Experts share views on Japan's radioactive wastewater dumping

Editor's note: Japan's dumping of nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean put the safety of people around the world in danger. The radionuclides that Japan has discharged with the wastewater into the ocean will contaminate the marine ecosystem, and eventually their impact will move from marine species to humans and affect the entire global environment. Three experts share their views on the issue with China Daily.

Like many across the world, I also had thought the issue of the nuclear-contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant had been settled. But when I recently read in a Channel News Asia report that Japanese government officials had said the radioactive water had to be discharged into the sea to avoid accidental leaks and create space for storing more wastewater that was accumulating in the destroyed nuclear reactor of the Fukushima plant, I realized something was seriously wrong.

That the Japanese government is concerned about any accidental leaks means the radioactive water is obviously not safe. And if that is the case, why is Japan dumping it into the sea?

The Japanese government then told the world that the radioactive water would be treated before being discharged into the sea, and there is nothing to worry about because the treatment will remove all the nuclides from the water. But this assurance came from Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the damaged Fukushima plant, and has lied about the radioactive water and the nuclear reactors countless times before.

Then I learned that Japan had invited the International Atomic Energy Agency to study the situation. This should have made me believe the decision of the Japanese government and TEPCO to dump the radioactive water into the sea was based on foolproof scientific studies. But the IAEA's core statement on the Fukushima crisis explicitly states that it does not endorse or recommend the discharge plan, which raises two very important questions.

First, why do recent headlines in The New York Times suggest it is treating Japan with kid gloves? Why is the West's approach to Japan very different from the way it dealt with Russia in 1993 when the latter faced an international uproar after announcing it was planning to release nuclear-contaminated water into the sea? Russia was forced to abandon its plan, heeding the call of the international community.

And second, why doesn't Japan treat the radioactive water from the Fukushima facility and use it domestically if it is safe to drink after treatment, as TEPCO claimed? Wouldn't that be better than Japan dumping the radioactive water into the sea and contaminating the marine environment and ecology and threatening the health of people around the world? If China did the same, the United States and its allies would have launched a scathing attack.

To put it simply, Japan is being irresponsible, because it wants to save money and make the rest of the world, especially its neighboring countries, deal with the threat the nuclear-contaminated water will pose.

Some people have been trying to confuse people by focusing only on the existence of tritium in the radioactive water, claiming the cooling water China releases from its nuclear plants has the same radioactive element. This comparison is misplaced, because nuclear plants not only in China but also in the rest of the world, including those in the US, France and many other countries, release cooling water with the same contents into the sea. Cooling water is not the same as the nuclear-contaminated water from damaged nuclear power plants such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Japan's discharge plan will cost about $100 billion in lost seafood exports because most of the people around the world have said they will no longer consume seafood from Japan because of health concerns, but also because they want to punish Japan for releasing the radioactive water into the sea without consulting other countries.

Also, if you accuse only China of badgering Japan by banning the import of Japanese agricultural products and seafood, be aware that over the past year, US imports of Japanese seafood have plummeted. So while US politicians are suspiciously silent, US consumers are not.

The US military, back in 2011, filed a case seeking compensation to cover the cost of the catastrophic damage servicemen on the USS Reagan had suffered due to radiation from the Fukushima plant. According to a complaint lawyers filed in court, "At all times relevant herein, the Japanese government (TEPCO) kept representing that there was no danger of radiation contamination to the USS Reagan (CVN-76) and/or its crew, that 'everything is under control,''all is OK, you can trust us,' and there is 'no immediate danger' or threat to human life, all the while lying through their teeth about the reactor meltdowns at FNPP."

In fact, in October 2012, TEPCO acknowledged that it had played down the safety risks at the Fukushima facility out of fear that they would lead to the shutdown of the plant.

Worse, reports revealed that before the 2011 earthquake catastrophe Japan's nuclear regulators lodged accusations of mass negligence against TEPCO, and TEPCO had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant.

Something is certainly not right here. I suggest Japanese officials make a decision that doesn't harm any party and shows the international community the respect it warrants.

The author is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Tokyo has sadly thrown caution to the wind

By Harald Brüning

Japan has thrown caution to the wind by starting to dump the nuclear-contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea on Aug 24.

It is always better to err on the side of caution, particularly when it comes to something like nuclear-contamination and global food supply chains. What is at stake here is also the potential threat to public health on the global level — which calls for extra caution.

"Caution is the eldest child of wisdom," French novelist, poet and playwright Victor Hugo (1802-1885) famously said.

China has been vociferously opposing Japan's decision to discharge radioactive water from the Fukushima facility and responded to Japan releasing the radioactive water into the ocean by imposing a ban on a range of foodstuffs, seafood in particular, from Japan. The Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions took similar measures.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin has been repeatedly voicing Beijing's opposition to Japan's radioactive water discharge plan. Wang said that had Fukushima's nuclear-contaminated water been truly safe — after being "treated" using the Advanced Liquid Processing System-Japan wouldn't need to dump it into the sea, "and certainly shouldn't if it's not".

The decision of the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company has been condemned by many sectors of civil society in Japan, such as fishers and ecologists. Greenpeace Japan has said the Japanese government's "decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of communities in Japan and the Pacific region, and is non-compliant with international maritime law".

Greenpeace Japan has also said the discharge plan has failed to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, as required by its international legal obligations, given that there is a risk of significant transboundary harm to neighboring countries, such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, China, and the Philippines.

All this shows China is not alone in its principled opposition to Japan's selfish action of releasing the radioactive water into the ocean. I find the Japanese decision especially puzzling for two reasons.

First, as the world's only country that has suffered the horrible consequences of nuclear weapons used in armed conflict, I expected Japanese politicians to be much more cautious in tackling the aftermath of the destruction the earthquake-triggered tsunami caused to the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011.

Second, as an island nation with a long history of fisheries and a globally appreciated culinary tradition based on seafood in particular, I expected Japan's political elite to address the radioactive water issue much more seriously and judiciously. They have failed miserably on both fronts.

I take pity on the hard-working fisher folks in Fukushima and hope their legal action against the Japanese government's move will put an end to it.

Reportedly, the alternative vapor release disposal plan proposed by some was rejected by Tokyo for not just technical but also financial reasons, as the ocean discharge plan requires only one-tenth of the cost of disposing of the radioactive water through the vapor release method.

I don't know much about physics and chemistry, but I am a strong believer in common sense, people-first policies and cautiousness in public affairs.

As a die-hard optimist, I would not rule out the possibility of common sense prevailing on Japanese leaders and prompting them to eventually withdraw their 30-year-long plan to discharge the radioactive water into the ocean and replace it with something which would not harm the marine ecology and human health.

The author is director of The Macau Post Daily.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Japan's WTO complaint against China most ridiculous

By Xu Man

Ignoring the strong opposition from the international community, local fishers and civil society organizations, the Japanese government began discharging the radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea on Aug 24. The radioactive water will first contaminate the marine environment around Japan and later spread across the oceans, threatening the whole marine ecosystem.

Japan's action is tantamount to violating its obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (the London Convention for short), which prohibits the disposal of radioactive waste in the ocean.

Japan's detrimental action has drawn condemnation from people both at home and abroad, and prompted many countries and regions, including China, to take some preventive measures, such as banning the import of Japanese products, seafood in particular, to protect their citizens against the consumption of nuclear-contaminated food.

Since Japan started dumping the nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, anti-Japan protests in the Republic of Korea have escalated. And Malaysia has asserted that it is not importing live seafood from Japan now. It also has vowed to put any "high-risk" food products from Japan to rigorous level-four food safety tests to screen for radioactive elements. Many other Asia-Pacific countries also take emergency measures.

Right from the day Japan announced it was mulling dumping the radioactive water into the sea China has been opposing the plan. And when Japan began executing the discharge plan, China, in accordance with the Food Safety Law of China, and the provisions of the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, took emergency measures to prevent contaminated seafood from Japan from entering the domestic market by suspending their imports.

According to statistics from Japan's Fisheries Agency, in 2022, Japan's seafood export volume was 387.3 billion yen ($2.62 billion), with the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong being the largest and second-largest markets for Japanese seafood, accounting for 87.1 billion yen (22.5 percent) and 75.5 billion yen (19.5 percent) worth of Japan's seafood exports. The discharge of the radioactive water into the sea will certainly have a detrimental impact on Japan's seafood exports, causing significant harm to its fishing industry.

Amid all this, it is shocking to see some Japanese government officials, without considering the legitimate demands of other countries, attributing the losses of the Japanese fishing industry to China. In fact, they are demanding that China immediately lift its import ban on Japanese seafood, and have even threatened to file a complaint with the WTO against China.

Such demands and threats will not compensate the Japanese fishing industry for its losses; instead, they will escalate trade tensions between China and Japan, further exacerbating the already strained trade relations between the two countries.

Interestingly, the countries verbally supporting Japan's action are the ones that have seen the steepest decline in the import of Japanese seafood and agricultural products. Japan's data showed the United States saw the steepest drop in the import of Japanese agricultural and seafood products in the first half of this year. Sake, fish paste and scallops imports have declined the most. Fish paste and scallops are primarily produced in areas affected by the discharge of the radioactive water into the sea.

Tokyo's noxious action is not only hurting its fishing industry but also has strained Japan's relations with other countries, which in turn will severely affect its tourism industry, as fewer people from those countries, including China, would choose to travel to Japan. This will hinder Japan's efforts to revive its tourism industry and promote economic growth.

The dumping of the radioactive water into the sea is not a matter that concerns one country alone. Rather it is a serious global issue, because it concerns the health of the marine environment and ecology and, by extension, humans. The Japanese government's irresponsible decision has heightened the concerns of consumers in and outside Japan over food safety. It has also harmed the interests of the fishing industries of other countries and regions, and exacerbated geopolitical tensions.

Japan should take into account the concerns of its neighbors and the international community and immediately stop polluting the oceans and further harming the Japanese people, particularly those involved in the fishing industry. Engaging in open and sincere dialogue with the concerned parties and international organizations is necessary to find a responsible and relatively harmless solution to the radioactive water problem.

The author is an assistant research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.