The content of this article comes from the Internet, if it is inconsistent with the actual situation or there is infringement, please contact to delete. This article is only published in today's headlines, please do not move.
Lead:
Recently, Japan's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water has aroused widespread concern and resistance from the international community. The Japanese government has decided to discharge more than 1.3 million tons of nuclear-contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 years, with the first discharge starting on August 24, 2023, and plans to release 7,800 tons of nuclear-contaminated water for 17 consecutive days. This act has aroused doubts and resentment from all sides, involving diplomatic disputes between several countries. This article will delve into the motivations behind Japan's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water and the international controversy it has sparked.
What are the motives and interests behind the international controversy over Japan's plan to discharge contaminated water? To understand this question, we first need to review Japan's various options for dealing with nuclear-contaminated water. After the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, Japan proposed a variety of methods for treating contaminated water, which vary in cost and effect.
First of all, the cheapest way is to simply treat the contaminated water and discharge it into the sea, which costs only 3.4 billion yen. In contrast, the cost of landfilling and deep groundfilling is estimated to be around 240 billion yen and 20 billion yen, respectively. There is also a steam emission law, which requires more than 30 billion yen and is supported by China and Russia. In addition, the electrolytic emission method is also a relatively expensive method, which is expected to cost about 100 billion yen.
However, despite the existence of multiple treatment methods, Japan has opted for the cheapest discharge into the sea, although this method is considered the most dangerous. This raises questions about Japan's own interests and cost reductions, and seems to make global payings for it a top goal for the Japanese government. What is even more incomprehensible is that the Japanese government has been extremely generous in spending huge sums of money to improve its image in the international community, especially in removing negative information about the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water on the Internet.
Some countries began to boycott Japan's actions. China has completely stopped importing aquatic products from Japan, which is one of them. The Japanese government tried to demand through diplomatic channels to China to withdraw its countermeasures against Japan, but China firmly refused this request. Therefore, in the current situation, China will not give up its resistance to Japan, which makes the whole incident more complicated and tense.
The Japanese government's response is also worrying. Some Japanese politicians have even publicly ridiculed China, making shady proposals, such as requiring Chinese tourists to drink nuclear-contaminated water, swim in the waters around Fukushima, and only be allowed to enter after eating enough 10 Fukushima scallops. Such remarks show that the Japanese government does not have sufficient reflection and awareness about the Fukushima nuclear accident and the discharge of contaminated water.
The whole incident also attracted the attention of the United States. The United States seems aware that Japan's actions may pose a threat to regional security, so it plans to sell Japan $104 million worth of air defense systems to enhance Japan's self-defense capabilities. Given North Korea's recent ballistic missile test and the international controversy over Japan's discharge of contaminated water, the U.S. move is clearly aimed at safeguarding its interests in Asia.
In short, Japan's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water has sparked widespread concern and resistance from the international community. Although the Japanese government insists that this is the most economical option, the consequences of this decision will affect the stability and security of the entire Asian region. How to solve this problem requires consultation and efforts among countries to ensure that the treatment of nuclear-contaminated water does not cause irreversible damage to the environment and human health.
The above content and materials are derived from the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or allude to any real country, political system, organization, race, individual. The above does not mean that the author of this article endorses the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising above or related to any of the above, nor does it assume any direct or indirect legal liability.