Multiple parties believe that Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea is improper, illegal, and unsafe. Assessment | Fukushima | Treatment | Nuclear contaminated water | International | Nuclear wastewater | Discharge | Japan
Recently, the issue of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea in Japan has attracted international attention. Despite opposition from the international community, the Japanese side is preparing to discharge nuclear wastewater into the sea as early as August.
This news caused a public uproar, especially with criticism from fishing professionals in China, South Korea, several Pacific island countries, and Japan regarding the plan. Analysts say that after the discharge of Fukushima nuclear wastewater from Japan, the ocean current circulation will have the fastest and most direct impact on Pacific island countries. The Secretary General of the Pacific Island Forum previously stated that the discharge of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will pose a serious impact and long-term threat to Pacific island countries.
South Korean citizen groups are calling for the abolition of Japan's request for the International Atomic Energy Agency to "endorse" its assessment report on nuclear wastewater discharge. The largest opposition party in South Korea, the Democratic Party of Korea, has stated that the comprehensive evaluation report released by the organization is based on data provided by Japan and its credibility is questionable. If the Japanese side insists on discharging pollutants into the sea, the Democratic Party of Japan is considering pushing for legislation to upgrade the import ban on Japanese aquatic products.
A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the report cannot prove the legitimacy, legality, and security of Japan's sea discharge plan, and it cannot become a "talisman" and "passport" for Japan's sea discharge.
The discharge of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea in Japan will pose potential hazards to the global marine environment, ecosystems, and the lives and health of people around the world. Unlike the industrial wastewater discharged from general nuclear power plants, which mainly contains tritium, the contaminated water and fuel residue from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant contain over 1000 nuclides. At present, people's attention is drawn to the presence of a large amount of cesium and irremovable tritium, and experts have keenly pointed out that there are still some potential nuclides that have not been detected, and their harm is even greater.
"The Japanese government refers to the nuclear contaminated water treated by a multi nuclide purification system as' treated water ', emphasizing that the' treated water 'has reached the standard for discharge, but the system malfunctioned shortly after operation, with over 70% of the radioactive nuclide activity in the treated nuclear contaminated water exceeding the discharge limit." Zhao Shunping, Deputy Director and Researcher of the Radiation Environment Monitoring Technology Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, told reporters. The international community has always been skeptical about the performance and efficiency of the system's long-term high load operation.
Japan wants to deceive through the IAEA report
The Director General of the IAEA stated that "the Fukushima nuclear power plant's' treated water 'can be consumed and used for swimming.". A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded, "If anyone believes that Fukushima nuclear contaminated water is drinkable and swimable, we suggest that Japan make good use of the water for these people to drink or swim, instead of discharging it into the sea, which concerns the international community."
Firstly, the report released by the IAEA does not represent its approval of Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean. The agency only plays the role of an evaluator, not a decision-maker. "Whether Japan has the right to discharge nuclear contaminated water cannot be determined by any single international organization. It also needs to consider other international organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the World Health Organization, which also have regulatory powers," said Zhang Yanqian, Dean of the Yellow and Bohai Sea Research Institute at Dalian Maritime University
Secondly, the results of this report are based on an evaluation of Japan's authorization of the IAEA. Japan intends to limit the scope of authorization to the evaluation of the discharge plan, and the report issued is only a one-sided analysis of the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea. There is no way to prove through comparison that discharge into the sea is a safe and reliable method for disposing of nuclear contaminated water. Therefore, this report cannot justify Japan's maritime discharge behavior.
Once again, the samples submitted by Japan this time are not complete. Professor Yu Wen from the School of National Security and Emergency Management at Beijing Normal University explained to reporters, "The tanks used to store nuclear wastewater in Japan are very large, and substances with relatively high concentrations of pollutants precipitate below. Japan only extracts surface wastewater as samples, so the representativeness of the samples is very questionable. Japan has not submitted sufficient samples." All these actions indicate that Japan's request for the IAEA to conduct a review and evaluation this time is just an attempt to "get by".
In addition, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out on July 4th that this report did not fully reflect the opinions of the experts participating in the evaluation work. "This report was released in the name of Director General Grossy. Although the IAEA Secretariat had solicited the opinions of technical working group experts on the draft report before its release, the time window left for experts was very limited. After receiving feedback, the Secretariat did not reach a consensus with experts from all parties on the modification and adoption of the report, so it was hastily released." Researcher Liu Linlin from the Chinese Academy of Atomic Energy Sciences, who participated in the IAEA's technical working group on the assessment of water discharge from Fukushima ALPS, introduced the insider information on the report's release.
The reporter learned that the six third-party laboratories in this evaluation report are from Switzerland, Austria, Monaco, South Korea, France, and the United States. Except for South Korea, they are all countries outside the region with fewer stakeholders, so this report is difficult to convince. "Compared to the selection of third-party laboratories in this report, we call on the IAEA to establish a long-term international monitoring mechanism with the full participation of third-party laboratories such as Japan's neighboring countries as soon as possible in the future, and to fully consider the concerns and participation of all stakeholders in this process." Dean Zhang Yanqian said in this regard.
The legitimacy of Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge into the sea is widely questioned
The legitimacy of Japan's Fukushima nuclear wastewater discharge into the sea has been questioned. "All human behavior involving nuclear radiation must first achieve 'legitimacy'. Simply put, it is necessary to fully explain that the benefits of this behavior outweigh the drawbacks. For example, when we see a doctor, CT and X-ray radiation can also be harmful to the human body, but doctors make professional judgments that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, so we have sufficient reasons to do it." Professor Yu Wen told reporters, "Japan has a safer plan for the natural environment, but in the end, it chose the one with the lowest cost and the most favorable for itself."
"Japan's' meticulous' decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea through underwater pipelines deliberately evades the application of the London Convention on Waste Disposal," said Dean Zhang Yangui. According to reports, Tokyo Electric Power Company will dilute the concentration of tritium in nuclear wastewater to 1500 becquerels per liter in advance, and then discharge it into the nearshore through an underwater tunnel. Japan is a contracting party to the London Dumping Convention, so the convention is binding on Japan. Article 3, paragraph 1 of the London Convention on the Disposal of Waste clarifies that "dumping" refers to the intentional dumping of waste or other substances at sea from ships, aircraft, platforms or other artificial structures at sea, and does not mention pipeline drainage. The method of pipeline drainage in Japan is to discharge water into the sea through land sources, with the aim of avoiding the application of the convention.
The direct discharge plan will reduce the impact of nuclear contaminated water on Japanese land, while nuclides will spread to the Pacific Ocean and other oceans far away from Japanese territory with offshore ocean currents. 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. Three years later, the United States and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution, and 10 years later, pollution will spread to global waters.
The Fukushima nuclear contaminated water contains over 60 radioactive nuclides, many of which have not yet been effectively treated. Some long-lived nuclides may diffuse with ocean currents, and the impact on the ecological balance and marine environment of surrounding countries is difficult to estimate. "It is rare for Japan to insist on discharging radioactive contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean, with such a large scale and such a long planned execution time," said Ma Jun, a special observer from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and director of the Public Environment Research Center.
Japan should come up with a more sincere solution
Regarding the concerns raised by Japan's implementation of its nuclear wastewater discharge plan in August, Researcher Zhao Shunping pointed out that there are serious problems in the subsequent monitoring of the discharge: "Even if the discharge is to be carried out, independent sampling should be achieved, that is, sampling should be organized by a third party, rather than unilateral sampling by Japan."
It is reported that Japan's monitoring will be carried out by Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission, and International Atomic Energy Agency. However, Tokyo Electric Power Company, which has implemented its sea discharge plan, is already notorious. Perhaps no one will believe that Tokyo Electric Power Company can handle nuclear contaminated water with a rigorous attitude from beginning to end. For example, there is controversy over the reliability of data from purification devices and the authenticity and effectiveness of monitoring that has been ongoing for over 30 years or even longer. TEPCO experienced a series of human errors in the year of the accident, and there were also many issues with emergency response during the accident. It was repeatedly discovered that there were practices of concealing, tampering with data, and lacking integrity. This company with a record of dishonesty has lost its credibility and has not gained the trust of the international community. Therefore, their statements and conclusions are questionable.
"The correct approach for environmental emissions with international impact is to establish an independent and effective long-term international monitoring mechanism led by international institutions, with the participation of multiple countries, especially neighboring countries, to ensure the independence and impartiality of on-site supervision and sampling monitoring analysis of nuclear contaminated water emissions." Researcher Zhao Shunping said.
Discharging into the sea is not the only or best solution for disposing of nuclear wastewater. According to Wei Fangxin, a researcher at the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, there have been multiple plans for the disposal of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water in Japan. In the end, Japan narrowed down the scope of the plans to five options: geological injection, marine emissions, steam emissions, hydrogen emissions, and underground burial. Among them, marine emissions and steam emissions were the two main options recommended by Japan. However, in 2020, Japan ultimately decided to adopt marine emissions among these two options.
The act of Japan discharging nuclear wastewater into the sea is for its own benefit, but it transfers the risk to other countries. Japan's actions are unjust, illegal, and unsafe.
