Storage tanks hold treated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima prefecture, Japan, as seen on April 13, 2021. (PHOTO / KYODO NEWS VIA AP)

Environmental and social experts from across Asia have called on Japan to refrain from contaminating the sea with radioactive waste after it began trialing the equipment to discharge toxic water from the ravaged Fukushima plant into the Pacific.

David Krofcheck senior lecturer, faculty of science, at the University of Auckland told China Daily that “nobody wants to dump radioactivity into the ocean.”

Environmental groups have argued that the move sets a bad precedent and poses a serious danger to Pacific communities who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods

According to scientists, the wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant will contain traces of a radioactive isotope called tritium and possibly other radioactive traces such as carbon-14.

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

“We need to be aware of the difference between tritium and carbon-14, on one hand, and the radioactive fission products which tend to remain in the human body,” Krofcheck said. He added that tritium could still get into the food chain via its buildup in underwater plants.

“This organically bound tritium still decays with a half-life of 12.3 years, and it stays in the human body for about 10 days, the biological half-life, before excretion,” he said. 

If Japan cannot pump this water into the sea, how can it be disposed of safely?

Krofcheck said the alternative for managing the Fukushima water was to hold it on-site in an ever “growing number of water tanks”. 

“If the water is properly filtered to leave only tritium and carbon-14, the natural decay of tritium can be used to reduce its radioactivity.

“Since the radioactive half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, holding the water in tanks for seven half-lives would reduce the tritium content to less than one percent of its current value.”

This option still leaves the carbon-14, which would still roughly have the same radioactivity due to its 5,730-year half-life,” he said.

The potential impact of releasing treated radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi into the ocean remains a subject of heated debate and concern among stakeholders, said Anjal Prakash, clinical associate professor (research) and research director of the Bharti Institute of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business.

“The ocean release decision itself has sparked opposition, leading to ongoing debates on alternative water management strategies,” he noted. “The decision-making process weighs safety, public perception, regulations, and potential impacts on industries and trade.”

While the Japanese government and TEPCO claim there is minimal risk, differing opinions persist, the professor said, adding that factors such as ocean currents, distance, dilution, and treatment efficacy will determine the impact on neighboring areas including South Asia, Pacific Island countries, Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the world.

Long-term effects and bioaccumulation concerns remain, Prakash warned. “Evaluating the precise impact is complex, necessitating considerations of various factors and ongoing scientific research.”

Despite ongoing opposition from domestic experts, civic groups and fishery organizations, Japan has been rushing to dump the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, which has also incited protests from neighboring nations and communities within the Pacific Islands.

Most Pacific leaders are not happy with the decision. In April, the Fijian government reaffirmed its opposition to Japan's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

Fiji's Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica said earlier that the Pacific Ocean should not be seen as an easy and convenient dumping ground for unwanted and dangerous materials and waste that other larger nations produce and do not want to use in their own ecosystem, according to local media.

"The social and economic impact of this irresponsible behavior is catastrophic, particularly on our vulnerable communities," he said.

Environmental groups have argued that the move sets a bad precedent and poses a serious danger to Pacific communities who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods. 

Peter Bosip, head of Papua New Guinea’s Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights, told Radio New Zealand on June 13, “We have enough manmade disasters.” 

Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea James Marape, in a June 12 statement online, mentioned discussions with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and former leader Yoshida Suga. “Both leaders have assured me that Japan would never allow the discharge of the water until and unless safety has been confirmed by scientific evidence,” he said.

But many people are asking, if the waste water treated by Japan’s Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) is so safe, why Japanese are not using such water for alternative purposes, in manufacturing and agriculture for instance?

According to a report issued by TEPCO on June 5, the radioactive elements in the marine fish caught in the harbor of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan far exceed safety levels for human consumption. In particular, the data released show that the content of Cs-137, a radioactive element that is a common byproduct in nuclear reactors, is 180 times that of the standard maximum stipulated in Japan's food safety law.

Kalinga Seneviratne, a visiting lecturer at the University of the South Pacific, said: “The contamination will affect the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty areas as well when it eventually flows there.”

"Also, since fish stocks are migratory, contaminated fish could be caught within the treaty area," Seneviratne noted in an earlier interview in Fiji’s capital, Suva.

READ MORE: Better safe than sorry with Fukushima water

The scholar explained that Japan claims to promote a rules-based order. However, if Japan wants to protect a rules-based order, they need to subscribe to the principles of these rules and respect the wishes of the people in the Pacific who argue the treaty is there to stop something like this from happening. 

Seneviratne said a multilateral agreement among the nations of the South Pacific prohibits testing, manufacturing, and stationing nuclear explosive devices and dumping nuclear waste within the zone.

After being hit by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and an ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered core meltdowns that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

Xinhua contributed to this story.

Contact the writers at vivienxu@chinadailyapac.com