Why has China become a "villain" instead?, Jun Zhengping: Japan Discharges Nuclear Wastewater | Japan | Nuclear Wastewater | China

Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. The report points out that Japan's methods and activities for discharging ALPS treated water comply with relevant international safety standards, and the radioactive impact on humans and the environment after discharge can be negligible.

The Japanese side greatly appreciates this report.

It is widely believed that the International Atomic Energy Agency's proactive release of such a positive report on Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge at this time is to achieve "final regulatory approval" to comply with Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge plan implemented this summer. This behavior is undoubtedly endorsing the Japanese government.

On July 4th, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rossi, visited Tokyo and submitted a report on the discharge of wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

There are differences in the scientific community regarding the authority of this report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Atomic energy experts from multiple countries believe that this report has not fully reflected all expert opinions, and the relevant conclusions also have obvious limitations and one-sidedness. "Whether the ideal data obtained in the laboratory can be equivalent to the real effects under natural environmental conditions in reality still needs to be marked with a question mark.".

Moreover, Japan has always had an unsettling "trust deficit" in the management of nuclear wastewater safety. According to Greenpeace, in 2011, in the second month after the Japanese nuclear accident, Japan discharged tens of thousands of tons of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, with radioactive iodine-131 exceeding 100 times the standard. Subsequently, Japan was also suspected of at least 5 nuclear wastewater leakage accidents.

Japan is not without other better options. The Japanese government has made five different treatment plans, but it ultimately chose the most cost-effective and effortless one, which is to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea.

In this situation, it is not surprising that the scientific community and countries around the Pacific have publicly questioned the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Japan's nuclear waste water quality has passed the inspection.

Faced with doubts, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Grossy, stated that the "discharge plan" is a "national decision" of the Japanese government. "This report is neither a recommendation nor endorsement of this policy." The IAEA will continue to conduct fair, independent, and objective safety reviews during and after the discharge period, but whether to allow other parties to participate in supervision can only be decided by the Japanese government. ". The public opinion believes that the International Atomic Energy Agency's "two-sided" supplementary statement is undoubtedly "leaving a way out" for itself, so as not to bear "joint responsibility" in the event of ecological disasters in the future.

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. Therefore, the concerns, opposition, and questioning of Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge into the sea have never ceased in countries around the Pacific, including China.

In January of this year, 18 Pacific island countries that had been affected by nuclear pollution due to US nuclear weapon tests issued a joint statement urging Japan to "store or dump nuclear wastewater on its own soil instead of discharging it into the Pacific.".

In June of this year, then Acting Prime Minister of Fiji, Kamikamika, questioned, "There is a question that must be asked: if ALPS treated nuclear contaminated water is so safe, why doesn't Japan reuse it? For example, in Japan's domestic manufacturing and agricultural production?"

Through big data analysis, some research institutions found that only 7% of the opinions on the Internet supported the Japanese government to discharge Fukushima nuclear sewage, and most of the Japanese and American people also seriously opposed the Japanese government's practices. Many people in Western countries have expressed dissatisfaction with Japan's pollution practices on various social media platforms.

But Western media in the United States is trying to marginalize this voice and focus more on China's opposition, believing that China's opposition is engaging in so-called "geopolitical struggles.". Voice of America even labeled the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson's statement on this matter as "incorrect" in a factual verification video, and proposed a title stating that "China's criticism of Japan's Fukushima nuclear sewage discharge plan is not fair.".

The process of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea will continue for 30 years or even longer, and there will be a lot of uncertain factors in its long-term operation. The international community has ample reason to express concerns and dissatisfaction. This is clearly a scientific issue that concerns the future of humanity, but in the mouths of some Western media, it has become a so-called China stubbornly engaging in "geopolitical struggles.".

This is not the first time that the United States and the West have played "double standards".

When dealing with climate change, Western countries in the United States have raised various doubts about China, accusing it of weak environmental legislation and policies, and repeatedly criticizing China's environmental policies and emissions from various perspectives. But the United States accounts for about 15% of its greenhouse gas emissions globally, with per capita carbon emissions consistently high. It is also the country with the highest cumulative aviation carbon emissions in the world.

In terms of wildlife conservation, the United States and the West often talk about China, but in reality, the United States is one of the largest destination and consumer countries for wildlife and its products trafficking, and also the largest destination country for many endangered wildlife and plants.

In terms of waste management, Western countries in the United States have repeatedly unjustly accused and attacked China for prohibiting "foreign waste" from coming to China in order to solve their own waste export needs, and have boldly demanded that China lift the ban. But the United States alone is already the world's largest producer of plastic waste, and the total amount of plastic waste is still increasing year by year... This all reflects a clear double standard.

▲ Image source/Central Committee of the Communist Youth League

So, for Western countries and some international organizations, environmental issues are more like a political tool, showing a selective attitude towards their use. This exposes the true political motives behind its environmental claims and raises questions about its potential to play a leading role in global environmental governance.

Environmental issues should go beyond political considerations and require countries to work together to face them. The treatment of Fukushima nuclear wastewater is not only related to Japan, but its impact will go far beyond national borders and affect the future of all humanity. Some countries should not use it as a tool to serve political purposes. On this global environmental and security issue, we should abandon geopolitical suspicions and games, and take responsibility for the future of humanity and the earth with a rigorous and scientific attitude.