On Tuesday last week, Japan announced that it would treat radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant to reduce the concentration of the radioactive hydrogen isotope tritium to a 40th of the Japanese standard before releasing the water into the ocean in the next few years.
The International Atomic Energy Agency and the US government support the decision, while South Korea has expressed strong objections. In Taiwan, local media outlets reported that the Atomic Energy Council “expressed regret” over the decision.
However, nobody — Taiwan included — is in a position to protest.
The Japanese position is that tritium cannot be removed, and if the water is to be released into the ocean, it must be diluted to below the accepted standard, consistent with the practice followed by nuclear power plants worldwide.
South Korea’s Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant, for example, has since October 1999 released more than 6 gigabecquerels of tritium into the Sea of Japan, more than six times the amount of radiation in the treated water stored at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. In 2016, Wolseong released about 23 megabecquerels of tritium. The Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County releases about 40 megabecquerels every year.
The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry committee that reviewed the wastewater treatment method said that the entire amount is to be released into the ocean or the atmosphere, and that the levels of radiation exposure would be low and the impact of this radiation extremely small.
The amount of tritium retained in the treated water would be 860 megabecquerels, and would be released into the ocean within the space of a year, at a dose of 0.62 microsieverts. The average person is exposed to about 210 microsieverts of ionizing radiation from nature every year. That means the radiation concentration in the water treated at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant is less than one-1,000th of that found in nature.
Measurements from other nuclear plants around the world serve as a reference. In Canada, the Bruce A and B Nuclear Generating Stations release about 892 megabecquerels per year, while the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station releases about 241 megabecquerels, compared with the 2.2 megabecquerels released by Fukushima Dai-ichi in 2010. China’s Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant releases about 42 megabecquerels per year.
The treated water tanks at Fukushima Dai-ichi are expected to be full by summer next year, and so the government needs a way to release the water. Since the solidified fuel in the reactors still needs to be cooled, water continues to be contaminated, and Japan must find a solution.
Within Japan, objection to the policy comes from the Japanese Communist Party, with members representing “citizens’ groups” that occasionally organize protests reported in the anti-nuclear newspaper the Asahi Shimbun, without mentioning the party’s involvement.
On Oct. 19 last year, the Fukushima edition of the paper ran a report on a protest of the release of the wastewater into the ocean. The demonstration was attended by 10 people, but as it was reported in the newspaper, it had quite an impact.
Politicians trying to politicize scientific issues is nothing new. As a scientific institution, the Atomic Energy Council disregarded that its own power plants release water containing traces of tritium into the ocean, and expressed “regret” at Tokyo’s decision. It was hardly in the national interest to do so.
Paul Liu is a retired Taiwan Power Co engineer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS