"The Chinese people and the Japanese people are united, and there is only one enemy, which is Japanese imperialism and the national traitors of China."
——Mao Zedong, May 1941
Overview#
Background
In March 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a major meltdown incident triggered by a combination of an earthquake and a tsunami. This unfortunate event damaged the cooling systems of the nuclear plant, leading to widespread radioactive contamination. Since then, the plant has been engaged in continuous water injection treatment to cool the reactors and prevent further leakage of radioactive materials. However, the injected cooling water becomes contaminated after coming into contact with the melted nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials, necessitating treatment and dilution through the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), followed by storage in specialized tanks. However, due to limited storage space, these tanks are expected to be full by the end of 2022.
Process
In April 2021, the Japanese government announced a decision to begin discharging treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean starting in August 2023. They insisted that this water is safe after ALPS treatment and meets international standards for radioactive waste disposal, as most radioactive elements have been successfully removed, except for tritium, which is difficult to eliminate and poses a lower health risk. The government also promised that the discharge process would be gradual and monitored by independent experts not influenced by the government.
On August 24, 2023, at 1 PM local time, the operator of the nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), began this operation. Meanwhile, as part of a years-long review process, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted monitoring and assessment on-site to ensure that all relevant international safety standards were strictly adhered to. The IAEA also provided real-time data on water flow rates and radiation levels.
Reactions
However, this decision sparked controversy worldwide, particularly among consumers, environmental organizations, and neighboring countries (some Pacific island nations, especially China and South Korea), who expressed strong opposition. They voiced deep concerns about the potential impact of the radioactive water on the environment and human health, while also questioning the transparency and degree of public consultation by the Japanese government in handling this issue. They further questioned the effectiveness and reliability of the ALPS treatment system and IAEA oversight.
In response, China announced on August 24, 2023, that it would ban all seafood imports from Japan due to concerns over food safety and consumer health. China described Japan's action as "selfish and irresponsible," violating international law and harming global public interests.
South Korea also strongly condemned Japan's decision and stated that it would take legal action against Japan in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. South Korea further urged Japan to halt this action and engage in open and fair dialogue with affected countries.
Japan defended its decision, insisting that it is a necessary and reasonable measure to address the Fukushima wastewater issue. They stated that they had fully consulted with all relevant stakeholders and provided ample scientific evidence to support their view that the discharged treated wastewater would not have significant radioactive impacts on humans and the environment. The Japanese government emphasized that they have always followed scientific and international standards in dealing with this crisis while also striving to maintain transparency and openness in the decision-making process.
Objective Risks#
Environmental Risks#
Japan's decision to discharge treated radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean has raised deep concerns globally regarding the marine environment and human health. As the largest ecosystem on Earth, the ocean provides various valuable resources and services to humanity, such as food, oxygen, water cycling, climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, recreation, and cultural value. The discharge of large amounts of wastewater containing radioactive substances into the ocean could cause irreversible harm to marine life, disrupt the ecological balance, contaminate the food chain, and ultimately threaten human health and well-being, which contradicts international law and human rights principles.
According to research by Greenpeace Japan, even if the Japanese government adheres to its own proposed tritium concentration discharge standards, the discharged wastewater may still pose serious hazards to marine life over time. The study also warned that carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5730 years, could accumulate in marine organisms, leading to genetic damage. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope that can enter the human body and bind with DNA, potentially causing cell mutations, cancer, and genetic diseases. However, the Japanese government has not disclosed the concentration and total amount of carbon-14 in the wastewater, nor has it conducted a thorough assessment of its potential hazards.
Furthermore, the scientific community has not universally accepted the Japanese government's assertions regarding the safety of tritium concentrations in the wastewater. As a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, tritium can enter biological organisms through drinking or inhalation, combining with elements like oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, affecting cell division and gene expression, and increasing the risk of cancer, genetic defects, and reproductive disorders. Although the Japanese government claims that the tritium concentration in the discharged wastewater will be kept below the drinking water standards set by the World Health Organization, this does not guarantee that tritium will not accumulate and spread in the ocean, affecting marine life and human health.
Even more concerning is the lack of thorough and transparent environmental impact assessments by the Japanese government regarding the wastewater discharge. They have not publicly disclosed the methods and results of long-term impact assessments on the marine ecosystem, fishery resources, food safety, and human health, nor have they adequately consulted and respected the opinions and suggestions of relevant stakeholders such as local fishermen, the public in neighboring countries, and consumers. At the international level, the Japanese government has also failed to communicate sufficiently with the international community to explain and justify the legality and necessity of the plan. Additionally, they have not provided effective monitoring and emergency mechanisms to prevent and respond to potential environmental risks.
Due to the Japanese government's lack of transparency and credibility on this issue, its wastewater discharge plan has already affected the country's reputation and seafood trade. Countries and regions such as China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand have banned or restricted seafood imports from Japan on health and food safety grounds, causing economic losses to Japanese fishermen and related export businesses, and diminishing consumer confidence in the safety of Japanese food. Surveys show that over 80% of Asian consumers indicated that if Japan discharges nuclear wastewater, they would reduce or stop purchasing Japanese seafood.
Health Risks#
Another major concern regarding Japan's wastewater discharge is its impact on human health. It is known that radiation can lead to various diseases and disorders in humans, such as thyroid problems, cancer, and genetic mutations. Although Japan and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claim that the wastewater release is safe and meets international standards because the water has been filtered to remove most harmful radioactive elements, except for tritium and carbon-14, which they assert are harmless at low doses, some studies and reports have questioned this assumption. For example, a report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) concluded that tritium is not a harmless substance but a carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen. The report also noted that carbon-14 is a potent radioactive nuclide that can lead to leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers.
Moreover, Japan's wastewater discharge could expose humans to radiation through various pathways, such as ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, and external exposure. People living near the discharge point, those consuming seafood from affected areas, or those visiting the region may face risks of radiation exposure. Even those far from Japan could be affected by global ocean currents and atmospheric winds. According to simulations by Kyushu University, radioactive wastewater could reach China's eastern coast within four months, the U.S. west coast within two years, and Australia's eastern coast within three years.
Japan's plan to discharge nuclear wastewater into the ocean began on August 24, 2023, after months of controversy and anticipation. The plan involves releasing over 1 million tons of treated radioactive water through an underwater tunnel about 1 kilometer from the coastline over the next 30 years. This water was previously used to cool the melted reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which was severely damaged by the earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
However, many individuals and countries oppose Japan's decision, citing health and environmental risks as well as moral and ethical concerns. Major objections include: tritium and carbon-14 are not harmless and could lead to cancer, genetic mutations, and congenital defects in humans and animals. The wastewater discharge could contaminate marine ecosystems and the food chain, affecting not only Japan but also neighboring countries and regions. Some studies suggest that radioactive wastewater could reach China's eastern coast within four months, the U.S. west coast within two years, and Australia's eastern coast within three years. The wastewater discharge could violate human rights and international law, as it may jeopardize the health and livelihoods of millions who rely on the ocean for food, income, and culture. Activists in some Pacific regions have called for United Nations intervention to halt Japan's plan. The wastewater discharge could damage Japan's reputation and credibility, as well as its relations with other countries. China and South Korea have strongly condemned Japan's actions and imposed import bans on Japanese seafood.
Additionally, Japan's wastewater discharge has caused psychological distress and social stigma for many affected by the Fukushima disaster. Many survivors and evacuees suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies. Many fishermen and farmers face discrimination and rejection in markets and society. Many children and women suffer bullying and harassment due to radiation concerns. The wastewater discharge could exacerbate the psychological distress and social stigma faced by many affected by the Fukushima disaster, especially those living near the nuclear plant or engaged in fishing and agriculture. Many of them suffer from PTSD, depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies. Due to radiation concerns, many also face discrimination and rejection in markets and society.
Socio-Political Impact#
The third major concern regarding Japan's wastewater discharge is its impact on human rights, democracy, and international law. Despite strong opposition domestically and internationally, Japan insists on discharging nuclear wastewater into the ocean and plans to systematically release 1.25 million tons of treated wastewater at a rate of 22 tons per day, stored in hundreds of tanks.
Although the IAEA has confirmed that Japan's actions comply with international safety standards and have minimal impact, many stakeholders criticize the lack of transparency and independent verification. Local fishermen's associations and environmental groups in Japan have launched protests and lawsuits, fearing that this discharge will affect marine ecology and the reputation of regional fisheries. Neighboring countries like China and South Korea have also expressed opposition due to potential regional security impacts. There are also concerns that Japan has failed to adequately consult with the indigenous Ainu people or fully comply with international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the London Convention.
Some have called for increased oversight and verification to ensure that the discharge meets safety standards. Others have demanded further research into potential long-term ecological impacts and urged Japan to explore alternative treatment options. Despite the IAEA and Japan's insistence that health and environmental risks are minimal, rebuilding public trust remains a challenge. In the future, continuous monitoring, open communication, and the involvement of all stakeholders will be crucial to ensure safety and social acceptability.
Shifting Contradictions#
Recently, the Japanese government's discharge of nuclear wastewater into the ocean has sparked widespread debate. Due to the complex nature of the event, key issues such as the extent of harm, the compliance and transparency of the handling procedures, and the reliability and accuracy of various data cannot yet be definitively concluded, leading to significant divisions in public opinion. One viewpoint argues that the impact of this action by the Japanese government is catastrophic from all perspectives, even potentially causing mutations in marine life, making Japan an enemy of all humanity. Another viewpoint asserts that Japan's actions are entirely compliant and safe, with no negative effects, especially with the endorsement of the IAEA, rendering such concerns unnecessary. Both sides hold firm to their positions, resulting in an intractable dispute.
How to ultimately conclude this matter remains uncertain. I am not a professional and do not intend to take sides between the emergence of mutated monsters and the absence of risk. However, based on various information, it can be judged that risks do indeed exist, but the authorities may intentionally incite nationalism or, whether intentionally or unintentionally, create public panic, leading to extreme events, which also needs to be pointed out.
Firstly, the authorities prioritize their control far more than the health of the public. This can be inferred from the government's propaganda before and after the lifting of pandemic restrictions last year. One day they were unwaveringly pursuing zero cases, and the next day they flexibly changed their strategy; previously, they claimed that the aftereffects were quite severe and had serious impacts on countries like the United States, but later stated that there was no evidence to show that aftereffects would occur.
Such flexible shifts in policy clearly indicate what they are truly concerned about.
This action, at a smaller scale, undermines public trust. At its core, it reveals the authorities' disregard for the people.
Furthermore, the authorities intentionally allow extreme nationalist sentiments to flourish. Recently, some extreme nationalist behaviors online have likely come to your attention. For instance, some extreme nationalists have harassed Japanese citizens and groups unrelated to this matter. Particularly on many short video platforms, anti-Japanese sentiments have reached a new peak. Driven by extreme emotions, the entire harm of this incident has been directed at all Japanese citizens, with blame placed on every Japanese person. However, in reality, some Japanese citizens have been protesting against their government's irresponsible actions. It must be pointed out that the primary responsibility for this disaster lies with the Japanese bourgeois government, not the citizens, many of whom are also victims. In contrast, the ideological machinery remains silent on these radical actions while being more eager to point fingers at the silent bystanders, revealing their intentions clearly. The attribution of a major disaster is not "those who are not of our kind are sure to have evil intentions," but rather the bourgeoisie.
Upholding Class Positions, Breaking Nationalist Narratives#
In summary, Japan's government action of discharging nuclear wastewater into the ocean is indeed irresponsible and should be condemned. The ensuing debate is more about differing positions. However, it should not be framed under the grand slogan of safeguarding the rights of all humanity while standing on a nationalist stance, allowing an imperialist regime to take pleasure in the situation. Marxists should be clear: whether it is unemployment, poverty, or the stark wealth gap, even the environmental issues reflected in this incident, as Marx deepened this analysis with his key concept of "mode of production" in his seminal work "Capital." Marx wrote: "The development of the productive forces at a certain stage conditions the economic structure of society, which is the real basis of social production relations." (Marx, "Capital," Volume 1, People's Publishing House, 2004, p. 4) For Marx, every different form of human society that has existed historically and globally has its specific way of organizing human labor to meet survival needs and a specific way of distributing the fruits of that labor. For example, hunter-gatherer societies are typically equal and sustainable. However, feudal or slave societies involve profound inequalities and exploitative social relations, lacking the infinite expansion and destructive dynamics of industrial capitalism. Only when the people of the world stand together can this series of problems ultimately be resolved—this is the grand goal of Marxism and should be the pursuit of Marxists.
References:
Fukushima Nuclear Wastewater: Which is Scarier, Nuclear Disaster Wastewater or Nuclear Power Plant Wastewater?
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/science-66264193
IAEA's Latest Report Focuses on Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant "Treated Water" Discharge Plan and Domestic Regulatory Situation
https://news.un.org/zh/story/2023/05/1117627
Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Wastewater Discharge Issue and Its Response - Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
http://ijs.cssn.cn/xsyj/xslw/rbsh/202106/t20210611_5340148.shtml
How Japan's Nuclear Wastewater Discharge Affects China's Waters?
https://www.chinanews.com.cn/cj/2021/04-14/9454653.shtml
Japan releases treated wastewater from Fukushima nuclear plant into Pacific Ocean
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-24/japan-fukushima-nuclear-waste-water-released-pacific-ocean/102765774
Just Like That, Tons of Radioactive Waste Is Heading for the Ocean
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/opinion/japan-fukushima-radioactive-water-dumping.html