Fukushima Water Release A Volatile Mix Of Politics And Science

Neither was the Expert Panel's recommendation to filter the water and then make concrete with it, which“would avoid transboundary harms and have essentially zero doses to the public from tritium.” Makhijani went so far as to say that“The Japanese government did not consider the concrete option in good faith.”

Professor Kurokawa shed light on the Japanese government's priorities by showing how G7 communiques issued in April and May were“falsified” when translated into Japanese. The statement in question reads as follows in English (key phrase in added italics):

“We support the IAEA's independent review to ensure that the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water will be conducted consistent with the IAEA safety standards and international law and that it will not cause any harm to humans and the environment, which is essential for the decommissioning of the site and the reconstruction of Fukushima.”

The Japanese version, translated back into English, reads:

“We support the IAEA's independent review to ensure that the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water that is essential for the decommissioning of the site and the reconstruction of Fukushima will be conducted consistent with the IAEA safety standards and international law and that it will not cause any harm to humans and the environment.”

Asked about this, Makhijani said the Japanese authorities had made it clear that there is no room to build more water tanks on the site, that the more than 1,000 tanks in which radioactive water is currently stored must be emptied and removed to make room for equipment needed for decommissioning.

The position of representative Nukushina and the Civil Forum on Nuclear Radiation Damages is that the Japanese government has“abandoned 'justification” for discharge,“while stating that 'if decommissioning is justified, then ocean discharge is also justified,' comparing the 'benefits of decommissioning' with the 'damage caused by exposure to radiation from ocean discharge.' This bo'justification' is unacceptable.”

It is, however, understandable and logical. The site is crowded and the tanks are almost full.

For China, the issue is not so complicated. It has banned seafood imports from Japan and, as reported by Global Times mouthpiece, says that Tokyo's decision to dump radioactive water into the sea will be“nailed to history's mast of shame.” According to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Japanese have“violated their moral responsibilities and international legal obligations.”

In 2022, China (including Hong Kong) received about 40% of Japan's seafood exports, so the ban will have a meaningful impact. Even Japan's left-leaning Asahi Shimbun newspaper says this is“economic coercion pure and simple... Yet, China has refused to engage in talks with Japan based on solid scientific evidence. Beijing's action is also a disservice to Chinese consumers who seek accurate information concerning health and safety.”

Meanwhile, thousands of hostile phone calls have reportedly been made from China to Japanese government offices, businesses and even a zoo. Reciprocally, China's Embassy in Tokyo has complained about receiving calls from angry Japanese.

China's actions came soon after Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida met with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol andPresident Joe Biden at Camp David to form a trilateral front vis-à-vis China and North Korea. Despite widespread opposition to the release of water from Fukushima among South Koreans, Yoon said he accepts the IAEA's conclusion.

North Korea and Russia do not, and Russia hopes to replace Japanese seafood exports to China. The European Union, on the other hand, has lifted restrictions on food imports from Japan that it imposed after the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011.

So science takes a back seat to politics and the fishermen of Fukushima can look forward to government subsidies, compensation from TEand wondering if their way of life will survive. In 2022, the value of Fukushima's fish catch was over 60% less than it was before the 2011 nuclear accident.

On August 23, Mark Brown, prime minister of the Cook Islands and chairman of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), issued a statement that read in part:

“The decision by the Government of Japan... comes after over 28 months of consultations, including at the highest political level, and at the scientific level between the Pacific Islands Forum and the Government of Japan and PIF and the IAEA.

“We note the IAEA's recommendations that the plans by Japan are consistent with international nuclear safeguards and that impacts on the environment and human health are negligible. At the same time, we appreciate the advice rendered by the independent PIF panel of scientific experts.

“It is not lost on me that there remain diverging views and responses in the international community, and within our Blue Pacific region. As Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, I am committed to maintaining ongoing dialogue with the Government of Japan and the IAEA on this matter.”

In July, a South Korean delegation led by opposition politicians visited Japan in an attempt to stop the release of radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station into the ocean. It, too, appears to have had no impact on Japanese government policy.

Follow this writer on
Twitter: @ScottFo83517667