Ever since the Japanese government announced plans to release contaminated water from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant into the ocean, the governments of countries throughout the world have been expressing their positions on the issue.
Close to home, farmers and fishers in China and South Korea, as well as in Japan itself, have expressed serious concern about and strong objections to the plan, while the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have supported the science behind it.
It is worth looking at each of these positions and exploring their merits.
One of the biggest problems is the terminology used in the media, the majority of which are employing phrases such as “wastewater from the nuclear accident.”
The standard for releasing nuclear wastewater is dilution with seawater followed by processing through a multi-nuclide removal facility using an advanced liquid processing system (ALPS).
The veracity of the information notwithstanding, the plant is reporting that with the exception of traces of the radioactive isotopes tritium and carbon-14, which cannot be removed, the treated water at the site has almost reached levels at which it can be released.
According to international data on the health effects of radiation, tritium and carbon-14 are common in human living environments, and the effect they have on health runs from minimal to virtually negligible.
Assuming that the plant’s data are accurate, the diluted water would be purer than drinking water — with the exception of its salinity — and its radionuclide concentration would be completely different from before it was treated.
It is important to accurately reflect this difference in the terminology.
The media and politicians in the various countries, perhaps because they do not completely understand the situation, are using the term wastewater to refer to treated and untreated water.
This can easily lead to misunderstandings among the general public, which does not have ready access to this kind of information, and cause panic.
Of course, a major prerequisite is that the plant is not inaccurately reporting the data.
As a result, the currently available data cannot be used as a basis to call on the Japanese government to not proceed with its plan, and this is why international organizations and the US are supporting it.
However, this is not to say that there are no problems with releasing the treated water from the Fukushima plant.
First, in terms of the science, more data on the estimated health risks of the treated water are needed. It might be that many health risks do exist, it is just that it has not been determined what they are.
This is something the Japanese government needs to think about very carefully, on the principle of prevention.
Second, the quality of the treated water must be subjected to stringent monitoring by Japan and the rest of the world before it is released.
That there does not seem to be any problem with the treated water does not offer any guarantees that it will never be problematic.
There have been many cases of state and private enterprises in Japan being obliged to apologize for reporting false information. With the situation at hand — the release of material following a highly contaminating accident — there can be absolutely no mistakes.
Third, many countries around the world have nuclear power plants, each with their own regulations on how they store and release treated water.
However, the atmosphere and the oceans into which the water is released are the common property of the world.
Therefore the boundaries and legal responsibility for managing these high-risk technologies need to be discussed and regulated globally, and the international community should implement covenants governing this process, with countries that produce accidents liable for national budget-level fines.
This might lead to the safety of nuclear power technologies being taken more seriously, and would add internal costs to their external costs.
In terms of the responses from countries around the world, perhaps the policy adopted by the US is the most worth considering.
In purely scientific terms, it has acknowledged the technical viability of the plan and was therefore left with little alternative but to support it.
However, at the same time, it still has concerns over the implementation of the plan and has increased restrictions on Japanese food that could potentially be affected, thereby applying pressure on Japan’s decisionmaking through commercial channels.
These are the repercussions that Japan would still have to contend with.
The plan to release the treated water into the oceans is technically viable, but the communication of risk, judged by the reactions of the international public, is not widely trusted.
The Japanese government must strictly monitor the quality of the water it releases. It should take steps to prevent risk and amend its plans accordingly.
Last, everyone is free to decide for themselves whether to support the move, but there are some terms and concepts that cannot be confused, as this would lead to misunderstanding.
Those who oppose the plan in Taiwan and in other countries that have nuclear power plants should remember that should this treatment process developed by the Japanese plant work, it would be wise for all countries with nuclear power plants to deploy such capabilities in case a similar accident occurs in their own country, as there is always the potential that it could.
Weng Yu-chi is the director of the Research Institute for Sustainable Civilization.
Translated by Paul Cooper
On Tuesday, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a statement criticizing Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a student from Shanghai’s Fudan University, saying she had offended the sensibilities of Taiwanese. It also called for the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation — established by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — which had organized the tour group, to remind group members to be careful with their statements. Song, during a visit to a baseball stadium in Taichung, said that the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team (中國台北隊) ... we wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and
“Integrated Diplomacy” (總和外交) is the guiding principle of Taiwan’s current foreign policy. It seeks to mobilize technology, capital and talent for global outreach, strengthening Taiwan’s international connections. However, without a robust information security mechanism, such efforts risk being reduced to superficial courtesy calls. Security clearance serves as the “entrance examination results” for government agency personnel in sensitive positions, qualifying them to access sensitive information. Senior aides in the US Congress must also possess security clearance to assist lawmakers in handling classified budgets. However, security clearance is not an automatic right or a blanket necessity for accessing sensitive information. Access is granted only
Late on Tuesday evening, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law. A BBC analysis cited as reasons the opposition parties’ majority in the National Assembly, their continued boycott of the national budget and the impeachment of key officials and prosecutors, leading to frequent government gridlock. During the years that Taiwan and South Korea traveled the road to democratization, our countries hit many potholes. Taiwan cannot return to the Martial Law era. Despite the similarities in our authoritarian past, Yoon’s political travails are far removed from the issues Taiwan faces. Yoon’s actions are a wake-up call to the world about
Imagine that you are fully conscious, but your family, friends and healthcare workers all believe you are vegetative. You hear people discussing euthanasia, cessation of medical treatment, or moving you to a long-term care facility, none of which are able to monitor for signs of recovery. Illness is intrinsically terrifying, but nothing terrifies more than to be fully aware while those you love and those who decide your medical fate regard you as nothing more than an insentient collection of water, calcium and organic molecules. Fifteen years ago, it was discovered that more than 40 percent of patients diagnosed as
RSS