Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • Is Fukushima Wastewater Release Safe? Depends on Your Politics and Science
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO23118 | Is Fukushima Wastewater Release Safe? Depends on Your Politics and Science
Alvin Chew

25 August 2023

download pdf

SYNOPSIS

Japan’s plan to discharge water from its tsunami-wrecked Fukushima power plant has drawn mixed reactions around the world. Who your friends are is crucial to driving nuclear power policy on issues such as this.

Treated water tank at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant 1
Source: Wikimedia

COMMENTARY

Twelve years after a tsunami hit the eastern coast of Japan and caused a nuclear disaster, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is once again at the centre of international concern.

On Tuesday (22 Aug), Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said Japan will start on Thursday the planned discharge of more than 1.2 million tonnes of wastewater – enough to fill more than 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools – from the crippled plant into the Pacific Ocean.

Contrary to the international support Japan received in the immediate aftermath of the March 2011 disaster, the plan has been met with criticism, despite approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

China has strongly condemned the plan. In July, China and Hong Kong, Japan’s two largest seafood export markets, announced that they will extend their ban on all aquatic products from 10 prefectures in Japan.

While South Korea was initially vociferous, the government formally endorsed Japan’s plan in July after its own assessment. Still, South Koreans have taken to the streets in protest and started hoarding sea salt.

The biggest question on everyone’s minds is: Is it safe? Rational minds may look to the IAEA safety review for reassurance – but science alone is not enough.

Scientific Endorsement of Safety

Certainly, science must undergird the world’s approach to nuclear issues. After nearly two years of work, the United Nations nuclear watchdog greenlit the discharge plan.

In doing so, the IAEA endorsed scientific calculations indicating the treated water will be far below the acceptable radiation threshold. One scientist who advised the IAEA on Fukushima reports described the water released as “a drop in the ocean”, in volume and radioactivity.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) treats contaminated water using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), reported to be effective in removing almost all radioactive substances to acceptable safety levels.

One exception is the tritium isotope, but there is no known technology to separate low concentration of tritium from water as both have similar properties. If there were, Japan would not be dumping the waste water into the sea.

Tritium is a rare but valuable isotope that is crucial for nuclear fusion, the more powerful but still elusive sibling of nuclear fission. In April, Japan adopted its first national strategy on nuclear fusion to develop and commercialise this potential power source.

In addition, the wastewater will be released over the next 30 years to avoid any sudden spike in radiation levels. It will also be discharged 1km off the power plant site via an underwater tunnel and radioactive levels will be further diluted in the ocean.

The wastewater release is also part of the decommissioning process of the destroyed Daiichi nuclear power plant, which is expected to take about 40 years. The water used to douse the melted reactor cores has been treated and stored on site, in more than 1,000 tanks that are expected to reach capacity by early 2024.

Japan also considered an alternative release method, which is evaporating it into the atmosphere, but that option was deemed to be more pollutive as radioactive substances could settle on territorial lands. Japan will not want to store the wastewater indefinitely.

Human Fears and Anxieties about All Things Nuclear

Despite the scientific endorsement, very little is known in the public regarding the effects of radiation. Fears and anxieties persist – it is only human.

The concerns are largely on the environmental impact and degradation of marine ecology, as well as the risks to human health.

Tritium emits beta radiation, but this cannot penetrate human skin. The concern lies with the ingestion of affected seafood, which is why outcry within Japan has stemmed mainly from its fishery industry.

As a precaution, Japan has stepped up monitoring of radiation levels in nearby affected waters and will test fishery products before they are released to the consumer market. However, such precautionary measures are not foolproof, and people worry that contaminated fish and seafood could arrive on the dining table.

Another contributing factor is TEPCO’s lack of transparency regarding the management of the Fukushima wastewater.

In 2011, prior to the ALPS treatment process introduced in 2013, TEPCO discharged tonnes of untreated, highly radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, drawing huge criticisms about their irresponsible behaviour. TEPCO had also denied claims of repeated leakages to the groundwater, which led to the flow of radioactive nuclides into the ocean.

Given TEPCO’s disrepute, several experts remain sceptical that the ALPS-treated water is safe and below the acceptable threshold for discharge. As such, TEPCO should first demonstrate the trustworthiness of its organisation before going all out to convince the international community to accept its “science-based” approach.

About Politics as Much as Science

While it remains crucial to adopt science-based approaches, the reactions to Japan’s plan show that establishing international support is paramount to drive policies in the realm of nuclear safety and security.

The United States has expressed support for Japan’s water discharge plan, partly due to the fact that all six reactors of the Daiichi plant were designed by General Electric, a US company.

South Korea has also toned down its initial opposition, partly because its own nuclear experts were allowed to visit Fukushima in May. Similar to Japan, South Korea’s own nuclear plants also adopt US technology, thus possibly landing the US as a playmaker to desensitise the wastewater discharge.

In July, the European Union fully lifted its sanctions on food imports from Japan, a timely measure in support of Japan’s science-based approach in handling the contamination.

However, China continues to condemn Japan’s plan, repeatedly stressing the importance of obtaining approvals from neighbouring countries before dumping the water into the ocean.

China has called into question the effectiveness of decontamination and trustworthiness of the data. Notably, the scientific data put forth by Japan indicates that the level of tritium in the treated wastewater is way below the level measured from the annual wastewater discharged by Chinese nuclear facilities.

China’s refusal to acknowledge the negligible effects of the Fukushima treated wastewater highlights gaps in the understanding of long-term radiation effects on human and ecological lifeforms. However, China’s unsoftened stance, despite scientific data, also suggests that its criticisms have been heavily politicised because of the deeply rooted tensions between the two countries.

Beijing’s opposing stance will only intensify US-China rivalry in the Asia-Pacific. This episode demonstrates, especially to newcomer countries, the importance of forging nuclear partnerships with a supplying country.

In this particular nuclear crisis, not only did the US render its support for Japan, but it also managed to get international organisations such as the IAEA to endorse Japan’s management of the clean-up process in Fukushima. China should note this and not play hardball if it intends to vie for a larger share of and become a leader in the nuclear sphere.

About the Author

Dr Alvin Chew is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. This commentary was first published by CNA on 23 August 2023.

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
comments powered by Disqus

SYNOPSIS

Japan’s plan to discharge water from its tsunami-wrecked Fukushima power plant has drawn mixed reactions around the world. Who your friends are is crucial to driving nuclear power policy on issues such as this.

Treated water tank at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant 1
Source: Wikimedia

COMMENTARY

Twelve years after a tsunami hit the eastern coast of Japan and caused a nuclear disaster, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is once again at the centre of international concern.

On Tuesday (22 Aug), Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said Japan will start on Thursday the planned discharge of more than 1.2 million tonnes of wastewater – enough to fill more than 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools – from the crippled plant into the Pacific Ocean.

Contrary to the international support Japan received in the immediate aftermath of the March 2011 disaster, the plan has been met with criticism, despite approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

China has strongly condemned the plan. In July, China and Hong Kong, Japan’s two largest seafood export markets, announced that they will extend their ban on all aquatic products from 10 prefectures in Japan.

While South Korea was initially vociferous, the government formally endorsed Japan’s plan in July after its own assessment. Still, South Koreans have taken to the streets in protest and started hoarding sea salt.

The biggest question on everyone’s minds is: Is it safe? Rational minds may look to the IAEA safety review for reassurance – but science alone is not enough.

Scientific Endorsement of Safety

Certainly, science must undergird the world’s approach to nuclear issues. After nearly two years of work, the United Nations nuclear watchdog greenlit the discharge plan.

In doing so, the IAEA endorsed scientific calculations indicating the treated water will be far below the acceptable radiation threshold. One scientist who advised the IAEA on Fukushima reports described the water released as “a drop in the ocean”, in volume and radioactivity.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) treats contaminated water using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), reported to be effective in removing almost all radioactive substances to acceptable safety levels.

One exception is the tritium isotope, but there is no known technology to separate low concentration of tritium from water as both have similar properties. If there were, Japan would not be dumping the waste water into the sea.

Tritium is a rare but valuable isotope that is crucial for nuclear fusion, the more powerful but still elusive sibling of nuclear fission. In April, Japan adopted its first national strategy on nuclear fusion to develop and commercialise this potential power source.

In addition, the wastewater will be released over the next 30 years to avoid any sudden spike in radiation levels. It will also be discharged 1km off the power plant site via an underwater tunnel and radioactive levels will be further diluted in the ocean.

The wastewater release is also part of the decommissioning process of the destroyed Daiichi nuclear power plant, which is expected to take about 40 years. The water used to douse the melted reactor cores has been treated and stored on site, in more than 1,000 tanks that are expected to reach capacity by early 2024.

Japan also considered an alternative release method, which is evaporating it into the atmosphere, but that option was deemed to be more pollutive as radioactive substances could settle on territorial lands. Japan will not want to store the wastewater indefinitely.

Human Fears and Anxieties about All Things Nuclear

Despite the scientific endorsement, very little is known in the public regarding the effects of radiation. Fears and anxieties persist – it is only human.

The concerns are largely on the environmental impact and degradation of marine ecology, as well as the risks to human health.

Tritium emits beta radiation, but this cannot penetrate human skin. The concern lies with the ingestion of affected seafood, which is why outcry within Japan has stemmed mainly from its fishery industry.

As a precaution, Japan has stepped up monitoring of radiation levels in nearby affected waters and will test fishery products before they are released to the consumer market. However, such precautionary measures are not foolproof, and people worry that contaminated fish and seafood could arrive on the dining table.

Another contributing factor is TEPCO’s lack of transparency regarding the management of the Fukushima wastewater.

In 2011, prior to the ALPS treatment process introduced in 2013, TEPCO discharged tonnes of untreated, highly radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, drawing huge criticisms about their irresponsible behaviour. TEPCO had also denied claims of repeated leakages to the groundwater, which led to the flow of radioactive nuclides into the ocean.

Given TEPCO’s disrepute, several experts remain sceptical that the ALPS-treated water is safe and below the acceptable threshold for discharge. As such, TEPCO should first demonstrate the trustworthiness of its organisation before going all out to convince the international community to accept its “science-based” approach.

About Politics as Much as Science

While it remains crucial to adopt science-based approaches, the reactions to Japan’s plan show that establishing international support is paramount to drive policies in the realm of nuclear safety and security.

The United States has expressed support for Japan’s water discharge plan, partly due to the fact that all six reactors of the Daiichi plant were designed by General Electric, a US company.

South Korea has also toned down its initial opposition, partly because its own nuclear experts were allowed to visit Fukushima in May. Similar to Japan, South Korea’s own nuclear plants also adopt US technology, thus possibly landing the US as a playmaker to desensitise the wastewater discharge.

In July, the European Union fully lifted its sanctions on food imports from Japan, a timely measure in support of Japan’s science-based approach in handling the contamination.

However, China continues to condemn Japan’s plan, repeatedly stressing the importance of obtaining approvals from neighbouring countries before dumping the water into the ocean.

China has called into question the effectiveness of decontamination and trustworthiness of the data. Notably, the scientific data put forth by Japan indicates that the level of tritium in the treated wastewater is way below the level measured from the annual wastewater discharged by Chinese nuclear facilities.

China’s refusal to acknowledge the negligible effects of the Fukushima treated wastewater highlights gaps in the understanding of long-term radiation effects on human and ecological lifeforms. However, China’s unsoftened stance, despite scientific data, also suggests that its criticisms have been heavily politicised because of the deeply rooted tensions between the two countries.

Beijing’s opposing stance will only intensify US-China rivalry in the Asia-Pacific. This episode demonstrates, especially to newcomer countries, the importance of forging nuclear partnerships with a supplying country.

In this particular nuclear crisis, not only did the US render its support for Japan, but it also managed to get international organisations such as the IAEA to endorse Japan’s management of the clean-up process in Fukushima. China should note this and not play hardball if it intends to vie for a larger share of and become a leader in the nuclear sphere.

About the Author

Dr Alvin Chew is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. This commentary was first published by CNA on 23 August 2023.

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info