Japanese lawyer Etsuro Totsuka during a media interview recently. (PHOTO / CCTV)

Japan’s plan to release nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean is due to a policy that places economics over and above safety concerns, a Japanese lawyer said. 

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident occurred on March 11, 2011, following a massive earthquake, despite the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s promotion of the facility as “safe”. Although scientists had warned about the impending threat of a massive tsunami, both the government and TEPCO hesitated to invest in safety measures due to cost concerns and chose to ignore the warnings. 

The ocean release of radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant could potentially commence as early as the end of August, Japanese government officials said

Just like the accident, the current decision to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima plant into the ocean is the result of a decommissioning policy that prioritizes economic considerations over safety, said Etsuro Totsuka, a Japanese human rights lawyer. 

READ MORE: Distrust of Japanese govt, TEPCO is behind Fukushima plan

The method of ocean discharge has been chosen as a solution to deal with nuclear-contaminated water that resulted from debris melting through the containment vessels and mixing with groundwater after the tsunami-triggered meltdown at the facility.

It cannot be compared to the usual operation discharge from nuclear power plants in other countries since the Fukushima plant water may contain not only tritium but also other radioactive substances, he said in a written interview with China Daily. 

“Radioactive materials released from the accident site will remain extremely hazardous over an extended period, necessitating their containment within the nuclear plant site to prevent further dispersal of danger. Yet, the Japanese government decided to violate its promises to stakeholders such as fishermen and chose to release the water into the ocean, opting for a cost-effective decommissioning method. “Consequently, there is a risk of contaminating the global commons, the open sea, and jeopardizing the safety and health of numerous people worldwide,” Totsuka said.

He noted that alternative methods of treatment were available but were disregarded in favor of the chosen approach. 

“It seems the government and TEPCO may be afraid that these alternatives would incur higher costs than ocean discharge. Furthermore, a fundamental reason could be the lack of an established method for debris retrieval. They have neglected to scientifically reevaluate the decommissioning procedures and adopt alternative measures, choosing the convenient method of ocean discharge instead,” he said. 

TEPCO has said that it will compensate for reputational damage. However, in reality, both TEPCO and the Japanese government believe that they do not need to compensate for any damages, even if victims emerge, as it would be hard to establish a casual relationship between cause and effect due to the “treated water”, the term used by the Japanese government.

“Once the contaminated water is released into the open sea through Japan’s territorial waters, it becomes uncontrollable and could have unknown consequences on the marine ecosystem and human life, potentially violating the human rights of people worldwide,” Totsuka said.

“Even if there are people affected by ingesting radioactive substances accumulated in seafood, it would be impossible to prove whether the damages are caused by radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

“Therefore, to prevent such irresponsible outcomes, ocean discharge should not be allowed as long as the safety cannot be proven,” he added. 

Totsuka stressed that the responsibility to prove the safety of the discharge lies with the companies and governments involved in the nuclear power industry. 

“It is a normal reaction for us to feel afraid, and we can express that we find it terrifying, but we are not responsible for proving the danger,” he said. 

“If, despite the availability of alternative treatment methods, the government and TEPCO deliberately violate their promises to stakeholders and choose the cheap decommissioning method that may compromise safety, it would be a violation of maritime law.” 

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan is obligated to comply with its provisions. 

Article 192 of the Convention says, “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” 

Mami Moriya (left), an educator of children with intellectual disabilities, sings a song with her friends during a protest against Japan’s plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean in Tokyo on Friday. (JIANG XUEQING / CHINA DAILY)

Mami Moriya, 65, an educator of children with intellectual disabilities, said, “I think it’s natural for people from China, Korea and other countries around the world to feel anxious. When it comes to potential dangers like this, there’s no such thing as being too cautious.” 

Moriya attended a protest in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in Tokyo on Aug 4, opposing the ocean discharge plan. 

During the protest, Tutumi Fumitaka, a 57-year-old railway security guard, said it is crucial to acknowledge the possibility of health issues arising once Japan starts releasing nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. 

“The Fukushima nuclear accident is far from over and the world needs to know about it,” Fumitaka said.

READ MORE: Fukushima plan a nuclear threat to Asia-Pacific

“I think the Japanese government and TEPCO need to take full responsibility for what they’ve done and their lack of sensibility. Until now, they haven’t sincerely faced reality.”

The ocean release of radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant could potentially commence as early as the end of August, Japanese government officials said. 

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is set to convene a meeting of relevant ministers after his return from a trilateral summit with the United States and South Korea on Aug 18 to make a decision, the daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported.