Radioactivity in waterways following the 2011 Tohoku earthquake: What the Japanese government is doing about the discharge at Fukushima Daiichi
After the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, several reactors melted down at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The reactor was flooded with water to avoid a worse disaster. The plant is now offline and the reactors are defunct, but they still need to be cooled, which is why waste water continues to accumulate. In the years since the accident, groundwater has also filtered into the site, and some of it has become contaminated as well.
A review by the UN’s nuclear watchdog says that the discharge will have minimal affect on people and the environment. Here’s what the Japanese government is doing, and why.
They can’t filter out tritium, a radioactive isotope. H20 is part of the water itself, and tritium is an isotope of hydrogen. It is not possible to create a way to remove the tritium.
The Japanese government maintains that, especially when compared to some of the other radioactive material at the site, tritium isn’t all that bad. Its radioactive decay is relatively weak and that it’s part of the water makes it move quickly through organisms. Its half-life is twelve years, unlike elements such as uranium which has a half life of 700 million years.
The plan is believed to be in line with global safety standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Independent monitoring is planned by the IAEA to make sure the discharge is done safely.
The risk is very low. Jim Smith is a professor of environmental science at the University of Pompey. He’s studied radioactivity in waterways following nuclear accidents, including at Chernobyl.
“We’ve got to put radiation in perspective, and the plant release — if it’s done properly — then the doses that people get and the doses that the ecosystem get just won’t be significant, in my opinion,” Smith says.
Some think discharging the water is a better option. Ken Buesseler thinks it would have been better for the contaminated water to be kept on the land and monitored. It was possible to mix it into concrete to prevent it from malfunctioning.
“Nearshore in Japan could be affected in the long term because of accumulation of non-tritium forms of radioactivity,” he says. The area’s fisheries could be hurt by that.
Beussler consults for the Pacific Islands Forum, a coalition of nations including the Marshall Islands and Tahiti that are also apprehensive about Japan’s decision. He notes that many of these countries were subjected to high levels of radioactive fallout as a result of atmospheric nuclear tests during the Cold War. They can’t return to the islands because of legacy contamination.
Moreover, “they’re suffering in many ways from climate change and sea level rise more than the rest of the world,” he says. From their perspective, Japan’s release into the Pacific “is just one insult, environmentally, among others.”
In the two years since Japan announced its plan to release the wastewater into the sea, the plan has provoked serious political tensions with nearby China and South Korea, as well as anxiety at home. In South Korea, the president’s administration supports Japan’s efforts, but their opposition lawmakers have denounced the move as a threat to humans. The unions of fishermen in Japan fear that public concern about the water could hurt their income.