Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
| Environment activists on a Greenpeace ship documented a Russian navy vessel in 1993 as it pumped liquid nuclear waste directly into the East Sea. Courtesy of Greenpeace |
This is the second in a series of articles to highlight the possible effects of, and concerns over, Japan's decision to discharge radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. ― ED.
Looking back on Russian ocean dumping of nuclear wastes
By Jun Ji-hye
Japan's recent announcement of a decision to release more than 1 million tons of contaminated water from its wrecked nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean has reminded many people of Russia's use of the seas as a dumping ground for radioactive waste, confirmed in 1993 and something that shocked the international community.
What was notable then was that Japan was on the frontline of protests against Russia, demanding a stop to the dumping of radioactive waste.
The tables have been turned in 2021 as Japan said April 13 that it was preparing to release water contaminated with radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which experienced a meltdown of three of its reactors in March 2011, into the Pacific Ocean from 2023. Russia is expressing grave concern over the plan and has called on Japan to demonstrate due transparency.
This event is provoking criticism that Tokyo now has a two-faced attitude to radioactive waste dumping.
In 1993, Greenpeace exposed Russia's dumping of radioactive waste when one of its ships documented a Russian Navy vessel pumping radioactive liquid waste directly into the East Sea.
It was revealed at the time that Russia had frequently, and illegally, dumped both high- and low-level liquid and solid radioactive waste into the ocean during its years as the Soviet Union. The waste even included spent reactors from nuclear submarines.
At the time, Japan strongly criticized Russia, urging it to stop dumping the waste, and asking countries from around the world to support an international accord halting all such disposal of radioactive material.
Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia, who was part of the campaign against the Russian dumping in 1993, said Tokyo's 2021 decision to gradually release more than 1.2 million tons of contaminated water from the Fukushima plant into the Pacific Ocean was contradictory to its past protests against Moscow.
According to Burnie, Greenpeace, at the time, obtained details of communications between the Russian government and then International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Hans Blix from Oct. 3, 1993 that showed Blix knew of Moscow's plan to dump liquid nuclear waste into the East Sea.
"Within days of the exposure by Greenpeace of the Russian dumping, the Japanese government signaled its opposition and then agreed to a strict application of the International Maritime Organization London Convention, which became a permanent ban on nuclear dumping at sea in 1996," Burnie said in an email interview with The Korea Times. "The Japanese government's plans for Fukushima discharges are completely contradicted by its opposition to Russian and other sea dumping nearly 30 years ago."
The London Convention sets international standards for the disposal at sea of radioactive and industrial waste as well as that from vessels and aircraft.
 |
| University student protestors have their heads shaved outside the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, April 20, to protest Japan's decision to release contaminated water from its wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul |
When Tokyo announced its plan to release the contaminated water, it said powerful filters would remove all radioactive isotopes except tritium, which it said was harmless to people in small doses.
Some scientists have backed this, saying the plan is measured, and would have a minimal environmental impact.
But neighboring countries including Korea, China and Russia are expressing concerns, as even a slight amount of radioactive material could be harmful to people if it accumulates in their bodies over the long term.
Burnie said the only way for Japan to recover understanding on this issue is to reverse its position and commit to the long-term land storage and processing of the water.
"Working with the IAEA over the coming years to prepare plans for discharges will not prevent radioactive marine pollution, and just like the IAEA's failure in 1993, it will once again facilitate nuclear contamination of the marine environment," he said.
Rick Steiner, a marine conservation biologist in Anchorage and former professor at the University of Alaska, said claims that the ecological risks and human health concerns from the planned Fukushima water discharge were low were "highly doubtful," as the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which is responsible for the cleanup, did not admit until recently that the wastewater contained significant amounts of radioactive carbon-14.
"As C-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, and is known to bioaccumulate in marine ecosystems and cause cellular and genetic impairment, this is a very serious concern," he wrote in his contribution to the Anchorage Daily News.
He also wrote the best solution for TEPCO by far was "to build more storage tanks and continue holding all contaminated water for another 15 years or so," noting that the radioactive tritium level will decay by half during this time, and technology to remove all radionuclides will likely be developed.
"The Biden administration must urge Japan to abandon this unnecessary and dangerous plan," he wrote.
