[Reading Science] Japan's Contaminated Water Provocation... 'Science' Missing, Only Anti-Nuclear and Pro-Nuclear Remain

Officials from the Progressive Party Nowon District Committee are performing the "Japan has poisoned the Earth's well" act at a press conference delivering signatures opposing the discharge of Fukushima contaminated water held in front of the Japanese Embassy in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 23rd. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-su] Domestic public opinion is divided over Japan's plan to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean. While criticism of the Japanese government as making a 'unilateral decision' exists, a clash between anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear factions seems to be reemerging. The anti-nuclear camp emphasizes the dangers of radioactivity itself and advocates for 'complete blockade' through international lawsuits, whereas the pro-nuclear camp, centered around nuclear engineering experts, warns that the "risk claims are scientifically exaggerated" and cautions against stirring public anxiety that could lead to political controversy. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. government have effectively sided with the Japanese government, stating that "if treated according to standards, discharge is acceptable." The government, with President Moon Jae-in taking the lead to consider international litigation, is moving toward a compromise by accepting the pro-nuclear camp's logic calling for thorough verification and transparent information disclosure instead of outright opposition.

◇Government shifts from opposition to verification = On the morning of the 20th, nuclear experts from national research institutions gathered with serious expressions in a conference room at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute in Daejeon. After an emergency meeting chaired by Yong Hong-taek, First Vice Minister of the Ministry of Science and ICT, they criticized the Japanese government's decision on March 13 to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean.

However, the gathered experts did not shout 'opposition' or 'complete blockade.' They pointed out the lack of scientific verification and consultation with neighboring countries, mentioned that Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) did not function properly, and highlighted the unilateral decision without consultation with neighboring countries, urging thorough verification and international cooperation. They only called on the Japanese government to conduct internationally verified full inspections of all contaminated water tanks and provide detailed information on discharge timing, concentration, and volume, without voicing that "discharge must not occur."

Vice Minister Yong also stated, "Since the Japanese government intends to discharge contaminated water into the ocean over 30 to 40 years, this decision is only a prelude," adding, "We must respond thoroughly over the long term based on science and technology, including strengthening research and development investments in related fields." In other words, his remarks could be interpreted as "if properly treated, discharge is not problematic." Experts analyze that as conflicts between anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear camps reignited after Japan's decision, there was an urgent need to manage and clarify the situation to prevent it from escalating into a controversy over the Moon Jae-in administration's anti-nuclear policy.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◇Renewed conflict between anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear camps= Regarding the risks of contaminated water discharge, the anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear camps offer completely opposite diagnoses and prescriptions.

The pro-nuclear camp argues that radiation within standard limits is not dangerous and can be managed properly, while the anti-nuclear camp insists that all radiation is potentially hazardous and warns against accumulation in nature and internal exposure. The controversy over tritium's risk is a representative example. Both sides have presented opposing views following the harmfulness debate over tritium detected last month at the Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant in Gyeongbuk. The anti-nuclear camp maintains that tritium is very dangerous, as when it enters the human body, it binds with organic materials, remains for a long time, accumulates, and its decay can cause cancer and other fatal effects.

Lee Jung-yoon, head of Nuclear Safety and Future, stated, "Claims that tritium is not dangerous are only theoretically so," arguing, "Tritium accumulating near the coast is likely to lead to seafood exposure and affect the human body." On the other hand, a representative from a nuclear research institution said, "The biological half-life of tritium entering the body in the form of tritiated water (HTO) is 4 to 18 days, averaging about 10 days." They explained that if diluted to less than 1/40th of the standard (10,000 Bq/L) and discharged into the sea as per the Japanese government's plan, it is practically harmless.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◇Risk after seawater discharge= Regarding the impact of contaminated water discharged into the sea spreading via ocean currents to coastal areas of various countries including Korea, the two camps offer completely opposite assessments. The anti-nuclear camp expects an increase in radioactive contamination along coasts of various countries within a short period and calls for precise monitoring and strengthened import bans on seafood.

Contaminated water discharged into the sea off Fukushima is pushed eastward, crosses the Pacific Ocean, hits the North American continent, then splits north and south, traveling through the North Pacific and the Philippines to return to the seas near Japan and Korea's southern coast. The anti-nuclear camp cites research from Fukushima University and the University of Cologne, predicting that contaminated water will reach the East Sea and Jeju Island within 7 months to a year. Considering the half-life of radioactive nuclides, the sooner it arrives, the greater the risk. Jang Mari, head of Greenpeace Korea's anti-nuclear campaign team, said, "The contaminated water will affect not only our seas but also China's coast and pollute the entire Pacific Ocean, and there are limits to predictive modeling," adding, "Even if diluted, enormous amounts of radioactive substances, including those found only in nuclear weapons, will be discharged for decades, making it difficult to reduce contamination damage."

Conversely, the pro-nuclear camp emphasizes that it takes 20 to 30 years, and since the contaminated water is diluted in seawater and undergoes radioactive decay, it is practically harmless. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) predicted in a 2017 simulation that the contaminated water would reach the U.S. West Coast in 4 to 5 years, spread across the entire Pacific Ocean after 20 years, and reach the Indian Ocean after 30 years. Professor Joo Han-kyu of Seoul National University's Department of Nuclear Engineering stated, "Even if TEPCO discharges contaminated water without re-filtering, the radiation dose received by Koreans is extremely low, posing no significant risk, according to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute's analysis," adding, "If the Japanese government discharges according to its own standards and policies, there is no problem."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◇Japanese government ‘distrusted’ vs ‘trustworthy’= The two camps also present opposing views on trust in the Japanese government. They differ not only on the performance of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) operated by the Japanese government since 2013 but also on the transparency of information disclosure, decommissioning period, and the possibility of additional contaminated water discharge. The anti-nuclear camp criticizes the Japanese government for being extremely opaque in information disclosure and making selfish decisions prioritizing money.

Kim Ik-joong, former member of the Nuclear Safety Commission, said, "The Japanese government made the cheapest decision without considering alternatives such as deep-sea discharge, vapor release, or underground burial," adding, "This contaminated water was generated from a reactor with holes leaking nuclear fuel, yet the Japanese government has not officially disclosed specific information and only talks about the volume in tons."

Pro-nuclear experts view that the Japanese government and TEPCO are cooperating with IAEA's advice and verification and transparently disclosing information through their official websites, making them trustworthy. A representative from a nuclear research institution, who has openly expressed pro-nuclear views, responded to the question "Do you think the Japanese government is properly disclosing information?" by stating, "Information on Fukushima nuclear power plant contaminated water can be found on Japanese websites."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.