The Japanese government has announced its plan to start releasing tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean in about two years. Safety concerns over how to handle the Fukushima nuclear disaster have been circulating since the accident in 2011. As Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga stated, the disposal of the plant’s wastewater is now “a problem that cannot be avoided.”
This radioactive wastewater is the product of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster. On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake reached a magnitude of 9.0, causing mass damage to coastal Tōhoku, a northern region of Japan. The tsunami that followed would have a devastating effect as well, resulting in about 19,500 dead and more than a million buildings destroyed or partly collapsed.
When the earthquake hit, the Fukushima Daiichi plant, located in Ōkuma, automatically shut down its nuclear reactors. The tsunami then disabled the electrical switchgear, backup generators, and the heat exchangers that dumped reactor waste and decay heat. With these devices badly damaged, the nuclear fuel in three reactors overheated and partly melted the cores. Known as a nuclear meltdown, the plant began releasing radiation into the atmosphere and radioactive water.
154,000 citizens evacuated the areas surrounding the plant. There were 16 people with physical injuries, two people taken to the hospital with possible radiation burns, and one death from cancer caused by radiation exposure in 2018. Though a United Nations report said there has been “no adverse health effects” related to radiation from the disaster, many are still wary about the accident. Fear of radiation from the region is understandable as the incident was rated a seven, the same as the Chernobyl disaster, on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
Though the accident was directly caused by natural disasters, the event is said to be “man-made” by the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). It had failed to meet safety standards, including risk assessment, preparing for containing collateral damage, and developing evacuation plans. The situation was and has mostly been dealt with by storing the contaminated water in the plant’s tanks. This action is no longer a viable option as TEPCO says that its storage capacity will be full late next year and will pose a safety threat.
Thus, in about two years, TEPCO will begin releasing the 1.25 million tons of treated water. Most radioactive material will be removed, except for tritium. In low concentrations, tritium does not have any serious side effects. Still, there is little known about its long-term effects and to what extent large quantities will affect the environment.
Many in Japan, especially local fishermen, are opposed to this plan. The fishing industry in the Fukushima region has suffered since the fallout, and fishermen worry that this plan will damage its reputation even more.
Fisherman Katsuo Watanabe told Kyodo News that, “The shortage of successors became more serious after the nuclear accident. If (the treated water) is released into the sea, more young people will see no future for the industry and fishing in Fukushima will decline.”
China, South Korea, and Russia also disagree with Japan’s decision. These states feel that Japan has not included its neighbors in this affair and has not been transparent. For example, in a campaign to promote its plan, Japan featured a cute, innocuous cartoon mascot named “Tritium-kun” (“Little Mr. Tritium”). Though the character has been removed from publications after criticism, the way that Japan tried to downplay the release of tritium into water is concerning.
Additionally, some states believe that the uncertainties of long-term consequences on humans and marine life should postpone any consequential action. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that “the oceans are not Japan’s trash can, and the Pacific Ocean is not Japan’s sewer.”
However, certain countries, including the United States, support Japan’s plan. On the official US State Department website, it states that Japan “appears to have adopted an approach in accordance with globally accepted nuclear safety standards.” However, the US’ endorsement is influenced by its desire to maintain a good relationship with Japan in hopes of creating a united front against China.
This situation is complicated and unfortunately time-sensitive. The Japanese government needs to coordinate more with its neighbors and be more transparent. At the same time, political relations should not cloud one’s assessment of the situation. Additionally, the notion that Japan (and thereby all of East Asia) is an existential threat to the rest of the world and just carelessly dumping this water should be dispelled. Hopefully, Suga’s claim that the government will “take every measure to absolutely guarantee the safety of the treated water and address misinformation” holds true.
