The waste water tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are almost full.Philip Fong/AFP via Getty Images Hide title
switch tracks
Philip Fong/AFP via Getty Images
The waste water tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are almost full.
Philip Fong/AFP via Getty Images
Japanese workers have begun dumping treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific. Water has accumulated since the factory was destroyed by the 2011 earthquake and massive tsunami.
On Thursday, the Chinese government announced an immediate suspension of imports of seafood and other aquatic products from Japan.
Check byUnited Nations nuclear regulatory agencyAccording to the discharge, the radioactive impact on humans and the environment is negligible, but some countries remain concerned. Here's what the Japanese government is doing and why.
Why is there water in the Fukushima nuclear power plant?
After the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, several reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant melted down. To prevent another disaster, workers flooded the reactor with water that soon became heavily contaminated. The plant is now out of service and the reactor has been shut down but still needs to be cooled, which is why waste water continues to accumulate. In the years after the accident, groundwater also entered the site, which was also partially contaminated.
Dealing with all this radioactive water is a major engineering challenge for the Japanese government. According to Japanese authorities, around 350 million gallons are currently stored in more than 1,000 tanks on site. The government said the water tanks were almost exhausted and the site could no longer accommodate them, requiring some of the water to be drained.
Japan has set up a complex system for filtering radioactive pollutants in the water. However, some forms of radiation cannot be filtered.Philip Fong/AFP/Getty Images Hide title
switch tracks
Philip Fong/AFP/Getty Images
Japan has set up a complex system for filtering radioactive pollutants in the water. However, some forms of radiation cannot be filtered.
Philip Fong/AFP/Getty Images
Can't you just filter radioactive particles out of the water?
The government has been working on sophisticated filtration systems to remove most of the radioactive isotopes from the water. It's called the Advanced Liquid Treatment System, or ALPS for short, and it removes various radioactive pollutants from the water.
Authorities have used ALPS and other systems to remove some of the most dangerous isotopes, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90.
But there was one radioactive isotope they couldn't filter out: tritium. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that is part of water itself (H20). Therefore, it was impossible to design a filter that would remove tritium.
Restoration of Fukushima
Restoration of Fukushima
In rural Fukushima, 'the line between apes and humans is blurred'
How does the Japanese government intend to safely drain this water?
The program consists of several parts. First, they dilute the water with seawater, so each drop contains much less tritium. The government says it will keep tritium levels well below all safe limits and below levels at some operating nuclear power plants. Second, they transported the diluted water through an underwater tunnel to a point off the coast of Fukushima in the Pacific Ocean. This will dilute it even more.
Eventually they will do it slowly. It will take decades to empty all of these tanks.
Members of South Korea's main opposition party, the Democratic Party, hold electric candles and a sign that reads "No use of Fukushima's nuclear-contaminated water!" At a rally against Japan's plans on Wednesday. Other Pacific states are also concerned about the release.Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images Hide title
switch tracks
Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
Members of South Korea's main opposition party, the Democratic Party, hold electric candles and a sign that reads "No use of Fukushima's nuclear-contaminated water!" At a rally against Japan's plans on Wednesday. Other Pacific states are also concerned about the release.
Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
Anyone else find this process safe?
The Japanese government insists tritium isn't that bad, especially when compared to some of the other radioactive materials at the site. Its radioactive decay is relatively weak, and since it is part of water it can actually pass through living organisms relatively quickly. It has a half-life of 12 years, so it doesn't last as long in the environment as elements like uranium-235, which has a half-life of 700 million years.
Taking all this into account, the government considers this to be the safest option.
Asia
Seafood safety concerns rise as Japan diverts Fukushima water into Pacific Ocean
The program has been peer reviewed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and found to meet international safety standards. The IAEA also plans independent monitoring to ensure safe discharges.
“The risk is really, really small. I don't think it's a risk at all," said Jim Smith.Professor of Environmental Sciencesat the University of Portsmouth. In recent decades he has studied radioactivity in waterways following nuclear accidents, including Chernobyl.
"I think we need to put radiation and plant radiation in perspective -- if we're doing it right -- so that the burden on humans and the burden on ecosystems isn't huge," Smith said.
Restoration of Fukushima
Fukushima turned those grandparents into rabid radiation testers
Restoration of Fukushima
After the 2011 disaster, Fukushima turned to solar energy. This is not the case in the rest of Japan
Edwin Lyman isDirector of Nuclear Energy SecurityJapan has limited options for this sewage, and none of them are good, but: "Unfortunately, in my opinion, their current plan is probably the least bad." A lot of bad decisions," he said.
"The idea of deliberately releasing pollutants into the environment, into the oceans, is repellent," Lehman said. "But unfortunately, from a technical point of view, it's difficult to claim that the impact of these types of emissions would be worse than what happens at operating nuclear power plants around the world."
But not everyone agrees that draining water is the best option. ken buseller,senior scientistScientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution believe it's best to keep the contaminated water on land "where it's easier to monitor." Options could include mixing it in concrete to keep it in place.
Busseler does not believe the water poses a threat to the Pacific. "We do not expect any large-scale direct impacts on human health or marine life," he said. However, he posits that over time, non-tritiated pollutants that the ALPS system misses could accumulate near shore.
"In the long term, the accumulation of radioactivity in non-tritiated form in the coastal region of Japan could be affected," he said. This could ultimately harm the fisheries in the region.
Busseler is concerned about the message to other countries that may be interested in dumping nuclear waste at sea.
How have other countries reacted to Japan's decision?
Other countries also expressed concern about Japan's plans. Public protests against the decision have increased in South Korea.
Buesseler forPacific Islands ForumA coalition of nations including the Marshall Islands and Tahiti are also concerned about Japan's decision. He pointed out that many of these countries suffered from high fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing during the Cold War. "There are some islands that they can't go back to because of the legacy pollution," said Busseler.
Also, "in many ways, they are more affected by climate change and sea-level rise than the rest of the world," he said. From their point of view, the release of Japan into the Pacific was "just an insult, also an insult to the environment".