The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Chinese Embassy in Japan have made solemn statements! Report | International Atomic Energy Agency | Ministry of Foreign Affairs
According to the Global Times, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced on its official website on the 4th that it believes Japan's plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea meets international safety standards.
At the routine press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs held earlier that day, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning answered the question about Japan's nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea.
A reporter asked at the Maoning Information Conference that recently, a public opinion survey in China and South Korea showed that respondents from Pacific coastal countries opposed the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea. South Korea held large-scale rallies, and people from various countries held protests in front of Japanese embassies and consulates in the Philippines, New York, Sydney, and other places, demanding that Japan stop its plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea. The Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Association Federation of Japan unanimously passed a special resolution, insisting on opposing the discharge. On July 3rd, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Hiroyoshi Matsuno, once again stated that the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant will begin this summer, and this plan has not changed. What is China's comment on this?
Mao Ning said that I have noticed relevant reports. The Japanese government's forced push to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea has aroused widespread international concern and concern. The Global Times conducted a public opinion survey in 11 countries, including China, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and New Zealand. Among more than 11000 respondents, nearly 90% expressed concern, fear, and anger about the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and over 90% of the respondents supported their country's measures to intervene in Japan's discharge into the sea. Unfortunately, the Japanese government is still stubbornly pushing forward its plan to discharge pollutants from the sea, and is deliberately creating the illusion of reasonable and innocent discharge.
Mao Ning said that the International Atomic Energy Agency will release an evaluation report today. I would like to point out that the agency is invited by Japan to conduct relevant evaluation and review, and the scope of authorization is limited to evaluating the discharge plan. The report is not a pass for Japan to discharge into the sea, and cannot prove that discharge into the sea is the only, safest, and most reliable option for disposing of nuclear contaminated water.
Mao Ning emphasized that China once again urges Japan to stop forcibly advancing the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea in a responsible attitude towards all mankind and future generations, fully study and demonstrate disposal plans beyond the discharge into the sea, effectively dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a scientific, safe, and transparent manner, and accept strict international supervision.
A reporter from the Japan Broadcasting Association asked, if the International Atomic Energy Agency's report supports Japan's sea discharge, will China still not accept this report? If that's the case, China has always advocated adhering to the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and does not accept the policy proposed by the IAEA based on scientific basis. Isn't this a double standard?
"Firstly, China has not yet seen the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency. What I just said is that Japan has restricted the authorization of the IAEA working group from the beginning and does not accept the evaluation of other disposal plans. The IAEA is only allowed to evaluate the plan of discharging into the sea. Therefore, in this situation, the agency's report cannot prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's discharge into the sea, nor can it exempt Japan from its moral responsibility and international legal obligations, which has nothing to do with the so-called double standards." Mao Ning said.
Mao Ning pointed out that although we have not yet seen this report from the IAEA, we also hope that it is a report that can withstand scientific and historical tests, rather than a report endorsed for nuclear contaminated water.
The Chinese Embassy in Japan clarifies its position
On the morning of July 4th, Chinese Ambassador to Japan Wu Jianghao held a press conference at the embassy, elaborating on China's position on the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea.
Ambassador Wu Jianghao stated that the discharge of nuclear contaminated water from Fukushima is of great concern to the health of people in various countries, the global marine environment, and the international public interest, which has aroused widespread concern in the international community. So far, the Chinese side has repeatedly expressed its solemn position to the Japanese side on the issue of the disposal of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Japan should face legitimate and reasonable concerns both domestically and internationally, fulfill its international legal obligations, and, with a responsible attitude towards science, history, the global marine environment, human health, and future generations, revoke the erroneous decision to discharge into the sea, effectively dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a scientific, safe, and transparent manner, and accept strict international supervision.
The discharge into the sea lacks legitimacy. The Japanese side did not fully consult with neighboring countries and other stakeholders, and unilaterally made a decision to discharge the sea, making a unilateral announcement to the outside world. In fact, it imposed discharge as the only option on all parties, but discharge is not the only option, nor is it the safest and most optimal disposal plan. There have been five options available, including geological injection, ocean discharge, steam discharge, hydrogen discharge, and underground burial. Some experts have also proposed long-term storage plans, but these have been ignored by the Japanese side. Is only discharging into the sea the optimal solution? Obviously not.
Discharging into the sea will pose significant risks to the global marine environment and human health. Fukushima nuclear contaminated water directly comes into contact with the melted reactor core during the Fukushima nuclear accident, containing over 60 radioactive nuclides. Many nuclides currently do not have recognized effective purification technologies, and some long-lived nuclides may diffuse with ocean currents and form a biological enrichment effect, which will increase the total amount of radioactive nuclides in the environment. The Fukushima nuclear accident has produced over 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water to date, and there is no precedent for treating such a large amount and complex composition of nuclear contaminated water. The discharge into the sea will last for 30 years or even longer, and a large amount of nuclear contaminated water will be generated in the future. The effectiveness and maturity of the "multi nuclide treatment system" technology have not been evaluated and certified by third parties, and there are significant doubts about the long-term reliability of the purification device.
Forceful discharge into the sea violates international legal obligations. According to international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment and should take all necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction or control activities do not cause pollution to other countries and their environment. The Japanese side should fulfill its obligations of full consultation, assessment, and monitoring of environmental impacts, and take preventive measures to minimize risks. In addition, Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea through underwater tunnels violates the provisions of the 1972 London Dumping Convention, which prohibit the dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean through artificial structures at sea. As a responsible member of the international community, Japan should effectively fulfill the aforementioned international obligations, rather than the opposite.
The IAEA assessment report cannot be used as a daily discharge permit. The Japanese government announced its sea discharge plan in April 2021 and officially approved it in July 2022. It has repeatedly stated that the sea discharge will not be postponed, all of which are far ahead of the completion of the evaluation and final report by the institutional working group, casting a heavy question mark on Japan's sincerity on the international community. In terms of functional authorization, institutions are international institutions that promote the safe, reliable, and peaceful use of nuclear technology, and are not suitable institutions for evaluating the long-term impact of nuclear contaminated water on the marine environment and biological health. It should be pointed out that the Japanese side restricts the authorization of institutional working groups and does not accept the evaluation of other disposal plans. Based on the above, the institutional report cannot prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's discharge into the sea, nor can it exempt Japan from its moral responsibility and international legal obligations. The IAEA should uphold the principles of objectivity, impartiality, and professionalism, fully respect and adopt the opinions of experts from all parties in the working group. The final report to be released should withstand scientific and historical scrutiny.
The Japanese side's comparison of the tritium content in contaminated water from Fukushima with the tritium content in cooling water normally discharged from nuclear power plants is completely confusing the concept and misleading public opinion. The contaminated water generated by the Fukushima nuclear accident is fundamentally different from the normal operation and drainage of nuclear power plants, which is a basic scientific knowledge. The two sources are different, the types of radioactive isotopes are different, and there is no comparability. The contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear power plant comes into direct contact with the melted reactor core during the nuclear accident, which contains highly toxic transuranic nuclides such as plutonium and americium. There is no international precedent for discharging it into the sea, and it is fundamentally different from the discharge from nuclear power plants in various countries that have undergone decades of safe operation practice and are processed by mature and reliable systems. The Japanese side adopts a dilution method to reduce the concentration of radioactive substances in nuclear contaminated water, without controlling the total amount of all radioactive nuclides, and diluting the harm of nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea, which goes against the spirit of science and professionalism.
The Japanese claim that they hope to engage in dialogue and consultation with China lacks sincerity. So far, China has conducted exchanges with Japan through bilateral and multilateral channels, repeatedly expressing opinions and concerns from professional departments. However, Japan has disregarded China's position and insists on advancing the discharge of pollutants into the sea according to the established schedule. If the Japanese side regards sea discharge as a prerequisite for negotiations and blindly imposes sea discharge on the Chinese side, what is the significance of such negotiations? If the Japanese side is willing to negotiate in good faith, they should suspend the discharge plan, agree to discuss all possible disposal options, allow stakeholders to conduct independent sampling and analysis, and effectively address the concerns of all parties.
