By Cristian Martini Grimaldi
Japan started releasing wastewater from the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea on August 24. So much water—roughly around 1.3 million tons—that it could fill 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The first discharge totalling 7,800 cubic metres—the equivalent of about three Olympic swimming pools of water— will take place over about 17 days [Reuters, August 25].
This is the crux of the controversy that is causing agitation in China and triggering serious concerns about the reputation of future Japanese water products.
We’re not talking about just any water; this is wastewater, including rain and groundwater that became contaminated during the cooling process of nuclear fuel rods damaged by an explosion at the nuclear power plant in 2011.
All of this was caused by one of the most powerful tsunamis in recent Japanese history.
The water is stored in over 1,000 steel tanks on-site, right next to the infamous power plant. However, the plant’s operator, Tepco, warned that storage space is running out. Their argument is that you can’t continue to accumulate water indefinitely.
A torrent of criticism has erupted from neighbouring Asian countries. Hong Kong, vital for Japanese seafood exports, responded by imposing restrictions and is enforcing rigorous checks on seafood imports from Japan
Before discharge, the treated water is diluted with seawater to one-fortieth of the permissible concentration according to Japanese safety standards, and then released through an underwater tunnel located a kilometre away from the facility.
Tepco’s advanced liquid treatment system does remove most of the radioactive elements, but not all. Tritium, a hydrogen isotope hard to separate from water, is still present. Its concentration and potentially harmful effects are at the centre of the current political debate.
Japan’s prime minister, Fumio Kishida, emphasised the crucial importance of removing the water from the Fukushima Daiichi site as an essential step in the complex and extended process of decommissioning the nuclear facility.
A torrent of criticism has erupted from neighbouring Asian countries. Hong Kong, vital for Japanese seafood exports, responded by imposing restrictions and is enforcing rigorous checks on seafood imports from Japan.
On August 23, Wang Wenbin, the spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emphatically declared that the ocean is a common asset of humanity and cannot be used by Japan as a site for the arbitrary discharge of nuclear-contaminated water.
Tepco’s advanced liquid treatment system does remove most of the radioactive elements, but not all. Tritium, a hydrogen isotope hard to separate from water, is still present. Its concentration and potentially harmful effects are at the centre of the current political debate
Meanwhile, as several European countries lifted restrictions on Japanese food imports, China introduced radiation tests on all “caught in Japan” seafood. Beijing has long opposed the water release, even refusing to use the term “treated water” as a strategy to downplay the potential risks of “nuclear-contaminated” water.
However, Japan’s decision to proceed with the discharge wasn’t unilateral; it is in line with the United Nations’ nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], which has given its approval to the operation, stating that the radiological impact on people and the environment will be insignificant or “negligible.”
Several industry experts point out that nuclear plants worldwide follow similar procedures for disposing of wastewater containing low tritium and other radionuclide concentrations.
Furthermore, the government has mentioned real-time monitoring measures for the contaminated water, with data to be made public both in Japan and abroad. If the established limit is exceeded, the discharge will be halted.
Additionally, four foreign laboratories will analyse the water—Switzerland, South Korea, France, and the United States. These countries are overseen by the IAEA.
Even those who argue that even if the operation seems safe on paper it’s yet to be proven in reality because such a release has never been done before, don’t know what they are talking about. The environmental impacts of nuclear tests conducted in the sea have been studied for 60 long years. It’s one of the most extensively studied fields
China, along with Russia, had, just last month, urged Japan to consider the option of vaporising and releasing the water into the atmosphere, suggesting that this would have a lesser environmental impact.
Meanwhile, at the local level, fisherfolk in the affected region [Tohoku, including prefectures neighbouring the plant] have expressed dissent, fearing further damage to their already fragile reputation. They claim to have already spent years rebuilding consumer trust after the initial nuclear crisis.
Taking these concerns into account, the government decided to release the treated water before the start of the trawl fishing season off Fukushima in September.
In an attempt to gain the fisherfolk’s consent to the government’s plan, Kishida even visited the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on August 20 to speak with the head of the national federation of Japanese fishing activities. However, the federation remains firmly opposed to water release.
Meanwhile, Japan has pointed out that both China and South Korea have previously released liquids containing high tritium concentrations into the ocean from their national nuclear plants.
Tritium is known to be less harmful to the human body compared to other radioactive materials like cesium and strontium, as it emits weak radiation and doesn’t accumulate inside the human body.
Even those who argue that even if the operation seems safe on paper it’s yet to be proven in reality because such a release has never been done before, don’t know what they are talking about. The environmental impacts of nuclear tests conducted in the sea have been studied for 60 long years. It’s one of the most extensively studied fields.
*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCAN.
