As previously noted, the outrage over Japan’s discharging of over 1 million tons of radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean (“discharge” for short) continues to persist. For instance, thousands of Koreans rallied in downtown Seoul on May 20, 2023, to protest the discharge. The leader of the main liberal opposition party in Korea, Lee Jae-myung, told the protesters that the national government should not support Japan’s decision to dispose of contaminated water without considering the repercussions for neighboring countries and the contamination of the world’s oceans. Lee Jae-myung compared the discharge of wastewater with pouring poison into the well, to “nuclear terrorism.” How right is South Korea’s top Democrat?
If you accept the claims made by various environmental groups or the South Korean “democratic opposition” without question, you might well believe that Japan is following through on its plan to release water into the ocean to cool the reactor. However, when this information is clarified, the possibility of a “global disaster” becomes a hotly contested topic.
Since 2011, the procedure of water filtration and sedimentation has been under progress. There are currently more than 1.3 million tons of water in more than 1,000 tanks at the nuclear power plant that have passed through a specialized treatment system known as the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). Throughout this time, the water has been filling the storage tanks until there was no more room nearby. The ALPS system is capable of removing all radioactive substances except tritium from wastewater, and Tokyo claims that tritium-added water discharge is common practice at nuclear power plants around the world.
There is a fierce debate, however, over what to call water that has undergone purification. The Japanese side claims that among the potentially dangerous isotopes there remains only radioactive tritium, the concentration of which will not cause much concern. Therefore, it is logical to call water “purified” or at least “treated,” while Lee Jae-myung and Co. speak of “contaminated” water, not shying away from using the term “liquid radioactive waste,” which creates a very different impression in the public mind.
The IAEA uses both terms depending on the level of filtration: water that has undergone treatment is referred to as “treated water,” while unfiltered water is referred to as “contaminated.”
In an effort to improve relations with Tokyo under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, official Seoul is also thinking about changing the word “contaminated” to “treated.” For example, the government urged the term “nuclear wastewater” not be used on June 19, 2023 because it “causes people excessive and unnecessary concern.” This is correct, because the phrase “radioactive water” implies “water directly from the reactor” in the mass consciousness, not “water that has undergone a purification procedure and has stood for more than ten years.”
Of course, the water would be drained from the initial storage facilities, and – after several years, if not decades – the cleaned water would be mixed with regular water and released into the ocean in a thin stream.
The Japanese government had stated that Discharge to the Pacific Ocean would commence in April 2021, and on June 7, 2023, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) finished work to pump seawater through an undersea tunnel designated for Discharge. In the near future, TEPCO plans construction of a tank in which contaminated water will be temporarily stored before being transferred to the underwater tunnel. All work in preparation for the discharge of contaminated water into the ocean should be completed by the end of June. Water discharge is set to commence this summer.
On June 12, Japan began testing facilities designed for the Discharge. According to Fukushima TV, clean water mixed with seawater will be discharged for two weeks. At the same time, there will be no discharge of contaminated water during this period.
The arguments of the supporters and the opponents of Discharge can be summarized in the following table.
| For Discharge | Against Discharge |
|
Filtration of the contaminant will reduce harm to the environment to an insignificant level. Radioactive tritium can be reduced to a safe level by diluting it. According to Heo Gyun-young, professor of nuclear engineering at Kyung Hee University, who heads the technical review committee of a government task force convened to respond to the Discharge, it would be hard to assume that tritium could affect our health. Heo Gyun-young believes that the tritium discharged with wastewater will not affect human health. A single chest X-ray of an adult exposes the patient to 0.1 mSv of radiation, while the Japanese government’s proposed treatment will discharge 0.00003 mSv of tritium into the ocean. The IAEA confirms that the water is safe. Five reports have already been released by the agency, and a sixth is scheduled for release at the end of June. The best method for getting rid of water is discharge. |
The ocean is more unpredictable than it seems – harm can be done through food chains There have been no research on the impacts of tritium on marine ecosystems in Tokyo, therefore people do not completely realize the true harm caused by tritium. The IAEA’s role is to analyze and confirm the data provided by the Japanese side, not to directly collect samples and verify them. This UN agency stands with Japan on nuclear power, and therefore “IAEA’s role, in this case, was clear from the outset ― not to verify but to corroborate. Yes, it is the only international agency to do that job. Still, one had better not read too much into its conclusion.” The third-largest economy in the world has the resources and technology to create alternatives, such as onshore storage and contaminated water evaporation. Allegedly there are at least two alternatives to discharging water into the ocean – building giant storage tanks on land and turning it into mortar by mixing it with sand and cement. The first costs about 300 billion won ($227 million) and the second costs 1 trillion won. Although it is far more expensive than the 34 billion won that Discharge costs, “we can hardly believe that the world’s third-largest economy and the only Asian member of the G7 chooses a contentious method to save at most $750 million,” the article states. |
Let us not forget the thesis beloved by the opponents of the discharge: “If it is safe enough to drink, they should use it as drinking water. It should at least be used as agricultural or industrial water.” At various points this thesis has been voiced by Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the ROK opposition, a representative of the Chinese foreign ministry, and even worried Fijian officials.
By the way, China’s stance is just as dogmatic and prejudiced. Li Song, China’s permanent representative to the IAEA, criticized Japan for their intended discharge of radioactive water into the ocean on June 10, 2023, claiming that the action will jeopardize the health of people worldwide and the marine ecosystem. More than 60 radionuclides are present in the radioactively contaminated water, according to Li, who also noted that even after filtering, 70% of this water does not adhere to IAEA guidelines.
Two other issues on which there is scientific and public debate is the time when discharged water will reach Korea and also the problem of general water contamination, including radioactive fish.
The government-funded research institute Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) issued a disclaimer after Wade Allison, a British physicist and Emeritus professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College at Oxford University, said on May 15 that he would drink up to 10 liters of Fukushima water. According to KAERI’s news release, treated wastewater is not safe to drink, and the professor’s assertion that he would drink many liters of water does not reflect the institute’s views. Meanwhile, during a National Assembly session on May 24, Han Gyu Joo, the KAERI President, stated that wastewater should not be drunk since “the wastewater is 62 times higher in becquerel (Bq), a unit of radioactivity, than drinking water.”
When Professor Emeritus Suh Kune-yull of Seoul National University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering told local broadcaster YTN that the wastewater could flow into the East Sea within five to seven months after the discharge begins, authorities immediately issued a press release refuting the claim. They referred to simulations done by government research institutes, denying the professors claims and indicating that seawater containing very few traces of tritium would enter the Korean Seas about five years after wastewater discharge. A group of fishermen then reported the professor to the police for defamation, and the ruling party criticized him for causing fear in the general public by spreading groundless rumors.
Later, Vice Minister Song Sang-geun of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, denied a media report citing a study by the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers that contaminated water from the plant would reach the shores of South Jeju Island in just seven months. According to him, as ocean currents carry the contaminated water, the radioactive material would be virtually invisible on the shores of Jeju. He also added that the concentration level there would be about a trillionth of that of the Fukushima coast.
Meanwhile, salt sales in the Republic of Korea have increased by 55.6 percent as a result of concerns that Japan’s planned discharge of treated wastewater may contaminate the waters surrounding the Korean Peninsula. Separately, there is a shortage of iodized salt as a remedy for radiation.
On June 20, 2023, it was announced at the plenary meeting of the Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock, Food, Marine, and Fisheries Committee of the National Assembly that from 2011 to 2020, the level of cesium-137 in the Sea of Japan rose from 0.001 to 0.002 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg). But on June 21, Vice Minister Song Sang-geun of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, reported that in 2011 the concentration of cesium in the East Sea has not practically increased: from 2005 to 2010, the index was kept between 0.001 and 0.004 Bq/kg. At the same time, the World Health Organization limits the content of cesium in drinking water to 10 Bq/kg, so the water from the Sea of Japan is absolutely safe.
According to Song Sang-keon, the government has discovered no concerns in around 75,000 radiation tests conducted on marine items after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. The government is still examining fish taken in Korean waters to ensure they are not contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On May 31, 2023, the IAEA submitted an interim report on the results of the analysis of contaminated water from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. No significant excess of nuclides was detected in the water samples. The Tokyo Electric Power Company’s radioactivity analysis method and water sample collecting procedure are acceptable, according to the paper. Research institutions from France and Switzerland, as well as the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety participated in the IAEA’s analysis of the water samples. The IAEA intends to submit a report on the results of seawater analysis in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant area and the fish that are located there in the near future.
However, in response to mounting concerns, the ruling party and the government agreed on June 18 to expand the inspection of radiation levels in the ocean, increasing the number of seawater testing sites from 92 to 200. Furthermore, cesium and tritium concentration levels will be monitored every two weeks, compared with the current frequency of once every one to three months.
Fish taken in the waters around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in May carried radioactive cesium, many times exceeding Japanese food safety regulations. The Kyodo Tsushin Agency reported that the intestines of sebastes taken at a port near the nuclear power plant in May contained 18,000 becquerels of cesium per kilogram, according to a study provided by the facility’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).
This is 180 times higher than the limit for cesium content in seafood as stipulated by Japanese health regulations (no more than 100 becquerels per kilogram) and far exceeds the permissible level for human consumption. In particular, the content of cesium-137 is 180 times higher than the standard maximum.
As a result, according to a poll conducted from May 26 to 28 by Hankook Ilbo, a Korean daily newspaper, and the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbun, more than 80% of South Koreans oppose the discharge, while 60% of Japanese support it. At the same time, the Democrats claim that the government is downplaying the results of a poll showing that 84% of Koreans oppose.
In May 2023, a team of South Korean experts visited the plant with an inspection to see whether the radioactive water could be safely processed. The inspection was conducted in accordance with the agreement reached at the summit between President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. After the inspection, the team stated that significant progress had been made, but that further analysis was needed for a more accurate conclusion. This led to an outburst of speculation about the bias of the commission, but the author will discuss the twists and turns surrounding this visit in the next text, concluding with a passage from the media: “The Fukushima wastewater discharge is an issue related not only to people’s health but also to their sentiments. It is a matter of safety in scientific terms and also a matter of whether people really feel it is safe. The government must keep trying to figure out ways to dispel people’s anxiety. Above all, it is important to concentrate on verifiable scientific facts and communicate with the people swiftly, transparently and continuously. It must also demand concrete and precise data and explanations from Japan if necessary, while keeping up efforts to verify them.”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
