Japan’s Release of Treated Waste Water and its True Consequences
Introduction
On August 24, Japan began its controversial release of treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, sparking protests in the region and retaliation from China and South Korea.
Although this news has gained traction only recently, Japan’s plan to release the treated wastewater has been in the making for years. In 2019, Japanese authorities announced that space was running out to store the material and that they had “no other options but to release it”, which they planned to do around August 2023.
In fact, for the past 12 years after the nuclear meltdown caused by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, the power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the reactors' fuel rods despite it not operating. This means that the company produces contaminated water, which is stored in over 10,000 water tanks, enough to fill 500 swimming pools. Now that Tepco received approval from the IAEA and the UN’s atomic regulator, they have begun to release contaminated waste water on the coast of Fukushima, into the pacific ocean.
Despite the approvals from renowned organizations, numerous critics and Japan’s neighbors such as China and South Korea have vehemently retaliated against this decision concerned that the contaminated waters would harm the environment and the people.
China’s Response
China has been especially vocal about this issue, accusing Japan of violating "international moral and legal obligations" and "putting its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entire humanity".
Shortly after Japan started to release its waste water, Beijing has widened its ban on Seafood from Fukushima and some prefectures to cover the whole of Japan. As the biggest buyer of Japanese seafood, China is attempting to damage the Japanese fishing industry to pressure the Japanese government to stop the release.
Similarly, seafood enjoyers in mainland China and Hong Kong have vowed to stop eating Japanese products once the waste water is released. Many have even stocked Japanese imports in fear that they would be inaccessible once the waste water is released.
South Korea’s Response
South Korea on the other hand, has more of a mixed response. Despite past conflicts between the two countries, South Korea and Japan have been building ties, causing many leaders to take a softer approach to the situation. The government has announced it “respects” the IAEA’s plan and endorses the plan.
The same cannot be said for the Korean public, however. According to a recent poll, over 80% of the population has stated they are worried about the water release. This has especially angered Korean fishermen worried that the stained reputation will permanently reduce sales.
As stated by one South Korean fisherman Park Hee-jun, "The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,"
"Some of the officials say we should remain quiet if we don't want to make consumers even more anxious. I think that's nonsense."
Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action against Japan, and some shoppers started stockpiling salt and other necessities in fear of an oncoming food supply disruption.
Japan’s Response
The release of waste water remains deeply controversial even within the Japanese public. Despite years of government assurances, a recent survey found that only 53% of the population support it, while 41% said they did not.
On top of this, critics from Greenpeace and even members of the UN’s human rights experts have opposed the plan, adding more pressure on the Japanese government to stop the release of treated wastewater.
Despite the tremendous backlash from neighboring countries and even the Japanese public, the Japanese government seems insistent on releasing the treated waste water and does not show any signs of retracting their decision.
What Science Says
Although we have seen the public’s response to the release, what are the true consequences? Here is what science says.
The overwhelming majority of experts agree and support the IAEA’s conclusion that release is safe.
The nuclear waste water produced by the plant has been treated with all radioactive substances, all but one - Tritium - simply due to the lack of technology.
Tritium can be found in water all over the world and many scientists argue that as long as the tritium concentrations are low, the impact will be minimal.
The IAEA, which has a permanent office at Fukushima, said an "independent, on-site analysis" had shown that the tritium concentration in the water discharged was "far below the operational limit of 1,500 becquerels per liter (Bq/L)". That limit is six times less than the World Health Organization's limit for drinking water, which is at 10,000 Bq/L, a measure of radioactivity.
James Smith, professor of environment and geological sciences with Portsmouth University, said that "in theory, you could drink this water", because the waste water is already treated when it is stored and then diluted.
"We have been able to confirm that radioactive substances have decreased gradually in the food we measure. If they release the water, it's ultimately undoing the power of nature that brought it to this level."
And physicist David Bailey, who runs a French laboratory measuring radioactivity, agreed, adding: "The key thing is how much tritium is there. At such levels, there is no issue with marine species, unless we see a severe decline in fish population, for instance," he said.
But critics say more studies on how it could affect the ocean bed, marine life and humans are required.
American professor Emily Hammond, an expert in energy and environmental law with George Washington University, said: "The challenge with radionuclides (such as tritium) is that they present a question that science cannot fully answer; that is, at very low levels of exposure, what can be counted as 'safe'?
"One can have a lot of faith in the IAEA's work while still recognising that compliance with standards does not mean that there are 'zero' environmental or human consequences attributed to the decision."
Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia, says tritium can have "direct negative effects" on plants and animals if ingested, including "reduced fertility" and "damage to cell structures, including DNA".
Then why is the public so afraid?
"The real problem is not the actual physical effect of the radiation. It's our fear of it," says molecular pathology expert Gerry Thomas, who worked with Japanese scientists on radiation research and advised the IAEA as well.
"I am a radiation expert, so I know that tritium has very little effect on the human body and living organisms," he said. "We are all concerned about the same thing - radiation - and that is why we are so anxious. I hope that these data and images will help to reassure people a little.”
Overall, the public’s negative response to this situation seems more based on fear rather than it is based on facts or evidence. Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this release is safe, the public is willing to ignore it all in search of anything that may support what they already believe. This behavior is a classic case of occam’s razor, a psychological phenomenon where people seek information that aligns with their existing views while ignoring those that don’t. This can be very dangerous if not handled properly, as people will attempt to fight issues that don’t exist, often harming innocent targets that are not at fault. In this case, the fish industry in Japan, though not at fault, was devastated by the foreign boycotts; one possible method to prevent such uprisings in the future is to educate the public more thoroughly with media representations that accurately portray real circumstances, especially in relation to science.