Let the whole world pay for the "disaster"?, Depth | Japan's strong discharge of nuclear contaminated water is imminent, and nuclear wastewater is being discharged into the sea | Japan

When 71 year old Fukushima Prefectural fisherman Haruo Ono unloaded his catch at the small port in Shinmachi, Japan, it was already dawn.

The harvest is meager. The figure of the fishermen under the dim light is like the scene in "The Old Man and the Sea".

While cleaning the silver fish, Ono recalled the day when his life changed dramatically: March 11, 2011.

"After 12 years, we can finally start doing some business," Ono said, "but now we have to discharge nuclear wastewater again, which is really unbearable. We are afraid we will go back to the starting point..."

Anger and helplessness were not the voice of Ono alone. As the Japanese government announced the discharge of pollutants into the sea on the 24th, many Japanese citizens who are deeply concerned about ecological security raised protest slogans and walked towards the Prime Minister's residence on the 22nd.

However, in the face of the stubborn Japanese government, they appear powerless and helpless.

ceremony

As Japan's discharge into the sea enters the countdown, Ono and his fellow Fukushima fishermen are all worried.

Faced with foreign media footage, Ono recalled the day when his life underwent tremendous changes. On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9 earthquake triggered a massive tsunami on the east coast of Japan. Ono survived on the fishing boat, but his home was destroyed and his younger brother also died in the earthquake.

The tsunami also hit the Fukushima nuclear power plant, causing explosions and core melting. Fukushima's proud fishing tradition has been severely damaged.

In the 10 years following the accident, Ono and his colleagues repeated the same "ritual" - conducting small-scale experimental fishing and testing the radioactive content of the fish, until normal fishing gradually resumed in 2021.

But the nightmare of nuclear radiation still lingers. In May of this year, the radioactive cesium content in the sea fish caught in the harbor of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant reached 18000 becquerels per kilogram, exceeding the standard set by Japan's food hygiene law by 180 times.

"The prices of fish produced in Fukushima are still very low, and after more than a decade, people's income is still less than half of what it used to be," said Yoshitaka Sato, the head of the collaborative group of bidders at the Fukushima Sagawara Cauldfish Market

Just as fishermen are struggling to make a living in adversity, the new decision of the Japanese government in April 2021 dealt them a blow. The Japanese government announced that it will gradually discharge 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water starting from 2023, which shocked the entire industry.

After the Fukushima nuclear accident, the nuclear power plant accumulated a large amount of nuclear wastewater, including seawater that helped cool the nuclear reactor, as well as wastewater such as groundwater and rainwater. These waters are sufficient to fill 500 Olympic sized swimming pools and are expected to take 30-40 years to complete the sea discharge operation.

The Japanese government claims that nuclear wastewater will be filtered through multi nuclide removal equipment and discharged into the sea. The tritium contained in water will be diluted to below the national standard for tritium discharge from Japanese nuclear power plant wastewater, which is less than one fortieth of the tritium activity of 60000 becquerels per liter of water.

Japan also endorses the evaluation report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency in July. The report believes that Japan's plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea generally complies with international safety standards.

Now, two years after the decision to discharge the sea was made, the last thing Ono wants to see is still coming.

On the 22nd of this month, facing increasing doubts and opposition, the Japanese government decided to forcefully initiate the discharge of pollutants into the sea on the 24th. However, Asahi TV stated that if severe weather conditions such as large waves occur, the emission plan will be postponed.

On the day of the announcement, more than 200 Japanese citizens braved the rain to protest at the Prime Minister's residence. They, like Ono, have a genuine concern for ecological security.

A resident of Funabashi City, Chiba Prefecture, who participated in the rally, said, "Although many citizens and Northeastern fishermen oppose it, it must be forcibly implemented and cannot be allowed." Some protesters held microphones and shouted loudly, "This will leave the cost to future generations."

"Fish prices have only just started to improve after 12 years, and the plan to discharge them into the sea is unbearable," Ono said. "The ocean is not a trash can. The people of Fukushima have already suffered enough, why have they suffered more?"

ignore

"It has been proven that the Japanese government adopts a ignoring attitude towards domestic and international public opinion," said Lv Yaodong, a researcher at the Japan Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Lv Yaodong said that Japan has always touted itself as a democratic country, a country that upholds pacifism. But in order to maintain the interests of the large capital group, TEPCO disregards public opinion, exposing its hypocrisy and irresponsibility.

From a domestic perspective, in 2015, the Japanese government and TEPCO made a written commitment that they would not discharge nuclear contaminated water without the understanding of fishermen. Now, the Kishida government openly betrays public opinion and deprives civil rights.

Although the Japanese government is trying to block people's mouths with "compensation fees", the "pollution discharge" is hitting the entire Japanese fishing industry, and is it just 80 billion yen that can be "bought out"?

The latest survey in Japan shows that over 80% of Japanese respondents believe that the Japanese government's explanation of the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea is insufficient. 88.1% of respondents are concerned that this move may damage Japan's overseas image. The issue of nuclear wastewater treatment has also led to a decrease in support for the Kishida Cabinet to 33% in "dangerous waters".

From an international perspective, Asia Pacific countries such as China, South Korea, and Pacific island countries are stakeholders in Japan's pollution control plan. Although the South Korean government, led by Yoon Seok yeol, has adopted a tacit attitude towards the sea discharge plan for the development of Japan South Korea relations, the people of China and Pacific island countries, opposition parties in South Korea, and citizen groups have all criticized Japan's selfish and selfish practices.

Just as Japan's pollution discharge decision was announced, China made solemn representations to the Japanese side and will take all necessary measures to maintain the marine environment, food safety, and public health. South Korean civil society groups held rallies to protest. Henry Puner, Secretary General of the Pacific Island Forum, bluntly stated that Japan's pollution plan "shudders to think".

Lv Yaodong said that Japan's disregard for the public opinion of the international community goes against the trend of democratization in international relations, and is in stark contrast to Japan's international image of pursuing pacifism and emphasizing environmental protection.

adventure

The questioning voices of people also fully reflect the loopholes in the safety, legitimacy, and legality of Japan's sea discharge plan.

From a safety perspective, multi nuclide removal equipment and seawater dilution are the two pillars of Japan's sea discharge plan. But are they really as reliable as Japan claims?

Wei Fangxin, a researcher at the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, pointed out that the composition of Japan's nuclear contaminated water is complex and difficult to treat, and there is no global precedent for treating such wastewater. Nuclides or impurities can also have adverse effects on the long-term performance of equipment, reducing its processing efficiency over the past 30 years of emissions. These will all affect the effectiveness of nuclide removal, posing higher requirements for backend monitoring.

Xu Junlie, Honorary Professor at the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Seoul University, stated that the description of a multi nuclide removal device is inaccurate and should be called a "multi nuclide reduction device". The testing data released by Japan in January 2022 showed that more than 70% of the nuclear contaminated water treated by ALPS still did not meet the discharge standards.

As for ocean dilution, Wei Fangxin stated that due to effects such as nuclide enrichment, the risk of nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the ocean is difficult to predict.

Wei Fangxin said that the nuclear radiation safety standard set by the IAEA is a dose limit of 1 millisievert per year for the public, but even if it is less than 1 millisievert, there is still a risk of radiation impact. "This is like a speed limit of 100 kilometers per hour on highways, which does not mean that cars are absolutely safe if their speed is kept below 100 kilometers per hour."

In Wei Fangxin's view, implementing emissions on the premise that there may be other better disposal options has resulted in humans taking on additional potential risks that they would not otherwise have had to bear. For the world, an additional inappropriate dose, even a little more, is unfair and unacceptable.

The German Institute of Marine Sciences has pointed out that the Fukushima coast has the world's strongest ocean currents. Within 57 days from the date of discharge, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean and 10 years later to global waters.

From a legitimate perspective, wastewater treatment plans include multiple options such as hydrogen release, formation injection, underground burial, steam release, and ocean discharge. But Japan only chose the ocean emission plan with the lowest economic cost based on limited storage tank space.

Wei Fangxin said that the analysis provided by Japan shows that other disposal methods are expensive and may have a greater impact on local ecological security. The simplest and most convenient way is to discharge nuclear wastewater into the sea. But in this way, the risk of nuclear pollution is transferred to the world.

Some public opinion points out that the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea is an unprecedented adventure and full of uncertainty. Once the emission is activated, it will no longer be possible to put the monster back into the bottle.

From a legal perspective, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that all countries should take all necessary measures to ensure that pollution caused by events or activities within their jurisdiction or control does not expand beyond the areas exercising sovereign rights. Japan is clearly a bad example.

It is worth mentioning that Japan is also attempting to confuse international audiovisual with the evaluation report of the IAEA. In fact, due to authorization limitations, the relevant conclusions of the IAEA have significant limitations and one sidedness, and cannot serve as a "talisman" and "passport" for Japan's discharge into the sea. IAEA Director General Grossy also stated that the agency's review and evaluation at the request of the Japanese government is not endorsing Japan's discharge into the sea, and will continue to monitor and evaluate the discharge process.

Accountability

A Japanese official said that the results of the first seawater test after discharge may be released in early September. Japan will also conduct tests on fish in the waters near nuclear power plants and publish the test results on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Faced with the stubborn Japanese government, Ono's words were filled with helplessness: "Moms with children won't buy fish from Fukushima anymore, and fishing is meaningless. It's so angry, what a foolish move! The government says dilution is fine. But poison is poison."

Lv Yaodong pointed out that Japan's fearlessness is closely related to the indulgence of the United States. The United States hopes to maintain the Western led international order and sees Japan as a spokesperson in East Asia, while Japan also uses various international occasions for public relations and establishes an "image damage countermeasure fund". The exchange of interests between both parties is very clear.

In Lv Yaodong's view, China should first strengthen ocean monitoring and control of marine products in response to Japan's actions towards discharging into the sea. Secondly, it should strengthen cooperation with other countries in the Asia Pacific region and fight against Japan's actions that affect public safety for all mankind. In addition, pursuing Japanese responsibility through international litigation and other means is also an option that can be considered.