People's Daily Online's third evaluation of "Fukushima Nuclear Polluted Water Treatment" Part 2: Can the "Pollutant Discharge into the Sea" Plan Bleach Species | Japan | Plan

On July 4th, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of nuclear contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan. On this basis, the Japan Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate of acceptance for the nuclear wastewater discharge facility to Tokyo Electric Power Company on the 7th. At this point, all preparations for the discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea are ready. However, the IAEA report is not Japan's "talisman", and its related conclusions are one-sided and limited, unable to demonstrate the legitimacy of Japan's plan to discharge pollutants into the sea, and unable to confer legitimacy on Japan's plan to discharge pollutants into the sea.

Japan intends to confuse the normal operation of nuclear power plant drainage with Fukushima nuclear wastewater. There is a fundamental difference between Fukushima nuclear wastewater and the normal operation of nuclear power plants in terms of radioactive nuclide types, treatment difficulties, and sources. One of the key differences is the different types of radioactive isotopes. The wastewater generated from the normal operation of nuclear power plants strictly complies with international standards and only contains a small amount of fission nuclides. However, due to serious defects in the multi nuclide removal device used by the Japanese government to treat Fukushima nuclear wastewater, the treated nuclear wastewater not only contains tritium, but also various harmful radioactive nuclides such as ruthenium 106, strontium 90, and carbon-14 that are harmful to human health. In addition, the Japanese government and TEPCO have yet to publicly disclose the specific composition of ALPS treated nuclear wastewater, and there are no third-party organizations monitoring the treated nuclear wastewater. In this context, the Japanese government deliberately downplays the technical problems of nuclear wastewater treatment equipment, focuses on promoting the "safety" of nuclear wastewater, and compares nuclear wastewater to the normal operation and drainage of nuclear power plants, which goes against scientific common sense and attempts to confuse the public.

The IAEA report has limitations and does not have legal effect. Japan is one of the largest contributors to the IAEA, maintaining significant funding throughout the year. In addition, as the IAEA was invited by the Japanese side to evaluate the plan for discharging pollutants into the sea, the working group was strictly constrained by the Japanese side and was unable to conduct an independent and rigorous investigation. Even more surprising is that recently, South Korean media exposed that the Japanese government had bribed over 1 million euros to the IAEA in order to obtain the draft of the report in advance, and made modifications to the draft in favor of Japan. Although the IAEA and the Japanese government strongly deny this, it is also difficult to conceal the political factors mixed in the IAEA report.

According to the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the responsibility of the IAEA is to promote the advancement of nuclear technology and to develop and implement relevant protective measures and standards. At its inception, it was not granted the authority to approve the discharge of pollutants into the sea. In addition, the IAEA has also stated that its safety standards are not legally binding on member states. So, at best, the IAEA report is only a reference provided by third-party international organizations, not a golden rule, and cannot be seen as a "passport" or "amulet" for Japan to discharge pollutants into the sea. The discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea is of great significance, and international organizations such as the World Health Organization have the responsibility and power to supervise it, far from being determined solely by the IAEA.

No matter how Japan tries to whitewash it, it cannot change the fact that it is suspected of violating relevant international obligations. In the issue of cross-border environmental damage, the obligation of countries to notify and negotiate is widely accepted by the international community, and international law requires countries to cooperate on cross-border environmental damage issues. However, Japan has shown no sincerity in negotiating and has not fulfilled its obligation to notify and negotiate regarding the disposal of Fukushima nuclear wastewater. According to international treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, when a country learns that its marine environment is about to be polluted, it should immediately notify the relevant countries and competent international organizations that it believes may be affected. However, Japan has never seriously responded to the reasonable concerns of all parties and has yet to fully consult with relevant countries.

It has been proven that the report did not quell the strong opposition to sea discharge in Japan, both domestically and internationally, especially in the Pacific coastal countries directly affected by the most intense opposition. Due to geopolitical considerations, the South Korean government intentionally gave the green light to Japan's discharge of pollutants into the sea, and even led to absurd incidents of legislators forming groups to drink seawater. However, the South Korean people are not buying it. On July 12th, members of the South Korean Democratic Party held a press conference at the Japan Foreign Journalists Association in Tokyo, expressing that 85% of South Korean citizens oppose Japan's discharge into the sea and calling on the Japanese government to suspend its discharge plan. Pacific island countries live by the sea and are therefore very sensitive to Japan's discharge of pollutants into the sea, and strongly oppose it. The Pacific Island Forum previously issued a statement stating that Pacific island countries remain committed to addressing the potential threat of nuclear pollution. On July 11th, Cook Islands Prime Minister Brown held talks with IAEA Director General Grossy, demanding that the IAEA and Japan continue to maintain dialogue.

After the Fukushima nuclear accident, residents around the nuclear power plant made arduous efforts to rebuild their homes. However, the Japanese government's persistent push for a plan to discharge pollutants into the sea is bound to have irreversible negative impacts on the health and lives of surrounding residents, and is a serious violation of their human rights. It's not too late to make up for the lost sheep. Japan should immediately halt its actions, take responsibility for the international community, and not prioritize its political interests over the health and well-being of the residents around the nuclear power plant and even humanity as a whole.