Oppose Japan's strong push for nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea. People: We cannot solely focus on Japan and consider issues related to the ocean | radioactivity | water discharge into the sea

Recently, Tokyo Electric Power Company injected seawater into the contaminated water discharge tunnel of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and found excessive levels of radioactive elements in fish in the harbor of the plant.

The Fukushima nuclear accident caused serious pollution in the coastal areas of northeastern Japan. However, the Japanese government did not seriously reflect and learn from the Fukushima nuclear accident. Instead, it decided to discharge the contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea and repeatedly advocated for the so-called "safety" of the contaminated water. This has been continuously opposed by people from both domestic and international communities.

Within Japan: Issues cannot be solely considered around Japan

Fukushima Prefecture local fisherman Haruo Ono: The ocean is a large living organism, it is the home of fish, not humans. We borrow the ocean to fish and deliver them to consumers, so as fishermen, we need to protect the ocean. The ocean is interconnected, and we cannot only consider issues centered around Japan. The government says it is not allowed to dispose of plastic waste and ton bags, is this not contradictory? Can only tritium be discharged into the sea? Who made this decision? Even the Prime Minister of a country cannot decide this.

Honorary Dean of Hokkaido Cancer Center, Masato Nishio, said that tritium and ordinary water can mix together. Some of the tritium ingested by fish is excreted in the form of water, but if it becomes organically bound tritium, it will be absorbed into the chemical structure of the fish's body. If we eat such things, our bodies will also contain contaminated proteins and other substances.

Environmental Radiology Expert Amano Guang: The main reason why I oppose the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean is that the water contains not only radioactive isotopes, but also tellurium and other harmful elements. We don't know the consequences of these pollution, what the ocean will become.

Atomic Power Citizen Committee expert Masashi Goto: No matter how vast the ocean is, the impact of nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea is currently only speculation. Once it is truly discharged, it is impossible to predict what will happen. Who will take responsibility if a major accident occurs? Once an environmental problem occurs, its impact is enormous, and it can be said that environmental problems are irreversible and cannot return to their original state. Although people may mistakenly believe that the concentration of radioactive pollutants is important, what is actually more important is the absolute amount of emissions. Considering this, it is very dangerous to simply talk about the diluted concentration of radioactive substances without considering the absolute amount.

Scholar: Japan's release of data on opaque sea discharge plans violates international law

Several scholars have pointed out that the data on nuclear contaminated water released by Japan is not transparent, and the wrong decision was made due to insufficient evaluation.

Ken Bushler, Senior Researcher at the Woods Hole Institute of Oceanography in the United States: Substances such as cesium-137 and cesium-134 may take weeks or months to be excreted, and strontium 90 or plutonium may deposit in bones, which may take several years to be excreted after ingestion, causing long-term damage. For 12 years, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they can clean up radioactive waste, so I am skeptical. The London Dumping Convention prohibits the discharge of radioactive waste into the ocean, and nuclear contaminated water flows in the Pacific, not just within Japan.

International environmental agency nuclear expert Sean Bernie: The Japanese government has decided to adopt the lowest cost discharge plan, unfortunately, this means that radioactive materials will be artificially discharged into the Pacific Ocean and cause pollution in the coming decades. According to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Japanese government needs to conduct a large number of assessments, including environmental impact assessments, to observe the impact of these pollutants, not only along the coast of Japan, but also outside its waters. Unfortunately, the Japanese government chose not to do so.

Gao Zhiguo, President of the Chinese Society of the Law of the Sea: The discharge plan does not violate a single clause, but rather violates many of the provisions in Part 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or in other words, all of them. The twelfth part of the Convention on the Law of the Sea is the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and Article 192 stipulates that States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. One or even one of the clauses 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206 can be used to determine that the official decision of the Japanese government is an internationally wrongful act.

Fijian politicians: Why not keep nuclear contaminated water in Japan for reuse?

Due to geographical location and ocean currents, Pacific island countries are expected to be significantly affected by the discharge of nuclear contaminated water from Fukushima. One of the Pacific island countries, Fiji's politicians, once pointed out bluntly that if Japan's nuclear contaminated water treatment is really as safe as promised, it is better to stay in Japan for reuse.

Fiji's Deputy Prime Minister Kamikamika: Japan's plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea has made us highly vigilant. We have learned a very difficult lesson, and we cannot leave the same problem for future generations.

Kamikamika also said that if nuclear contaminated water treated with multi nuclide removal equipment is so safe, why doesn't Japan reuse or use it in its own manufacturing and agriculture?

Fiji's Deputy Prime Minister Kamikamika: Our independent expert group is unable to draw the same conclusion as the Japanese government and the Atomic Energy Agency based on the data and information shared by them. I have a question that I have to ask, why is water treated with ALPS so safe that it is not reused in Japan? For example, for manufacturing and agriculture? We live in the Pacific, we are one family with the ocean, we only have one ocean.