Japan has thrown caution to the wind with the controversial release of radioactive water from its crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea.
In my view, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly concerning anything involving nuclear power and the world’s food supply chains. What is at stake in Fukushima is also the potential threat to public health on a global level – which, I am convinced, calls for extra caution.
“Caution is the eldest child of wisdom,” French writer and politician Victor Hugo (1802-1885) famously said.
China has taken a vociferous stance against Tokyo’s decision to discharge radioactive water from Fukushima and responded to the start of the discharge of radioactive water into the ocean last week by imposing a ban on a range of foodstuffs, seafood in particular, from Japan. Of course, Hong Kong and Macau have followed suit.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin has again and again voiced Beijing’s opposition to Japan’s ocean discharge plan. He pointed out that if the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water was truly safe, Japan wouldn’t need to dump it into the sea – “and certainly shouldn’t if it’s not”.
Wang has said that “it is unjustified, unreasonable and unnecessary for Japan to push through the ocean discharge plan, and the act is extremely selfish and irresponsible.”
According to Wang, “The discharge will spread the risks of nuclear contamination to the rest of the world, and by doing so, Japan is putting its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entirety of humanity.” He also underlined that the oceans sustain mankind and that they aren’t “a sewer for Japan’s nuclear-contaminated water”.
Wang also said in the run-up to the radioactive water discharge in Fukushima that “China will take all steps necessary to protect the marine environment, ensure food safety and safeguard people’s life and health”. He urged Japan to “reverse its wrong decision.”
Well, Beijing’s repeated warnings have so far fallen on deaf ears in Tokyo, which says that its discharge plan is slated to last an incredibly long three decades.
The plan has also been rejected by many sectors of civil society in Japan, such as fisherfolks and ecologists. Greenpeace Japan has said that 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 also said in a recent statement the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) – which operates the ill-fated nuclear power plant – “falsely assert that there is no alternative to the decision to discharge [the radioactive water into the sea] and that it is necessary to move towards final decommissioning”.
Greenpeace Japan also said that the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had failed to investigate the Fukushima plant’s operation of its advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) and also “completely ignored the highly radioactive fuel debris that melted down [and] which continues every day to contaminate ground water – nearly 1,000 cubic metres every 10 days.”
Greenpeace Japan also insisted that 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 neighbouring countries” – such as, I may add, Korea, China (including Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau), and the Philippines.
The Greenpeace Japan statement also points out that the international opposition to Japan’s radioactive water release also includes the US National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) consisting of 100 leading marine science institutions in the US which stated last December that “the proposed release of this contaminated water is a transboundary and transgenerational issue of concern for the health of marine ecosystems and those whose lives and livelihoods depend on them.”
All this shows that China is not alone in its principled opposition to Japan’s incautious discharge of radioactive water into the ocean. I find the Japanese decision puzzling for two main reasons: Firstly, as the world’s only country that suffered the horrible consequences of nuclear weapons used in an armed conflict, I would have expected Japanese politicians to be much more cautious in tackling the aftermath of the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear facilities in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Secondly, as an island nation with a long history of fisheries and a globally appreciated culinary tradition based on seafood in particular, I would have expected Japan’s political elite to be much more cautious in trying to solve the backwash of the Fukushima catastrophe. They failed on both fronts.
A Xinhua report published in our newspaper yesterday, headlined “Fukushima residents slam Japanese gov’t for breaking promise”, quoted a 71-year-old fisherman as telling the national newswire in a recent interview that “for us, the ocean discharge is a matter of survival.”
I take pity on the hard-working fisherfolks in Fukushima and hope that their legal action against the ocean discharge will put an end to it.
Apparently, one of the reasons for going ahead with the ocean discharge is that it is the cheapest way of dispensing with the nuclear-contaminated water by simply dumping it into the sea in the hope that it will vanish without any trace in the vastness of the world’s oceans, as far away from Japan as possible.
Reportedly, the alternative vapour release disposal strategy proposed by some was rejected by Tokyo not just for technical but also for financial reasons, as the ocean discharge plan reportedly only requires one-tenth of the cost of disposing of the radioactive water through vapour release.
I don’t know much (the title of a great 1980s song) 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 exclude the possibility that common sense will ultimately prevail among Japan’s leaders and the 30-year-long discharge plan will be axed before long and be replaced with something much more cautious.
– Harald Brüning
*https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/61364/japan-announces-date-for-fukushima-radioactive-water-release/
