THE global community should be alarmed by Japan’s release of nuclear-contaminated water into our shared ocean, and the country must be urged to reconsider this unjustified and irresponsible action.

The Japanese government, in disregard of strong criticism and opposition from the international community, unilaterally started releasing the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean on Thursday.

According to reports, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) plans to release 7,800 tons of nuclear-contaminated water in the 17-day first round of the release, aiming to discharge 31,200 tons by the end of March 2024. The discharge is expected to take at least 30 years.

As a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson has said, its impact goes beyond Japan’s borders, and the issue is by no means a private matter for Japan.

The Fukushima nuclear accident is one of the world’s most serious nuclear disasters to date. As a result, the contaminated water is known to have more than 60 radioactive elements, known as radionuclides, which makes its discharge completely different from the normal operation of nuclear power plants.

No viable technology exists to effectively treat such a multitude of nuclides, and certain long-lived variants might disperse through ocean currents, leading to unforeseeable repercussions for marine ecology and human health.

The Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), Japan’s key facility for treating nuclear-contaminated water that was put into trial operation in March 2013, has frequently experienced malfunctions. The world needs to know how to ensure the efficacy and reliability of ALPS as the facility ages.

Not only the volume of nuclear-contaminated wastewater in the plant is substantial and its composition is complex, but the disposal timeframe will last for an unprecedented duration.

The lack of credibility and scientific assessment has cast doubts on the rationale behind Japan’s 30-year release plan, and proceeding with the plan unilaterally without sincere international engagement would set an even more dangerous precedent at a time when the planet, particularly its oceans, is facing numerous challenges and threats.

Japan should have actively engaged and gathered input from all stakeholders, including domestic fishermen and the neighboring countries around the Pacific Ocean region. But it never intends to have thorough consultations with other concerned parties.

Japan “rationalizes” its release plan with only the safety assessment conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but the assessment has quite evident limitations and faces allegations of biases. The IAEA cannot prove that the ocean discharge plan is the only and optimal option for treating the nuclear-contaminated water.

There is a price to be paid for the discharge move.

One hour after Japan officially started discharging the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean Thursday, the General Administration of Customs of China announced the country will suspend the imports of all aquatic products, including edible aquatic animals, originating from Japan.

Considering that Hong Kong had already suspended imports of aquatic products from Japan, the island nation now faces the loss of its top two aquatic food export destinations, which had a combined value of over 160 billion yen (US$1.1 billion) in 2022.

Japan’s release of the water may be a long-lasting disaster for the world, in which case it will be a crime against nature and humanity. The water will spread to every corner of the world, which means other countries and regions face a threat. Hence it’s highly possible for more to follow the steps and issue bans on Japanese aquatic food. That’s the price Japan has to pay for its irresponsible move, a price much higher than its politicians anticipated.

China urges the Japanese side to consider the international community’s concerns, execute the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water in a scientific, secure and transparent manner, and accept strict international supervision.

The release of nuclear-contaminated water must cease unless a transparent monitoring system is in place.

（Xinhua)