Why do some Western countries feel so "at ease"?, Japan's pollution plan has caused public anger | into the sea | plan

On July 10th, nearly a week has passed since the International Atomic Energy Agency released an assessment report on the discharge of contaminated Fukushima nuclear water into the sea. During this period, opposition from the international community such as Pacific island countries, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa, Peru, China, and South Korea has been heard incessantly regarding Japan's plan to discharge pollutants into the sea. In contrast, the performance of Western countries in the United States is intriguing.

After the release of the evaluation report by the IAEA, the US State Department issued a statement welcoming the controversy surrounding Japan's sea discharge plan, while Western politicians remained largely silent. After reviewing reports from mainstream Western media, the commentator of "International Sharp Review" discovered the following issues:

For example, some Western media have extensively reported on the language used by Japan and the IAEA, using the term "nuclear treated water" instead of "nuclear contaminated water", and citing the international community's opposition voices is pitifully lacking. In an article by the British Broadcasting Corporation, almost the entire article cites wording from Japan and the IAEA. In the video inserted in the article, the reporter also attended a fish eating performance, stating that the fish caught near Fukushima were "very safe" and there was no need to worry.

For example, some media outlets may appear to objectively and neutrally cite multiple voices, but have been avoiding key issues, including the harm of sea discharge plans to the environment? What is the independence and representativeness of the samples obtained by the IAEA? Is Japan's evaluation of sea discharge plans sufficient? As for the falsification history of Tokyo Electric Power Company involved, Western media almost never mentions it.

Multiple studies have shown that Fukushima nuclear contaminated water contains over 60 radioactive nuclides. The Japanese side also acknowledges that about 70% of the nuclear contaminated water treated with ALPS technology has not met the discharge standards. According to research by the German Institute of Marine Sciences, due to the strongest ocean currents in the world along the coast of Fukushima, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within 57 days after discharge. For 30 years or even longer, these radioactive isotopes have been continuously discharged into the sea, not only damaging the marine ecological environment, but also endangering human life and health. Marcos Aurelana, a United Nations expert on toxic substances and human rights, recently pointed out that Japan's pollution plans pose a significant risk to human rights.

Since that's the case, why do some Western countries show such "peace of mind" towards Japan's nuclear contaminated water? The reason for this is related to their own "black history" and strategic selfishness. It is not surprising that they will have such a reaction.

Take the United States as an example. According to the Los Angeles Times, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the 1940s and 1950s. Especially on March 1, 1954, the US military detonated one of the most powerful nuclear weapons to date, the "Cheer Castle" hydrogen bomb, at the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The destructive power was equivalent to 1000 atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, bringing a profound disaster to the locals. In addition, the United States also poured over 130 tons of nuclear contaminated soil from its Nevada nuclear testing site directly onto the Marshall Islands. To this day, the United States has downplayed the crimes committed, implemented compensation with great discounts, which has aroused global public outrage. It is not difficult to understand why the United States has been condoning Japan's plan to discharge pollutants into the sea, as it is one of the "initiators" of marine nuclear pollution.

In addition, the United States also regards nuclear security as a bargaining chip for exchanging benefits. Some studies have pointed out that after the end of World War II, nuclear power had a special significance in the Japan US alliance: on the one hand, it was the lever for the United States to subdue and win over Japan; On the other hand, it is also an important tool for Japan to rely on and rely on the United States. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was Japan's first project in the 1960s that utilized American civilian nuclear technology.

After the Fukushima nuclear accident broke out in 2011, Japan and the United States reached a cooperation agreement on jointly handling the nuclear accident and post disaster reconstruction. Both sides saw this nuclear accident as an opportunity to strengthen their alliance - Japan used the power of the United States to gain support for the discharge of pollutants into the sea in the international public opinion arena, while the United States took the opportunity to maintain its military hegemony in Japan, increase its means of controlling Japan, and achieve a so-called "win-win" situation. They have no concern about what other countries will pay for Japan's pollution plans.

Throughout history, the United States has claimed to uphold the "human rights" of all, but in reality, what it pursues is not human rights but hegemony, and what it cares about is not the people but political self-interest. In the event of nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea, the performance of certain Western countries represented by the United States cannot help but raise questions: how hypocritical and double standard is it to only focus on developing countries, but selectively blind to the human rights misconduct of allies?

The Pacific is a common home for humanity, not a nuclear testing ground for some countries or a bargaining chip for geopolitical games. The Japanese government should listen to the just calls of all parties, immediately stop the plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and not add new debts to old debts that have not been repaid. Those Western countries that remain silent should not become accomplices to this plan.