In IWAKI, Japan, the arrival of beach season heralds a time of delight for holidaymakers and prosperity for business owners, thanks to the abundant seafood offerings. However, the situation is quite different in Fukushima, where uncertainties loom.
In the coming weeks, the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is set to begin the controlled release of treated radioactive wastewater into the ocean. This plan has been a subject of heated controversy and has triggered vehement protests both within Japan and beyond its borders.
Local residents are understandably concerned about the potential consequences of discharging water tainted with radiation, twelve years after the devastating nuclear disaster. They fear that this move could further tarnish Fukushima’s already fragile reputation and pose a severe threat to their businesses and way of life.
Yukinaga Suzuki, a 70-year-old innkeeper at Usuiso beach in Iwaki, located about 50 kilometers (30 miles) south of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, expressed his deep concerns, stating, “Without a healthy ocean, I cannot make a living.” The uncertainty surrounding the water release adds to the distress, as the government has not yet announced a specific date for the discharge.
The potential extent of the damage caused by the water release remains unclear, leaving residents feeling “shikataganai” or helpless. Suzuki has appealed to authorities to postpone the plan until the swimming season concludes in mid-August.
Despite his strong opposition to the water release, Suzuki feels powerless as the government has unilaterally decided on the plan and appears determined to proceed regardless of objections. He emphasizes that releasing the water while people are swimming in the sea is entirely inappropriate, even if officials claim there will be no harm.
Adding to the worry is the fact that the beach lies in the trajectory of the treated water, which will travel southward along the Oyashio current from the coast of Fukushima Daiichi.
Since the 2011 nuclear disaster, the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, have grappled with the challenge of handling an immense amount of contaminated water. As a result, they have devised a plan to release this treated water into the ocean during the summer.
According to the authorities, their strategy involves treating the water and significantly diluting it with seawater before discharging it into the Pacific Ocean through an undersea tunnel. They assert that this method meets safety standards, both nationally and internationally, and is considered a safe approach.
However, not everyone, including Yukinaga Suzuki, is fully convinced by the government’s safety campaign, which critics argue merely highlights the positive aspects of the plan. Suzuki expresses his skepticism, stating that true safety cannot be determined until much later, raising legitimate concerns about the potential risks involved.
The Usuiso area, once home to over a dozen family-run inns, suffered a severe decline in business following the disaster. Only Suzuki’s Suzukame, which he inherited from his parents three decades ago, remains operational after surviving the tsunami. As the head of the area’s safety committee and the proprietor of its sole beach house, Suzuki relies on the ocean as the primary source of his livelihood.
The catastrophic earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, severely damaged the cooling systems of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, leading to the meltdown of three reactors and subsequent contamination of their cooling water. Since then, the contaminated water has been continuously collected, filtered, and stored in around 1,000 tanks. However, these tanks are expected to reach their capacity in early 2024, necessitating a solution to address the growing issue of accumulated water.
The government and TEPCO maintain that the removal of contaminated water is essential to create space for the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi plant and to prevent accidental leaks from the tanks, as much of the water remains contaminated and requires further treatment.
For Katsumasa Okawa, who runs a seafood business in Iwaki, the presence of these tanks containing contaminated water is a cause for concern, and he is more bothered by them than the prospect of treated water release. He strongly desires their prompt removal, especially after witnessing the vast tanks occupying a significant portion of the plant complex during a visit a few years ago.
Okawa acknowledges that an accidental leak from the tanks would be catastrophic, causing tangible damage rather than just harming the reputation of the region. While he sees the treated water release as unavoidable, he finds it unsettling to have to live near the damaged plant for such an extended period.
The fisheries community in Fukushima, which was severely affected by the disaster, along with tourism and the local economy, is still in the process of recovery. In response, the government has allocated 80 billion yen ($573 million) to support the still-fragile fisheries and seafood processing sectors and to address potential reputation damage resulting from the water release.
Although Okawa’s wife and children evacuated to Yokohama near Tokyo, he chose to stay in Iwaki to work on reopening his store. He resumed the sale of fresh fish in July 2011 but refrained from selling any from Fukushima.
By 2021, local fishing operations had started to return to normal, but the government’s announcement of the water release plan brought about renewed uncertainties and challenges for the region.
Today, Fukushima’s local fishing industry is still operating at only around one-fifth of its pre-disaster capacity due to a decline in the fishing population and reduced catch sizes.
The plan to release the treated radioactive wastewater has faced strong opposition from Japanese fishing organizations, who fear that it could further damage the reputation of their seafood and hinder their ongoing recovery efforts. Concerns have also been raised by groups in South Korea and China, turning the issue into a political and diplomatic matter. Hong Kong has taken a firm stance, vowing to ban the import of aquatic products from Fukushima and other Japanese prefectures if the treated water is discharged into the sea. China is also planning to increase import restrictions, and Hong Kong restaurants have already started removing Japanese seafood from their menus.
In response to international concerns, Japan sought support from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure transparency and credibility. The IAEA’s final report, handed directly to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, concluded that the proposed method of water release meets international standards and that its environmental and health impacts would be minimal. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi asserted that radioactivity in the water would be nearly undetectable, and there would be no significant cross-border impact.
While many scientists agree that the environmental impact from the treated water would be negligible, some experts call for greater attention to be paid to the dozens of low-dose radionuclides that still exist in the water. They argue that insufficient data exists on the long-term effects of these radionuclides on the environment and marine life. Despite scientific consensus on the safety of the plan, the ultimate decision on the timing of the water release remains a political one made by the government.
According to Professor Katsumi Shozugawa, an environmental chemistry expert from the University of Tokyo, the radioactivity in the treated water is so low that once it enters the ocean, it will quickly disperse and become nearly undetectable. However, he emphasizes the importance of conducting thorough pre-release sampling of the water to gather essential data for analysis. To gain public trust, Shozugawa insists that TEPCO must strictly adhere to the planned procedures and ensure diligent sampling, transparency, and cross-checks involving independent entities beyond just the IAEA and the laboratories commissioned by TEPCO and the government.
While Japanese officials primarily categorize the issue as a tritium concern, the treated water also contains numerous other radionuclides that leaked from the damaged fuel. Although these radionuclides are filtered to levels considered safe for release, they still require close scrutiny, as they are not typically present in normal reactor leaks.
Shozugawa acknowledges that the full environmental impact of these radionuclides is not entirely known, but he affirms that the lower their concentration, the less significant their environmental impact. Thus, the plan is assumed to be safe due to heavy dilution to reduce the concentration of other radionuclides.
Compared to the immense challenge of dealing with the highly radioactive melted debris within the reactors or the continuous minor leaks of radioactivity outside, managing the treated water is a less formidable task at the plant.
Shozugawa, who has been regularly monitoring radioactivity levels in groundwater, fish, and plants near the Fukushima Daiichi plant since the disaster, highlights the ongoing small leaks of radioactivity into the groundwater and port area. He asserts that the potential impact on the ecosystem from these continuous leaks requires closer attention than the controlled release of the treated water.
A local fisheries cooperative executive, Takayuki Yanai, expressed concerns about forcing the water release without public support, emphasizing that it could cause reputational damage and harm Fukushima’s fisheries. Yanai believes that building public understanding and a sense of safety can only come through trust, which has been lacking due to distrust in the government and TEPCO.
Overall, ensuring the safe and transparent handling of the treated water release is vital to allay public concerns and gain the necessary trust from stakeholders in Japan and neighboring countries.