Science outweighs irrational reasoning

Yun Jong-il

The author is a professor at the Department of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering at KAIST.

As Japan is readying to unleash treated radioactive wastewater from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific, debate on whether to accept the move has boiled up in Korea. Politics have prevailed over scientific findings, stoking a fiery battle between rivalling parties. There is no room for a rational debate based on scientific evidence and facts over the wastewater from Fukushima. In the meantime, public anxiousness has deepened from the boisterous political wrangling.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week released its final report on its two-year inspection and review of the Fukushima wastewater release project. Its task force was comprised of specialists on nuclear energy and radiation from 11 countries, including Korea, the United States and China. The agency’s independent and comparative study on the water samples from Fukushima — treated through the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) — had been joined by radioactive specialists from the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety and other reliable institutions from seven countries, including the U.S., France and Switzerland.

The IAEA said, “Based on its comprehensive assessment, the IAEA has concluded that the approach and activities to the discharge of ALPS treated water taken by Japan are consistent with international safety standards.” The final report of IAEA also noted that the “controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water to the sea” would have a “negligible radiological impact on the people and the environment.” The IAEA is a nuclear watchdog with 176 member countries under the United Nations with the highest credence in nuclear and radiation safety.

The U.S. government welcomed the IAEA report which found the release of the treated water to be safe and internationally acceptable. But Korea’s Democratic Party (DP) and liberal front remain vehemently critical of the IAEA report. They claim the report is overly biased towards Japan and therefore unreliable. The Fukushima water discharge plan is opposed only by the Chinese government and Korea’s main opposition party.

My opinion is that the issue should be examined in the context of common sense rather than complex and incomprehensible science. The 1.37 million tons of wastewater stored in the Fukushima plant includes approximately 2.2 grams of tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, which would be diluted and gradually discharged into the Pacific over a span of 30 years. The Pacific Ocean covers one third of the Earth water surface with an estimated 714 quadrillion tons, an astronomical amount of water. As tritiated water (HTO), which includes an atom of tritium, has the same chemical characteristics as H2O, it would mix evenly with seawater. The discharge is like throwing a sugar cube of 3 grams into the sea. So, the concern about the contaminated water would be same as worrying about the sugared Pacific.

Science is based on numbers and facts. It is a pity that a scientific issue has become prey to political hostility and confrontation. The fishing industry and eateries based on seafood have become a victim to their fight. It is irresponsible to stoke public anxiety with speculations about radioactivity with disregard to scientific facts. The move can be detrimental to the international reputation of Korea as an innovative society.

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), speaks before members of the Democratic Party (DP) committee on blocking the planned discharge of the treated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific, July 9, in the National Assembly. [KIM SEONG-RYONG]

Regardless of assurance from the IAEA on the Fukushima water, Korean politics remain polarized, and the people are still worried. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi met with Yoo Guk-hee, chairman of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, during his recent visit to Korea. Yoo demanded that Korean experts continue to join the IAEA inspection during the discharge process. Grossi has promised to positively consider Seoul’s position.

To help ease public jitters, Korea needs to keep up a joint investigation with Japan, monitor the process, and transparently share the findings with the people. At the same time, we must accept the results as they are — without any political bias.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.