Twelve years after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, Japan plans to promote the plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea.

　　On March 11, 2011, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami occurred in Japan, which hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company, resulting in a level 7 nuclear accident, the highest level in the international nuclear accident classification standard, and produced Millions of tons of nuclear contaminated water.

　　On April 13, 2021, the Japanese government formally proposed a plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. It plans to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea after filtration and dilution. The discharge is expected to last for 20 to 30 years.

　　This decision was not only opposed by the people in Japan, but also caused widespread concern and doubts in the international community, including China and other neighboring countries and Pacific island countries.

In the face of opposition and doubts at home and abroad, the Japanese government still insists on advancing its plan.

　　On January 13, 2023, the Japanese government announced that it will launch the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea during the spring and summer of this year. However, the latest review report of the IAEA technical team on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water has not yet been released.

　　The risk of increasing discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea has not been fully studied

　　Affected by the "3.11" Japanese earthquake and the tsunami it triggered in 2011, the cores of units 1 to 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant melted down.

After the accident, Tokyo Electric Power Company continued to inject water into the containment of Units 1 to 3 to cool the core. The radioactive nuclear contaminated water produced in this process, together with the influx of groundwater and rainwater, has occupied the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Many water storage tanks, currently still growing.

　　Tokyo Electric Power Company claimed that the area of ​​the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is limited, and there is no more open space for the construction of a large number of water storage tanks. In the event of a major earthquake, a large amount of nuclear-contaminated water may leak, so the nuclear-contaminated water has to be diluted. discharge into the sea.

The treated discharged water has low levels of radioactive material and does not pose a threat to marine life or humans.

　　However, experts say the risks have not been studied in sufficient detail in Japan.

　　"The Japanese government has not scientifically disclosed all the information, which is unacceptable." Sean Burnie, a senior nuclear expert at the Japan office of the international environmental protection organization Greenpeace, said in an interview with a reporter from the Beijing News in early February that the Japanese government has no specific information on the different types of radioactivity in nuclear-polluted water. There is insufficient research on the substance and its consequences, "How many tons of nuclear-contaminated water the Japanese government intends to actually discharge remains unclear, ignoring the risk of exposure to these radioactive elements."

　　Ken Bueseler, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States, also said that TEPCO's assurance "is not supported by the quantity and quality of the data" and "we need more information."

Robert Richmond, a marine biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said that Japan's discharge of sewage into the sea will set a bad precedent. "There is a strong international consensus that continuing to use the ocean to dump waste It's simply not sustainable."

　　The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest review report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water has not yet been released.

　　The assessment report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical working group in 2022 shows that Japan's sea drainage plan is inconsistent with the agency's safety standards.

The working group will go to Japan again from January 16 to 20, 2023 to conduct a review on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water, and the relevant report will be released within three months.

　　The Japanese government has failed to fulfill its obligations under international treaties

　　Discharge into the sea after treatment is not the only way for Japan to deal with nuclear-contaminated water.

　　Since 2013, the Japanese government has proposed five options for sewage disposal methods, including: formation injection, discharge into the ocean, steam release, hydrogen release, and underground burial.

In February 2020, an expert committee organized by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan submitted a report, arguing that the "most practical solution" is to dilute and discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea or evaporate it into the atmosphere.

In the end, the Japanese government selected the option of diluting it into the sea.

　　In this regard, Bernie said that the Japanese government knew that there were other treatment options, but finally chose the option of discharging into the sea because "the cost of this option is lower than other options."

Burney added that Japan's special group report also pointed out that storing nuclear-contaminated water in and around nuclear power plants is also a possible option, but it may require long-term management, and the Japanese government has not considered this option.

　　Japan's move violates international law.

Burney pointed out that the most relevant international laws are two.

　　One is the "London Convention" and the "London Protocol" on the prohibition of intentionally dumping nuclear waste into the marine environment. As a signatory of the above-mentioned conventions and protocols, Japan has the obligation to fulfill its responsibility to prohibit the dumping of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean.

At the same time, Japan, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also needs to fulfill its obligation to protect the marine environment.

　　In addition, the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water is a source of nuclear material pollution, and Japan's move is also bound by the international convention on nuclear activities and nuclear materials.

For example, the 1986 "Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident" requires contracting parties to notify and consult with potentially affected countries immediately after a nuclear accident occurs in order to reduce radiation hazards.

　　The consequences of the plan to discharge sewage into the sea are difficult to estimate. There are repeated oppositions in Japan and abroad.

　　In the long term, the nuclear-contaminated water that the Japanese government intends to discharge into the Pacific Ocean has come into contact with the melted nuclear fuel of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

　　Previously, Tokyo Electric Power Company stated that before the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water is discharged into the sea, it must be filtered by the multi-nuclide removal equipment (ALPS) to remove more than 60 types of radioactive substances.

However, the actual effect of this device is not ideal.

According to Xinhua News Agency, the Japanese media found that there were many kinds of radioactive substances other than tritium in the Fukushima nuclear polluted water exceeding the standard. The Tokyo Electric Power Company also admitted that more than 70% of the nuclear polluted water treated by ALPS did not meet the discharge standards and needed to be re-treated. filter.

　　Now, the Japanese government has confirmed that it will begin to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the coastal waters of Fukushima "during the spring and summer of this year", but the specific information disclosed is still very limited, and it is still doubtful whether the nuclear-contaminated water that will be discharged into the sea meets the discharge standards.

　　For Japan's plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, Japan and abroad have always expressed opposition and doubts.

The National Federation of Fisheries Associations of Japan stated again on January 13, 2023 that its attitude against the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea has not changed.

The South Korean government believes that Japan should provide specific information to the international community to prove that Japan’s handling is trustworthy, especially after fully explaining to neighboring countries and following the agreed steps.

The Pacific Islands Forum expressed its opposition to Japan's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, and believed that Japan should not implement the plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean until relevant parties can confirm the safety of the discharge plan.

　　dialogue

　　An exclusive interview with Sean Burney, a senior nuclear expert at Greenpeace:

　　Japan violates international law by dumping sewage into sea

　　It is "obviously unsafe" for Japan to discharge millions of tons of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea.

Sean Burnie, a senior nuclear expert at the Japan office of the international environmental organization Greenpeace, said this in an exclusive interview with a reporter from the Beijing News in early February.

　　Bernie said that the Japanese government and TEPCO have declared that it is safe to filter and dilute nuclear-contaminated water and discharge it into the sea, but its impact still needs to be scientifically verified.

　　Bernie pointed out that in addition to tritium, there are many other radioactive substances in the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water that cannot be filtered out by the existing technology of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, such as carbon 14 with a half-life of more than 5,000 years.

The Japanese government still lacks sufficient scientific research and has not disclosed more scientific information. Its claims about the dangers of nuclear polluted water discharge are not credible.

　　In Bernie's view, the Japanese government knew that there were other treatment options, such as storing nuclear-contaminated water in the nuclear power plant and its surrounding areas, but finally chose the lower-cost option of discharging sewage into the sea. This not only violates relevant international laws, but may also damage marine ecology. and human health.

　　For this reason, Bernie called on Japan to revoke the decision to discharge sewage into the sea and disclose more scientific information. He hopes that Greenpeace and scientists from many countries will continue to understand and investigate the situation of nuclear-contaminated water. The society expresses concern, prevents Japan from discharging nuclear contaminated water into the ocean, and protects the global marine environment.

Beijing News reporter Zhu Yuehong Liu Jingyu

　　Even with alternatives, the Japanese government still chooses to discharge sewage into the sea

　　Beijing News: (January 13, 2023) The Japanese government stated that it has decided to launch a plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea this year.

Is the plan reasonable?

is it safe?

　　Sean Bernie: Clearly not safe.

We must know that the discharge of nuclear contaminated water cannot be completed in a few years or even decades, but may continue into the next century.

It is a special situation in the history of nuclear power for the Japanese government to make such a major decision alone.

In this regard, Greenpeace strongly opposes Japan's discharge of nuclear-contaminated water.

　　Although the Japanese government stated that the nuclear-contaminated water has been treated and its radioactive substances are below the legal discharge limit, many scientific understandings have been ignored when assessing the long-term impact of radioactive substances on the environment and public health.

For example, the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company, which is in charge of operating the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, do not know how much radioactive substances are contained in the treated nuclear-contaminated water. They have done very limited sampling of the nuclear-contaminated water in the storage tanks and lack of sufficient analysis. , and these results have not yet been published. It is difficult to determine what impact the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water will have.

　　Beijing News: Apart from discharging nuclear polluted water into the sea, does the Japanese government have other ways to deal with it?

　　Sean Bernie: The Japanese government knows that there are alternatives.

Over the past few years, there has been evidence that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its surrounding areas have sufficient space to store nuclear-contaminated water.

The report of the Japanese government task force also pointed out that long-term storage of nuclear-contaminated water is a possible option, but it requires long-term management of nuclear power plants, so they do not want to consider it, but choose the lower-cost solution of discharging it into the sea.

　　Nuclear polluted water contains a variety of radioactive substances that will damage marine ecology and human health

　　Beijing News: What will be the impact of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea?

　　Sean Burney: Any nuclear contaminated water with radioactive material has the potential to harm marine life, the marine environment and ultimately human health.

Different radioactive substances behave differently in the environment and are enriched to varying degrees in algae, marine animals such as fish or molluscs, but eventually in humans.

Therefore, the possible long-term consequences of each of the different radioactive elements in nuclear-contaminated water must be studied.

　　Nuclear contaminated water contains different types of radioactive substances that exist in the environment for varying lengths of time.

For example, tritium has a half-life of approximately 12.5 years, other radioactive substances such as iodine-129 have a half-life of over 15 million years, and carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5,000 years.

In the next 5000 years, carbon 14 may also pollute the global environment.

　　The big problem at present is that it is still not clear how many tons of nuclear-contaminated water the Japanese government intends to actually discharge, and the radioactive risk of exposure to these radioactive elements is also ignored. It is worrying that the discharged nuclear-contaminated water will spread throughout North Korea. Due to the effect of ocean currents, the Pacific Ocean will eventually migrate to the South Pacific Ocean. At that time, the entire Asia-Pacific region may continue to be exposed to nuclear radiation caused by nuclear-contaminated water.

It is really unacceptable that the Japanese government has not scientifically disclosed all the information.

　　In fact, the more serious radioactive problem is the hundreds of tons of molten nuclear fuel still under the nuclear reactor. The content of radioactive substances in it is of different orders of magnitude from the water that may be discharged, and the radiation threat to the Pacific environment and public health is even greater.

This problem is also unique, but the Japanese government and industry still lack a solution.

　　Beijing News: Although the sea discharge plan has aroused opposition from Japan and abroad, the Japanese government still insists on advancing it. How do you view the decision of the Japanese government?

　　Sean Bernie: It is deeply regrettable that the Japanese government has ignored domestic and international public opinion.

First of all, the people of Fukushima, including fishery practitioners, suffered the most from the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011. The vast majority of them strongly oppose the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea. It is obviously wrong to ignore these domestic opinions.

　　The Japanese government is also ignoring opinions from the international community.

Over the past few weeks, there has been strong opposition from Pacific island nations, which have suffered from nuclear radiation pollution from nuclear tests in the last century, and are highly concerned about the release of more radioactive material and the act of polluting the Pacific Ocean.

The Japanese government cannot ignore international opinions like the Pacific island countries.

　　Call on the international community to work together to stop the plan from advancing

　　Beijing News: Does Japan's decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean violate international law?

Are there any relevant laws, regulations or treaties in the international community to restrict such behavior?

　　Sean Burney: There are two international laws that are most directly relevant, and of course there are other international laws.

First, the London Convention and the London Protocol prohibit the deliberate dumping of nuclear waste into the marine environment.

The Japanese government made a pledge not to dump nuclear waste in 1994.

　　At the same time, Japan, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has the obligation to protect the marine environment.

Many provisions of the convention require Japan not to intentionally pollute the marine environment, including that the Japanese government must take action to prevent transboundary pollution, that is, it cannot transfer nuclear waste such as radioactive materials from its domestic waters into the international marine environment.

　　Obviously, if the nuclear contaminated water discharge plan is activated, the radioactive material from the Fukushima nuclear power plant will enter the East China Sea within one to two years, causing cross-border pollution.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Japanese government must prevent this from happening.

In this regard, the Japanese government has not conducted a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, including transboundary impacts on the marine environment.

　　Therefore, the Japanese government's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea violates international law.

　　The Beijing News: Once Japan actually starts to implement the plan, what means do we have to force it to change this decision?

　　Sean Burney: It is important to continue to expose the risks of the sea discharge plan in a scientific way.

In the past few weeks alone, some of the most well-known marine laboratories in the United States have unanimously stated that the hazards of nuclear contaminated water entering the sea still need to be scientifically verified, and that the plan should not be advanced, and nuclear materials and any other dangerous materials should not be dumped into the ocean.

　　In this regard, Greenpeace is working with other scientists to continue to understand and investigate the situation of nuclear contaminated water.

In addition, the international community can continue to express its concerns to the Japanese government and its society through diplomatic channels, urging Japan to stop its plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.

　　The plan is also about the political economy of Japan's nuclear industry and the image of the Japanese government, which needs to disclose as much data as possible and explain why they lack scientific research in this area.

　　Now, I still hope that we can prevent this decision, and even reverse this decision when nuclear contaminated water starts to be released.

The Japanese government has not resolved the issue of the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In the next few years, the actual discharge of nuclear-contaminated water will face many problems.

　　Beijing News reporter Zhu Yuehong