The Japanese government has said that in several years, the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is to begin releasing wastewater containing traces of the radioactive hydrogen isotope tritium into the ocean.
Opponents of the plan are concerned that this would pollute the ocean.
Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) has said that the radioactive water would first have been run through a complex chain of filters that would remove 62 types of radionuclide, but not tritium.
Prior to its release, the radioactive water would be diluted to bring the concentration level to one-40th of the Japanese national standard and one-seventh of the WHO standard for drinking water.
These assurances have not prevented neighboring nations from expressing their concerns and objections.
The Great Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, inflicted serious damage on the power plant and cold water is still being pumped into the reactors to cool them down.
That water is treated, and a portion is recycled and used to continue cooling the reactor, while the rest is kept in more than 1,000 huge storage tanks on the site.
As the volume of wastewater increases and fills the tanks, it is increasingly difficult to find the space for new tanks. Japan needed to come up with a solution.
No one solution to the problem of the radioactive wastewater will satisfy everyone. Tokyo has had to choose between releasing the water into the atmosphere, pumping it into the soil or releasing it into the ocean.
It is a difficult decision to make.
In addition to censuring Japan over this situation, Taiwanese must reflect on the safety of their own nuclear power plants.
The narrative surrounding nuclear safety says that the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident could not happen in Taiwan.
However, the world said that it had learned its lesson after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, and that such an accident would never be allowed to happen again.
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 was followed by similar assurances of lessons learned and promises of an accident-free future.
Then, the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident happened.
Nuclear power remains very risky. Obstinate assurances that nuclear power is no reason for concern intentionally ignore that an unexpected natural disaster can lead to inconceivable consequences.
Questioning Japan’s decision to release radioactive wastewater into the ocean, while simultaneously supporting the restart of construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, requires an imaginative leap of logic.
People who think that disastrous consequences could not result from an unfortunate event happening at an operating Fourth Nuclear Power Plant are simply trying to have their cake and eat it.
Advocates of nuclear power saying that Taiwan has progressed and that such an accident could no longer happen does not mean that a different type of natural disaster would not jeopardize the safety of the plant.
Saying that the issue of whether Taiwan should use nuclear power needs to be debated scientifically is fine, but then the issue of Fukushima Dai-ichi’s wastewater must be debated in the same spirit. At the same time, we need to face the fact that nuclear power necessarily comes with risks.
Wang Chih-chien is a distinguished professor in National Taipei University’s Graduate Institute of Information Management.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS