Figure 1: An aerial photograph of the hundreds of water-filled tanks crammed onto the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant site.
Source Credit: Science Magazine (LINK)
Last month marked the 10-year anniversary of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake that struck fear into the hearts of many. As the earthquake of the highest magnitude in Japan’s history, its tremors were felt all throughout the country: 19,000 lives were lost, and over 100,000 more were displaced, with some still not having returned to their homes to this day. Among the devastating legacy of the earthquake is the nuclear disaster that ensued at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, an environmental issue that made international headlines earlier this month when the Government of Japan finalized their plan to discharge an estimated 1.25 million tons of contaminated wastewater into the ocean.
As soon as the 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit on March 11, 2011, the nuclear reactors at the power plant shut down immediately. At this point, however, the potential for a catastrophe was relatively limited. The real damage arrived when a massive tsunami, towering as high as 15 meters above sea level, disabled the cooling and power supply of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors. The reactor cores melted in the first three days following the earthquake.
Ever since the nuclear meltdown, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operators of the power plant, has continued the cleanup process to avoid further casualties. The operation includes pumping water through the reactors to cool melted fuel, then the gathering of the water at a decontamination facility. A filtration system is utilized at this stage, yet reports by TEPCO show that the technology is not perfect.
The water runs through TEPCO’s Advanced Liquid Processing System, a complex, powerful chain of filters that effectively removes 62 types of radionuclides. However, some radioactive materials are exempt from this list, including tritium, an isotope of hydrogen. Scientists say this particular radionuclide is difficult to remove from water as the isotope replaces the hydrogen atoms from the water molecules. And with a half life of over 12 years, one point of concern is their potential to linger in the ocean long into the future. Fortunately, tritium is relatively harmless to both marine life and human health. In addition to this, the government has promised to release the radioactive material in trace amounts, diluting it to a mere fortieth of what national guidelines allow in drinking water.
Some bigger areas of concern are the presence of other isotypes in the water: ruthenium, cobalt, strontium, and plutonium. These radionuclides exhibit more troublesome characteristics than tritium such as their tendency to accumulate in seafloor sediments. If this occurs, they can be consumed by marine biota, then be carried up to the food chain through biomagnification. With this in mind, it will be important to approach the discharge process with the utmost caution.
Finally, after the filtration process, the wastewater is sent to storage. Currently, they fill up over 1,000 large steel tanks packed onto the plants site. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicted the capacity to be met by mid-2022, which pressured the government to launch action in the first place.
While the Japanese government and TEPCO have been transparent with the whole issue, insisting that they are acting in accordance with international nuclear safety standards, this has not been enough to convince all activists. Greenpeace Japan has strongly opposed the notion, and criticized the government for opting for the cheapest option. Other environmental organizations agree, pushing to construct more steel tanks on land nearby the power plant, buying time to develop better solutions and also allowing the radioactive isotopes to naturally decay.
The common people are not completely on board, either. A national survey conducted last year showed that 55 percent of respondents opposed the plan. Worries are largest among Fukushima locals, especially fishermen who are concerned that the decision’s effects will ripple across the fishing industry. Demand for their products declined starting in 2011 over concerns of contamination, and they worry that public fears will revive following the dumping of the contaminated water.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed up the government, stating that the plan does in fact respect safety regulations. The release of the water is expected to start in 2 years, and may take as long as 40 years to complete.
Q&A:
Jiwon: Given some activists’ hesitation to trust the wastewater release process and the Japanese government’s assurance that the wastewater has been properly treated, what is your personal opinion on the issue, and why so?
To be fair, the “solution” looks terrible at first glance. I initially couldn’t believe the Japanese government would carry through with this plan when I first saw this news on television. After researching a bit more on the topic, I realized that the decision was backed up with a lot more scientific evidence than I expected, but I still am skeptical about the project. I can’t help feeling that there had to have been an alternative solution other than dumping the water into the ocean.
Sally: You briefly mentioned the negative effects on the food chain. Could you explain in more detail how the marine environment would be harmed?
Concentrations of harmful materials can build up in an organism’s system over time, and it can pass along through a food web through predation. It is particularly worrisome that the source of radionuclides from the Fukushima wastewater is in marine biota. Because these commonplace organisms are located at the bottom of the food chain, its effects may become widespread in the marine ecosystem.
John: How did the melting of the nuclear cores during the Earthquake cause damage to the human population? Why so?
Nuclear core meltdowns are definitely some of the worst accidents that can occur in power plants. In Fukushima, it resulted in the release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere and local waters. Some of the consequences include the instability of the fishing industry, contamination of foodstuffs, and of course, the constant buildup of treated wastewater.
Eric: How significant should public opinion be in shaping decisions like these, and for Fukushima specifically, do experts have a conflict of interests that could bias what is sustainable for the area?
I think it is important to consider public opinion in these types of policies, especially given that they could directly affect their everyday lives. At the same time, public opinion tends to lean toward a certain bias, so their input may not always translate into the best solution in the long term.
Hannah: Despite all the tests that have been run and the government’s reassurance to the public that the water is safe, why do you think many of the people are still doubtful?
I think the citizens have every right to be concerned about the policy, as it does seem pretty horrifying to dump nuclear wastewater into the local oceans. Though the government has provided scientific research to suggest the safety of their decision, some of it is hypothetical. There is still potential for something to go wrong, and we don’t have a choice but to wait and see how things play out.
Wooseok: Are nuclear reactors still worth using even after considering the detrimental consequences explained in the article? Why or why not?
Nuclear power is superior to other sources of energy in several different ways, like the cost of running a power plant or its low carbon emissions. With that being said, when it goes wrong, its effects are devastating. Fukushima isn’t even the most representative example of the dangers that come with nuclear energy, with other massive accidents like the infamous Chernobyl disaster. While it may be a rushed decision to simply rule off the energy source, I think there is a need to reconsider the way in which the technology is managed today in order to work towards safer practices.
Works Cited:
Greenpeace International. “The Japanese Government's Decision to Discharge Fukushima Contaminated Water Ignores Human Rights and International Maritime Law.” Greenpeace International, 13 Apr. 2021, www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/47207/the-japanese-governments-decision-to-discharge-fukushima-contaminated-water-ignores-human-rights-and-international-maritime-law/.
Jett, Jennifer, and Ben Dooley. “Fukushima Wastewater Will Be Released Into the Ocean, Japan Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Apr. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/world/asia/japan-fukushima-wastewater-ocean.html.
Normille, Dennis. “Japan Plans to Release Fukushima's Wastewater into the Ocean.” Science, 13 Apr. 2021, www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/japan-plans-release-fukushima-s-contaminated-water-ocean.
Rich, Motoko. “Struggling With Japan's Nuclear Waste, Six Years After Disaster.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Mar. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-with-japans-nuclear-waste-six-years-after-disaster.html?module=inline.
Comments