[Reading Science] "Who Do the People Trust?"... Science Is Nowhere, Only Politics Prevails

Officials from the Progressive Party Nowon District Committee are performing the "Japan has poisoned the Earth's well" act at a press conference delivering signatures opposing the discharge of Fukushima contaminated water held in front of the Japanese Embassy in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 23rd. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-su] "Who would now say they want to go to the beach and eat sashimi?"

After the Japanese government decided on April 13 to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean, criticism has surged, especially among fishermen. On April 30, thousands of fishermen from nine regions nationwide including Busan, Gangwon, Gyeongsang, Jeolla, Chungcheong, and Jeju simultaneously held protests aboard 500 fishing vessels. Public anxiety is also significant. With the waters surrounding the Korean Peninsula being surrounded by seawater containing contaminated water for decades, who wouldn't be worried?

The Japanese government is shameless. About 30 years ago, when the former Soviet Union dumped hundreds of tons of low-level nuclear waste water into the Sea of Japan near Hokkaido Island, Japan strongly protested and forced a halt. Yet, the Japanese government unilaterally decided this time without any consultation or information sharing with neighboring countries, especially the Korean government, which will be seriously affected. There were several realistic alternatives such as solidification followed by underground burial, deep-sea discharge, gaseous release after vaporization, or additional storage tank installation, but they chose the option simply because it "costs less." At times like this, we must unite tightly and appeal to the international community with scientific evidence and factual proof to pressure the Japanese government.

The problem is that domestic experts, who should form the basis of this, are sharply divided into two camps. The 'Korean Nuclear Society,' composed of nuclear engineers and nuclear industry officials with the highest level of expertise but also deep vested interests, issued a statement on April 26 effectively siding with the Japanese government. Even under very conservative assumptions, they claim the impact is negligible. The society stated, "Due to the time it takes for contaminated water to reach our waters and the dilution effect of seawater, the radiation exposure dose to our citizens is predicted to be 3.5×10-9 mSv/yr," adding, "This is about one three-hundred-millionth of the dose limit of 1 mSv/yr for the general public, a negligible level."

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

While criticizing the Japanese government, the society raises its voice even louder against the Korean government. Citing the mad cow disease and avian influenza incidents, the society warned, "It is easy to find examples of how fake news and political agitation ignoring scientific facts caused great harm to our citizens and related industries," and argued, "Politically induced radiation fear could become a self-destructive act that worsens the damage to our fisheries and self-employed workers."

Let's also look at the opposite claim. The Korean Federation for Environmental Movements issued a statement two days later, directly criticizing the Nuclear Society for siding with the Japanese government. The federation said, "So, does this mean there is no problem and we should abandon excessive fear and accept the decision to discharge Fukushima contaminated water into the ocean?" and argued, "The concerns of fishermen worried about ocean pollution and citizens concerned about the safety of their dining tables due to radioactive materials are natural." They added, "This should not be dismissed as 'unscientific' or 'radiation fear,'" and pressured, "Does the society think the ocean discharge decided by the Japanese government is the best option? Do they support releasing radioactive contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean?"

These two camps have long been divided clearly into pro-nuclear (the society) and anti-nuclear (environmental groups and civil society organizations), continuously clashing over the risks of radiation and whether to halt nuclear power generation. Pro-nuclear scholars, experts, and industry officials argue that some radioactive materials exist naturally and that managing them within the 'standard limits' set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection ensures safety. They also believe nuclear power can exist as an eco-friendly power source for carbon neutrality, and that accidents, radiation leaks, and contaminated material treatment can be prevented and cost-reduced through scientific advancement. On the other hand, the anti-nuclear camp is sensitive to radiation risks, emphasizing that exposure below the safety standard dose is only theoretical and that internal exposure due to accumulation in the human body is much more dangerous. They also argue that nuclear power is no longer economically viable due to the cost of treating contaminated materials. The mainstream international community, including the US and Germany, has already solidified a 'nuclear phase-out' stance.

We asked each camp to evaluate the other's claims. A pro-nuclear scholar evaluated the anti-nuclear camp's claims as "lacking scientific basis." The anti-nuclear camp cites the claims of Dr. Chris Busby, a British radiation expert leading the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), regarding the risks of low-dose radiation such as tritium accumulation in the human body and DNA mutations. However, the scholar argued, "The UK court already ruled in 2016 that his claims lack scientific basis and banned him from advising the UK government."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Meanwhile, anti-nuclear representatives criticized the pro-nuclear camp's claim that radiation below the 'standard limit' is safe, saying, "This is only theoretical; no one has verified this in the natural environment."

They pointed to the recent detection of cesium at 270 becquerels (Bq) per kilogram?2.7 times the standard limit?in rockfish caught near Fukushima, emphasizing the risk of low-dose radiation accumulation in the human body. Lee Jung-yoon, CEO of Nuclear Safety and Future, stated, "In coastal areas where radioactive materials accumulate, bioaccumulation through the food chain will occur within the ecosystem," adding, "Humans, at the top of the food chain, could suffer significant harm if they consume these."

In this situation, whom should the public trust in opposing the Japanese government? The risks of nuclear power and radiation have become truly important 'science' for Koreans at a time when eco-friendly renewable energy is urgently needed and the Korean Peninsula is surrounded by Fukushima contaminated water. Decisions must be made based strictly on scientific analysis and research results, not on vested interests, political agendas, values, or philosophies. We must pursue 'practical truth' and not be swayed by politically charged slogans like pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. We hope the political sphere, academia, experts, civil society, and environmental groups keep this in mind.