Fishing for Trouble in Japan’s Nuclear Wastewater Releases
While the Pacific Ocean increases in temperature, it is also rising in levels of radioactivity. On October 5, Japan initiated its second release of radioactive water in three months. The release ran for 17 days and the Japanese ejected nearly 2 million gallons.
Tensions between Japan and its regional peers have been a consistent presence in East Asia, but Japan’s radioactive water project signaled the beginning of further turmoil. In late August, Japan began executing its controversial plan to expel wastewater into the Pacific Ocean that was contaminated by a disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant. Only a few months in, Japan’s project is causing ripples at home and as far away as the United States.
Beginning as an earthquake that struck the Tohoku region of Japan in March 2011, tremors spawned a powerful tsunami in the same region. The aftermath of the tsunami-earthquake hybrid was devastating, with 450,000 left homeless and 15,000 dead. It is known today as one of the deadliest natural disasters in Japanese history. Among the ruins was much of the region’s infrastructure. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant was hit hard by the disaster and three of its reactors melted down, contaminating the water previously used within the plant with dangerous radioactive material called tritium. Tritium is a rare radioactive isotope of hydrogen, meaning that it has low levels of radiation that are harmless when in contact with skin but can cause cancer if ingested. Like many carcinogens, tritium is under strict regulation by the U.S. government as well as in other countries throughout the world. Japan is releasing the contaminated water after it has been treated. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a United Nations watchdog corroborated assertions from the Japanese government that the water will not be dangerous to neither the Pacific Ocean ecosystem nor the health of citizens consuming seafood from its environment.
The plan to dump nearly 350 million gallons of water is an out for the Japanese government, which is still in a tough spot over a decade after the tsunami. Japanese water tanks are nearing capacity due to the fact that water is still accumulating from the disaster. Their goal is simple: dispose of the contaminated water and wipe away the lasting effects of one of the most serious nuclear disasters in history. This will serve to ease Japan’s responsibility to maintain the contaminated water tanks. The government’s plan is a multi-pronged one, and the first and second releases are not the last.
Environmental Repercussions
Japan’s plan to release contaminated water has been in public development since February 2020, when a government panel recommended the controlled release of the tanks into the Pacific Ocean. The operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), found that the tanks holding the contaminated water would reach capacity in the beginning of 2024 partially informed Japan’s decision to proceed with the release plan. On April 13, 2021, Japan officialized the timeline of release and announced that they would begin expelling the treated radioactive water in 2023.
The international community took immediate interest in Japan’s plan. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. investigated the impacts of Japan’s plan, but ultimately declared the releases safe and supported the project. Other states — particularly China — did not yield their concerns, even after the scientific community determined the plan to be harmless, and have continued to voice their upset since 2021.
Beyond China’s public disapproval, fears of adverse climate effects, ecosystem destruction, and the erosion of native species’ habitats echoed throughout the international community. Countries like Russia and the Pacific Islands Forum, a coalition of island countries like the Marshall Islands and Tahiti, have expressed concerns.
Despite these critiques, the Japanese government pushed forward with the plan, claiming that the release of the contaminated water will have little to no environmental impact. Their assertions are supported by several experts, including the IAEA. Nevertheless, the IAEA plans to compare marine samples in the Pacific Ocean from pre-wastewater releases and the current state of the Pacific Ocean surrounding Japan. The tests are a follow-up to initial tests done by the IAEA, meant to determine if any adverse effects slipped through the cracks of their analysis. The results of the tests are in the process of being released, and the preliminary results appear to uphold their stance on the project.
South Korean environmental advocates voiced their discontent during a series of protests during the initial stages of the Japanese plan in August. Despite assurance by several international agencies and the Japanese government, Greenpeace Korea and other civic organizations criticized Japan for environmental irresponsibility. These organizations also condemned the South Korean government for their lack of diplomatic pressure against Japanese actions.
"It is a threat to the survival rights of residents of Pacific coastal countries, including Japanese fishermen, and a violation of international maritime law," stated Greenpeace Korea and other organizations in their joint August statement. These dissents have faded from public view, but the groups are still adamantly against Japan’s actions and have since published statements expressing their anger. Within Japan, fishing groups spoke out against the contaminated water and attempted to delay the releases via a lawsuit, though the suit might lack evidence to be substantiated.
Tensions with China
Louder than concerns of small island nations and East Asian environmental activists is the disapproval from the Chinese government. Historically, tensions between the governments have been heated. According to Pew Research Center, only 11% of Japanese citizens have a favorable view of China, while a similarly slim 14% of Chinese citizens have a favorable view of Japan. Thus, the response of the Chinese government to Japan’s plan is not shocking — in August, China imposed a blanket ban on Japanese aquatic imports, most notably, seafood. Citing concerns for the safety of the seafood for Chinese people, the ban has remained in place since August. The government’s claims of selfishness and irresponsibility were shared across social media and Chinese news outlets.
Before the ban, China was the top importer of Japanese seafood and accounted for 22.5% of Japanese exports. Hong Kong, the second-largest importer, followed China with a ban of their own. Taken together, these bans reduce Japanese seafood exports by nearly half and have hit the industry hard. In September, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida pledged ¥20.7 billion ($141 million) to help these businesses. Despite doubts from fellow Asian countries over his actions regarding the wastewater releases, Kishida remained positive about the project.
Seafood is not a primary Japanese export, so Japan’s economy is in no danger of collapse due to these bans. However, some experts project that China may continue its adversarial actions and expand trade restrictions against Japan to other sectors. China’s actions are also being interpreted as adversarial by close allies of Japan: U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel expressed his concern that this ban is “economic coercion” toward Japan, an action that is “the most persistent and pernicious tool in their economic toolbox.” The relationship between Japan and China remains delicate as this project continues.
Japan is continuing to dump treated wastewater and plans to do so until its tanks are empty. The IAEA’s conclusions to the environmental harms and public health concerns of Japan’s plan are expected at the end of the year, which may bring resolutions to these tensions. However, as U.S. Amb. Emanuel warned, China may have ulterior motives for trade restrictions. China and Japan are positioned to either continue in unvocalized strain, or to deescalate trade barriers and potential political disasters. While the catalyst of protests against this project were environmental concerns, the Japanese government may face far more complex issues in the future.