Q1: It is not difficult to figure out, judged from your past statements and the short presentation you are about to deliver at ICON Congress in Marrakesh, that your criticism IAEA's role in the ocean-discharge of ALPS-treated water at the Fufushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant focuses on the lack of VERIFICATION. Why do you believe verfication of the plan proposed by the Japanese government is of critical importance? Are you suggesting that there is an issue of trustworthiness and credibility with the TEPCO and the Japanese government?

Q2: The IAEA set up a Task Force to "provide Japan and the international community with an objective and science-based safety review?" It was stated on its website, however, that this review will be based on material submitted by Japan and on-site technical missions. In your opinion, why didn't IAEA conduct its review in an independent capacity, as it has done in multiple non-proliferation on-site inspections in Iran and the DPRK, for instance?

Q3: The IAEA Task force consists of staff members from across the departments and laboratories of the IAEA, and 11 internationally recognized experts with diverse backgrounds from Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, France, the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam. Do you think this team is professional and representative enough and its findings convincing enough?

Q4: The technical aspects IAEA focused on included the environmental monitoring associated with the discharge. But you apparently believe that such monitoring could not fully account for possible increases in existing risks due to even minor additional events as well as uncertainties resulting from environmental changes. Why?

Q5: The IAEA seems to have full and uncritical confidence in the ALPS technology, which according to the TEPCO, is able to filter62 different radionuclides. Hence, when IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi repeatedly assured the international community of the safety of the ocean-discharge, he actually meant the post-dilution level of tritium. Some experts, such as Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist for Greenpeace, however,believed that tritium was just a distraction designed by the TEPCO and the Japanese authority to attract media and public attention; in other words, a ruse to disguise the fact that many radionuclides, such as iodine, ruthenium, rhodium, antimony,tellurium, cobalt and strontium, cannot be filtered by ALPS to an undetectable level. What's your comment?

Q6: Now that a total of over 31, 000 tons of ALPS-treated water has been discharged into the Pacific in four batches, what the international community, and particularly the world's scientific community can still do about this enwironmentally far-reaching issue?

Q7: If you have any comments besides what you talk today? Would you suggest anything that we can do to make this thing better or stop this thing?

Q8: What do the people in sicientific community especially biological professors think about this issue?What are their thoughts or evaluations on this issues?