Swimming in Fukushima nuclear contaminated water is absurd to the extreme | Report | Fukushima

The International Atomic Energy Agency has released a comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of nuclear contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan, which has attracted widespread attention from the international community. The preface of the institutional report points out that the report is not a "recommendation" or "endorsement" of Japan's sea discharge policy. The report did not fully reflect the opinions of all experts involved, and the relevant safety conclusions have limitations and one sidedness. They are not the "permit" or "passage" for the Japanese side to discharge into the sea.

Japan's unprecedented discharge of contaminated water from nuclear accidents into the ocean. There are various solutions for the disposal of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident, including long-term storage, hydrogen release, formation injection, underground burial, and steam release. The Japanese side has chosen the solution with the lowest economic cost. This is not the safest and most optimal option, let alone widely recognized by Japan's neighboring countries and Pacific island countries. The Japanese side first decided to discharge into the sea, then sought an agency for safety assessment, and even made every effort to seek endorsement from the agency. The Japanese side's requirements for institutional evaluation are highly selective, limited to the sea discharge plan and excluding other options. No matter who makes such an assessment, there is no way to review and confirm the legitimacy of Japan's discharge into the sea.

The Japanese side's simple analogy between the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident and the normal operation of nuclear power plants in other countries goes against scientific common sense. Some even claim that the nuclear contaminated water discharged by Japan can be consumed or used for swimming, which is extremely absurd. The contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear power plant comes from the cooling water injected into the damaged reactor core after the nuclear accident, as well as the infiltration of groundwater and rainwater. It is different from the drainage source, radioactive nuclide types, and treatment difficulty of normal operating nuclear power plants, and is not the same at all.

The conclusion of the institutional report on the safety of the Japanese sea discharge plan is one-sided. The institution only conducted inter laboratory comparative analysis on a small amount of nuclear contaminated water samples collected unilaterally by the Japanese side, and only conducted review and evaluation based on the information provided by the Japanese side. The conclusions drawn have significant limitations, lack persuasiveness and credibility. In addition, due to authorization limitations, institutions have not evaluated the long-term effectiveness of Japanese purification devices, have not confirmed the true accuracy of data on nuclear contaminated water, and cannot ensure that the international community timely grasps the situation of excessive emissions. It is 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, reliable 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.

China is seriously concerned and firmly opposed to Japan's decision to discharge water into the sea, and demands that Japan dispose of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water in a scientific, safe, and transparent manner, and not forcefully advance the discharge plan. The Chinese side insists on the establishment of an independent and effective international monitoring mechanism led by institutions, with full participation from third-party laboratories such as Japan's neighboring countries, to carry out long-term and effective international supervision of Japan's persistent plan to discharge water into the sea, including monitoring of the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water source and environment, radioactive environmental impact assessment, timely and transparent disclosure of credible data and information to stakeholders and the international community, and acceptance of supervisory inquiries.

Over the past week, there has been increasing questioning and opposition from Japanese neighbors and Pacific island nations towards Japan's sea discharge and institutional reports. People's hearts cannot be bullied, and public opinion cannot be bullied. Both the one-sided conclusions of institutional reports and the need to swim in Fukushima nuclear contaminated water cannot conceal the long-term and uncertain risks to people and the environment from the discharge of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea. China once again urges Japan to stop its plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, otherwise it must bear all consequences and historical responsibilities. Institutions should play a responsible and professional role in the issue of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea.