Why China is opposed to release of treated water in Fukushima

The Japan Times wonders why Hong Kong and China are against the release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Caliber.Az reprints the article.

Ahead of the planned release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Hong Kong and mainland China — Japan’s top two seafood export destinations — are saying no to once-sought-after food products from Japan.

“As a preventive measure, once Japan discharges the wastewater into the sea, the Hong Kong city government will immediately ban all aquatic products from 10 prefectures in Japan,” the Hong Kong government said Wednesday.

The import ban from Japan’s two biggest seafood buyers will deal a significant blow to local fishing industries, which were already grappling with the repercussions of the March 2011 triple-meltdown disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published its safety review and gave the green light to the discharge plan, while the European Union lifted restrictions on Japanese food imports Thursday.

However, doubts remain in some places over the approval.

China has been among the most vocal in its opposition to the plan, accusing Japan of treating the Pacific Ocean as its “private sewer.”

Here’s a comprehensive look at China’s stance on the issue and how it might impact already strained bilateral ties.

China’s critical position

Basic geography has caused China to take a keen interest in the release of the Fukushima wastewater.

In a written statement, the China Atomic Energy Authority said the IAEA report failed to fully reflect expert views, adding that Japan should not consider the watchdog’s approval as a “shield” or a “green light” to press ahead with its discharge plan.

“Even if the IAEA believes that the discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea meets international safety standards, it can’t prove that the discharge is the only or the best option for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water,” the statement says.

Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi, who has accused China of disseminating "incorrect information," urged it to deal with the matter "from a scientific standpoint," during talks Friday with top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi, who emphasized that there “is no precedent for discharging water polluted by a nuclear accident into the ocean.”

At a news conference after the talks, Hayashi said he also conveyed to China his objection to "politicizing" the issue.

China has expressed other concerns, including the long-term effectiveness of the water treatment facilities due to corrosion and aging, as well as the treated water’s impact on the marine environment and human health.

Last Tuesday, China criticized those who said the wastewater is free of safety concerns.

“If some people think that the nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima is safe to drink or swim in, we suggest that Japan save the nuclear-contaminated water for these people to drink or swim in, instead of releasing it into the sea and causing widespread concerns internationally,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said.

Is it really unsafe?

Untreated radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima plant can be dangerous, but 62 radionuclides can be removed through the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), according to the IAEA.

However, tritium and carbon-14 — radioactive forms of hydrogen and carbon, respectively — are difficult to separate from the contaminated water.

According to Tokyo and the IAEA, the polluted water will be highly diluted, further bringing the concentration of tritium released below regulatory standards, while slowly discharging it over two or three decades.

In a bid to assuage public fears, the IAEA said in its report that discharging treated water into the sea would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment,” with the total amount of remaining radionuclides well below the amount produced by natural processes each year.

To counter the criticism and concerns from Beijing and Seoul, Tokyo said that its limit for tritium release — at less than 22 trillion becquerels per year — is far tougher than that of other countries, including its two neighbors.

Some environmentalists and nuclear experts, however, are divided on the risks of discharging the treated water.

Tony Irwin of Australian National University’s nuclear physics department has echoed Tokyo’s argument, saying that the move would not be without precedent.

“Nuclear power plants worldwide have routinely discharged water containing tritium for over 60 years without harm to people or the environment, most at higher levels than the 22 (trillion becquerels) per year that is planned at Fukushima,” he said. “The planned discharge is ultraconservative.”

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says that tritium is too weak to penetrate the skin, but can increase the risk of cancer if “consumed in extremely large quantities.”

Robert Richmond, director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawaii, warned that some effects on the marine environment and human health might not show up immediately.

He told National Public Radio that pollutants from the wastewater can be passed and bioaccumulated through various levels of the food chain and ultimately be passed on to people through seafood.

“As an environmental biologist, I strongly adhere to what’s called the precautionary principle,” he said when asked about China’s ban on importing Japanese seafood. “In the absence of data showing something is safe, you don't assume that it's safe. You rather put in those protective measures to be very conservative.”

Others say the plan will be safe, but transparency is still needed for dispelling public concerns, while independent experts must be allowed to sample, monitor and examine data.

A diplomatic issue?

In contrast to Beijing’s firm opposition to the plan, Seoul — which has tried to mend ties with Tokyo — was initially worried about the plan, but has soft-pedaled its concerns after conducting its own assessment and receiving the IAEA’s assurance over safety.

Farther south, anxiety over the issue is permeating a group of Pacific Island nations. The Pacific Islands Forum — a regional bloc of 17 island nations — has urged the plan to be delayed.

“Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for generations to come,” forum Secretary-General Henry Puna said in a statement late last month.

Following the IAEA’s greenlight, the U.S. has also offered strong support, saying it “welcomes” the move. This show of support, however, may be linked to Tokyo’s growing alignment with Washington in its showdown with Beijing, according to some analysts.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has intensified efforts to bring together like-minded democratic allies and partners, including Japan and South Korea to counter China’s growing technological and military clout.

China’s vociferous opposition might reflect its rivalry with the U.S. and its allies, notably Tokyo and Seoul, said Ian Chong, of the National University of Singapore.

“It is not possible to rule out whether PRC official responses to the discharge of water intend to play to or play up persistent domestic concerns, even animosity, toward Japan based on the PRC’s brand of Chinese nationalism at this point,” he said, using the acronym for China’s formal name, the People’s Republic of China.

While Sino-Japanese ties have already been prickly, the water release will not constitute a critical split in the bilateral relationship, said Stephen Nagy of International Christian University in Tokyo.

“It fits the long-term narrative that China has curated that Japan harmed China in the past and continues to do so today,” he said.