Pacific civil society groups say 2025 has been a big year for the ocean.

Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) representative Maureen Penjueli said the Pacific Ocean was being hyper-militarised and there was a desire for seabed minerals to be used to build-up military capacity.

“Critical minerals, whether from land or from the deep ocean itself, have a military end use, and that’s been made very clear in 2025,” Penjueli said during the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) 2025 State of the Ocean webinar.

“They’re deemed extremely vital for defence industrial base, enabling the production of military platforms such as fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, submarines.

“2025 is the year where we see the link between critical minerals on the sea floor and use [in the] military.”

PANG’s Joey Tau said one of the developments had been the increase in countries calling for a moratorium or pause on deep sea mining, which was now up to 40.

“Eight of which are from the Pacific and a sub-regional grouping the MSG (Melanesian Spearhead Group) still holds that political space or that movement around a moratorium.”

Deep-sea mining rules
Tau said it came as the UN-sanctioned International Seabed Authority tried to come to an agreement on deep-sea mining rules at the same time as the United States is considering its own legal pathway.

“It is a bad precedent setting by the US, we hope that the ISA both assembly and the council would hold ground and warn the US.”

He said unlike US, China spoke about the importance of multilateralism and it for global partners to maintain unity within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreement which has not been ratified by the United States.

Also in February was the deep sea minerals talanoa, where Pacific leaders met to discuss deep sea mining.

“Some of our countries sit on different sides of the table on this issue. You have countries who are sponsoring and who are progressing the agenda of deep-sea mining, not only within their national jurisdiction, but also in the international arena,” Tau said.

In May, UN human rights experts expressed concern about the release of treated nuclear wastewater.

Japan’s government has consistently maintained the release meets international safety standards, and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency shows there is no measurable impact beyond Japan’s coastal waters.

Legal and moral problem
However, Ocean Vision Legal’s Naima Taafaki-Fifita said as well as being an environmental issue, it was also a legal and moral problem.

“By discharging these radioactive contaminants into the Pacific, Japan risks breaching its obligations under international law,” she said.

“[The UN special rapporteurs] caution that this may pose grave risks to human rights, particularly the rights to life, health, food and culture, not only in Japan, but across the Pacific.”

Taafaki-Fifita said it was a “deeply personal” issue for Pacific people who lived with the nuclear legacy of testing.

In September, what is known as the “High Seas Treaty” received its 60th ratification which means it will now be legally effective in January 2026.

The agreement allows international waters — which make up nearly two-thirds of the ocean — to be placed into marine protected areas.

Taafaki-Fitita said it was important that Pacific priorities were visible and heard as the treaty became implemented.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Regional leaders will gather later this month in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Tonga and high on the agenda will be Japan’s dumping of
treated nuclear wastewater in the Pacific Ocean.

A week ago on the 6 August 2024, the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima in 1945 and the 39th anniversary of the Treaty of Rarotonga opening for signatures in 1985 were marked.

As the world and region remembered the horrors of nuclear weapons and stand in solidarity, there is still work to be done.

• READ MORE: Other nuclear wastewater in Pacific reports

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has stated that Japan’s discharge of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean does not breach the Rarotonga Treaty which established a Nuclear-Free Zone in the South Pacific.

Civil society groups have been calling for Japan to stop the dumping in the Pacific Ocean, but Brown, who is also the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum and represents a country
associated by name with the Rarotonga Treaty, has backtracked on both the efforts of PIFS and his own previous calls against it.

Brown stated during the recent 10th Pacific Alliance Leaders Meeting (PALM10) meeting in
Tokyo that Pacific Island Leaders stressed the importance of transparency and scientific evidence to ensure that Japan’s actions did not harm the environment or public health.

But he also defended Japan, saying that the wastewater, treated using the Advanced Liquid
Processing System (ALPS) to remove most radioactive materials except tritium, met the
standard set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Harmful isotopes removed
“No, the water has been treated to remove harmful isotopes, so it’s well within the standard guidelines as outlined by the global authority on nuclear matters, the IAEA,” Brown said in an Islands Business article.

“Japan is complying with these guidelines in its discharge of wastewater into the ocean.”

The Cook Islands has consistently benefited from Japanese development grants. In 2021, Japan funded through the Asian Development Bank $2 million grant from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, financed by the Government of Japan.

Together with $500,000 of in-kind contribution from the government of the Cook Islands, the grant funded the Supporting Safe Recovery of Travel and Tourism Project.

Just this year Japan provided grants for the Puaikura Volunteer Fire Brigade Association totaling US$132,680 and a further US$53,925 for Aitutaki’s Vaitau School.

Long-term consequences
In 2023, Prime Minister Brown said it placed a special obligation on Pacific Island States because of ’the long-term consequences for Pacific peoples’ health, environment and human rights.

Pacific states, he said, had a legal obligation “to prevent the dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone” and “to not . . .  assist or encourage the dumping by anyone of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

“Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for
generations to come.”

The Pacific Islands Forum went on further to state then that the issue was an “issue of significant transboundary and intergenerational harm”.

The Rarotonga Treaty, a Cold War-era agreement, prohibits nuclear weapons testing and
deployment in the region, but it does not specifically address the discharge of the treated
nuclear wastewater.

Pacific civil society organisations continue to condemn Japan’s dumping of nuclear-treated
wastewater. Of its planned 1.3 million tonnes of nuclear-treated wastewater, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has conducted seven sets of dumping into the Pacific Ocean and was due to commence the eighth between August 7-25.

Regardless of the recommendations provided by the Pacific Island Forum’s special panel of
experts and civil society calls to stop Japan and for PIF Leaders to suspend Japan’s dialogue
partner status, the PIF Chair Mark Brown has ignored concerns by stating his support for
Japan’s nuclear wastewater dumping plans.

Contradiction of treaty
This decision is being viewed by the international community as a contradiction of the Treaty of Rarotonga that symbolises a genuine collaborative endeavour from the Pacific region, born out of 10 years of dedication from Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, the Cook Islands, and various other nations, all working together to establish a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. Treaty Ratification

Bedi Racule, a nuclear justice advocate said the Treaty of Rarotonga preamble had one of the most powerful statements in any treaty ever. It is the member states’ promise for a nuclear free Pacific.

“The spirit of the Treaty is to protect the abundance and the beauty of the islands for future
generations,” Racule said.

She continued to state that it was vital to ensure that the technical aspects of the Treaty and the text from the preamble is visualised.

“We need to consistently look at this Treaty because of the ongoing nuclear threats that are
happening”.

Racule said the Treaty did not address the modern issues being faced like nuclear waste dumping, and stressed that there was a dire need to increase the solidarity and the
universalisation of the Treaty.

“There is quite a large portion of the Pacific that is not signed onto the Treaty. There’s still work within the Treaty that needs to be ratified.

“It’s almost like a check mark that’s there but it’s not being attended to.”

The Pacific islands Forum meets on August 26-30.

Brittany Nawaqatabu is assistant media and communications officer of the Suva-based Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG). 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

One of Fiji’s three deputy prime ministers, Viliame Gavoka, has appealed to the country’s prime minister to review his stance on Japan’s disposal of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka supports Japan’s compliance with safety protocols outlined by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

However, Rabuka also spoke about the need for an independent scientific assessment.

He has also signed off on the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s Udaune Declaration on Climate Change, in which his fellow prime ministers of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Oslands and Vanuatu, and spokersperson of FLNKS of New Caledonia, “strongly urged Japan “not to discharge the treated water into the Pacific Ocean until and unless the treated water is incontrovertibly proven scientifically to be safe to do so and seriously consider other options like use in concrete”.

Japan has, however, already begun the release of the treated nuclear wastewater in spite of strong condemnation from the region and across the world.

Gavoka, who is also leader of the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), further highlighted the concerns of his party’s Youth section which also implored Rabuka to reconsider his position.

The SODELPA leader acknowledged the diversity of opinions within the coalition government and the allowance for conscience votes, underlining the dynamics of political relationships.

SODELPA general-secretary Viliame Takayawa is also concerned, particularly noting the view that Rabuka has taken on the role of a national leader.

He confirmed that the party intends to communicate directly with the prime minister on Tuesday to raise this pressing issue.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Japan yesterday began the decades-long release of more than one million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean in defiance of protests across the region.

Protesters in Auckland decried New Zealand’s “convenient silence” on Japan’s nuclear waste release at a rally.

Among the crowd was a young Pacific advocate who called on the New Zealand government to oppose the release.

“We’re calling for New Zealand to release a statement opposing the dump and then come up with a regional consensus that the leaders’ meeting [Pacific Islands Forum Summit] in November can accept,” said codirector Marco de Jong of Te Kuaka New Zealand Alternative.

At the Auckland protest on Friday morning, de Jong said New Zealand was taking the easy way out.

He said the government’s silence was convenient and left Pacific nations to fight on their own.

“The ocean is suffering, climate change is accelerating. And the Pacific is being rendered as a sacrifice zone, a military buffer and climate disaster area,” de Jong said.

‘Nuclear legacies’
“Things like the nuclear waste dump compound harms. There are nuclear legacies that have not been addressed. And this is part of a broader story.”

Aaron Lee, an Aucklander originally from South Korea, said the issue was causing tension back home.

“It should not be happening,” Lee said.

He said if it really was “clean water” and “clean treated wastewater”, why could not Japan use it in its agricultural lands?

Lee said protesters had been fiercely opposing the release in South Korea.

Auckland University sociology lecturer Dr Karly Burch told the protest: “it’s really important to put it in the context of nuclear imperialism and nuclear colonialism.”

“It involves targeting indigenous peoples and their lands and waters to sustain the nuclear production process,” she said.

Legal thresholds
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards were basically legal thresholds or standards, Dr Burch said.

“So they’re saying up to this amount, it’s legally allowable to pollute, it’s legally allowable to have bodies exposed to a certain amount of ionising radiation.”

“And so it’s really important that when we hear these things, when we hear these approvals, we’re thinking of them in legal terms, because that’s really what this is all about.”

She said the IAEA’s legal standards were “extremely narrow” in their focus.

The IAEA backs it’s standards the UN nuclear watchdog boss told RNZ in July 2023.

Despite assurances, protesters in and around the Pacific Ocean have hit the streets.

In Suva, hundreds of protesters gathered and chanted: “If it’s safe, put it in Japan.”

“Pacific Islands Forum, United Nations, We are the Pacific, We are angry,” protesters chanted.

And at least 16 protesters in Seoul were arrested as they attempted to enter the Japanese embassy.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

☢️ Fukushima protest march | 25/8/23#fyp #fiji #FukushimaNuclearWasteWater pic.twitter.com/zHvjem9wTD

— fijivillage (@fijivillage) August 24, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Japan’s release of more than one million tonnes of treated Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the Pacific is officially underway.

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings has confirmed that the disposal started at 1pm local time today.

“This is a big step and punctuating moment in the process of decommissioning,” TEPCO spokesperson Junichi Matsumoto told news media.

“We will have 30 years or so [to release the water], we will ensure safety and quality.

“We will accomplish this discharge, we have to buckle down ourselves and we have to do it with an intense attitude,” he said.

TEPCO said it was an important step towards decommissioning the destroyed Fukushima power plant after it was hit by a tsunami 12 years ago.

“Per day 460 tonnes is the amount of discharge. So if there are no troubles in about 17 days, 7800 cubic metres of water will be successfully discharged,” Matsumoto said.

Assurances given
Assurances were given in TEPCO’s latest media briefing that if unsafe levels of tritium were detected, the operation would stop until the water has been re-treated through its ALPS processing system and was safe.

Daily monitoring has begun and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also independently monitoring the process on site.

“So, after a sea water pump is operated regarding the vertical shaft, the monitoring will become in service,” Junichi Matsumoto said.

The treated water is being discharged “continuously”, he added.

Holding Japan ‘fully accountable’
Pacific leaders are committed to holding Japan accountable should anything go wrong, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Henry Puna said.

“We’ve done our best to get Japan not to commence the discharge, until there is full agreement that it’s verifiably safe to do so. But Japan has taken a sovereign decision.

“And you know that point is now past. What we need to focus on now is to hold Japan to account,” he said.

SHAME JAPAN!

NO FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR WASTE WATER IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN!

YOU CREATED THE PROBLEM, SOLVE IT PROPERLY ON YOUR OWN TERRITORY.

THIS REGION IS NOT YOUR DUMPING GROUND. pic.twitter.com/MK4WOeDU4c

— Pacific Feminist Community of Practice (@pacfemcop) August 15, 2023

Puna said Japan had made a guarantee that it would comply with international standards and the Pacific would be watching keenly to make sure it stayed that way.

“Since the announcement of the discharge in April 2021, our leaders have been busy engaging with Japan,” Puna said.

“The statements are very clear. Their collective statements expressing our concerns given our nuclear legacy issues and that position has never changed.”

Pacific leaders are to discuss the issue face-to-face in Rarotonga in November at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, the longest running women’s peace group in New Zealand, has called on the Japanese government to change its plan to release treated nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station into the Pacific Ocean.

The protest comes as Pacific leaders remain undecided over the controversial — and widely condemned — Japanese move as reports suggest the start of the wastewater release could begin in the next few days.

“Releasing more radioactive materials is a wilful act of harm that will spread further radioactive contamination into the global environment,”said WILPF in its protest letter sent to Japanese Ambassador Ito Koichi last weekend.

“The treated water contains tritium, which cannot be removed. Tritium will be dumped into the ocean for several decades.

“There has been no assessment of future biological impacts. Nor has there been a review of less expensive and safer alternatives.”

An RNZ Pacific report said today that the past, present and future Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chairs — known as “the Troika” — had not decided if they were for or against the imminent discharge.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) meeting in Port Vila, Vanuatu, this week has been urged to call on Japan to drop plans for the wastewater release.

Accident reminder
WILPF reminded the Japanese government in its protest letter that after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami which caused the accident at the power station, the radioactive contaminated water was treated by a multi-nuclide removal system (ALPS) and stored in more than 1000 tanks on the power plant site.

It also reminded Tokyo of its pledge about Fukushima at the time.

The Japanese government and the operating company, TEPCO, stated that this water would not be disposed of in any way without the understanding of the concerned parties and would be stored on land.

The London Convention, which Japan ratified in 1980, strictly regulates the dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean.

“Therefore,” said the protest letter, “the release of treated water is a violation of international law.

“Such an action would also damage the trust between Japan and its neighbours and the Pacific Islands.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific anti-nuclear advocacy groups and campaigners have condemned Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s backing of Japan’s plans to release over one million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean.

On Thursday, Rabuka announced he was “satisfied” with Japan’s efforts to demonstrate that the release will be safe.

He said he had read the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report which “works for us” and that he “trusts their expert judgement and monitoring process”.

He also encouraged others to read the report.

“It is my job as a leader to treasure and reassure myself and to reassure you that I am paying close attention to this,” he said.

“With Japanese friends and other partners including the IAEA, I will personally be ensuring the highest possible standards of safety and protection for our vast liquid continent and under my leadership, Fiji will continue to defend our precious Pacific home.”

The IAEA has said Japan has checked off all boxes to ensure the imminent release of the treated nuclear waste would be consistent with international standards.

AFG Fiji ‘deeply concerned’
However, the Alliance for Future Generation Fiji said it was “deeply concerned” and “condemned” Rabuka’s stance.

The group is urging Rabuka to reconsider “and take a stronger position” on the issue.

AFG Fiji said releasing treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean would have “far-reaching consequences for the entire Pacific region and beyond”.

“This action has the potential to inflict lasting damage to marine ecosystems, threatening the livelihoods of countless communities that depend on the ocean for sustenance and economic well-being.

“Our concerns regarding this matter are deeply rooted in the Pacific Ocean as a source of identity for all Pacific communities,” AFG Fiji said.

“We urge the Fiji Prime Minister and by extension, his government, to reconsider its stance and take a stronger position in advocating for the implementation of alternative, safe, and sustainable solutions for the Fukushima nuclear wastewater.

“We also urge Pacific leaders to trust the independent panel of scientific experts, appointed by the Pacific Islands Forum to review the data and information provided by Japan. As members of the global community, it is our collective responsibility to uphold principles of environmental stewardship and to prioritize the health and safety of our oceans and the lives they sustain,” the NGO said.

The campaigners are also calling on the international community to show solidarity and “demand that Japan seeks alternative solutions to handle its nuclear waste responsibly”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Independent nuclear experts have offered to drink water and eat fish from the Pacific Ocean after Japan dumps its nuclear waste water into the Pacific.

Japan is planning to ditch over one million tonnes of ALPS-treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean over 30 to 40 years starting from sometime this year.

ALPS is an Advanced Liquid Processing System.

New Zealand and Australian experts told media at an online panel discussion hosted by NZ’s Science Media Centre that Japan had good intentions.

The experts said they believed that as long as the wastewater was tested before it was released the operation would be safe.

Two even went as far as saying they would “take a sip” of the treated wastewater.

“I would drink the water. I mean, it’s like going down to the beach and swallowing a mouthful of water when you’re swimming,” said University of Auckland physics senior lecturer Dr David Krofcheck.

“It’s saltwater. I prefer the desalinated before I drink it,” he added. Dr Krofcheck specialises in nuclear physics and natural radiation from the environment.

“Would I eat the fish? Yes, I would,” Adelaide University’s School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences associate professor Tony Hooker added.

‘The least bad option’
The contaminated water has been used to cool the melted reactor of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

More than 1000 tanks are now full and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of storage space.

Japan has said it will treat the water to ensure it is harmless. It will also dilute the water and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

Dr Krofcheck said that option was the “best one”.

“That’s probably the least bad option. Not that that’s a bad option. Because the dose, or the amount of tritium being diluted is so small. But I think the least bad option is releasing,” he said.

Ocean circulation modeller and researcher in Taiwan, Professor Chau-Ron Wu, told media he predicted the water from Fukushima would take 2-3 years to reach North America, one year to get to Taiwan and sweep across much of the Pacific.

No release date has been set, but associate professor Tony Hooker said that what was known is, “The water is going to be released in [northern hemisphere] summer 2023.”

“I think the release is imminent. And I guess that will be a decision for the Japanese government. Ultimately, they can make that decision. They don’t need to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other agency.”

Associate professor Hooker said that as long as it was only tritium and carbon 14 that’s released, and in small quantities, he is confident it would be safe.

Dr Krofcheck agrees: “I’m very comfortable with releasing it, as long as we can guarantee the Royal Science Society can guarantee that the nasty strontium, caesium, iodine, cobalt 60 can be removed”.

They will be removed by an ALPS.

“So, most of the ALPS processes are using a zeolite clay and which is very absorbent. Once the water has gone through that the radionuclides are bound to a solid, you can dry that out and store it as radioactive waste,” Hooker explained.

‘I really thought they reconsider it’
There is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the release project.

Japan is in talks with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and has been providing data to their independent expert panel to analyse, which Hooker is a part of.

He acknowledged those who want to end nuclear waste dumping, which he says already happens around the world.

“Whilst there’s no issues from a radiation safety perspective about putting this radiation into the sea, should there be some level of discussion or intensive research about how we can minimise disposing into the sea in the future?”

‘Retraumatising’ for Tahitian
A Mā’ohi anti-nuclear activist in Tahiti, Hinamoeura Cross, found the news of Japan pushing forward with its plans despite backlash retraumatising.

“I’m really shocked by what the Japanese are going to do. We know that they have planned that for many years, but I really thought that they will reconsider that,” Cross said.

For her, all nuclear issues are personal. Japan’s plans are of interest in particular as they impact on her ocean, the Pacific.

“I remember my great grandmother and my grandmother that were sick. Then my mum and my auntie, they had the thyroid cancer,” Cross said.

When Cross was aged about 10, her sister got sick and at 23-years-old she was diagnosed with leukaemia.

All of the women she loves and looked up to were “poisoned” by French nuclear testing in the Pacific, she said.

Now that she is a mother of two, her voice has become staunchly against nuclear colonialism. She wants better healthcare for survivors of French nuclear testing.

“I’m anxious about the health care of my children; are they going to be sick or not? We really need this healthcare in Tahiti because of the 193 nuclear bomb (tests that France detonated in the Pacific),” Cross said.

Pacific reacts to Japan’s plans
Pacific leaders have been voicing their views on the upcoming release, which Japan says it needs to do in an effort to make progress on decommissioning the power plant.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is the latest leader to issue his support after being assured of the project’s safety by Japan.

Safety is a sentiment echoed by TEPCO, the owners of the plant.

“The release into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear (plant) would be the most realistic approach,” TEPCO Chief Officer for ALPS treated water management Junichi Matsumoto told RNZ Pacific in January 2023.

The dumping operation is expected to take between 30 and 40 years as it needs to be treated by the ALPS system and then diluted by sea water to meet regulatory standards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is reviewing the processes.

The IAEA’s latest report has found TEPCO has managed to demonstrate it can measure the radionuclides in the treated water stored on site accurately and precisely.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Independent nuclear experts have offered to drink water and eat fish from the Pacific Ocean after Japan dumps its nuclear waste water into the Pacific.

Japan is planning to ditch over one million tonnes of ALPS-treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean over 30 to 40 years starting from sometime this year.

ALPS is an Advanced Liquid Processing System.

New Zealand and Australian experts told media at an online panel discussion hosted by NZ’s Science Media Centre that Japan had good intentions.

The experts said they believed that as long as the wastewater was tested before it was released the operation would be safe.

Two even went as far as saying they would “take a sip” of the treated wastewater.

“I would drink the water. I mean, it’s like going down to the beach and swallowing a mouthful of water when you’re swimming,” said University of Auckland physics senior lecturer Dr David Krofcheck.

“It’s saltwater. I prefer the desalinated before I drink it,” he added. Dr Krofcheck specialises in nuclear physics and natural radiation from the environment.

“Would I eat the fish? Yes, I would,” Adelaide University’s School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences associate professor Tony Hooker added.

‘The least bad option’
The contaminated water has been used to cool the melted reactor of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

More than 1000 tanks are now full and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of storage space.

Japan has said it will treat the water to ensure it is harmless. It will also dilute the water and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

Dr Krofcheck said that option was the “best one”.

“That’s probably the least bad option. Not that that’s a bad option. Because the dose, or the amount of tritium being diluted is so small. But I think the least bad option is releasing,” he said.

Ocean circulation modeller and researcher in Taiwan, Professor Chau-Ron Wu, told media he predicted the water from Fukushima would take 2-3 years to reach North America, one year to get to Taiwan and sweep across much of the Pacific.

No release date has been set, but associate professor Tony Hooker said that what was known is, “The water is going to be released in [northern hemisphere] summer 2023.”

“I think the release is imminent. And I guess that will be a decision for the Japanese government. Ultimately, they can make that decision. They don’t need to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other agency.”

Associate professor Hooker said that as long as it was only tritium and carbon 14 that’s released, and in small quantities, he is confident it would be safe.

Dr Krofcheck agrees: “I’m very comfortable with releasing it, as long as we can guarantee the Royal Science Society can guarantee that the nasty strontium, caesium, iodine, cobalt 60 can be removed”.

They will be removed by an ALPS.

“So, most of the ALPS processes are using a zeolite clay and which is very absorbent. Once the water has gone through that the radionuclides are bound to a solid, you can dry that out and store it as radioactive waste,” Hooker explained.

‘I really thought they reconsider it’
There is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the release project.

Japan is in talks with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and has been providing data to their independent expert panel to analyse, which Hooker is a part of.

He acknowledged those who want to end nuclear waste dumping, which he says already happens around the world.

“Whilst there’s no issues from a radiation safety perspective about putting this radiation into the sea, should there be some level of discussion or intensive research about how we can minimise disposing into the sea in the future?”

‘Retraumatising’ for Tahitian
A Mā’ohi anti-nuclear activist in Tahiti, Hinamoeura Cross, found the news of Japan pushing forward with its plans despite backlash retraumatising.

“I’m really shocked by what the Japanese are going to do. We know that they have planned that for many years, but I really thought that they will reconsider that,” Cross said.

For her, all nuclear issues are personal. Japan’s plans are of interest in particular as they impact on her ocean, the Pacific.

“I remember my great grandmother and my grandmother that were sick. Then my mum and my auntie, they had the thyroid cancer,” Cross said.

When Cross was aged about 10, her sister got sick and at 23-years-old she was diagnosed with leukaemia.

All of the women she loves and looked up to were “poisoned” by French nuclear testing in the Pacific, she said.

Now that she is a mother of two, her voice has become staunchly against nuclear colonialism. She wants better healthcare for survivors of French nuclear testing.

“I’m anxious about the health care of my children; are they going to be sick or not? We really need this healthcare in Tahiti because of the 193 nuclear bomb (tests that France detonated in the Pacific),” Cross said.

Pacific reacts to Japan’s plans
Pacific leaders have been voicing their views on the upcoming release, which Japan says it needs to do in an effort to make progress on decommissioning the power plant.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is the latest leader to issue his support after being assured of the project’s safety by Japan.

Safety is a sentiment echoed by TEPCO, the owners of the plant.

“The release into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear (plant) would be the most realistic approach,” TEPCO Chief Officer for ALPS treated water management Junichi Matsumoto told RNZ Pacific in January 2023.

The dumping operation is expected to take between 30 and 40 years as it needs to be treated by the ALPS system and then diluted by sea water to meet regulatory standards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is reviewing the processes.

The IAEA’s latest report has found TEPCO has managed to demonstrate it can measure the radionuclides in the treated water stored on site accurately and precisely.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The global seafood market faces turmoil with the release of the Fukushima nuclear wastewater from Japan into the Pacific Ocean, computer modelling predicts.

Japan announced in 2021 it will release more than 1.25 million tonnes of treated Fukushima radioactive wastewater into the sea as part of its plan to decommission the power station when its storage capacity reaches its limit this year.

Seafood is one of the most important food commodities in international trade, far exceeding meat and milk products.

According to the United Nations Comtrade database, global seafood trade has grown from US$7.57 billion in 2009 to US$12.36 billion in 2019, an increase of 63.2 percent.

The Japanese nuclear wastewater discharge raises global worries about the safety of Japanese seafood as public opinion influences consumers’ preference for seafood.

In this empirical study involving American consumers, 30 percent of respondents said they reduced their seafood consumption following the Fukushima nuclear plant accident and more than half believe Asian seafood poses a risk to consumer health due to the disaster.

Temporary bans
Most of Japan’s seafood trading partners, such as China, Russia, India and South Korea, imposed temporary bans on food from several districts around Fukushima in the wake of the accident in 2011.

My research models the potential impact of the Fukushima nuclear wastewater disposal on the global seafood trade using the import and export data for 26 countries which make up more than 92 percent of the world’s trade in marine products.

A community classification theory of complex networks was used to classify seafood trading countries into three communities. Seafood trade is frequent among countries within each individual community and less between the communities.

The first community contains Ecuador, Italy, Morocco, Portugal and Spain. The second contains Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The third community contains China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan of China, Russia, Thailand, the United States and Vietnam.

Modelling shows China, South Korea, and the US maintain a steady trade of seafood imports and exports between them. Data used for the modelling shows that the rate of change in trade between China and Korea, China and the US and between Korea and the US is very close to zero.

However, China, South Korea and the US are expected to increase their seafood imports from Denmark, France, Norway and other community group two countries while reducing seafood exports to them. This is because these three countries have already reduced their seafood trade with Japan.

The increase in exports from community group three to community group two nations leads to a decrease in imports and exports between countries within community group two. For example, the study notes that Denmark, Norway and France are all experiencing a decrease in seafood exports and imports between each other.

While the rates of change in trade between countries look very close, the size of each country’s import and export market is different, so the actual trade volume can vary greatly.

The model also divided the global seafood market into two segments — the first being the Japanese market and the second comprising 25 other countries. It calculated that Japan’s seafood exports fell by 19 percent in 2021, or US$259 million.

Different impacts
Public opinion after the Fukushima wastewater is discharged will have different impacts on the import and export trade of seafood for each country, especially for countries which trade with Japan.

What people think (about the discharge) is closely related to the amount of Japanese seafood imported by each country. The higher the amount of Japanese seafood imported by a particular country, the more negative public opinion is likely to be, according to computer modelling.

Japanese imports of seafood will also be reduced, predicts the computer model. However, the amount of reduction depends on how well the Japanese public accepts local seafood after the discharge of the nuclear wastewater.

The Japanese government has announced it will spend US$260 million to buy local seafood products if domestic sales are affected by the release of Fukushima wastewater.

If the Japanese public is more accepting of seafood caught in waters around the discharge area, seafood imports from other countries to Japan will likely fall. However, if public opinion does not go this way, Japan will have to import more seafood to meet local demand.

Reduced imports
If 40 percent of the reduction in Japanese seafood exports is absorbed by its own market, the modelling shows this would result in a US$272 million reduction in Japanese seafood imports from other countries.

The table pictured above from the computer model shows the predicted decrease in the trade volume of seafood exports from 25 countries to Japan. The impact of seafood exported to Japan is also related to the community classification.

Countries in the same community as Japan show a more significant reduction in their seafood exports to Japan while countries not in the same community have less impact. The planned Fukushima nuclear wastewater disposal will mainly affect countries in the same seafood trading community as Japan.

These countries will see more significant reductions in their imports of Japanese seafood and in the exports of their seafood to Japan compared to countries in other communities.

Ming Wang is a doctoral candidate in econometrics, complex networks and multi-modal transportation at the School of Maritime Economics and Management, Dalian Maritime University, China. He declares no conflict of interest. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info via Wansolwara.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz