of the containment was necessary to relieve pressure and prevent its failure. The operators were able to vent units 1 and 3 to reduce the pressure in the primary containment vessels. However, this resulted in radioactive releases to the environment. Even though the containment vents for units 1 and 3 were opened, the primary containment vessels for units 1 and 3 eventually failed. Containment venting for unit 2 was not successful, and the containment failed, resulting in radioactive releases.

People within a radius of 20 km of the site and in other designated areas were evacuated, and those within a radius of 20-30 km were instructed to shelter before later being advised to voluntarily evacuate. Restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of food and the consumption of drinking water. Many people are still living outside the areas from which they were evacuated.

No early radiation induced health effects were observed among workers or members of the public that could be attributed to the accident.

Earlier reports 2011-2012

Early in June 2011 the independent Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations ( ICANPS), a panel of ten experts, mostly academics and appointed by the Japanese cabinet, began meeting. It had two technological advisers. An initial report was published in December 2011 and a final report in July 2012. The panel set up four teams to undertake investigations on the causes of the accident and ensuing damage and on measures to prevent the further spread of damage caused by the accident, but not to pursue the question of responsibility for the accident.

The national Diet later set up the legally-constituted Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission ( NAIIC, or National Diet Investigation Commission) of ten members which started its work in December 2011. One of the purposes of NAIIC was to provide suggestions including the "re-examination of an optimal administrative organization" for nuclear safety regulation based on its investigation of the accident. The NAIIC reported in July 2012, harshly criticizing the government, the plant operator and the country's national culture. After conducting 900 hours of public hearings and interviews with more than 1100 people and visiting several nuclear power plants, the commission's report concluded that the accident was a "manmade disaster," the result of "collusion between the government, the regulators and Tokyo Electric Power Co." It said the "root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions." The NAIIC criticized the regulator for insufficiently maintaining independence from the industry in developing and enforcing safety regulations, the government for inadequate emergency preparedness and management, and Tepco for its poor governance and lack of safety culture. The report called for fundamental changes across the industry, including the government and regulators, to increase openness, trustworthiness and focus on protecting public health and safety.

The NAIIC Chairman wrote: "What must be admitted - very painfully - is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan.' Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the programme'; our groupism; and our insularity." The mindset of the government and industry led the country to avoid learning the lessons of the previous major nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. "The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us (every Japanese citizen) should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society."

The NAIIC reported that Tepco had been aware since 2006 that Fukushima Daiichi could face a station blackout if flooded, as well as the potential loss of ultimate heat sink in the event of a major tsunami. However, the regulator, NISA, gave no instruction to the company to prepare for severe flooding, and even told all nuclear operators that it was not necessary to plan for station blackout. During the initial response to the tsunami, this lack of readiness for station blackout was compounded by a lack of planning and training for severe accident mitigation. Plans and procedures for venting and manual operation of emergency cooling were incomplete and their implementation in emergency circumstances proved very difficult as a result. NISA was also criticized for its "negligence and failure over the years" to prepare for a nuclear accident in terms of public information and evacuation, with previous governments equally culpable. Then Tepco's difficulty in mitigation was compounded by government interference which undermined NISA.

Earlier, on 7 June 2011 the government submitted a 750-page report to the IAEA compiled by the nuclear emergency task force, acknowledging reactor design inadequacies and systemic shortcomings. It said: "In light of the lessons learned from the accident, Japan has recognized that a fundamental revision of its nuclear safety preparedness and response is inevitable."

On 11 September 2011 a second report was issued by the government and submitted to the IAEA, summarising both onsite work and progress and offsite responses. It contained further analysis of the earthquake and tsunami, the initial responses to manage and cool the reactors, the state of spent fuel ponds and the state of reactor pressure vessels. It also summarised radioactive releases and their effects.

Meanwhile a July 2011 report from MIT's Centre for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems provided a useful series of observations, questions raised, and suggestions. Its Appendix has some constructive comment on radiation exposure and balancing the costs of dose avoidance in circumstances of environmental contamination.

In November 2011 the US Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) released its Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, with timeline. This 97-page report gives a detailed account of events.

Also in November 2011 the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute published a 280-page report on the accident, with proposals to be addressed in the future.

On 2 December 2011 Tepco released its interim investigation report on the accident (in Japanese).

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) undertook a 12-month study on the magnitude of radioactive releases to the atmosphere and ocean, and the range of radiation doses received by the public and workers. A follow-up white paper was published in 2016.

An analysis by the Carnegie Endowment in March 2012 said that if best practice from other countries had been adopted by Tepco and NISA at Fukushima, the serious accident would not have happened, underlining the need for greater international regulatory collaboration.

In April 2012 the US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published Fukushima Daiichi Accident - Technical Causal Factor Analysis, which identified the root cause beyond the flooding and its effects as a failure to consider the possibility of the rupture of combinations of geological fault segments in the vicinity of the plant.

Inquiries and reports: radiation effects

A preliminary report from the World Health Organization (WHO) in May 2012 estimated the radiation doses that residents of Japan outside the evacuated areas received in the year following the accident. The report's headline conclusion is that most people in Fukushima prefecture would have received a radiation dose of between 1 and 10 mSv during the first year after the accident. This compares with levels of about 2.4 mSv they would have received from unavoidable natural sources. In two places the doses were higher - between 10 and 50 mSv, still below any harmful level. Almost all were "below the internationally-agreed reference level for the public exposure due to radon in dwellings" (about 10 mSv/yr).

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in May 2012 reported that despite skin contamination of several workers, no clinically-observable effects have been reported and there is no evidence of acute radiation injury in any of the 20,115 workers who participated in Tepco's efforts to mitigate the accident at the plant. Eighteen UNSCEAR member states provided 72 experts for the assessment. UNSCEAR also surveyed Fukushima prefecture to compare its data with Japanese measurements of exposures of some 2 million people living there at the time of the accident.

The results of UNSCEAR's 12-month study on the magnitude of radioactive releases to the atmosphere and ocean, and the range of radiation doses received by the public and workers were announced in May 2013 are reported above in the subsection above on Radiation exposure.

UNSCEAR's April 2014 report on radiation effects concluded that the rates of cancer or hereditary diseases were unlikely to show any discernible rise in affected areas because the radiation doses people received were too low. People were promptly evacuated from the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, and later from a neighbouring area where radionuclides had accumulated. This action reduced their radiation exposure by a factor of ten, to levels that were "low or very low." Overall, people in Fukushima are expected on average to receive less than 10 mSv due to the accident over their whole lifetime, compared with the 170 mSv lifetime dose from natural background radiation that people in Japan typically receive. "The most important health effect is on mental and social well-being, related to the enormous impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk of exposure to radiation." UNSCEAR's follow-up white paper in October 2015 said that none of the new information appraised after the 2013 report "materially affected the main findings in, or challenged the major assumptions of, the 2013 Fukushima report."

UNSCEAR's update of its 2013 report, published in March 2021, broadly confirms the major findings and conclusions of the 2013 report. It concludes: "The Committee's revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible."

In October 2013 a 16-member IAEA mission visited at government request and reported on remediation and decontamination in particular. Its preliminary report said that decontamination efforts were commendable but driven by unrealistic targets.

'Stress tests' on Japanese reactors and new regulatory authority

The government ordered nuclear risk and safety reassessments - so-called 'stress tests' - based on those in the EU for all Japan's nuclear reactors except Fukushima's before they restart following any shutdown, including for routine checks. These were in two stages, and are described in the Japan Nuclear Power information page.

The government then created the separate Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) under the authority of the Environment Ministry and combining the roles of NISA and the NSC, commissioned in September 2012. The new Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) replaced the NSC and will review the effectiveness of the NRA and be responsible for the investigation of nuclear accidents.

Notes & references

General sources

Tepco
NISA
IAEA
METI
JAIF
NSC
Acton J.M. & Hibbs M, Why Fukushima was preventable, March 2012 Carnegie Paper
INPO 11-005 Addendum, Aug 2012, Lessons learned from the Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
Government's Decision on Addressing the Contaminated Water Issue at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi NPS, 3 Sept 2013, on Ministry of Foreign Affairs website
K. Tateiwa, Decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi NPS, January 2014
UNSCEAR webpage on The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident
IAEA Report by the Director General on The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, STI/PUB/1710 (ISBN:978-92-0-107015-9), August 2015
A. Komori, Current status and the future of Fukushima Daiichi NP station, World Nuclear Association 2015 Symposium presentation
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident, Ten Years On: Progress, Lessons and Challenges, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This information paper describes in detail the causes of the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 and the actions taken since.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TOPSHOT - Activists of the Aurat March celebrate as they gather during a rally to mark International Women's Day in Karachi on March 8, 2021. (Photo by Asif HASSAN / AFP) (Photo by ASIF HASSAN/AFP via Getty Images)

From a page in the @nytimes, to the streets of Buenos Aires. It's time to say adiós to unsafe abortions in Argentina, 2018.

Adama works for the Association Feminine pour le Development du Burkina (AFDEB), which promotes the social and economic rights of women and young girls in remote rural communities in Burkina Faso.

Fearless and formidable, Loujain defied Saudi Arabia's driving ban and faced the consequences. In November 2014, she was detained for 73 days for live-tweeting herself driving into Saudi Arabia from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Released in February 2015, she went on to stand for election in November that year - the first time women were allowed to both vote and stand in elections in the state. Despite finally being recognized as a candidate, her name was never added to the ballot. Today she is based in the UAE, where she continues her fight to create a better future for her fellow Saudi - one where women enjoy their rights as full citizens of their nation.

What do we mean when we talk about women's rights? What are we fighting for? Here are just some examples of the rights which activists throughout the centuries and today have been fighting for:

Women's Suffrage

During the 19th and early 20 th centuries people began to agitate for the right of women to vote. In 1893 New Zealand became the first country to give women the right to vote on a national level. This movement grew to spread all around the world, and thanks to the efforts of everyone involved in this struggle, today women's suffrage is a right under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979).

However, despite these developments there are still many places around the world where it is very difficult for women to exercise this right. Take Syria for example, where women have been effectively cut off from political engagement, including the ongoing peace process.

In Pakistan, although voting is a constitutional right, in some areas women have been effectively prohibited from voting due to powerful figures in their communities using patriarchal local customs to bar them from going to the polls.

And in Afghanistan, authorities recently decided to introduce mandatory photo screening at polling stations, making voting problematic for women in conservative areas, where most women cover their faces in public.

Amnesty International campaigns for all women to be able to effectively participate in the political process.

Sexual and Reproductive Rights

Everyone should be able to make decisions about their own body.

Every woman and girl has sexual and reproductive rights . This means they are entitled to equal access to health services like contraception and safe abortions, to choose if, when, and who they marry, and to decide if they want to have children and if so how many, when and with who.

Women should be able to live without fear of gender-based violence, including rape and other sexual violence, female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriage, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, or forced sterilization.

But there's a long way to go until all women can enjoy these rights.

For example, many women and girls around the world are still unable to access safe and legal abortions. In several countries, people who want or need to end pregnancies are often forced to make an impossible choice: put their lives at risk or go to jail.

In Argentina, Amnesty International has campaigned alongside grassroots human rights defenders to change the country's strict abortion laws. There have been some major steps forward, but women and girls are still being harmed by laws which mean they cannot make choices about their own bodies.

We have also campaigned successfully in Ireland and Northern Ireland, where abortion was recently decriminalized after many decades of lobbying by Amnesty and other rights groups.

In Poland along with more than 200 human and women's rights organisations from across the globe, Amnesty has co-signed a joint statement protesting the 'Stop Abortion' bill.

South Korea has recently seen major advances in sexual and reproductive rights after many years of campaigning by Amnesty and other groups, culminating in a ruling by South Korea's Constitutional Court that orders the government to decriminalize abortion in the country and reform the country's highly restrictive abortion laws by the end of 2020.

In Burkina Faso, Amnesty International has supported women and girls in their fight against forced marriage, which affects a huge number of girls especially in rural areas.

And in Sierra Leone, Amnesty International has been working with local communities as part of our Human Rights Education Programme, which focuses on a number of human rights issues, including female genital mutilation.

In Zimbabwe, we found that women and girls were left vulnerable to unwanted pregnancies and a higher risk of HIV infection because of widespread confusion around sexual consent and access to sexual health services. This meant that girls would face discrimination, the risk of child marriage, economic hardship and barriers to education.

In Jordan Amnesty International has urged authorities to stop colluding with an abusive male "guardianship" system which controls women's lives and limits their personal freedoms, including detaining women accused of leaving home without permission or having sex outside marriage and subjecting them to humiliating "virginity tests".

Freedom of Movement

Freedom of movement is the right to move around freely as we please - not just within the country we live in, but also to visit others. But many women face real challenges when it comes to this. They may not be allowed to have their own passports, or they might have to seek permission from a male guardian in order to travel.

For example, recently in Saudi Arabia there has been a successful campaign to allow women to drive, which had previously been banned for many decades. But despite this landmark gain, the authorities continue to persecute and detain many women's rights activists, simply for peacefully advocating for their rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If you defend human rights, you defend women's' rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do we mean when we talk about women's rights? What are we fighting for? Here are just some examples of the rights which activists throughout the centuries and today have been fighting for: During the 19th and early 20 th centuries people began to agitate for the right of women to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Me Too movement | Definition, History, Purpose, & Societal Impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Me Too movement, awareness movement around the issue of sexual harassment and abuse of women in the workplace that grew to prominence in 2017 in response to news reports of sexual abuse by American film producer Harvey Weinstein. The movement raised awareness, gave voice to survivors, and led to sweeping cultural and workplace changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new report details the grim circumstances facing marine animals as millions of pounds of plastic continue to make their way into the oceans every year.

Nearly 1,800 animals from 40 different species swallowed or became entangled in plastic between 2009 and 2018, the report, by ocean conservation group Oceana, found. About 88% were animals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, including Hawaiian monk seals, Stellar sea lions, manatees and all six species of sea turtle found in the U.S.

The plastic was found to have affected the animals at all life stages, from recently hatched sea turtles to seal mothers with nursing pups. More than 800 animals listed in the report were sea turtles, and more than 900 were marine mammals.

Researches added that the numbers in the report are likely conservative estimates, as not every affected animal is reported.

The pieces of plastic chronicled in the report ranged from microplastics that perforated the gastrointestinal tract of a baby sea turtle to DVD cases and "huge plastic sheets" that had been swallowed by whales.

Plastic packing straps, bags, balloons with strings, and sheeting were the items most commonly reported.

The animals also came into contact with items such as zip ties, dental floss and mesh produce bags seen at grocery stores, Dr. Kimberly Warner, the author of the report and a senior scientist at Oceana, said in a statement. Other incidents involved items including bottle caps, water bottles, straws, buckets, plastic chairs, plastic forks, toothbrushes, children's toys, buckets, bubble wrap, sponges, swim goggles, plastic holiday grass, sandwich bags and polystyrene cups, the report said.

The animals often mistake plastic for food or swallow it while swimming or feeding, according to experts. After it's consumed, the plastic can lacerate their intestines or obstruct digestion, according to the report. When the plastic remains in an animal's stomach, they may believe they are full and not seek to eat, leading to starvation or death, scientists say.

In some cases, just one piece of ingested plastic may have been enough to contribute to an animal's death, like in the case of a pygmy sperm whale whose dead body was discovered in New Jersey with just one plastic bag in its stomach, according to the report.

And when entangled in plastic, some marine life can drown, choke or suffer physical trauma or amputation, which can then lead to infection, the report said.

In one case study, a Kemp's ridley sea turtle drowned after a plastic bag filled with sand wrapped around its neck, according to the study. Scientists believe the turtle drowned from the weight of the bag.

Scientists estimate that 15 million metric tons of plastic flow into the ocean every year -- the equivalent of about two garbage trucks' worth every minute, according to the report.

Plastic production is expected to quadruple in the coming decades, and the amount of plastic flowing into the oceans will triple by 2040 if nothing changes, Christy Leavitt, one of the report's coauthors, said in a statement.

Researchers complied the report by surveying dozens of governmental agencies, organizations and institutions that collect data on the impact of plastics on wildlife.

Stopping plastic from entering the ocean will take a combination of action by both government and big business, according to the researchers. To do so, not only must companies reduce the production of plastic, especially single-use plastic, but they must offer plastic-free choices to consumers. In addition, governments at all levels must pass policies to reduce the production of single-use plastics, and federal agencies tasked with protecting oceans and the species within them must require standardized reporting of all plastic interaction cases, the researchers said.

"The world is hooked on plastic because the industry continues to find increasingly more ways to force this persistent pollutant into our everyday routines -- and it's choking, strangling and drowning marine life," Warner said in a statement. "We can only expect these cases to increase as the industry continues to push single-use plastic into consumers' hands."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marine animals are swallowing and becoming entangled in plastic at alarming rates, report finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report details the grim circumstances facing marine animals as millions of pounds of plastic continue to make their way into the oceans every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Criminalising abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corruption in the United States - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corruption in the United States is the act of government officials abusing their political powers for private gain, typically through bribery or other methods, in the United States government. Corruption in the United States has been a perennial political issue, peaking in the Jacksonian era and the…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With climate change, the balance of the oceans is also undergoing major changes, causing them to become increasingly acidic.
Let’s see how, and why.

# data[].attributes.body
How has overpopulation and corruption affected the healthcare sector of India?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's not an exaggeration to say that President Yoon Suk-yeol's archnemesis is Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the largest opposition Democratic Party (DP). Their feud goes back to early last year, when they were vying for presidency. There couldn't have been two candidates more diametrically opposed in their upbringing and world views. To this day, they are fighting proxy wars through parliament and the Prosecutor's Office.

Born into a poor farming family, Lee couldn't go to middle and high school, instead working in a factory. His childhood was marked by foraging for food and abuse in his workplace, where a press jammed his arm and crippled it permanently. Still, he went to night school and eventually to university to study law. Lee made his name as a human rights lawyer, representing those sharing similar backgrounds of poverty and victimization. He then entered politics, becoming mayor of Seongnam, a satellite city south of Seoul, in 2010 and governor of Gyeonggi, South Korea's most populous province, in 2017.

On the flip side, Yoon was everything that Lee wasn't. A side-by-side comparison of two childhood photos shows as much. His hair trimmed nicely, Yoon is wearing a neat navy jacket over a starched white collar decked with a red bow tie. Meanwhile, Lee is dwarfed under his moppy hair and a baggy factory uniform.

Yoon grew up in an affluent family and neighborhood, making it hard for him to shed the image of a pampered son of two professors. Unlike Lee, who studied frantically to escape poverty, Yoon took his time - he took the bar exam nine times, finally becoming a prosecutor at the age of 34.

As a prosecutor, Yoon made headlines by going after big shots, including two former conservative presidents. His investigations led to the arrests of Park Geun-hye in 2017 and Lee Myung-bak the following year. Gratified, former President Moon Jae-in of the DP promoted Yoon to the top job, the omnipotent prosecutor-general.

Yet, even Moon wasn't exempt from Yoon's declaration that "I'm not loyal to anyone." The two soon chafed at each other. Yoon recalibrated his crosshairs to Moon's justice ministers and openly defied the president's effort to reform the prosecution service's distended political power. Yoon resigned in March 2021 and filed his candidacy for the People Power Party's presidential primary.

Leading up to the presidential election in March 2022, Lee's and Yoon's campaigns had fiercely warring narratives: Lee represented stability and continuity from Moon, while Yoon was bent on replacing "the incompetent and corrupt DP regime." Yet, their campaigns were also reduced to mudslinging as they slandered each other's family members - Lee's son had a gambling addiction and the Yoons were fond of shamans.

Their barnstorming policies - and their gaffes - revealed the unbridgeable gap between the two. Lee wanted to introduce national basic income and raise taxes on land ownership, whereas Yoon believed that reversing everything done under Moon would restore the country back to kilter. Yoon's careless remarks snubbing the poor and bashing women for the low fertility rate reflected his wish to dismantle Moon's legacy.

Yoon won the presidency, but this ideological and policy divide anticipated the current stalemate. The National Assembly - controlled by the DP majority under Lee - is thwarting Yoon's legislation. Yoon is trotting the globe making bold diplomatic statements, but at home, his influence is largely limited to executive arm-twisting rather than substantial legislative changes.

Yet Yoon packs quite a punch, thanks to his decades spent in prosecution service. The nation's Prosecutor's Office has long been the favorite tool for South Korean presidents to retaliate against their political foes - all the more so for Yoon, who used to call the shot for all the prosecutors. Lee is currently on trial for alleged abuse of power and graft dating back to his tenure as mayor of Seongnam, where he allegedly masterminded a venal scheme involving property investments. He also stands accused of attempting to wire millions of dollars to North Korea for a potential joint venture between Pyongyang and his Gyeonggi province.

Lee denies all allegations and two officials who oversaw the land deals committed suicide, clouding the whole tale. Of course, all this would have been swept under the rug had Lee become president and had the Prosecutor's Office in his palm, which is why Lee denounces the Yoon administration's "political prosecution" to "distort the truth."

The Prosecutor's Office has dedicated dozens of prosecutors to locking the opposition leader up and carried out hundreds of search and seizure. In September, as Lee went into a three-week hunger strike, they requested an arrest warrant to Seoul Central District Court.

South Korean legislators cannot be detained without parliamentary approval, but the vote on September 21 on allowing his arrest passed due to renegades within the DP. It was the first palpable sign of Lee's slipping grip on the party reins.

The DP plunged into turmoil. Yet the court stretched a saving hand to Lee; it refused to issue his arrest warrant citing lack of evidence against Lee and insufficient risk of Lee destroying evidence.

The table has now turned. A purge awaits the small faction within the DP that bristled against Lee's authority and voted to arrest him. They argue that the DP is plagued by "Lee fandom," sidelining those not swooning over Lee's leadership as conservatives and condoning Lee's unilateralism. The DP has now rolled up its sleeve to identify and weed out these non-Lee elements. In October, having recovered from his fasting and avoided arrest, Lee is already making appearances at the National Assembly trailing his entourage to pass legislation unfavorable to the Yoon administration.

Lee's revival offers Yoon and his PPP both pros and cons. On the one hand, the DP has to continue trudging through to the 2024 general election with Lee's baggage, providing Yoon with ammo to pound the whole party with legal charges against Lee and his seemingly totalitarian leadership. That could put off some DP supporters, and the party might lose parliamentary seats due to the likely departure of centrist DP members not enamored of Lee.

On the other hand, the DP under Lee's orchestration will continue to scupper Yoon's domestic agenda. And it will leave Yoon with a bitter taste at having failed to remove his major political obstacle. Lee represents the continuation of Moon's legacy, which Yoon swore to bulldoze, and the fact that Lee continues to enjoy Moon's support is surely an eyesore for Yoon. As Lee lay haggard in his fasting bed, Moon held his hands and urged the DP to get their house in order, insinuating his unconditional support for Lee. It meant a lot - both to Lee and Yoon. Moon earned the highest approval rating for an outgoing president in history and this can still sway some voters' perception of Lee and Yoon.

As the Lee-Yoon rivalry rages on, the DP and the PPP have staked everything on next year's general election. Whether or not South Koreans will unseat the DP majority remains as hazy as the political investigation into Lee's corruption scandal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amid Legal Troubles, Lee Jae-myung Tightens Grip on South Korea's Opposition Party

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
South Korean politics is becoming messier as the proxy war between Lee and President Yoon continues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alongside Vinicius Jr's rise to footballing superstardom has come a torrent of racist abuse, both online and offline, exposing the dark underbelly of the beautiful game.

In the latest instance, La Liga game between Valencia and Vincius Jr's Real Madrid had to be temporarily stopped after the Brazil forward said he was racially abused by a fan behind one of the goals at Valencia's Mestalla Stadium.

While an investigation by La Liga is currently underway and authorities have even made arrests, racism and football have far deeper connections than many fans realise. After all, the "monkey chants" thrown at Vinicius Jr on Sunday (May 21) have almost become commonplace in games featuring him. He is also not the first player to face such abuses, with black players from yesteryears arguably facing much worse.

While instances of racism in top professional leagues tend to get a lot of eyeballs, the problem is far deeper and often much more subtle - hence easily ignored.

We briefly explore race and racism in football.
Spectator racism: bringing out society's ugly side

Sports are an intrinsic part of the cultural fabric of societies. It is sports' ties to culture and history that give them meaning. This is especially true for football, with its rich history and immense popularity across the world.

When Real Madrid plays Barcelona, it is not just two teams squaring off in a game of football - it is a clash of opposing cultures, ideologies, and identities wrapped in history. While Real Madrid - literally "royal" Madrid - is a symbol of Spanish power, patronised by its ruling elite, Barcelona is the Catalonian club, a symbol for the region's secessionist movement.

Naturally, football's cultural salience makes it a deeply emotional game, especially for spectators, whose only agency to affect the outcome of a game lies in the support and emotion they show.

Spectator racism is a product of this emotion that football elicits mixed with racist attitudes prevalent in society. Especially in a rapidly changing world where traditional identities are in a state of flux, football stadiums become venues underlying conflicts in society - whether they be on racial or other lines - find their way to the surface in an emotionally charged atmosphere.

"If we feel so passionately about this business of striking goals with feet, heads and chests, it is not just because it is a spectacle which plays on our emotions, but also because, like an exaggerated drama, it brings to the fore the symbolic values of our societies", French anthropologist Christian Bromberger wrote on the subject in "Football, La bagatelle la plus sérieuse du monde" (Football, The most serious trifle in the world).

Crucially, though, while racism is definitely a "football problem", it is by no stretch just a football problem. "You can't ask sport to be better behaved than society itself, while knowing that it brings out the worst of certain tendencies," wrote Fabien Wille, whose work focuses on sports and diversity.
Institutional apathy and inaction
While racists will always exist in football as long as racism exists in society, where football can do better, is in dealing with racism.

When Vinicius Jr, in the aftermath of being subjected to racist abuse once again, said that "in Brazil, Spain is known as a country of racists", all hell broke loose. La Liga President Javier Tebas clapped back, saying "Neither Spain nor La Liga are racist, it is unfair to say this."

Others, like Valencia politician Ximo Puig and former Barcelona FC board member Toni Freixa went even further, blaming Vinicius Jr himself for the hate he gets. "He (Vinicius Jr) provokes during every game", Freixa said, while pointing to the fact that Madrid's other black players were seldom targeted the same way.

The victim blaming and denial are a part of the larger problem. While football associations are always quick to virtue signal, when it comes to acknowledge the problem and act on it, they fall well short.

In fact, as Spanish newspaper El Pais's striking editorial put it, La Liga only jumped to action in this case after receiving international condemnation from, among others, Brazil President Lula. "La Liga has a problem and that problem is not Vinicius," the editorial read.

This is also not a problem restricted to La Liga alone. For instance, after three black English players - Jadon Sancho, Marcus Rashford and Bukayo Saka - missed penalties in England's loss to Italy in the Euro 2020 finals, English fans were quick to show their ugly side. The UK authorities received more than 600 reports of online racist comments made towards England's black players, 207 of which were judged to be criminal in nature. However, only 11 people were arrested or faced any actual consequences.
Challenge with policing does not excuse lax punishments
Whether it be online or on the ground, policing racist behaviour among fans comes with its challenges. For one, in both arenas, identifying racist individuals is tough. Online abuse can be difficult to trace especially when the volume is such that authorities simply do not have the resources to pursue every single offence. On the other hand, in stadiums with huge crowds, racist individuals are often difficult to single out.

What authorities can do - and have historically failed to - is raise the consequences of any racist behaviour. For instance, in 2019, Montenegro were handed a £17,396 fine and a one-game stadium closure by UEFA, after its fans racially abused three black English players during a Euro qualifier. For context, in 2012, Danish international Nicklas Bendtner was fined £80,000 by UEFA for showing a Paddy Power (betting company) logo on his underwear during a goal celebration.

While FIFA has since updated its disciplinary code to include tougher sanctions for racist or discriminatory behaviour, racism is still not taken "seriously enough" as per many observers and players.
A deeper problem
Conversations around race and racism in football most often emerge out of specific instances of racism or racist abuse - when spectators or players do something "racist". But race impacts football in far more systemic ways which explain both the inaction as well as the racism itself.

For one, by and large, most professional clubs are owned and run by rich white men, not reflecting the diversity on the pitch itself. The lack of diversity in the upper echelons of football translates into the inaction and institutional apathy that has plagued football's trysts with racism.

"Somebody makes a monkey chant and we want to ban him for 10 years ... or deduct 15 points. But we are looking at the wrong issue," former Belgium and Manchester City captain Vincent Kompany said during an event organised by the global players' union FIFPro.

"The issue is that people making the policies have absolutely no diversity, and that also means gender diversity, to even start a debate on what the most appropriate measure is," Kompany said, adding that "Nobody is walking through the corridors (of power) thinking this (racism) is a main topic."

This lack of diversity also percolates to other levels in the footballing ecosystem, from lack of black referees at the top level - who might take spectator racism more seriously than some of their white counterparts have in the past - to the overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in lower, underpaid tiers of football.

Then there is the problem of football media and the role it plays. Multiple studies have shown that black footballers are dealt with very differently by the media than their white counterparts.

From the use of racial stereotypes during football commentary (for example, emphasising on black players' "physicality" and white players' "skill") to the sensationalised coverage of black players' personal lives and choices, the media perpetuates racism in more ways than one.

The coverage of English forward Raheem Sterling is a good example. In recent years, the British media has called him 'greedy' for wanting a pay rise, and even 'obscene' for posting a photo of the house he bought for his mother. While at the same time, his white teammates have received less criticism or even praise for similar behaviour.

For football to truly tackle racism, there needs to be an introspective and honest reckoning of the many ways in which race impacts the sport. While instances of racist abuse need to be strongly dealt with, more lasting solutions will involve wider changes across all stakeholders of the game.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The dark side of the beautiful game: Race, racism and football

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ongoing saga surrounding racist abuse thrown at footballer Vinicius Jr during La Liga games in Spain sheds light on the prevalence of racism in football and its fan culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need To Know About The Shark Fin Trade - Animal Save Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharking finning has been a controversial issue for decades and in many countries it is now illegal. It’s also a very complicated issue because even where it’s banned people trade and sell their fins and many restaurants still serve shark fin soup illegally…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a third-grade classroom bustling with laughing children, only the teacher knew that Tara was a trafficking victim.

"Instead of helping me, he asked me if I had any female friends my age back at the village, so that she could work at his house. I refused," said Tara, who asked to use a pseudonym as she does not want to use her real name for safety reasons, during a recent telephone interview with VOA.

After returning from school to the house where she lived and worked, Tara sometimes slipped away to the terrace when no one was looking. She said she would watch cars driving across Ranchi, the capital of India's Jharkhand state, and wish they would take her away; it didn't matter where they were headed.

"I was 8 when a lady came to our village, Jonha, and told my mother that she would fund my education if I went to live with her family in Ranchi," said Tara, a member of India's Munda tribe. "My parents were poor and had three other children, so they readily agreed."

According to India's National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 6,500 human trafficking victims were identified in the country during 2022 ─ 60% of them women and girls. Experts believe the actual numbers are much higher, due to acute underreporting.

Anurag Gupta, director general of the Crime Investigation Department (CID), Jharkhand, declined VOA's request to comment on the targeted trafficking of tribal girls, citing a dearth of statistical data regarding the issue.

However, Gupta said it is protocol for Jharkhand police to assume abduction or trafficking in every case of a missing child, following a Supreme Court order in 2013.

"We have also established Anti-Human Trafficking Units in different districts of Jharkhand," Gupta told VOA. "We often refer human trafficking cases to the Directorate of Enforcement, who are responsible for handling money laundering cases and seize the properties owned by traffickers."
Trafficking victims
Ruchira Gupta is an anti-human trafficking activist and journalist and the founder of Apne Aap Women Worldwide, an organization that empowers girls and women to resist sex trafficking. She said the majority of India's trafficking victims are girls from oppressed castes and marginalized tribal communities.

"Traffickers take advantage of their [[tribal women and girls']] intersecting vulnerabilities like food insecurity, unstable housing and lack of legal protection to seduce, trick and force them," Gupta told VOA.

With a tribal population of almost 9 million and the highest percentage of outgoing migrants in the country, Jharkhand is one of the primary spots in India targeted by human traffickers, according to the Economic Survey of India of 2017 and the NCRB.

Like many other victims of human trafficking, Tara, who was 8 when she was trafficked, had no idea what awaited her when she entered a city for the first time in her life.

Her parents were told that Tara would have to "help around with some household chores," which did not seem unusual to them at the time.

"I would wake up at 6 a.m., clean the house, do the laundry and cook food for all the members of their joint family before leaving for school," said Tara, who is 18 now.

"I could not focus at school because they used to practically starve me. By the time I returned, they would have finished off everything I had cooked, leaving the utensils for me to wash. Then I had to cook dinner and look after their toddlers," she said. "I felt so hurt that I would lock myself in the bathroom to cry. They would yell if I shed a tear in front of them."

Rashmi Tiwary, founder of the Aahan Foundation, a nongovernmental organization that works to prevent human trafficking in Jharkhand, told VOA that over 60% of the domestic workers employed in New Delhi are from Jharkhand.

"Several of these are women and girls who are trafficking victims. Intergenerational domestic slavery is almost a socially accepted norm among Jharkhand tribes now - many girls who are trafficked have mothers who have faced the same fate," she said.
Betrayed by their own
Most of these victims are taken to cities by "placement agencies"- a euphemism for organized trafficking groups.

Rishi Kant, a co-founder of Shakti Vahini, a New Delhi-based NGO involved in human trafficking rescue operations nationwide, told VOA that India desperately needs a "placement agency act" to protect vulnerable groups like tribal migrants and hold their exploiters legally accountable.

"These 'agencies' lure tribal girls from remote parts of India with the promise of a better life. They sexually exploit these girls, before forcing them into domestic slavery with little to no pay at a stranger's residence. Sometimes, their last resort is suicide," he said.

Vinod Kumar of Shri Ram Placement Service, a New Delhi-based placement agency, told VOA that they are aware of the role played by several placement agencies in the human trafficking of vulnerable communities.

"We ensure that we are not giving employment to any trafficking victim by contacting at least three members of the immediate family of every person we employ," Kumar said. "Furthermore, we have refused employment to girls below the age of 18 who have come to us seeking work. We are also registered with the District Court in Saket of South Delhi."

Tribal girls and women are usually trafficked by other members of their own tribes who have already settled in cities - people they implicitly trust, Kant and Tiwary have said. They added that, more often than not, these victims do not have the means to tell anyone about the abuse they face.

"They don't know the local language, have never been to a big city and are often told that these traffickers paid their families a huge sum for them," activist Gupta said. "They believe that they must allow themselves to be exploited to repay their families' loans."
Laws in place
Bhopal-based Indian Police Service Officer Veerendra Mishra told VOA that a decade ago, Indian law enforcement's attention was not as sharply focused on human trafficking as it is now.

"Earlier, the training meted out by the Bureau of Police Research and Development to combat human trafficking was limited to the police forces directly dealing with investigations," Mishra said.

"Now, vigorous training is given to a much wider array of personnel in the criminal justice and social justice systems, because it is being realized that trafficking occurs in areas beyond those stated in its conventional definition, including adoption trafficking and clinical drug trial trafficking," said Mishra.

He is the founder of the Research, Advocacy and Capacity Building Against Exploitation (RACE) Lab, India's first anti-human trafficking lab. The lab produces evidence-based research regarding human trafficking and advocates for policy and systemic changes in India.

Gupta, of the Criminal Investigation Department, said that in cases involving sexual abuse of trafficked minors, the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act has been a boon.

"The POCSO Act ensures stringent punishment for offenders. In fact, the Jharkhand High Court monitors every POCSO case very closely," he told VOA.

Kant, of Shakti Vahini, said, "The recent interventions by the Jharkhand Police in human trafficking cases have been successful. ... However, the 'suicide' cases in particular must be investigated more thoroughly, instead of being swayed in favor of the economically privileged."

At age 11, Tara returned to her village in Jharkhand during a summer vacation and found new hope in a Child Rights Awareness workshop at Aahan Foundation.

Tara convinced her reluctant parents to let her remain at home, breaking a rigid intergenerational cycle. Now a youth fellow at Aahan Foundation, she loves the Bollywood singer Shreya Ghoshal and wants to preserve the traditional Sahadri dialect through her own singing.

The recent high-school graduate said, "To anyone reading my story: do not send your daughters to a new place without being well-versed about how exactly they are going to be treated there. I do not want anyone else to experience the loneliness I felt."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In India, Human Traffickers Target Tribal Women and Girls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Socially and economically marginalized tribes in India are vulnerable to traffickers' empty promises

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Having lived in Mumbai for a large part of our lives, we cannot but associate ourselves with the mood upliftment that the sights and smells of the ocean bring.

For the same reasons, some of our best family vacations have always been near the oceans, whether Maldives or Langkawi (in Malaysia) or, indeed, Goa or Kerala, in India. The oceans provide a certain sense of romanticism, do they not?

The great plastic problem

The oceans are, unfortunately, changing dramatically in recent times. And one of the causes is plastic pollution.

The plastic debris in the sea has become a garbage patch in the north-central Pacific Ocean known as "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch". Located between Hawaii and California, its size is estimated to exceed four times that of India's largest state, Rajasthan. This non-biodegradable debris accumulated in the patch consists of many plastics that do not wear down but break into tiny pieces. Even though 80 percent of the plastic in the ocean comes from land-based sources, it was found in a National Geographic study in 2018 that synthetic fishing nets are the major contributors to the garbage patch in the Pacific.

Every year, thousands of fish, turtles, seabirds, and other marine mammals consume plastic without realising the consequences and die. These microplastics can also enter the food chain as small organisms ingest them, and then they are eaten by larger animals. It poses a risk to human health, as seafood is a major source of protein for many people around the world.

Efforts have been made towards the most challenging task of cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. While the jury is out on whether that is feasible, many organisations are trying to prevent this patch from growing further.
Also watch: A sea change in our outlook, and not a changing tide, will determine the future of oceanic resources
As per a recent Bloomberg report, the ship 'X-Pearl' caught fire off the coast of Sri Lanka and sank into the Indian Ocean. The UN referred to it as the largest plastic spill in history. This vessel was carrying billions of tiny plastic pellets called nurdles. Scientists are worried that marine life will consume these nurdles and, in turn, also impact humans, who could ingest these pellets. The concern over human health led the Sri Lankan government to ban fishing off the coast. It affected the livelihood of thousands. Though the Alliance to End Plastic Waste has partnered with Sri Lanka to restore their beaches with the help of 'Sweepy Hydros' machines, the progress is slow as the clean-up requires manually scooping and sifting sand to collect the nurdles washed ashore.

These are just two instances of how plastic is negatively affecting not only marine but also human life.

The position is equally concerning in India. A study published in Science Journal shows that India is ranked 12th (amongst 192 countries), notorious for disbursing the maximum amount of plastic waste into the high seas from their coastline. India's coastline spans 7,517 kilometres, with a population of 420 million living near the coast. Coastal districts are home to nearly 14 percent of the country's population, and three in four metro cities are on the coast. According to UNEP, more than 15,000 MT of waste (a lot of it is plastic) per day are dumped in the South Asian seas, generated from 60 major Indian cities.

So, have we already reached a tipping point on ocean plastic pollution?
Also read: Rise in ocean plastic pollution 'unprecedented' since 2005
The solutions

It is fortunately not all gloom and doom. Many corporates are involved in initiatives to reduce their plastic footprint and invest in R&D to create new materials that are less harmful to the environment. Several companies are now using more sustainable packaging materials and implementing plastic recycling programs. Many others are supporting plastic collection/recycling efforts of NGOs/social enterprises as a part of their Corporate Social Responsibility.

One of the encouraging corporate initiatives is the partnership between Adidas and NGO "Parley for the Oceans", a non-profit environmental organisation focusing on protecting the oceans (founded by Cyrill Gutsch in 2012). They worked together to create a product line using upcycled plastic from marine dumps. Conscious customers were happy to pay a premium for this unique product.

'Parley for the Oceans' has adopted a three-pronged strategy to help save the oceans and marine life. The approach "AIR" focuses on 'Avoiding' plastic wherever possible, 'Intercepting' plastic waste, and 'Redesigning' the material. In June 2020, Parley announced a $50 million partnership with the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme and the World Bank to clean up plastic pollution in water in eight countries of South Asia, including Bangladesh, India, and the Maldives.

The Indian Government added its might to the plastic pollution mitigation effort by initiating the 75-day long "Swachh Sagar, Surakshit Sagar" initiative, under which 75 beaches nationwide were cleaned up. It was hailed as the world's largest coastal clean-up, with the highest number ever of participants in such an initiative.

Parley and the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) announced the launch of Parley India in 2022, with a massive beach clean-up near Visakhapatnam (across 28 km, with over 20,000 volunteers). GoAP expects an investment of Rs. 60 billion in the next six years and an employment generation of 20,000. Parley will set up "Parley Super Hub" for recycling and upcycling of plastic wastes and "Parley Future Institute", a cutting-edge research centre for future new materials.
Also read: In the ocean, it's now snowing microplastics
Civil society organisations are playing their part too. The Kerala-based waste management organisation, Green Worms (they operate in islands in Andamans and Lakshadweep too, besides riverside and coastal towns in Kerala), aims to create dignified jobs by deploying the strategy of the circular economy, to eradicate both plastic pollution and poverty. Their endeavour (they report collecting 39400 MT of plastic waste and creating 520 dignified jobs for women) is partnered by some public and private players, both Indian and international.

To tackle the issue of ghost fishing nets (which also trap and kill Olive Ridley turtles), the Chennai-based non-profit TREE Foundation formed a Sea Turtle Protection Force (largely unemployed youth from fishing communities) from 200+ coastal villages across the east coast of India. It has saved more than 3 million Olive Ridley turtles in 20 years. In June 2021, a ghost net retrieval programme (incentivising fishermen) retrieved 57 MT of ghost nets from the sea.

However, these actions are a drop in the ocean, literally and figuratively. There is a need for a huge lot more-the formulation of a National Marine Litter policy, the development of a long-term vision plan for promoting partnerships among coastal towns/cities and urban administration for the reduction of marine litter/creation of sustainable waste management ecosystems, regular beach clean-up and awareness programs, and many more.

As humans, we have responsibilities at corporate and governmental levels and as individuals. The key is the realisation that while plastic is an intrinsic part of our life, there is a need to curb its usage (reusable bags for grocery shopping/storage, buying foods with sustainable packaging, avoiding plastic water bottles by carrying our own), which in turn will reduce plastic waste. We also have to take responsibility for properly disposing of plastic waste by recycling. As important, regulations related to plastic use (such as a ban on single-use plastic below 50 microns) must be strictly enforced.

Prabhat Pani, Executive Director, Centre for Innovation in Sustainable Development (CISD) at Bhavan's SPJIMR.Sunita Chandak, Associate, Centre for Innovation in Sustainable Development (CISD) at Bhavan's SPJIMR.

[This article has been reproduced with permission from SP Jain Institute of Management & Research, Mumbai. Views expressed by authors are personal.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ever-growing Problem Of Plastic Pollution In The Oceans - Forbes India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While plastic is an intrinsic part of our life, we must curb its usage to reduce plastic waste. We also have to take responsibility for properly disposing of plastic waste if we want to keep our oceans pristine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A horrifying viral video of stray dogs mauling a four-year-old boy to death inside a housing society in Hyderabad has left people scarred for life.
This is not the first time that stray dogs have killed or attacked vulnerable members of society.
Incidents of pets attacking humans have also made headlines many times.
Why are there so many stray dogs in India? Whose fault is it? And what needs to be done to solve the problem?

India's population ... a whopping 1.4 people on a relatively small piece of land.

India is about one-third the size of the US, and yet the second most populous country in the world. The extremely overcrowded conditions and a dense population are just a couple of reasons for the number of strays.

Stray dog menace: How to solve the stray dog problem | How to control stray dogs

Why are there so many stray dogs in India?
At present, there are over 10 million pet dogs in the country. By this year, the number is expected to shoot to 30 million. Compare this with India's stray dog population- about 35 million- and it's easy to see that there is a real problem India has on it's hands.

How did this happen in the first place?
The problem goes much deeper than just the enormous number of humans and dogs. For starters, India does not have effective systems in place for animal healthcare and control.
Consequently, proper steps are not taken to keep pets healthy and strays under control. This lack of proper animal control measures has led to the unchecked breeding of strays, resulting in a massive population explosion.
Moreover, many people abandon their pets or allow them to roam freely, contributing to the stray dog population. This is morally wrong. There are options of surrendering your pet if you cannot take care of it anymore. Consider a shelter or trying to find a good home.
However, the issue is not just about the number of strays, but also their behaviour. Stray dogs often form packs and become aggressive, attacking humans and other animals. These attacks can very well be fatal, as we have seen in the recent horrific incident in Hyderabad.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau, there were 4,146 reported cases of dog bites leading to human deaths in India in 2019. This is a staggering number and highlights the severity of the problem.
According to official data, with about 290,000 street dogs, the Indian state of Kerala is not even in the list of top 10 Indian states with the most strays. In terms of dog bites, Kerala reported about 100,000 cases in just seven months in 2022.
The problem isn't new or even recent in Kerala along with other states.
Experts state that improper disposal of waste, abandoned pets on the streets and, most importantly, inadequate sterilisation and vaccination of dogs are the primary reasons for the problem routinely gripping the state.
Who is responsible for this situation?
Is it the government, individuals, or animal welfare organizations?
The answer is all of the above.
The government has failed to implement effective measures to control the stray dog population and ensure their well-being.
Animal welfare organizations are doing their best to provide healthcare and shelter to strays, but their efforts alone are not enough.
Individuals also need to take responsibility for their pets and not contribute to the stray dog population.
Consequently, millions of dogs aren't properly vaccinated, animal waste isn't maintained as it should be, and a lot of dogs are left abandoned to live on the streets. This creates a bigger problem.
India has laws in place that make it illegal to remove a dog from the streets. Moreover, those same dogs cannot be driven away. So once a dog is on the streets, it has a "right" to stay there unless adopted.
The only thing that can happen is for the dog to be sterilized and vaccinated. After that, the canine is returned to the streets. While India's law helps protect innocent dogs, it also creates the perfect environment for the stray dog problem to grow and flourish.
What needs to be done to solve the problem once and for all?
The solution to this problem requires a multi-pronged approach. First and foremost, the government needs to implement effective animal control measures and waste management to eliminate open litter from the roads.
Like in many developed countries, penalties should exist for individuals who litter or don't clean up after their dogs. Rubbish bins and trash cans must also be provided and maintained.
Government needs to also implement sterilization programs, vaccination drives, and effective enforcement of laws against abandoning pets and stray dog control.
Mass cullings are not a long-term solution and considered unethical by many parties. The government needs to work with animal welfare organizations to provide proper healthcare and housing to strays.
Individuals also have a role to play in solving this problem. They should take responsibility for their pets and not abandon them or allow them to roam freely without a leash.
Many people buy a dog without understanding normal dog behaviour. For instance, a puppy normally undergoes teething and nipping and many owners, due to lack of knowledge, think that the dog is aggressive or biting them.
Many cage their dogs in India's hot climates for hours at a time without giving them attention or care. Many completely shave off the fur of a dog's coat in the summer time versus trimming it professionally, unaware that a dog's coat of hair helps the animal cope with heat and uneasiness.
Shaving a coat completely also makes the dog vulnerable to serious diseases. If you are buying a dog or a pet, please opt for the multiple, credible training programs that exist with proven track records.
Owners also need to cooperate in training programs and many dog owners are simply unwilling to invest the time. Remember, just like human children, a dog becomes hard to manage and even aggressive if training, care and routine is not provided by owners.
In addition to this, there is a need to create awareness about responsible pet ownership and the dangers of feeding strays. Citizens must start to report stray dogs to animal welfare organizations.
The media should also play a crucial role in this by highlighting the issue and promoting responsible pet ownership, like this video is doing right now. The Indian government has taken various steps to address the issue of stray dogs in the country.
In 2001, the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program was introduced by the government, which aimed to control the population of stray dogs through sterilization and vaccination. The program is implemented by local municipalities and NGOs, with the government providing financial assistance.
Additionally, the Indian government has passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits cruelty to animals, including stray dogs. The Act mandates that every owner of an animal is responsible for its well-being, and it is illegal to abandon pets or allow them to become strays.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also spoken on several occasions about the importance of adopting dogs and taking care of them. In his monthly radio address 'Mann ki Baat' in January 2020, he urged people to adopt Indian dog breeds and not to discriminate against them.
He emphasized that Indian dogs are very loyal and can adapt well to the Indian climate and environment and added that adopting a dog is like bringing a new family member into the house.
In response to the Kerala state government's proposal to cull 'aggressive and rabid' dogs, animal activists argue that addressing the root causes of the problem is crucial. Rather than resorting to mass killings, implementing birth control programs, creating responsible systems for responsible feeding of strays and collaborating with welfare groups is the long term solution.
The government has also provided guidelines for the management of stray dogs, which includes sterilization, vaccination, and adoption programs. The good news is that these measures are in place.
What needs to be worked on, especially after the recent horrific videos of stray dog attacking children on social media is implementation of all of these measures, which is at present inadequate due to lack of funding, corrupt and/or uninvested local leaders, resources, and coordination between different government agencies.
Rebuilding trust is also necessary between humans and animals. This should be done by clearing up confusion and concern around dogs.
It is evident that more action needs to be taken and more awareness needs to be built at local and individual levels to effectively solve the root of the problem in an ethical manner and long-term manner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
India's stray dog menace: A crisis of proportions | India News - Times of India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India News: A horrifying viral video of stray dogs mauling a four-year-old boy to death inside a housing society in Hyderabad has left people scarred for life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than 40,000 people killed in gun violence so far in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun violence in the U.S. has taken an average of roughly 118 lives each day in 2023, according to data from Gun Violence Archive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The science behind the Fukushima waste water release

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The BBC takes a look at the science behind the controversial water release.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the overturn of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022, abortion policies and reproductive rights are in the hands of each state.

Use this map to explore the breakdown of abortion laws by state in real-time-and understand abortion bans, types of abortion restrictions, what trigger bans are, and more.

Understanding Abortion Bans

Pre-Roe bans

Most states repealed abortion bans in effect as of 1973 once Roe made them unenforceable. However, some states and territories never repealed their pre-Roe abortion bans. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, these states could try and revive these bans.

Trigger bans

Abortion bans passed since Roe was decided that are intended to ban abortion entirely if the Supreme Court limited or overturned Roe or if a federal Constitutional amendment prohibited abortion.

Pre-viability gestational bans

Laws that prohibit abortion before viability; these laws were unconstitutional under Roe. Gestational age is counted in weeks either from the last menstrual cycle (LMP) or from fertilization.

Method bans

Laws that prohibit a specific method of abortion care, most commonly dilation and extraction (D&X) procedures and dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures.

Reason bans

Laws that prohibit abortion if sought or potentially sought for a particular reason. These bans typically name sex, race, and genetic anomaly as prohibited reasons. However, there is no evidence that pregnant people are seeking abortion care because of the sex or race of their fetus..

Criminalization of self-managed abortion (SMA)

Some states criminalize people who self-manage their abortion, i.e., end their pregnancies outside of a health care setting.

SB-8 Copycats

Laws that are modeled after Texas SB 8, the vigilante law that took effect in September 2021. These laws ban abortion at an early gestational age and are enforced through private rights of action, which authorizes members of the public to sue abortion providers and people who help others access abortion care.

Types of Abortion Restrictions

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP)

Targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws single-out physicians who provide abortion care and impose various legal requirements that are different from and more burdensome than those imposed on physicians who provide comparable types of care. These laws do not increase patient safety and are counter to evidence-based clinical guidelines.

TRAP laws fall into several categories, including regulation of locations where abortion is provided and/or facility specifications, provider qualifications, and reporting requirements. Compliance is often costly and can require unnecessary facility modifications.

Parental involvement

Laws that require providers or clinics to notify parents or legal guardians of young peoples seeking abortion prior to an abortion (parental notification) or document parents' or legal guardians' consent to a young person's abortion (parental consent).

Consent laws

Laws that require pregnant people to receive biased and often inaccurate counseling or an ultrasound prior to receiving abortion care, and, in some instances, to wait a specified amount of time between the counseling and/or ultrasound and the abortion care. These laws serve no medical purpose but, instead, seek to dissuade pregnant people from exercising bodily autonomy.

Hyde Amendment

In 1976, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) successfully introduced a budget rider, known as the Hyde Amendment, that prohibits federal funding for abortion. Congress has renewed the Hyde Amendment every year since its introduction.

Abortion Protections

Statutory protections for abortion

Laws passed by states that protect the right to abortion.

State constitutional protection

A declaration from the state's highest court affirming that the state constitution protects the right to abortion, separately and apart from the existence of any federal constitutional right.

Abortion Access

Public funding

States are required to provide public funding through the state Medicaid program for abortion care necessitated by life endangerment, rape, or incest. States can also dedicate state-only funding to cover all or most medically necessary abortion care for Medicaid recipients.

Private insurance requirements

States can require private health-insurance plans that are regulated by the state to contain specific benefits, including abortion coverage.

Clinic safety and access

Laws that prohibit, for example, the physical obstruction of clinics, threats to providers or patients, trespassing, and telephone harassment of the clinic, and/or create a protected zone around the clinic.

Abortion Provider Qualifications

Scope of practice for health-care practitioners is regulated by state legislatures and licensing boards. Generally, state legislation does not outline specific medical care that is within or beyond a practitioner's scope of practice. However, many states have treated abortion differently by restricting the provision of abortion to physicians. Other states have taken proactive measures to expand the types of clinicians who may lawfully provide abortion care by repealing physician-only laws or expressly authorizing physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, and other qualified medical professionals to provide abortion care through legislation, regulations, or attorney general opinions.

Interstate Shield

States hostile to abortion have made it clear that they want to prohibit abortion entirely, both inside and outside of their borders. Interstate shield laws protect abortion providers and helpers in states where abortion is protected and accessible from civil and criminal consequences stemming from abortion care provided to an out-of-state resident.

In effect

A law has been enacted, and the effective date in the legislation has passed.

Enjoined

The state cannot enforce a law that would otherwise be effective because of the decision by a court to temporarily or permanently enjoin its enforcement.

Initially, this tool provided an overview of what could happen to abortion rights in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the five most populous U.S. territories if the U.S. Supreme Court were to limit or overturn  Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling from 1973 that established abortion as a fundamental right. Now rebranded as U.S. Abortion Laws by state, this digital tool describes the abortion policy of the U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the five most populous U.S. territories, which requires careful legal analysis of constitutions, laws, regulations, and court decisions. This online tool charts how these governments are responding to the reversal of  Roe.

Methodology

To determine into which category to place each state, D.C., and the U.S. territories, we first examined whether the right to abortion is protected under state, territory, or D.C. law ("Protected"); if it is, we looked to see whether the state, territory, or District of Columbia enacted laws or policies that enhanced access to abortion care ("Enhanced Access"). If abortion is not protected by state or territory law ("Not Protected"), we then looked to see if the government enacted laws or policies to restrict or prohibit access to abortion care ("Hostile"). Finally, we examined states that have criminalized abortion and prohibited it entirely ("Illegal"). Based on our analysis, we then placed each state, territory, and the District of Columbia into one of these five categories, which exist along a spectrum from "Expanded Access" to "Protected" to "Not Protected" to "Hostile" and, finally, to "Illegal."

The laws and policies identified as creating enhanced access to abortion include public funding and the requirement that abortion be included in private insurance coverage, unrestricted access for young people, the breadth of health-care practitioners who provide abortion care, and protections for clinic safety and access. We assessed hostility and illegality based on abortion bans (pre- Roe, trigger, gestational, reason, method, SB8 copycats, and criminalization of self-managed abortion) and abortion restrictions (TRAP, parental involvement, consent, and physician-only laws). While these bans and restrictions generally have exceptions, this tool does not list them in detail because those exceptions do not provide meaningful access and usually are difficult to utilize. Unless otherwise noted, all bans and restrictions discussed are in effect.
Findings
Today, abortion is protected by state law in 21 states and the District of Columbia and is at risk of being severely limited or prohibited in twenty-six states and three territories.

States Where Abortion Is Protected

Expanded Access

The "Expanded Access" category means that the right to abortion is protected by state statutes or state constitutions, and other laws and policies have created additional access to abortion care.

Protected

Moving across the spectrum, the "Protected" category means that the right to abortion is protected by state law but there are limitations on access to care

States Where Abortion Is Not Protected

Not Protected

The "Not Protected" category means that abortion may continue to be accessible in these states and territories, but would be unprotected by state and territory law. In some of these states, it is unclear whether the legislature would enact a ban now that Roe has been overturned, but concern is warranted.

Hostile

The "Hostile" category means that these states and territories have expressed a desire to prohibit abortion entirely. These states and territories are extremely vulnerable to the revival of old abortion bans or the enactment of new ones, and none of them has legal protections for abortion.

Illegal

Finally, after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, states that ban abortion entirely and enforce those bans through criminal penalties are characterized as "Illegal."

What Did Roe v. Wade Protect Besides Abortion?

Since Roe, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution protects for abortion as an essential liberty, which is tied to other liberty rights to make personal decisions about family, relationships, and bodily autonomy. It's important to understand all of the Rights the Roe v. Wade had protected before it was recently overturned.

Roe v. Wade was Overturned and Reproductive Rights are At Risk

By overturning Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years protected the federal Constitutional right to abortion, the the Supreme Court gave states total leeway to restrict abortion or prohibit it all together. Almost half the states are likely to enact new laws as restrictive as possible or seek to enforce current, unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion. We are seeing states divide into abortion deserts, where it is illegal to access care, and abortion havens, where care continues to be available. Millions of people living in abortion deserts, mainly in the South and Midwest, are forced to travel to receive legal care, which results in many people simply being unable to access abortion for a variety of financial and logistical reasons. It is critical that "Not Protected" states create a state right to abortion, and that the "Protected" states enact laws and policies that move them into "Expanded Access."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion Laws by State - Center for Reproductive Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, so it's crucial to understand abortion laws by state, and where abortion is protected. Learn more now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Historically, in Indian society, sons have been expected to take care of their aging parents, and men have been the main beneficiaries of inheritance. Meanwhile, married women often live with and support their in-laws. In line with these and other traditions, families have tended to place higher value on - and provide more support to - their sonsthan their daughters, a set of attitudes and practices known as " son preference."

Today, nearly all Indian adults say it is either very important or somewhat important for a family to have at least one son, but an identical share (99%) also separately say it is important to have a daughter. Indians are only slightly more likely to say that it is very important to have a son than to have a daughter (94% vs. 90%).

However, one enduring manifestation of son preference has been the practice of sex-selective abortions - using ultrasound or other tests to learn the sex of a fetus and terminating the pregnancy if the fetus is female. While the Indian government has enacted measures meant to curtail this practice, the survey finds that a substantial minority of Indians (40%) say it is completely acceptable or somewhat acceptable "to get a checkup using modern methods to balance the number of girls and boys in the family." On the other hand, roughly half of adults (53%) - including most Muslims (58%), Jains (54%) and Hindus (53%) - say that this practice is either "somewhat unacceptable" or "completely unacceptable." (The indirect phrasing of the question, while perhaps unfamiliar to people outside of India, was carefully tested by survey researchers in India in order to convey the concept of sex-selective abortion to respondents without being offensive.)

A majority of Indian adults (55%) also say that abortion in general should be illegal in all or most cases, even though the medical procedure was legalized in the 1970s and continues to be legally available in India today. Indians' views on abortion are correlated with their views on sex-selective abortion: Those who oppose abortion overall are more likely to see sex-selective abortion as unacceptable.

Nearly all Indians say it is important for a family to have both a son and a daughter

Indians nearly universally say it is at least somewhat important for families to have at least one son (99%) and, separately, at least one daughter (99%). This includes at least nine-in-ten who say it is very important to have a son (94%) and a daughter (90%).

Muslims are somewhat more likely to say it is very important to have a son than a daughter (95% vs. 86%, respectively). This gap is smaller for Hindus (94% vs. 91%) and nonexistent for Sikhs (95% each).

Adults who say religion is very important in their lives are more likely than others to say it is very important to have both sons and daughters. For instance, 95% of Indians who say religion is very important in their lives think it is very important to have at least one son, compared with 86% of Indians who place less importance on religion. Indians who say religion is very important also are somewhat more likely than others to have any children, regardless of gender (76% vs. 69%).

Residents in some states are significantly more likely to place importance on having a son than a daughter. These states are scattered across India. For example, in both the Eastern state of West Bengal and in the Southern state of Telangana, noticeably larger shares say it is very important for a family to have a son (93% and 90%, respectively) than to have a daughter (80% and 77%).

Four-in-ten Indians say it is acceptable 'to balance the number of boys and girls in a family'

Son preference in India has affected both individual families and society at large. Indeed, India's sex ratio at birth has long been skewed, with significantly more boys than girls born each year than would be expected under natural conditions. This imbalance increased along with the rise of ultrasound technology, which made it easier for some Indians to selectively abort female fetuses; in other cases, female babies have been killed after birth.

Over time, the Indian government has taken different approaches to try to prevent sex-selective abortions, such as the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act of 1994 (amended in 2003), which banned testing for the sex of the fetus. According to the 2011 census, there were 111 boys born for every 100 girls born in India, but recent data suggests the gap may be narrowing.

Given the sensitivity around this topic - and the fact that it is illegal in India for medical providers to tell parents the sex of a fetus - the survey could not directly ask respondents if they thought sex-selective abortion should be legal or illegal. Instead, a euphemism was used. The survey asked Indians how acceptable or unacceptable it is to "get a checkup using modern methods to balance the number of girls and boys in a family."

Fully 40% of Indian adults say this practice is at least "somewhat" acceptable, including roughly a quarter (26%) who say it is completely acceptable. Meanwhile, about half of adults say sex-selective abortion is somewhat unacceptable (11%) or completely unacceptable (42%). Men and women have virtually identical views on this topic, and differences by religion on this question are generally modest.

Adults who say abortion in general should be legal in all or most cases (see " Most Indians say abortion should not be legal ") are substantially more likely than other Indians to say that sex-selective abortion is at least somewhat acceptable. Moreover, Indians who have had difficulty purchasing food, medicine or housing for their family in the past year are more likely than those who did not have these financial difficulties to say the practice can be acceptable. At the same time, adults from General Category castes are slightly more inclined than those from lower castes to see sex-selective abortion as acceptable (43% vs. 39%).

Looking at this question at the state level, at least one-in-five people in nearly every state say sex-selective abortion is acceptable. Chhattisgarh stands out as an exception; just 4% of Indians there say the practice is somewhat or completely acceptable. Meanwhile, a few states - including Meghalaya (74%), Assam (68%) and Tamil Nadu (57%) - have clear majorities who say sex-selective abortion is at least somewhat acceptable.

In some states, a relatively high proportion of survey respondents say they do not know or decline to answer the question, including roughly one-in-five in Jharkhand (21%) and 17% in Madhya Pradesh.

In several states in the country's Hindi Belt, relatively few people say the practice of sex-selective abortion is acceptable, while majorities consider it unacceptable. Despite these opinions, some of these states, such as Haryana, have had highly skewed gender ratios, suggesting the widespread prevalence of sex-selective abortion in the region. For example, the 2011 census found a ratio of 121 boys born per 100 girls born in Haryana.

More recently, however, there is some evidence that the sex ratios in these states have become more balanced. In the 2019-2021 National Family Health Survey (NFHS), data showed that Haryana's sex ratio at birth had become less skewed, at 112 boys to 100 girls. In neighboring Punjab - which is not part of the Hindi Belt but has also had a highly skewed sex ratio - the most recent NFHS survey once again showed considerable change: In the 2011 census, there were 119 boys for every 100 girls born in the state, but in 2019-2021, Punjab's sex ratio at birth was somewhat closer to normal, at 111 boys per 100 girls. These trends suggest that the practice of sex-selective abortion may be in decline, perhaps as a result of laws banning the practice and greater awareness generated by public education campaigns. Data from India's next census (scheduled to be conducted in 2022) is expected to provide a more definitive picture.

Most Indians say abortion should not be legal

In 1971, India legalized abortion for women through the first 12 weeks of pregnancy - and, in some circumstances, up to 20 weeks. Since then, legal abortion access has expanded several times, most recently in a 2021 law allowing abortions in some cases through 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Despite this, the survey finds that most Indian adults do not believe abortion should generally be legal. Indeed, a slim majority (55%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, including 36% who say it should be illegal in all cases. Just 38% of Indians say it should be legal in all or most cases.

At least half of adults surveyed in most of India's major religious groups say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. However, Buddhists are more likely than members of other religious communities to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases (51%), including 36% who say it should be legal in all cases.

Adults who say religion is very important in their lives are more likely than those for whom religion is less important to say abortion should be illegal (56% vs. 47%). Additionally, nearly six-in-ten Indians who say they voted for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 2019 national election (59%) say abortion should be illegal, while roughly half of Indians who voted for the opposition Indian National Congress party say the same (52%).

In most Indian states, half of adults or more say abortion generally should be illegal, but Indians who live in the South of the country are less likely to take this view. For example, fewer than half of respondents say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases in Andhra Pradesh (46%), Telangana (39%), Kerala (35%), Karnataka (31%) and Tamil Nadu (31%).

Overall, opposition to abortion is higher among Indians who live in Hindi Belt states, like Haryana (90%) and Rajasthan (76%), than in other parts of the country.

However, significant differences sometimes exist between neighboring states. For example, a majority of Indians in the Hindi Belt state of Bihar say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (61%), compared with roughly four-in-ten in bordering Jharkhand (43%).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Historically, in Indian society, sons have been expected to take care of their aging parents, and men have been the main beneficiaries of inheritance. Meanwhile, married women often live with and support their in-laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Haunted by Columbine | Retro Report Documentary | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans were living through history in 2020 as the country was forced to reconcile the past and the present. The Covid-19 pandemic, which many had considered a "great equalizer," paralyzed the world and Black, Latino and Native American communities were among the hardest hit. Racist attacks against Asians in the US were also on the rise. Jogging, bird-watching or calling 911 while Black felt dangerous and George Floyd 's killing by a police officer shook Americans out of whatever made them numb to racism and police brutality.

No matter where you turned, you couldn't ignore reality. America was the epicenter of a racial reckoning.

Within days, people joined more than 10,000 demonstrations nationwide and a movement to demand reform in police departments across the country quickly followed. Confederate monuments were toppled. TV and sports arenas were not exempt from the call for social justice, and athletes were among the leading voices in the fight for racial equality.

Throughout the year, US law enforcement warned about a growing threat and concern that the rise of White supremacist groups had become the biggest domestic terrorism challenge.

By November, people turned from protesting in the streets to protesting at the polls and Black, Latino and Native Americans voters helped flipped some states blue.

Look back at the moments in politics, policing and culture that defined the extraordinary year in which America was forced to confront racism - and in some cases moved the needle toward change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Year in review. As the Covid-19 pandemic ravaged the US, Black, Latino and Native Americans were among the hardest hit and Asians became the targets of racist attacks in 2020. The killings of George Floyd and others reignited the outcry that Black Lives Matter and thousands protested across the US.

# data[].attributes.body
Inflation by Country 2023 - Wisevoter

Wisevoter

https://wisevoter.com › ... › Economy Country Trackers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Child marriage refers to any formal marriage or informal union between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child.

Despite a steady decline in this harmful practice over the past decade, child marriage remains widespread, with approximately one in five girls married in childhood across the globe. Today, multiple crises - including conflict, climate shocks and the ongoing fallout from COVID-19 - are threatening to reverse progress towards eliminating this human rights violation. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals call for global action to end child marriage by 2030.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Child marriage threatens the lives, well-being and futures of girls around the world

# data[].attributes.body
Corruption (Abuse of power in governments)

Bribery

Important question

How is increasing economic disparity driving a change for the status quo regarding bribery?

Early claim: Rising poverty rates is pressuring governments for a reduction in bribery.