China News Service, Beijing, May 3, Comprehensive news: The Japanese government announced last month that the decision to discharge one million tons of nuclear sewage from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea caused an uproar in the international community.

Many governments, non-governmental organizations, think tank scholars, international media, etc. continue to pay attention to this and express their deep concern, believing that the act is difficult to tolerate and has many risks.

　　Contrary to international law, legal principle is difficult to tolerate

　　Many think tank experts pointed out that the Japanese government's move violated international conventions, which is difficult to tolerate by law.

　　The Australian Lowy Institute for International Policy pointed out that at least two international treaties clearly stipulate or prohibit the dumping of waste at sea, namely, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the London Convention and their protocols.

　　The "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" stipulates that all parties should cooperate to protect the marine environment. Article 210 of the Convention clearly requires that "laws, regulations and measures shall ensure that no dumping is allowed without the permission of the competent authorities of various countries."

Japan’s emission behavior has not been approved by the competent authorities of other coastal countries in advance.

　　According to Article 8 of the "London Convention" and its protocol, dumping at sea is allowed only in emergency situations, and any country that may be affected should be consulted.

　　The South China Morning Post cited the views of experts on the law of the sea and also believed that Japan, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.

Therefore, before announcing the decision to discharge nuclear sewage into the ocean, Japan should have fulfilled its obligations under international law, that is, "cooperate with neighboring countries, stakeholders, and competent international agencies, share necessary information and intelligence, and develop emergency plans." .

　　Lack of transparency and risky

　　Dmitry Stefanovic, a researcher at the International Security Center of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told the South China Morning Post that Russia is concerned about the “lack of transparency” in Japan’s nuclear sewage treatment.

"There are many details that need to be made public so that all countries in the region have a clear understanding of what is happening and the consequences."

　　Although the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company stated that nuclear sewage discharge meets safety standards, according to the National Public Radio (NPR) website, some environmentalists pointed out that even though the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company stated that nuclear sewage only contains harm to humans. The animal's health affects very low radioactive tritium, but there has been a lot of evidence that the water contains more radioactive materials, but the Japanese authorities have not disclosed this information.

　　Tokyo Electric Power Co., Ltd. was the main body of the sewage treatment of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan.

Japanese media reported that the company has repeatedly had bad records in the safe operation of nuclear power, has a history of concealing false reports and tampering with information, and lacks credibility and transparency.

In 2013, Tokyo Electric Power Company used the multi-nuclides removal equipment (ALPS) technology to treat nuclear sewage to assure the world that the only residual radionuclide in the treated water is tritium.

In 2018, the company admitted that 70% of nuclear sewage still contained dangerous radionuclides such as strontium-90, cobalt, and ruthenium.

　　Thailand’s "Bangkok Post" commentary stated that after these blatant lies, it is difficult for people to trust TEPCO’s guarantees and promises.

If nuclear sewage is dumped in the ocean, third-party organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency should step in to conduct independent tests and monitor the entire process to ensure compliance with safety standards.

　　The international community expresses deep concern

　　United Nations human rights experts issued a joint statement last month, "deeply disappointed" by the Japanese government's decision to dispose of nuclear sewage from the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident by means of ocean discharge, saying that this move may affect the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the Pacific.

　　The statement said that the Japanese government claims that the ALPS technology can remove radioactive isotopes from nuclear sewage, but previous practice has shown that this technology cannot completely eliminate the risk of radioactive hazards in nuclear sewage.

At the same time, the Japanese government underestimated the harmfulness of radioactive materials in nuclear sewage, and its threat to humans and the environment may continue for more than 100 years.

　　The Federated States of Micronesia government issued a press release stating that the country’s President Panuelo recently sent a letter to Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, expressing serious concerns about Japan’s plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water, and emphasizing that the country’s food and financial security depend on the ocean. Resources, the Japanese side is required to consider the potential impact of the decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water on countries such as the Confederation of Confederation, and call on Japan to start formal multilateral dialogues with countries closely related to the health of the Pacific.

　　Not long ago, the Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum issued a statement expressing concerns on the Japanese decision on behalf of the leaders of the Forum’s member countries.

South Korea and the eight Central American countries also issued a joint statement, expressing their deep concern about the Japanese decision.

(Finish)