As Japan releases water into the Pacific, some are concerned about seafood safety
Timing the discharge of radioactive water into the sea by the Fukushima nuclear plant: Japanese Prime Minister Kishida says he’s sorry for the seafood market
The Japanese government says it’s making the wastewater safe in part by diluting it with seawater and releasing it very slowly. The International Atomic Energy Agency has approved the plan and said it is consistent with international safety standards. The agency plans to conduct independent monitoring so that the discharge is done safely.
The plan to release wastewater into the sea has provoked political tension with both China and South Korea, as well as anxiety at home. The Chinese government has criticized the plan as unsafe; in South Korea, the administration of President Yoon Suk Yeol supports Japan’s efforts, but opposition lawmakers have castigated the move as a potential threat to humans. Within Japan, fishermen’s unions fear that public anxiety about the safety of the water could affect their livelihoods.
Just as some of the more than 1 million tons of water began to flow through an underwater tunnel into the ocean, fishermen auctioned off their catch in the port of Tsurushihama, about 40 miles north of the Fukushima plant.
The famous Tsukiji fish market is known for its good prices on seafood. The price of fish has been at its highest point since the 2011 disaster, which was caused by the radioactive sludge from the nuclear plant.
Ono now worries that prices will tumble. The Japanese government is blamed by him for abandoning the fishermen, and he and his colleagues are trying to stop the release of the treated radioactive water.
He is sitting near his fishing boat on a pier, and says that Fukushima people didn’t do anything wrong. He said that the nuclear plant was built by the government. Who uses the electricity? Tokyo!
Before announcing the discharge, the prime minister tried to show he’d won over the country’s fishermen. The government is going to use funds to rebut the misinformation they have about their products, and purchase seafood they can’t sell.
“We’ll continue taking necessary measures,” Kishida told fisheries fisheries representatives, “to ensure fisherfolk can continue their activities with peace of mind, and we pledge to continue doing so even if the water release takes a long time.”
Fukushima’s Dilemma: Why Japanese People are Not So Efficient in Determining the Safest Choice of Japan’s Nuclear Water Discharge
The geography is one of the reasons why the issue of Fukushima’s dilemma has arisen. When there wasn’t much to do at home, many locals from Fukushima would go to Tokyo to find work in the winter.
The government made efforts to make a remake of the landscape to better guard against future earthquakes. Buildings have been moved back from the shore after seawalls appeared along the coast.
It was the first time that we were forced to think that the life we’ve lived since the time of our forefathers could be destroyed or changed. He says it makes us feel like there’s something wrong with us. Our happiness has been destroyed because of our dependence on our hometown.
Nakajima and thousands of other plaintiffs sued the government, accusing them of responsibility for the nuclear disaster. A local court ruled in 2020 that scientists had warned the government that a major tsunami could strike the nuclear plant, but the government took no action. The government won after appealing the loss to the supreme court.
Nakajima says that despite the government’s assurances, locals don’t really have enough information to decide whether the water discharge is safe or not.
The survey found that almost 50% of Japanese are unsure if they will support or oppose the release. Some say the government has not done enough to explain it.
Source: Worries over seafood safety mount as Japan releases Fukushima water into the Pacific
Is tritium a bad radioactive material in the ocean? The Japanese government’s concern about seafood and the impact on the environment
Housewife Mieko Orikasa bypasses plates of bonito and tuna in the sashimi section of Nakajima’s store. Asked whether she trusts the government’s reassurances about the safety of local seafood she replies: “I have no way to find out myself.”
She adds: “I have a 3-year-old grandchild living in Tokyo, and a second grandchild due to be born in December. When they come to visit, I have to reconsider whether I can let them eat fish or not.”
“It is repugnant to discharge hazardous substances into the environment and into the ocean.” From a technical perspective, it’s hard to argue that the impacts of this discharge would be worse than those that are occurring at nuclear power plants that are operating worldwide.
But there’s a radioactive isotope that they cannot filter out: tritium. H 20 is the isotope of tritium and is a part of the water. So it is impossible to create a filter that could remove the tritium.
The Japanese government does not believe that tritium is a bad radioactive material. Its radioactive decay is relatively weak, and because it’s part of water, it actually moves through biological organisms rather quickly. And its half-life is twelve years, so unlike elements such as uranium 235, which has a half life of 700 million years, it won’t be in the environment all that long.
The plan is consistent with international standards, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The discharge is monitored by IAEA to make sure it is done safely.
“The risk is really, really, really low. And I would call it not a risk at all,” says Jim Smith, a professor of environmental science at the University of Portsmouth. He’s been studying radioactivity in waterways since the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
“We’ve got to put radiation in perspective, and the plant release — if it’s done properly — then the doses that people get and the doses that the ecosystem get just won’t be significant, in my opinion,” Smith says.
The Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC, has a director of nuclear power safety. He thinks that Japan’s current plan for the waste water is the least bad option since they have limited options.
But not everyone agrees that discharging the water is the best option. Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, thinks it would have been better to keep the contaminated water on land “where it’s much easier to monitor.” There were options that could have included mixing it into concrete.
The water is not likely to be a problem across the Pacific. He does not think there will be any widespread direct health effects on humans or marine life. He thinks that non-tritium could build up over time near the shore, despite the fact that the ALPS system missed it.
The Pacific Islands Forum, a coalition of nations including the Marshall Islands and Tahiti that are also concerned about Japan’s decision, is being consulted for by Beussler. He notes that many of these countries were subjected to high levels of radioactive fallout as a result of atmospheric nuclear tests during the Cold War. The islands they can’t return to because of legacy contamination, according to Buesseler.
They are suffering more from sea level rise than the rest of the world because of climate change. They feel that the release of Japan into the Pacific is just one insult.
Detection of Radioactive Levels in the Ocean Water During the First Deep Inelastic Emission from Cosmic Rays
The first release of 7,800 tons of treated water is expected to last about 17 days. Both Tepco and Japan’s fisheries agency have said they will monitor the ocean water for radioactive levels, and the IAEA has said it will also oversee the process, which is expected to last decades.
Japanese fishermen have sold fish at their highest prices since the 2011 tsunami after the government started releasing radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea. Fishermen said the price of fish has been at its highest point since the 2011 disaster, which was caused by the radioactive sludge from the nuclear plant.