People's Daily chime: Japan should not find a "talisman" for the forced discharge of nuclear contaminated water. Report | Japan | chime

After the International Atomic Energy Agency released the comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water in Japan, the Japanese government showed obvious excitement and is planning to package the report as a "talisman" for the discharge of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea. However, this carefully worded report did not fully reflect the opinions of all experts involved in the evaluation work, and the relevant conclusions were not unanimously recognized by all experts. It simply did not provide the legitimacy and legitimacy that Japan wanted for its discharge into the sea, and Japan's attempts were doomed to be in vain.

The report does not prove the legitimacy of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea. The Japanese government's unilateral choice to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific is purely due to economic cost considerations and is shifting the risk of nuclear pollution to all humanity. The only beneficiary of the discharge into the sea is Japan, and other Pacific Rim countries are forced to take on risks, requiring a significant amount of resources to cope. Two years ago, the Japanese side requested the agency to review and evaluate its discharge plan, excluding other safer and more optimized disposal plans from the beginning. The institution only evaluates the plan provided by the Japanese side. The report clearly states that proving the legitimacy of the discharge into the sea is the responsibility of the Japanese side, which is crucial for many stakeholders; The institution did not recommend the Japanese side to adopt a sea discharge plan, nor did it endorse the Japanese side's sea discharge plan.

The report cannot guarantee the safety and harmlessness of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea. Fukushima nuclear contaminated water contains over 60 radioactive isotopes, many of which currently do not have recognized effective purification technologies. The effectiveness and maturity of the Japanese "multi nuclide processing system" have not been certified by third parties, resulting in multiple failures. The data released by the Japanese side shows that over 70% of the radioactive nuclide activity concentration in the treated nuclear contaminated water exceeds the emission limit. How can we prove that Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea will last for 30 years or even longer, and that its purification device can operate reliably for a long time? Tokyo Electric Power Company has multiple records of concealing and tampering with data on nuclear contaminated water. Based on the data and information provided by Tokyo Electric Power Company, how can it reassure the international community? The institutional report points out that the conclusions regarding safety are based on the plan formulated by the Japanese side and will establish a mechanism for long-term monitoring of Japan's discharge into the sea, which precisely proves the long-term risk of nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea.

The report cannot exempt Japan from its moral responsibility and international legal obligations. The international community's concern about Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea is essentially a concern that Japan is shifting the risk of nuclear pollution and violating international legal obligations. What impact will some long-lived nuclides in Fukushima nuclear contaminated water have on the ecological balance and marine environment of surrounding countries as they may diffuse with ocean currents? Will it pose potential risks to food safety and human health through the migration of marine organisms and the food chain through bioaccumulation effects? Neither the institution nor the Japanese side has provided a convincing answer. Moreover, Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean is suspected of violating its obligations under international law such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to protect and preserve the marine environment, as well as violating the provisions of the 1972 London Dumping Convention prohibiting the dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean through artificial structures at sea. No matter how Japan tries to whitewash it, it cannot change the fact that it is suspected of violating international obligations.

The Japanese side is trying to create a public opinion that distrusting institutional reports is undermining institutional authority. But the Japanese side has been deliberately exploiting loopholes and restricting the agency's review and authorization on the issue of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea, resulting in incomplete and conditional conclusions in the report, which is the greatest harm to the authority of the agency. According to the latest survey in Japan, 40% of the respondents still oppose sea discharge. A joint survey by the Korean Daily News and the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbun shows that over 80% of Koreans do not support Japan's sea discharge. Experts and people from Pacific island countries, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa, Peru and other countries have expressed protests, and the Chinese people strongly oppose Japan's actions. Unfortunately, the Japanese side pretended to be deaf and confused, stubbornly stating that they would start discharging water into the sea as scheduled this summer. They expressed legitimate concerns about other countries and even confused the normal discharge of nuclear power plants with the dumping of contaminated water from nuclear accidents into the ocean. This is by no means the responsibility of a responsible country.

On the major issue of nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea, which concerns the international public interest, Japan has a responsibility and obligation to explain to the world. The Japanese side should be clear that the institutional report cannot quell external doubts about the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, let alone become a "talisman" for the Japanese side to forcefully pass the level. The Japanese side should return after getting lost, faithfully fulfill its international moral responsibility and legal obligations, stop forcefully promoting plans to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, fully study and demonstrate disposal plans beyond sea discharge, fully consult with neighboring countries and other stakeholders, and effectively dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a scientific, safe, and transparent manner.