[NEWS ANALYSIS] Debate on Fukushima wastewater's safety heats up

Industry

Published: 19 Jun. 2023, 17:28 Updated: 19 Jun. 2023, 17:43

[NEWS ANALYSIS] Debate on Fukushima wastewater's safety heats up

Local fishermen and activists rally against the planned release of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant's treated radioactive water near the National Assembly building in western Seoul on Thursday. [YONHAP]

A war of words is about to erupt in Korea as Japan makes the final preparations to release treated radioactive water from the ruined Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

With varying versions of the facts flooding in from both sides of the political aisle, consumers are growing increasingly confused, with some even scrambling to stock up on sea salts as panic sets in.

The primary concern is whether the treated water, which Japan claims to be free of most nuclides, except tritium, after being processed via the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), will have both a short and long-term impact on the marine ecosystem and ultimately on human bodies.

With this, tritium has become a central issue in the intensifying debate.

Advocates argue that the concentration level of tritium included in the treated water will be far below the international safety standard after dilution, accusing the opposing side of “fearmongering,” whereas the opposition, namely the Democratic Party (DP) and the local fisheries community, questions the validity of reports and promises from the Japanese government, and is calling on the government to veto Japan's decision.

The Korean government is neither officially supporting nor opposing the release of the treated radioactive wastewater.

The government's stance "remains the same as that of the previous administration, as we will oppose the release of the treated water if the process is not done in accordance with the global standard, based on scientific and objective perspective,” Bang Moon-kyu, minister of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, said on Thursday.

Cho Yang-ki, chief of Seoul National University's Research Institute of Oceanography, speaks during a daily briefing session on the Fukushima water release hosted by the government at the government complex in central Seoul on Monday. [NEWS1]

Korean authorities plan to bolster the monitoring system for seafood safety and double down on radiation level tests, with the goal of running 8,000 tests a year compared to the previous year's 4,000, according to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

The government has also begun to hold a daily briefing on the Fukushima water release every day starting Thursday, in a bid to rein in the growing public fear.

During a briefing held at the government complex in central Seoul on Friday, Song Sang-keun, the vice minister of oceans and fisheries, said that the current import ban on seafood from Fukushima will not be lifted "unless the safety of seafood from Fukushima is proven," regardless of whether the safety of the ALPS-treated water is scientifically proven or not.

Korea has restricted imports of seafood produced from Fukushima since 2013 due to possible radiation exposure.

To drink, or not to drink? That is the question.

Amidst burgeoning concerns and confusion, this question keeps resurfacing: is it okay to drink the treated radioactive water?

“The World Health Organization’s standard for tritium concentration level in drinking water is 10,000 becquerel (Bq)” per liter, said Prime Minister Han Duck-soo during an interpellation session on June 12, in response to a question from a DP lawmaker asking whether the prime minister is willing to drink the water.

“If it meets the safety standard, I can drink it,” he added.

“Then why don’t you drink it with your family?” said Yoon Jae-gap, the DP lawmaker.

Democratic Party chief Lee Jae-myung speaks during a rally against the planned release of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant's treated radioactive water on Saturday held in Incheon. [NEWS1]

DP chief Lee Jae-myung has also been vocal in his opposition to the release of the treated water.

“If it is really safe, why are they saying ‘we will drink it’ instead of 'you [Japan] should drink it'?” he said during a rally against the release of the treated water held on Saturday in Incheon.

The seemingly absurd question of whether to drink the treated water was first ignited by Wade Allison, an emeritus professor at the University of Oxford, who said that he would even drink a liter of the treated wastewater from the Fukushima plant, assuming it has a completely safe level of tritium, during a press conference held in central Seoul in May.

However, there are also some starkly contrasting arguments.

Timothy Mousseau, a biology professor from the University of South Carolina, argued that tritium can be even more hazardous than cesium in cases of internal exposure, in an April press conference hosted by Greenpeace in Seoul.

Mousseau added that the Japanese government should conduct a trans-border inspection on the biological impact of the treated water on the ecosystem before the planned release.

Sung Il-jong, a People Power Party lawmaker, spoke out in support of Allison, saying that “the intent was to emphasize the safety of the treated water.”

Sung cited the example of wastewater from factories, arguing that “saying that 'you should drink the water, use it in pools' is like saying one should do the same with treated sewer water or industrial wastewater,” suggesting that the treated water would be safe after being properly processed.

Is it really safe?

Mainstream nuclear scientists are in general agreement that the tritium level in the released water will not pose a significant threat to the human body, citing scientific data and existing global standards.

“The question of whether the level of tritium in the treated water is high enough to have a meaningful impact on Korean people or the local seafood has actually been answered by science,” said Cheong Jae-hak, professor at the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Kyung Hee University.

“The research has been ongoing for decades, and I believe we have reached a general consensus on the possible impact of tritium,” explained Jeong.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which conducted an inspection and review of the Fukushima water, also said in its fourth report released on April 5 that “tritium is a minor contributor” with a dose of less than 1 percent.

Japan plans to dilute the treated water in order to lower the tritium level to 1,500 Bq per liter, which is about one-seventh of the 10,000-Bq level set by the WHO for drinking water, and gradually release 1.25 million tons of treated water over a span of 30 years.

Yet the IAEA left room for further inspection, saying that the issue of tritium “is likely to be a topic of interest to many interested parties,” and therefore “suggested that Tepco [Tokyo Electric Power Company] explain the uncertainties” further.

Where should we go from now?

Despite the IAEA report, worries over the implication of the Fukushima water release persist.

Nuclear scientists suggest that it is because "this is a matter of peace of mind, rather than safety."

"Safety is about the scientific data, whereas securing peace of mind is a matter of psychology and public sentiment," said Jerng Dong-wook of Chung Ang University.

"The issue of the Fukushima water release does not benefit the Korean public in any way whatsoever — so Koreans have every right to ask for tighter scrutiny and safety," said Jerng.

But arguing that the Fukushima water release will have negative consequences on the local marine environment when there is no scientific evidence supporting such prediction will only harm the domestic industry, he added.

The engineering professor suggested that the government should demand bigger transparency from the Japanese government, enabling neighboring countries to directly inspect the Fukushima wastewater with their own research teams.

"As an engineer, I don't think that the Japanese government distorted facts or fabricated the report," said Cheong of Kyung Hee University.

But he emphasized that "I also do not blame the general public for having a hard time trusting the report. That means that the Japanese government failed in terms of stakeholder engagement."

The professor suggested that the Korean government needs to come up with its own facts, forecasts, and reports on the treated water's possible impact on the local environment, rather than just repeating data from the Japanese government.

“Discussions can only proceed as long as the Korean public comes to an understanding of what reasonable options are available, and whether the release of the treated water into the sea can be justified,” said Cheong.

Cheong also suggested that the government should consider claiming compensation from Japan if the local industry is significantly impacted by the release of wastewater.

The IAEA will publish its final report as early as late June. According to NHK, a Japanese news outlet, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi could visit Japan in early July to deliver the final report to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

BY SHIN HA-NEE [shin.hanee@joongang.co.kr]