South Korean people chant slogans during a protest against Japan’s discharge of treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean, in Seoul, South Korea, August 26, 2023. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji
THE international community was taken aback by Japan’s action to discharge nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima plant into the Pacific on Aug 24, 2023. This move occurred despite the widespread protests and opposition from nations across the Asia-Pacific.
Japan’s unilateral action is seen as a display of self-interest and irresponsibility, with the potential to inflict immeasurable harm upon the ocean ecosystem.
The consequences are far-reaching, extending to heightened safety risks in our food chain, the emergence of novel illnesses, and an increased likelihood of cancer cases among humans.
Ultimately, such a course of action jeopardises the fate of our planet, casting a shadow of uncertainty over its future.
The radioactive water is discharged into the Pacific resulting from the Fukushima nuclear leakage caused by the submarine earthquake in 2011.
Addressing its aftermath by oceanic discharge lacks historical precedence, and no technology has yet emerged from rigorous scientific testing and practical validation as “safe and harmless”.
However, on Aug 24, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), responsible for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, initiated the water discharge process through remote operation from the plant’s monitoring room.
This marked the commencement of releasing nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean. As outlined in Tepco’s discharge plan, about 460 tonnes of such water will be released daily for 17 days, with a gradual increase planned thereafter.
The target for 2023 is to discharge over 30,000 tonnes of nuclear-contaminated water, equivalent to draining 30 water storage tanks.
Presently, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant stores around 1.34 million tonnes of such water, and fresh contamination is still generated each day. The timeline provided by the Japanese government and Tepco indicates that this oceanic discharge process is anticipated to span at least 30 years.
Japan’s pursuit of sea discharge, absent of a comprehensive demonstration of the long-term safety and dependability of existing methods, lacks widespread consensus from relevant stakeholders if only based on a paper report from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The absence of a robust international oversight and compensation framework further compounds the issue. Japan’s insistence on initiating oceanic discharge under these conditions is laden with risks and unforeseeable dangers.
Oceans stand as a shared-home crucial for the survival of humanity, prompting all nations to uphold their duty under international law to safeguard and preserve its fragile ecosystem.
Contamination factor
Regrettably, in the face of widespread scepticism and opposition both domestically and internationally, Japan has chosen to transfer the burden of nuclear contamination risk onto neighbouring countries such as China and the global community at large.
This choice is based on Japan’s immediate self-interest. This perilous decision places an unwarranted gamble on the health of the worldwide marine environment and the people’s well-being, disregarding the larger collective interests and leaving us all to grapple with the consequences.
It’s intriguing to observe the diverse range of opinions held by different nations and their citizens regarding Japan’s negligent disposal of radioactive water.
Strikingly, while some countries voice their concerns, Western countries such as the United States and Canada maintain their silence on Japan’s action even on the second day after a large amount of nuclear water dumping into the ocean and do not adopt any opposition against Japan’s action.
Even more perplexing, Antony Blinken, the US secretary of State, endorsed Japan’s plan, citing compliance with international standards – a stance that many find incredulous.
Most Western people and environmental activists know nothing about this. One of the main reasons is that the Western media did not report Japan’s discharge of nuclear water into the sea.
South Korea’s government shifted from active opposition to a subdued silence, a shift that elicited public protest within the country.
Recent polling conducted by Kyodo News revealed that more than 80% of Japanese respondents find the Japanese government’s explanation regarding nuclear-contaminated water to be “insufficient”.
In stark contrast, the Chinese government has displayed unequivocal opposition, vehemently condemning Japan’s conduct.
China has pledged and is undertaking comprehensive measures to safeguard the public health of its citizens. This intricate array of reactions underscored the conflicting state interests between the Western countries and Asian-Pacific countries.
The Japanese government and Tepco assert that, apart from tritium, all radioactive elements in the nuclear wastewater treated by the Advanced Liquid Processing System adhere to discharge standards.
However, this declaration has not garnered international recognition or trust.
Back in 2019, concerns were raised about the persistence of radioactive constituents such as iodine-129, strontium-90, tritium, ruthenium-106, and carbon-14 in the Fukushima nuclear plant’s wastewater.
Radiation harm
These elements can infiltrate the human body through the food chain and bond with human tissues, leading to radiation-induced harm.
The release of nuclear wastewater into the ocean would unavoidably result in marine organisms absorbing the discharged material.
Once within the human body, these radioactive materials disperse throughout various organs via the bloodstream, potentially causing radiation-related ailments including cancer, genetic mutations, and immune system dysfunction.
Furthermore, the discharge of nuclear wastewater would inflict severe damage upon the marine ecosystem.
The growth, reproduction, and distribution of marine life would be disrupted, potentially leading to species extinction, a decline in biodiversity and reduced marine resources.
The consequences encompass a broader ecological imbalance, posing significant threats to both marine life and human well-being.
For Japan, the act of directly releasing nuclear wastewater into the sea might appear inconsequential. Yet, the ramifications of this choice extend far beyond its borders, demanding a global toll.
The repercussions of Japan’s actions will reverberate across nations and impact humanity at large. In the face of this, a pivotal question arises: What lies ahead for the fate of our planet? — China Daily/ANN
Liu Yuning is a PhD candidate at the University of Exeter. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
