Stop the Disposal of Nuclear-Contaminated Water Into the Ocean

Japan began disposing of radioactive contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean on August 24th. Approximately 460 tons of contaminated water per day were diluted with seawater and discharged into the sea through an underwater tunnel. This method is planned to release a total of 7,800 tons over 17 days initially. After completing the first release, they announced that they would release 7,800 tons at a time three more times using the same method until March in 2024, totaling 31,200 tons. However, the amount of contaminated water to be released by March next year accounts for only 2.3% of the total contaminated water, and it is estimated that it will take at least 30 years to release all of it. A more alarming fact is that the amount of contaminated water continues to increase even now.

On July 4th, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its final report stating that Japan's plan to discharge contaminated water complies with international safety standards. The U.S. and European countries expressed trust in this report, effectively supporting the Japanese government. Despite 80% of the Korean public opposing this move according to opinion polls, the South Korean government announced its support, asking the public to trust the government and science, as long as Japan follows the IAEA guidelines. However, China, Russia, and Pacific island nations continue to strongly oppose this action.

The ocean disposal of radioactive contaminated water has begun, but is it really safe? Is it truly acceptable?

Firstly, there are concerns about the transparency and accuracy of the information provided by the Japanese government and the IAEA. Azby Brown, the Chief Researcher of the environmental monitoring organization Safecast, criticized in an opinion piece in The New York Times on August 22nd. He stated, "The Japanese government has not been transparent in the process leading up to the decision to release radioactive contaminated water and has not embraced stakeholders both domestically and internationally, sowing the seeds of mistrust and dispute that may persist for decades to come." There is also criticism that the IAEA's final report is not trustworthy as it is based entirely on data provided by Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company.

Furthermore, it is not accurate to portray ocean disposal as the sole solution. There are voices advocating for alternative approaches because tritium, which is not filtered out by the treatment facility, has not been thoroughly tested for its impact on humans and the environment. Dr. Goto Masashi, who was also involved in the design of the Fukushima nuclear plant, suggests two alternatives to ocean disposal. Firstly, there is the option of transferring the contaminated water to larger oil tanks, which would be stored for 100 years, significantly reducing the tritium's half-life by a factor of 1,000. Secondly, there is the option of "solidification," which involves pouring cement into the contaminated water instead of releasing it into the ocean. However, the Japanese government chose the cheapest option, which is ocean disposal.

What's even more concerning is that Japan's release of contaminated water sets a potentially negative international precedent. Currently, there are more than 140 reactors in operation in Asia alone. Japan's decision to proceed with the ocean discharge without adequately considering the opinions of its own citizens and the international community could set a precedent that it's acceptable to discharge radioactive contaminated water in the future. This makes the situation even more perilous.

The South Korean government dismissing voices opposing the ocean discharge as mere rumors is indeed a stark reality: believing science even with the lack of transparency and accuracy about Japan's radioactive contaminated water disposal, the choice of the cheapest method driven by a profit-oriented logic despite potential better alternatives and setting a negative international precedent. This is the unfortunate truth. Efforts and struggles to change this reality are taking place worldwide. Let's unite and lend our collective strength so that we can stop ocean disposal as soon as possible.

News Briefing

On Palestine

Mariam Ibrahim (Network Team) 

This summer, after two decades, I finally made the trip back to Palestine to visit my extended family, to connect with the land, and renew my understanding of what life is like on the ground for the millions of Palestinians who continue to live under Israel’s unjust and illegal occupation. 

As a child and later into my teens, visits to the West Bank, where the majority of my family live in Palestine, were common. Our trips usually meant a flight across the Atlantic, landing in Jordan where we would visit with a few aunts and uncles before making the often exhausting journey across the border into the West Bank. It was never a simple trip, of course because it involved an encounter with Israeli border guards, but also because several of our trips took place during the first and second Intifadas, or Palestinian uprisings, which were marked with heavy Israeli violence designed to quell any form of Palestinian resistance. 

Equality For All: South Korea’s Sexual Minority Movement