Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea: global marine ecology and human health crisis On August 22, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced that the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant of Tokyo Electric Power Company will be launched on August 24. The decision sparked controversy and questioning around the world. By the end of June, Japan's total nuclear-contaminated water had reached 1.34 million tons, containing more than 60 radionuclides. It will take up to 30 years to completely discharge this nuclear-contaminated water. The Fukushima plant is located in the world's most powerful ocean currents, which allows radioactive material to spread quickly into most of the Pacific Ocean. Not only that, but countries such as the United States and Canada will also be at risk of being affected by nuclear contamination in the near future. The discharge of Fukushima's contaminated water has had a serious impact on marine ecology and human health. However, despite international doubts about the legality, legitimacy and safety of the Fukushima plan to discharge contaminated water, Japan persisted in moving forward with the plan, ignoring outside concerns.
This has led people to wonder: Why did Japan ignore the doubts of the international community and continue to promote plans to discharge contaminated water into the sea? Why did they choose to announce this plan at this particular point in time? Moreover, why would the United States, South Korea and other Western countries side with Japan and endorse it? For these problems, on the one hand, Tepco has always emphasized that nuclear sewage will be treated to remove most of the radioactive elements, and the "tritium" element that cannot be removed will be diluted to 1/40 of the Japanese national standard, which will not pollute the ocean. However, we cannot ignore the fact that TEPCO concealed the truth and told a big lie in the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. In the face of such a situation, can we believe their claims? On the other hand, scientific research has proven that radioactive substances in Fukushima nuclear wastewater pose a great threat to marine ecology and human health. Although Fukushima nuclear wastewater has the highest levels of tritium, marine animals and seafloor sediments do not absorb it easily.
Conversely, radioactive isotopes such as carbon-14, cobalt-60 and strontium-90 take longer to degrade and easily enter the marine food chain. The decay process of these radioactive materials takes tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years, and is almost impossible to completely eliminate. They affect the marine environment and human health in very complex ways, and can penetrate into various organisms, cause distortions, and even cause damage to human DNA, leading to serious consequences such as cancer and death. In the face of the threat posed by the Fukushima plan to discharge contaminated water, the international community and people should actively take measures to jointly address this challenge. First, the international community should strengthen its supervision and restraint on the Japanese government and demand that it find more feasible solutions to the problem of nuclear-contaminated water to ensure that irreversible damage to the global marine environment and human health is not caused. Second, relevant countries should strengthen scientific research and technological innovation and find more effective methods of nuclear pollution control to reduce the damage of nuclear pollution to marine ecology and the harm to human health.
Finally, the public should also strengthen their awareness of environmental protection, actively participate in relevant environmental protection activities, and jointly protect our oceans and the earth. In short, the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge plan poses a huge threat to global marine ecology and human health. Although the Japanese government persists in moving forward with this plan, we cannot ignore the dangers and potential effects of nuclear-contaminated water. The international community and people should work together to take effective measures to protect our marine environment and human health. How do you think the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge plan should be handled? Please leave a message to share your views. Venting Fukushima into the Sea: The truth behind economic and political calculations has been around for a decade, but a recent decision by the Japanese government has sparked international concern and concern about discharging treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. This decision has raised many questions and controversies, not the least of which is why the Japanese government chose to announce this decision at this moment?
This article will analyze the truth behind this problem from three aspects: the increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer among adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture, local elections, and economic considerations. First, let's take a look at the increased incidence of thyroid cancer among adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture. According to the results of the Resident Health Survey released in February 2020, the incidence of thyroid cancer among adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture has increased 118-fold. This figure is shocking and has led to deep thinking about the impact of the Fukushima accident. However, the Japanese government chose to announce its decision to discharge nuclear wastewater at this time. Does this mean that they do not pay attention to the impact of a nuclear accident? Does this mean they are not concerned enough about public health? These questions raise doubts about the motives of the Japanese government. Second, local elections are also one of the important factors influencing this decision. Local elections are being held in Fukushima, Miyagi, and Iwate, the three prefectures most affected by the discharge of Fukushima's nuclear sewage into the sea. In these elections, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito Party disagreed over the timing of the nuclear sewage discharge plan.
The LDP faces the dilemma of not having a majority of seats in the House of Councillors, and it has not been able to successfully dissolve the House of Representatives and hold early general elections in order to run for the first term, either in the Diet or in local elections. Kishida's eagerness to launch the plan is politically motivated, and he hopes to test public opinion by closely implementing it to avoid losing seats in the LDP and ensure that he can be re-elected as prime minister. However, should such political considerations take precedence over the health and safety of the public? This is a question worth pondering. Finally, let's look at the role of economic considerations in this decision. The Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear accidents, both of which were released from the atmosphere, have no precedent for the discharge of wastewater into the ocean after the treatment of nuclear accidents. There is not only one way to treat nuclear wastewater, such as discharging it deep underground along underground pipelines, discharging it into the atmosphere into water vapor, electrolytic treatment, and "continuing to build large storage tanks on land" or "solidifying with mortar". For the Japanese government, however, draining the sea is the least expensive option.
The cost of discharging contaminated water into the sea is about 3.4 billion yen, which is only one-tenth of the water vapor discharge. The Japanese government is reluctant to spend more money to properly deal with this problem, and it is more "cost-effective and quick" to "dump" nuclear wastewater into the sea. For them, economic considerations precede security considerations. However, does such an approach meet the expectations of the international community? Is this contrary to human responsibility to the environment and nature? These are questions that require us to think deeply. To sum up, there are many complex factors behind the decision to discharge Fukushima's nuclear wastewater into the sea. From the three aspects of the increase in adolescent thyroid cancer in Fukushima Prefecture, local elections, and economic considerations, we can see the role of political and economic factors in this decision. However, we cannot ignore the importance of public health and safety and environmental protection. In making such decisions, governments should take full account of public comments and concerns and adopt a more responsible and sustainable approach to the treatment of nuclear wastewater.
Finally, I would like to prompt readers to think: as a country, how should we balance economic development and environmental protection? How can we ensure that the health and safety of the public is not compromised? Please leave your comments and share your thoughts. Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge into the sea has caused international controversy: Violations of international law have been tacitly accepted by Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge plan, which has attracted widespread attention and controversy in the international community. In fact, the prohibition of such acts is clearly provided for in international conventions, both in the London Convention and in the resolution "Prohibition of the dumping of all radioactive waste into the ocean", adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1994. However, Western countries, including the United States, South Korea, France, and the United Kingdom, have collectively chosen to remain silent. This acquiescence is worrying, and Japan has been actively lobbying the international community. Recently, the leaders of the United States, Japan and South Korea held talks in the United States, while Japan tried to prove that the so-called "nuclear contaminated water has a scientific basis for the discharge into the sea", while the United States and South Korea showed acquiescence.
For its part, the South Korean government has been trying to repair relations with Japan by blurring the historical grievances between the two countries, which is in the interest of the United States. Despite strong domestic dissatisfaction with the South Korean government's stance on the issue, the South Korean president insisted that he "believed the test results." There are two main reasons for Western acquiescence to Japan's behavior: political and historical. First, from a political point of view, the United States hopes to gain its "loyalty" in other matters by condoning Japan. Since Biden took office, the U.S. government has tried to win the support of allies such as Japan, so it has chosen to turn a blind eye to even issues that may endanger the health and safety of its own people. This stance in favor of Japan is not entirely based on "scientific" considerations, but more on the self-interest of geopolitical confrontation. Second, Western countries have their own unclean history of discharging nuclear pollutants into the ocean.
Over the past few decades, these countries have dumped large amounts of nuclear waste into the oceans more than once. From 1946 to 1993, these European and American countries dumped more than 200,000 tons of solid nuclear waste into the oceans, of which the United States alone dumped at least 190,000 cubic meters of radioactive material into the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The concentration of radioactive substances in these solid nuclear wastes is more serious than that of nuclear wastewater, and their damage to the marine ecological environment is immeasurable. What is even more outrageous is that these countries not only dump nuclear waste into the ocean, but also use remote ocean areas as sites for nuclear testing. Since 1946, the United States, the United Kingdom and France have conducted more than 300 nuclear tests in the Pacific, causing enormous harm to the health and environment of the local population. In the face of Japan's discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea, the international community can no longer choose to remain silent. This is not only a challenge to international law, but also a threat to human health and the environment.
We cannot allow this behavior for political and historical reasons, and we should demand that Japan stop the discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea and find safer ways to dispose of it. At the same time, Western countries should face up to their past mistakes, shoulder their due responsibilities, and actively participate in solving this global problem. In short, Japan's discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea violates international law, and the default attitude of Western countries is worrying. Political and historical reasons have led to the formation of this attitude, but we cannot let Japan behave freely. The international community should work together to demand that Japan stop the discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea and find safer ways to dispose of it. At the same time, Western countries should face up to their past mistakes, shoulder their responsibilities, and actively participate in solving this global problem. We cannot ignore the potential threat to human health and the environment caused by the discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea, and we need to act together to protect our planet. How do you think the international community should respond to the discharge of Japan's nuclear wastewater into the sea?
What safer and more sustainable approaches should we take in dealing with nuclear waste? Please share your thoughts and opinions. The Japanese government's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean has drawn strong opposition at home and abroad. The article first introduces the pollution of the marine environment by nuclear testing, pointing out that the degree of nuclear radiation pollution caused by nuclear testing has gone beyond the scope of nuclear sewage and nuclear waste, and has a huge impact on the sea and islands. The article then pointed out that the Japanese government's decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean has drawn strong opposition at home and abroad. Although the Japanese government claims that the discharge does not pose a threat to the marine environment and human health, Masanobu Sakamoto, president of the National Federation of Fisheries Associations, explicitly disagrees, arguing that once the contaminated water begins to be discharged into the sea, it may last for decades, affecting both Japanese fishery practitioners and consumers. The article calls on the Japanese government not to use the ocean as a "big dumping ground" for nuclear waste discharge, and not to expose fishermen and consumers to nuclear pollution.
Finally, the article asks the readers, can you really imagine that your old favorite delicacy becomes a poison worse than arsenic? Can you allow your children to be poisoned by nuclear contamination? The discharge of contaminated water into the sea triggered by the Fukushima nuclear crisis has aroused international attention and strong protests. After the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Japanese government's decision to discharge contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean sparked concern and anger around the world. This decision not only poses a huge threat to the marine ecological environment, but also has a serious impact on food safety and people's health in neighboring countries. Countries have demanded that the Japanese government reverse its decision to drain the sea and urge the Japanese government to deal responsibly with the issue of nuclear-contaminated water. The Fukushima nuclear crisis brought unprecedented disaster to Japan. The nuclear power plant accident caused the core of all three reactors to melt down, and all four reactors exploded one after another. A large amount of radioactive material was released into the environment, with cesium-137 releasing 500 times more than its analogue from the Hiroshima bomb.
This is a huge shock to fishermen whose main source of livelihood is seafood, who worry about whether seafood and seafood can be safely exported to other countries. In addition, the nuclear crisis had a serious impact on agriculture, tourism and foreign trade. However, the Japanese government has taken an irresponsible approach to the treatment of nuclear-contaminated water. Despite repeated calls from neighboring countries and the international community to stop the Japanese government's activities of draining the sea, the Japanese government has persisted in promoting this plan. They seem to ignore the enormous violations of the human rights and global ecology of the people of the Asia-Pacific region by the exclusion of the sea. This beggar-thy-neighbor behavior is bound to invite more opposition and resistance. South Korea is one of the biggest victims of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge. South Korea's civic groups and the largest opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan, have expressed strong protests against the Japanese government's decision. They believe that the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is damage to the marine environment and socio-economic damage, which will have a negative impact on Korea and the world.
They urged the Japanese government to immediately withdraw its decision to drain the sea and called on the Japanese government to actively engage in international cooperation to keep nuclear-contaminated water safe on land. The Philippines has also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Japanese government's decision. Anna Marienberg-Uyi, deputy director of the Asian Century Institute of Strategic Studies in the Philippines, believes that Japan's decision is a disregard for international environmental protection laws and regulations, which will have a disastrous impact on the Pacific region. She stressed that the Pacific Ocean does not belong to Japan alone, and that the harm of Japan's discharge from the sea will continue for many years and affect many generations. The Japanese government's decision sparked global concern and outrage. The international community expressed strong dissatisfaction with the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea and demanded that the Japanese government shoulder its responsibilities and take responsible measures to properly deal with the problem of nuclear-contaminated water. After all, the sea is not Japan's nuclear dumpground, and the Japanese government can no longer choose to treat the consequences of the nuclear crisis with a beggar-thy-neighbor attitude.
All in all, the issue of the discharge of contaminated water into the sea triggered by the Fukushima nuclear crisis has aroused widespread concern and strong protests from the international community. Countries have demanded that the Japanese government reverse its decision to discharge the sea and take responsible measures to properly deal with the problem of nuclear-contaminated water. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea has had a serious impact on the marine ecological environment, food safety and people's health, and the Japanese government can no longer ignore this problem. We expect the Government of Japan to heed the call of the international community and adopt a responsible attitude to properly deal with the issue of nuclear-contaminated water. How to balance nuclear energy development and environmental protection requires global efforts to find solutions. What is your opinion on the discharge of Fukushima's contaminated water into the sea? How do you think the international community should respond to this issue? The Japanese government recently announced that it will begin discharging nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean in 2022. This news has attracted widespread concern and condemnation around the world.
Experts said that the potential risks posed by nuclear wastewater to human health and the environment cannot be ignored. The move has also sparked strong opposition from neighboring countries, including the Philippines and Fiji. Philippine lawmakers said that this will be a very serious problem, affecting not only Japan itself, but also many neighboring countries. He called on the Japanese government to heed the calls of neighboring countries and withdraw this unilateral decision. Fijian lawmakers also condemned the Japanese government's decision, noting that the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea would threaten the livelihoods of islanders throughout the Pacific, including Fiji. They have witnessed the devastating consequences of nuclear pollution and know that the damage caused by nuclear wastewater to the environment is irreparable. In fact, this decision by the Japanese government is not an isolated case. Many countries have faced difficulties in managing nuclear wastewater. However, the Japanese government's approach has attracted widespread concern because it has chosen to discharge nuclear wastewater into the ocean, which may pose potential risks to marine ecology and human health. It also poses a threat to the confidence of the international community.
The United States, Britain, France and Western countries that deliberately hide their history of nuclear waste discharge into the sea, and choose to collectively lose their voice, and Japan, which wants to discharge nuclear wastewater into the sea, are all a hill, a grasshopper on a rope, belonging to 50 steps and a hundred steps. The international community needs more cooperation and communication on such issues, rather than unilateral action. Nietzsche once said, "Man is a rope, between the superman and the beast." Walking to the left, is warmth and kindness; Go to the right, evil and demonic thoughts. Obviously, Japan has chosen evil and devil. We cannot allow such wrong decisions to have more consequences, and we need to take action to protect the health of people and the environment. All in all, the Japanese government's decision to discharge nuclear wastewater has aroused widespread concern and condemnation from the international community. More cooperation and communication is needed to protect the health of people and the environment.