How to talk about integrity! Before and after Japan's decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, there has been a long-standing conspiracy
According to the decision of the Japanese government, Fukushima nuclear contaminated water will be discharged into the ocean starting from August 24th. This pollution discharge process will continue for decades.
Tracing the entire process of Japan's decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, it is clear that discharging it into the sea is a long planned "established policy", a true violation of international law, an extremely selfish and irresponsible act of a country, and the result is to transfer the cost of handling the Fukushima nuclear accident to the world.
The plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea has been ongoing for a long time
Since the serious accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011, a large amount of high concentration nuclear contaminated water has been produced daily due to water cooling, melting of the core, and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. In April 2011, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the nuclear power plant, intentionally discharged contaminated water into the sea, causing high social concern and concern. In December of the same year, TEPCO announced that it had developed a plan to discharge "low concentration polluted water" into the sea.
In March 2013, Dongdian's key facility for treating nuclear contaminated water, the "multi nuclide treatment system," was put into trial operation. However, there have been continuous problems since then: frequent water leakage. In 2018, it was exposed that radioactive substances such as strontium in the treated water still exceeded the standard. In 2021, it was found that nearly half of the exhaust filter used to adsorb radioactive substances was damaged
Since ALPS was put into operation, the Japanese side has referred to the treated nuclear contaminated water as "treated water". In fact, currently, more than 1.33 million cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water in the water storage tanks of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant have been treated by ALPS. However, only about 30% of them meet the "treated water" standard defined by TEPCO, and about 70% of the so-called "treated process water" that does not meet the standard. Nearly 9000 cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water have not yet been treated by ALPS.
And how should the ultimate destination of these "treated water" be resolved?
As early as December 2013, the Japanese nuclear energy regulatory authority, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, established a working group to conduct technical discussions on the issue of "treating water" emissions. In June 2016, the working group released a report stating that after evaluating five methods including ocean discharge, underground burial, formation injection, steam release, and hydrogen release, diluting "treated water" and discharging it into the sea was the "lowest cost" method.
This report set the tone for the subsequent sea discharge plan, but was strongly opposed by Japanese agricultural, forestry, and fishery groups after its release. Even the then Minister of Japanese Revival, Masayoshi Yoshino, expressed opposition to treating nuclear contaminated water and discharging it into the sea.
However, TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have clearly regarded the sea discharge plan as a "predetermined policy". In July 2017, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry held a "Local Coordination Meeting on Waste Furnace and Polluted Water Countermeasures" in Fukushima City, showing a willingness to negotiate with the local authorities. However, before the meeting, Takashi Nagagawa of the Tohoku Electric Power Association claimed to the media that Tohoku Electric had "made a judgment" regarding the discharge of pollutants into the sea, causing widespread dissatisfaction in society.
To persuade the public, the Japanese government has established a committee with experts from relevant fields. In August 2018, the committee held hearings in Fukushima and Tokyo, ostensibly to listen to public opinions, but in reality, to endorse the sea discharge plan. At the hearing, Toyoshi Morita, the then chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission, questioned the statement that "discharging into the sea is the only feasible option". For example, in response to the issues raised by TEPCO regarding the storage capacity of contaminated water and insufficient open space, it has been suggested to consider using large oil storage tanks with a capacity of 100000 tons, while the open space can utilize the Fukushima II nuclear power plant, which has been identified as a decommissioned reactor. Regarding the technical difficulty of treating nuclear contaminated water, some opinions suggest that the steam discharge method used in the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States can be adopted. It is also pointed out that the separation technology for tritium, a radioactive element that cannot be removed by ALPS, is currently under research and should be discharged only after the technology is mature and applied.
However, in February 2020, the above-mentioned committee issued a report stating that there were "many problems" with methods such as geological injection, underground burial, and hydrogen release. Precedent sea discharge and steam release were the "practical options", while emphasizing that sea discharge has "many benefits" over steam release.
In April 2021, the Japanese government ignored domestic and foreign objections and unilaterally announced that it would implement nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea in 2023. Afterwards, preparations for sea discharge began to be vigorously promoted: in December 2021, TEPCO submitted a construction plan for water treatment and sea discharge equipment to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission; In July 2022, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission approved the plan; On January 13th this year, the Japanese government confirmed that it would implement sea discharge during the spring and summer seasons; On June 26th, TEPCO announced the completion of the construction of its offshore equipment; On July 7th, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission delivered the certificate of conformity for the acceptance of offshore facilities to TEPCO.
Self directed and self performed "authoritative certification"
On July 4th of this year, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Grossy, visited Japan and presented the comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The report believes that Japan's sea discharge plan overall meets international safety standards, and therefore the Japanese side claims that the safety of the plan has been "certified by authorities.".
However, there are many doubts about the fairness and scientificity of this report.
Firstly, the Japanese side made a decision to discharge into the sea first, and then entrusted the IAEA to conduct a safety assessment. The purpose is obviously not to find a scientifically reasonable solution, but to use the agency to endorse the discharge plan.
According to the report, after the Japanese government announced its decision to discharge water into the sea in April 2021, it signed an authorization agreement with the IAEA in July of the same year to assess the safety of ALPS water treatment. The evaluation object is limited to the sea discharge plan and does not involve other plans. This means that the evaluation conclusion cannot prove that the sea discharge plan is the safest and most reliable solution.
Secondly, the Japanese side had already begun the relevant layout around the "certification plate" before officially authorizing the IAEA evaluation.
In April 2013, shortly after ALPS was put into trial operation, the Japanese government invited an IAEA inspection team to Fukushima. The inspection team will release a report one month later, recommending that Japan start researching emission issues. At that time, the Director General of the IAEA was Japanese man Yuya Amano. After Grossy took over as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December 2019, replacing the deceased Yukiya Amano, Japan continued to work with the IAEA. In March 2021, the then Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, held talks with Grosi and requested support from the IAEA in eliminating the "reputation damage" caused to Japan by nuclear contaminated water discharge. On April 14 of the same year, the day after the Japanese government announced its decision to discharge the sea, Hiroshi Kajiyama held talks with Grosi again, requesting support from the IAEA in environmental monitoring and explaining to the international community.
The Tokyo News reported that the Japanese government has paid a huge share of costs and other payments to the IAEA in the past, and multiple departments of the Japanese government have dispatched personnel to the IAEA. These factors inevitably have an impact on the IAEA's assessment of the safety of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge plan.
On July 9th, a member of the largest opposition party in South Korea, the Democratic Party of Korea, pointed out during a meeting with Grossy that the IAEA did not adhere to the principles of neutrality and objectivity, and did not cater to Japan's position of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea from beginning to end, disregarding the impact of this approach on neighboring countries and hastily drawing conclusions, which is very regrettable.
Once again, the IAEA assessment report emphasizes at the beginning that the insights presented in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAEA member states. The report is not a recommendation or endorsement of Japan's sea discharge plan, and the IAEA and its member states are not responsible for any consequences arising from the report. This disclaimer clearly indicates that the report cannot represent the opinions of the international community, nor can it prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's sea discharge plan.
Chinese expert Liu Linlin, a researcher at the China Institute of Atomic Energy, who participated in the technical working group for evaluating the discharge of ALPS water from Fukushima, told the media that the IAEA Secretariat had solicited opinions from the technical working group on the draft evaluation report, but the time window left for the experts was very limited, and their opinions were for reference only. Whether to adopt them was decided by the IAEA Secretariat. After receiving feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without discussing and negotiating with experts on the revision and adoption of opinions.
Li Song, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna and the Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointed out that the conclusion of the agency's report on the safety of Japan's sea discharge plan is one-sided, lacking persuasiveness and credibility. Due to authorization limitations, the institution did not evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the Japanese purification device, did not confirm the true accuracy of data on nuclear contaminated water, and could not ensure that the international community timely grasped the situation of excessive emissions. It was even more difficult to estimate the impact of long-term accumulation and enrichment of radioactive isotopes on marine ecological environment, food safety, and public health. "Without confirming the accuracy of data, reliability of equipment, and effective regulation, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that it is safe to discharge over 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean over a period of 30 years."
Sincerity and integrity are worrying about showing off with sincerity
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has a marine animal breeding room that houses common flatfish along the coast of Fukushima. One of the tanks contains ordinary seawater, while the other tank contains treated nuclear contaminated water, also known as "treated water.".
From a scientific perspective, experts and environmental organizations have doubts about the nuclear contaminated water treatment and other related data provided by TEPCO.
Professor Ferenc Dolnoki Veresh, a nuclear physics expert at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies in the United States, pointed out that the data provided by Japan is "incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and one-sided.". The Japanese environmental group "FoE Japan" pointed out various issues with TEPCO's claim to "treat water": some of the water treated by ALPS still exceeds the standard for radioactive elements such as iodine 129 and strontium 90; So far, the water samples detected by Dongdian only account for 3% of the stored polluted water, and the detection results provided by it are not representative; Fukushima's "treated water" comes into direct contact with the melted core and cannot be compared to normal nuclear power plant drainage
What is even more concerning is that TEPCO has a "black history" of tampering with data and concealing safety issues at nuclear power plants.
On the third day after the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011, TEPCO was able to determine that Units 1 to 3 had experienced a core meltdown based on relevant data, but it continued to use "core damage" as a cover up until two months later when it admitted to the core meltdown. TEPCO later admitted that this was intentional concealment of the truth according to the instructions of the then president; TEPCO once claimed that there were no new nuclear contaminated water discharged into the ocean after June 2011. However, with a series of leakage incidents exposed in 2013, TEPCO eventually admitted to high concentrations of nuclear contaminated water leaking into the sea and claimed that it was not timely disclosed due to concerns about affecting the reputation of the local fishing industry; In September 2021, when reporting ALPS exhaust filter damage, Dongdian admitted that the same filter damage had occurred two years ago, but did not report or investigate the cause, only replacing the filter; In October 2022, TEPCO was once again exposed for misleading visitors with problematic radiation detectors to prove the safety of "ALPS treated water".
Tokyo University scholar Naoto Kanagawa also pointed out that not only in Fukushima, but other nuclear power plants under TEPCO are also constantly experiencing management and safety issues, making it difficult to believe their disposal capabilities. "Is TEPCO eligible to discharge into the ocean?"
The dishonesty of TEPCO and the Japanese government is also reflected in their attitude of going back and forth. The plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea has always been strongly opposed by local fishermen in Japan, especially in Fukushima. In this situation, in August 2015, TEPCO and the Japanese government successively assured the Fukushima Prefecture Fisheries Collaborative Association and the National Fisheries Collaborative Association of Japan that they would not discharge nuclear contaminated water into the ocean until they were understood by fishermen and other relevant parties.
Although the Japanese government tried every means to persuade fishing industry practitioners, it was never successful. The National Fisheries Collaborative Association of Japan and the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Collaborative Association have passed special resolutions for four consecutive years since 2020, firmly opposing the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea. However, despite opposition, the Japanese government and TEPCO have violated their own commitments and insisted on advancing their sea discharge plan.
After a meeting with Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Yasuhiro Nishimura on July 14th this year, Yasushin Sakamoto, President of the National Fisheries Collaborative Association of Japan, stated that as long as there is no confidence in emissions, it is impossible to change his opposition. After exchanging views with Yasumi Nishimura on July 11th, the President of the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Collaborative Association, Tetsuya Nozaki, emphasized that fishermen cannot tolerate the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, in contrast to the government's commitment to not engage in any disposal without obtaining the understanding of relevant parties.
Accusing a deer as a horse and pretending to act falsely
Faced with strong opposition to the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea at home and abroad, the Japanese authorities have launched intensive public relations actions to confuse the public, vigorously promoting the "nuclear contaminated water safety theory" and making it a focus of Japan's diplomacy.
Japanese government departments such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Department of Revitalization have set up special links on the homepage of their official websites to promote ALPS's "water treatment" safety. The social media accounts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have also placed relevant promotional videos at the top or in prominent positions, and launched multilingual versions.
Japan is the rotating presidency of the G7 this year. During the G7 Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministers' Meeting in April this year, Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Yasuo Nishimura, stated at a press conference that "the steady progress of waste furnace work, including the discharge of 'treated water' into the sea, is welcome." However, German Minister of Environment, Reims Reims, immediately stated that "discharge into the ocean cannot be welcomed.". The Japanese side originally attempted to include content such as "welcoming the transparent process towards sea discharge" in the joint communiqu é of the meeting to demonstrate "international recognition". This statement was opposed by Germany, but Japan still used its host status to include "welcoming... Japan's transparent efforts with the IAEA based on scientific evidence" and "supporting independent review by the IAEA" in the final communique. The same content later appeared in the joint communiqu é of the leaders of the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May.
These island countries were once deeply affected by the United States nuclear test in the Pacific, and now have strong opposition to the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear power into the sea, making them a key "comfort" target for Japan. According to the report released by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry on July 31st, Japan has conducted "explanatory work" on all member countries and regions of the Pacific Island Forum since February this year.
The Japanese side also frequently holds briefing sessions with diplomats and foreign journalists from various countries in Japan, making every effort to promote the "safety" of nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea. In Japanese explanations, especially in foreign language versions, "treated water" is generally used to refer to nuclear contaminated water, with the intention of downplaying its pollution characteristics and potential hazards to confuse the public. According to some foreign journalists stationed in Japan, if there is any questioning of the safety of nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea in their reports, relevant personnel from TEPCO and Japan will call and write to exert pressure.
It is worth noting that according to the safety regulations of the IAEA regarding the discharge of radioactive substances into the environment, authorization for the discharge of radioactive substances should be provided to affected stakeholders and consultations should be conducted. Some stakeholders may be in other countries, especially neighboring countries. However, in the face of opposition and questioning from neighboring countries, Japan did not communicate sincerely, but instead turned the tables and slandered the reasonable concerns of regional countries regarding marine environment and food safety as a "political card". Some right-wing media in Japan even dress up Japan as a "victim" and angrily threaten to "counter" neighboring countries that object to the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea.
On July 4th, the Chinese Embassy in Japan elaborated on China's position on the issue of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea, pointing out that Japan's statement of "hoping to engage in dialogue and consultation with China" lacks sincerity. So far, China has conducted exchanges with Japan through bilateral and multilateral channels, repeatedly expressing opinions and concerns from professional departments. However, Japan has disregarded China's position and insists on advancing the discharge of pollutants into the sea according to the established schedule. "If the Japanese side takes sea discharge as a prerequisite for negotiations and blindly imposes sea discharge on the Chinese side, what is the significance of such negotiations?"
The discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear power into the sea is not a private or minor matter for Japan alone, but a public and significant matter related to the marine environment and human health. The Japanese government disregards the legitimate concerns of the international community and violates its international obligations by forcefully promoting the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, endangering the marine environment and human health, and infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of neighboring countries. This is by no means an act of a responsible country.
