[Reading Science] Japan's "It's Okay to Drink" Remark Sparks Korean Outrage... Criticism as "Lies and Fraud" Amid Some Support

Experts Say "Risks Are Clear" with Detailed Criticism... Nuclear Science and Industry Agree "Safe Below Threshold"

On the 15th, near the Statue of Peace in front of the former Japanese Embassy in Jongno-gu, Seoul, the Progressive Party held a party speech condemning the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima, Japan. / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-su] "The concentration is lower than what South Korea and China discharge from nuclear power plants. Drinking that water poses no harm whatsoever."

This is what high-ranking Japanese government officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, emphasize when asserting that the release of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean is not dangerous. Domestic experts criticize this as essentially a 'fraud.' On the other hand, some argue that the claims of danger are scientifically exaggerated and that if the discharge is below the 'standard level,' the impact would be minimal, warning that it could only lead to diplomatic conflicts. This situation risks causing national division and hindering effective responses.

◇ The lie that it is 'safe'

According to government-related ministries such as the Ministry of Science and ICT on the 15th, the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) refer to approximately 1.25 million tons of contaminated water accumulated since 2011 as 'treated water.' They claim it is safe because most radioactive nuclides except tritium have been removed using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). However, this is not true. Even TEPCO admitted in investigations conducted twice in 2018 and 2020 that about 80% of the treated contaminated water still contained radioactive nuclides harmful to humans, such as cesium-137, iodine-131, and strontium-90, exceeding the standard levels. Within Japan, there was an outcry of criticism, saying, "If that's the case, why don't you just drink it to treat it?" TEPCO belatedly caused a commotion earlier this year by reprocessing about 2,000 tons of treated contaminated water as a pilot test.

Former Nuclear Safety Commission member Kim Ik-jung criticized, "The ALPS equipment Japan claims to have used has never been verified, and they have never disclosed which nuclides remain and in what amounts," adding, "Claiming that the contaminated water is currently safe is something no one knowledgeable in science could say; it is tantamount to fraud."

Jang Mari, head of Greenpeace Korea's nuclear phase-out campaign team, pointed out, "Reports from local media in the Fukushima area revealed that the ALPS equipment was not functioning properly, with cesium exceeding the standard by 100 times and strontium-90 by over 20,000 times," adding, "The attempt to discharge contaminated water at this point can only be seen as a political move ahead of the Tokyo Olympics." Song Jin-ho, senior researcher at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, also noted, "According to data released by the Japanese government in 2020, high concentrations of iodine-129, strontium-90, ruthenium-106, etc., ranging from five to 100 times the legal limit, were found in 73% of the tanks."

◇ Controversy over the harmfulness of tritium

Even if only radioactive tritium, which Japan claims was 'not removed,' remains, safety remains an issue. The approximately 1.25 million tons of contaminated water Japan plans to discharge contains over 8 million becquerels (Bq) of tritium. This amount is about four times the annual tritium discharge from all nuclear power plants in South Korea. Moreover, Japan plans to continue discharging contaminated water for the next 30 to 40 years, and some in the scientific community expect additional discharges for about 100 years. If tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of tons of contaminated water spread within the Pacific Ocean annually, it is difficult to even estimate the degree of harm.

Senior researcher Song said, "The annual tritium discharge proposed by Japan is at a level that has been discharged into the ocean by the international community, so IAEA experts have expressed opinions that Japan's discharge plan is reasonable," but he pointed out, "According to Japan's 2019 discharge plan, they intend to continue discharging until 2050, so how to manage and discharge this contaminated water over the next 30 to 40 years is a scientifically more important issue." He emphasized, "Long-term monitoring of contamination and changes in the aquatic ecosystem, including seafood, to prepare for unforeseen accidents is absolutely necessary."

Former commissioner Kim also said, "At the time of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the amount of uranium fuel was 100 tons, which is 10,000 times more than the amount used in one atomic bomb (10 kg), meaning the amount of radioactive material released is also large," adding, "While a bomb causes damage through instantaneous destructive power, a nuclear accident causes chronic exposure and environmental pollution." Jang Mari also criticized, "The claim that tritium is safe if diluted below the standard is a typical view of nuclear power advocates," adding, "The total amount remains the same, and even considering half-life and dilution, claiming no contamination damage is unscientific."

As the Japanese government decided to discharge a large amount of radioactive contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident into the sea, concerns and worries among our citizens continue. On the 14th, the Noryangjin Fish Market in Seoul appeared quiet. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

◇ What is the impact after dilution in the ocean?

Experts have differing opinions on when the contaminated water discharged by Japan will reach South Korea and what impact it will have. The contaminated water discharged into the sea off Fukushima is known to be pushed eastward by ocean currents, crossing the Pacific Ocean to hit the North American continent, then splitting north and south to return to the waters near Japan and South Korea's southern sea via the North Pacific and the Philippines.

There are various claims regarding timing. Some studies suggest it will have an impact soon, while others say it will take 20 to 30 years. Greenpeace, an international environmental organization, announced in August 2019 that if Fukushima contaminated water is discharged, it will spread to the East China Sea and enter South Korea's East Sea within a year via the Kuroshio Current and Tsushima Current. Fukushima University in Japan also released research indicating the contaminated water would reach Jeju Island in about seven months (220 days) and the East Sea in about 13 months (400 days). However, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) predicted in a 2017 simulation that it would reach the U.S. West Coast after 4 to 5 years, spread throughout the Pacific Ocean after 20 years, and reach the Indian Ocean after 30 years.

Experts generally agree on the 'dangerous' side. Former commissioner Kim said, "This contaminated water was generated from a situation where the reactor was breached and nuclear fuel leaked, but the Japanese government has not officially disclosed specific information and only talks about the amount in tons," adding, "It is ultra-high concentration contaminated water incomparable to South Korea's nuclear power plant discharge water, with risks billions to trillions of times higher." Jang also said, "The contaminated water will affect not only our seas but also the Chinese coast and pollute the entire Pacific Ocean, and predictive modeling has its limits," adding, "Even if diluted, enormous radioactive substances including those found in nuclear weapons will be discharged for 100 years, making it difficult to reduce contamination damage." Senior researcher Song said, "Before discharging contaminated water, it is very important to conduct a full inspection of all tanks and restart contaminated water purification facilities to keep radionuclide radioactivity below allowable levels," adding, "If discharged without reprocessing, contamination of marine ecosystems and seafood cannot be avoided."

On the other hand, there are claims that the impact is minimal. Kondoo Woo, senior researcher at the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, posted on his blog, "Radioactive substances from the Fukushima accident are completely diluted to undetectable levels after circulating once through the Pacific Ocean," adding, "The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety has continuously measured radioactive cesium (Cs-137) near South Korea since the Fukushima accident, but the radioactivity concentration has not changed compared to before the accident." According to data presented by researcher Cho, measurements from 2011 to 2014 showed Cs-137 in domestic surface seawater layers was either undetectable or at minimal levels.

Researcher Cho also argued, "If Japan ultimately discharges a significant amount of contaminated water containing tritium and other substances while meeting radiation safety standards for discharge management, this radioactivity will soon be diluted in the Pacific Ocean according to ocean currents, and the radiation impact on South Korean people and surrounding marine environments is expected to be minimal."

On the 25th, when the Tokyo Olympic torch relay began, members of the Korean Federation for Environmental Movements and the Citizens' Radiation Monitoring Center held a press conference in front of the Peace Statue of the Girl at the former Japanese Embassy in Jongno-gu, Seoul, urging the suspension of the Tokyo Olympics due to concerns about radiation risks. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

There are no official government-level research results yet. Since 2012, the government has spent over 5.5 billion won developing a marine dispersion model for radioactive contaminants leaked from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, building a web service system and conducting upgrades. However, it remains 'useless' because the Japanese government has not provided specific information on contaminated water components, concentrations, discharge timing, or amounts.

Seo Kyung-seok, head of the Environment and Disaster Assessment Research Department at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, said, "Accurate simulation requires key information such as discharge amount, timing, concentration, and the nuclides contained in the contaminated water," adding, "Because the Japanese government does not provide this information accurately, neither we nor other countries can make proper predictions."

◇ How should South Korea respond?

Filing a complaint with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, strengthening import restrictions on Japanese seafood, and diplomatic pressure through solidarity with related countries such as China are considered response measures. The government began reviewing filing a complaint with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the 14th under President Moon Jae-in's directive. Civic and environmental groups like Greenpeace have welcomed this actively. Jang said, "Japan is a party to the International Maritime Law, which mandates prior notification and environmental impact assessments when contamination damage occurs, but they are clearly violating these rules," adding, "We must request provisional measures to stop the discharge and get them accepted." Regarding claims that such measures are ineffective, she added, "Provisional measures are emergency relief measures that do not necessarily require proof of damage, so there is a good chance of winning."

Former commissioner Kim also said, "We must prevent this by all means through diplomatic pressure, international solidarity and pressure, and filing with the international tribunal. We should also strengthen restrictions on Japanese seafood imports," adding, "We need to put international pressure on Japan to invest more budget to build facilities and store contaminated water as they have done so far."

There are also calls to demand transparent information disclosure and verification from Japan and to restore cooperation with neighboring countries. Senior researcher Song said, "Japan has made closed policy decisions relying on data independently built and announced over the past decade," adding, "Long-term discharge of contaminated water over 30 to 40 years will certainly cause pollution and changes in the marine ecosystem, so it is right to cooperate with neighboring countries and seek their consent in major policy decisions." He also urged, "We should request joint investigations with Japan in contaminated water management and long-term monitoring of marine ecosystem pollution, and based on the results, decide annually on the amount and method of discharge," and called for "maintaining strict quarantine standards for Japanese seafood."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◇ Nuclear engineering community's 'cynicism'

However, there are those in South Korea who support Japan's discharge stance. This could lead to internal conflicts and leave the country vulnerable to 'being hit while watching.' Experts and scholars in the nuclear engineering and industry fields, who have criticized the Moon Jae-in administration's nuclear phase-out policy and advocated for 'green nuclear power,' are the main proponents. Like experts from the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), they argue that "if Japan removes radioactive nuclides and dilutes tritium below the standard before discharge, the impact on South Korea will be minimal," criticizing claims of danger as "scientifically exaggerated."

In fact, an official from the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, a government-established official research institute, gave a positive answer to an official interview question on the day asking if it is not a major threat. He said, "The total radioactivity of tritium contained in 1.25 million tons of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant is about 1,000 trillion Bq, which corresponds to about 0.0014% of the total tritium radioactivity currently present in the global environment." When asked if people worry about the risk of internal exposure due to accumulation even in small amounts, he answered, "All radioactive nuclides including tritium undergo their own metabolic processes in the body and have their own biological half-lives before being excreted," adding, "The biological half-life of tritium absorbed in the body as tritiated water (HTO) is about 4 to 18 days, averaging about 10 days."

This can be interpreted as meaning that if Japan discharges below the standard as planned, the impact will be minimal. When asked if he thinks the Japanese government is properly disclosing information, he responded positively by providing the websites of Tokyo Electric Power Company and Fukushima Prefecture, saying, "Information on Fukushima nuclear power plant contaminated water can be found on these websites." Seoul National University Nuclear Engineering Professor Joo Han-kyu also said, "Japan dilutes and discharges contaminated water at levels far below drinking water standards, so the harmfulness is practically zero," adding, "The risk is scientifically exaggerated, so except for China, it will be difficult for our government to cooperate internationally."

Meanwhile, it is known that the government concluded in a task force of related ministries last October that "there is no problem with the performance of Japan's ALPS equipment, and the discharge of contaminated water is not a major threat," but on this day, it dismissed this as "only opinions at the expert level."