[Opinion] Fukushima Contaminated Water, Take a Stronger Political Stance

Inseparable Politics and Science
Who Benefits When the Debate Stops?

"Stop the political strife. Now is the time for science." There is no more frequently heard phrase recently surrounding the Fukushima contaminated water issue, yet there is no claim more politically charged than this. The word science is often easily exploited as a tool of political strife, either to avoid unfavorable debates or to selectively adopt only evidence that supports a desired conclusion.

The logic of experts and environmental groups raising concerns about the risks of discharging contaminated water is also based on science. Those asserting no problem, including the Japanese government, also stand on their own version of science. When science is used as a tool to predict what current changes will cause in the future, the forecasts can vary drastically depending on the values or interests of those presenting the claims. Therefore, the scientific stance we accept on particularly critical issues inevitably takes on a political character.

There is certainly science that all countries, organizations, and experts involved in this matter commonly acknowledge. That is the limitation that no flawless conclusion can be drawn about how the discharge of contaminated water will affect the marine ecosystem over decades. It is also acknowledged that although the probability is low and the scale small, the risk is not zero. The science we speak of must start from recognizing these two points.

However, as individuals, we cannot distinguish which experts or countries’ claims are truly scientific and who is spreading falsehoods or exaggerations under the guise of science. It is the duty citizens have entrusted to the political sphere to pressure the government to facilitate more debate among experts with differing views and to have credible organizations conduct more thorough investigations. From this perspective, the attempt to dismiss even reasonable debate as political strife behind the appealing slogan "No politics, just science" is a malicious political maneuver that goes against the public interest.

Meanwhile, even considering the inherent limitations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was established to promote nuclear industry development and peaceful nuclear use, if the upcoming report supports the safety of the contaminated water, South Korea, as a member of the international community, must respect it. This means not opposing blindly without scientific basis, but it absolutely does not mean giving up the right of neighboring countries to pressure the international community to avoid hastily handling this critical issue solely based on the science of the IAEA and the Japanese government, and to continuously raise concerns.

Our government and political circles must be more stringent than they are now. Japan is the only country benefiting from the discharge of contaminated water, while the act poses even a slight potential harm to us. At the point where Japanese science and our science clash, we must engage in more intense politics and thereby pressure Japan to treat the contaminated water in a way that is not the most convenient for itself but involves greater costs.

It currently seems likely that Japan will start discharging contaminated water openly after the IAEA report is released and the government inspection team states its position. There will certainly be limits to what our government can do. Nevertheless, it is important to assure the public that the government has taken every possible measure to protect their safety. It is also clear which country most hopes that we stop debating, accept only one side’s science, and regard the refusal to abandon other scientific views as political strife.