Barring an 11th-hour reversal, Japan will begin the release of radioactive wastewater into the ocean as early as next month.
It must not.
A BBC documentary shows that the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011 was a “human disaster.” In 2008, top managers in Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO) snubbed an insider's proposal to raise a breakwater because a magnitude-9 earthquake could result in the plant being struck by a tsunami 12 to 15 meters tall. It became a reality.
A power outage caused by a saturated reactor caused its meltdown then. But TEPCO managers, fearing economic losses, resisted injecting seawater to cool the reactor cores, losing an opportunity for a quick fix.
In 2018, the company claimed all radionuclides other than tritium were filtered out by the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). However, it was revealed later that 70 percent of the contaminated water it treated contained radioactivity above the standard level.
All this shows why one must consider TEPCO's credibility and capability in discussing the nuclear wastewater discharge issue. Still, in 2021, the Japanese government made its decision on the release of wastewater into the sea starting from 2023, hoping two years of efforts for improvement would dispel the concerns. And on Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published its initial report, endorsing Japan's plan.
The IAEA report said Tokyo's detailed plan was “consistent with its safety standards” and would have a “negligible radiological impact on the people and the environment.” The conclusion, summed up by two words of “safe and harmless,” is unsurprising. After all, the IAEA first offered the sea discharge idea to Tokyo in 2015 when a Japanese national led the U.N. body. However, the latest report failed to address the critical safety factor of the ALPS' operability and cumulative damage to the marine food chain.
“I am a responsible leader of the international community,” Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said after receiving the report. “I will not accept the discharge (of contaminated water) that adversely affects the health and environment of people in Japan and around the world.”
We don't distrust the sincerity of the Japanese leader and his government. Still, a question lingers: Why does Japan stick to the seawater release plan so obsessively? Many cite economic reasons. It costs 34 billion won ($26 million) to discharge the water into the Pacific Ocean. The other four methods, including vaporizing or injecting water into the stratum, are 10 to 100 times more expensive.
Is the maximum $2.6 billion indispensable for the world's third-largest economy, throwing 40 percent of Japanese and 80 percent of Koreans into anger and anxiety? Eighteen Pacific nations, China, Hong Kong, Russia and even faraway Germany, oppose the plan. Could these countries raise money to help Tokyo seek an alternative?
Japan is the only country to have become a direct victim of atomic warfare on its own soil. That should be the prime reason for taking additional caution in nuclear issues, not vice versa. U.S. support for Japan's plan means little for contrasting reasons.
The Japanese leader reportedly said he would soon hold a summit with his Korean counterpart to explain his plan. The IAEA chief will also fly to Seoul today for a similar purpose. It seems as if they think everything will be okay if Seoul gives its approval. These officials are not entirely wrong. Suppose Korea, a historical and diplomatic rival and nearest neighbor to Japan, says nothing officially. In that case, other countries may feel assured.
And Tokyo has already won Seoul's nod.
President Yoon Suk Yeol reportedly accepted the plan in his meetings with Japanese leaders months ago. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) hits all opponents as politicized, fooled by the demagoguery of the power-hungry opposition party. Some PPP lawmakers even went as far as to make dubious displays of themselves drinking water from fish tanks at live seafood market restaurants.
But people are not fools. They lament, watching the pathetic scene not seen even in Tokyo. How has Korea's governing party come to serve the former colonialists' interests less than 80 years after national liberation?
When the two leaders meet, Yoon must tell Kishida to hold the release for six months at least until the final IAEA report comes. The Korean leader must then call for a three-nation meeting with China to discuss this and other issues.
That would be real diplomacy.