Anxiety is rising among Japan's neighbours ahead of a plan to release treated wastewater from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Calls to boycott Japanese exports, from seafood to cosmetic products, spread across social media after the Chinese government announced it would tighten its scrutiny of food from Japan and maintain curbs on some imports.
The nuclear plant, devastated in 2011 by a magnitude-8.9 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, is set to release more than a million tonnes of radioactive water.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said a two-year review showed Japan's plan for the release would have negligible environmental impact.
But Beijing said the IAEA released its report in "haste" and it "failed to fully reflect views from experts that participated in the review".
"The conclusion was not shared by all experts," China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Authorities in Hong Kong recently said they had "repeatedly expressed grave concern about the impact of the discharge plan on food safety", and planned to impose some curbs on seafood from high risk areas once the release of wastewater begins.
While some experts dismissed these fears as government propaganda, on social media, some consumers said they were not taking any chances.
Zoey Qi, 28, said she was formerly a user of an array of Japanese products from cosmetics to clothing, but she decided to "start to boycott all Japanese products now".
She shared her boycott plan with the hope that economic losses would prompt companies to pressure the government to stop the wastewater release plan.
"I don't deny Japan has great culture and great products, but a wrong decision is a wrong decision," she said.
"I'm doing this for the ecology of the entire Earth. As an ordinary person, I just want to live a healthy and safe life."
Major Japanese cosmetics firm Shiseido Co recently saw its largest weekly stock plunge in nearly 10 months, with its shares down 6.8 per cent.
Expert says worries are hyped
Jim Smith, professor of Environmental Science at the University of Portsmouth, said the claims around the risks of Fukushima's wastewater release had "no basis in science".
"I think it's just propaganda. The politicians don't have any evidence in saying this," he said.
Japan is planning to filter the 1.3 million tonnes of wastewater sitting in huge storage tanks at the Fukushima power plant using a highly specialised filtration system, called Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS).
The process will remove 62 radionuclides from the contaminated water, and leave only one contaminant called tritium, which is difficult to separate from water.
Professor Smith said the discharge of wastewater containing small amounts of tritium has "incredibly low risks" and was already happening "all over the world" for decades.
"There is a nuclear site in China that emits more tritiated water, [and] the Cap de la Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing site in northern France releases 450 times more tritiated water into the English channel than Fukushima has planned for release into the Pacific," he said.
Professor Smith and his colleagues have studied ecosystems in lakes at Chernobyl, which are "1,000 times more contaminated than the Pacific will be from this release" and saw "no significant negative effects on the aquatic ecosystem".
However, some scientists are calling for alternative disposal methods to be considered.
Tony Hooker, director of the Centre for Radiation Research from Adelaide University, described the plan as being "controversial".
In a statement on the Science Media Centre, Dr Hooker said while "no environmental or human health impacts are likely to be observed" with the release, there is "growing questions regarding the use of the sea as a dumping ground when our oceans are already stressed and struggling".
Dr Hooker said while releasing the wastewater into the Pacific was an option, other disposal methodologies should be looked at.
Hundreds protest in South Korea
The South Korean government formally endorsed the safety of the Fukushima wastewater release plan, saying the contamination levels of water pumped out from the plant would be within acceptable standards and wouldn't meaningfully affect South Korean seas as long as the plant's treatment systems work as designed.
But citizens were not as convinced, with hundreds marching in the capital on Saturday.
Braving blistering summer heat and closely watched by police, the protesters walked in long lines through a commercial district in downtown Seoul, holding signs reading "We denounce the sea disposal of Fukushima's nuclear wastewater!" and "We oppose with our lives the sea discharge."
"Other than discharging the water into the sea, there is an option to store the water on their land, and there are other options being suggested," said Han Sang-jin, spokesperson of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, whose members accounted for many of the marchers.
He said allowing Japan to discharge the water was "like an international crime".
The protests provided a tense backdrop to a meeting between IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi and South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin.
Speaking to reporters in Tokyo on Friday before his flight to South Korea, Mr Grossi said he was aware of the unease in South Korea and was willing to communicate more actively with critics, including South Korean opposition politicians, to reduce concerns.
Hours later, he was greeted by dozens of angry protesters at an airport near Seoul.
They denounced IAEA's support of the discharge plans, holding signs reading "Dismantle IAEA!" and "Fukushima wastewater will definitely lead all humanity to disaster!"
"It makes little sense to argue that the release is okay because it does not harm humans. Animals also live in the ocean," said university student Kim Han-bi.
In his meeting with members of the liberal Democratic Party, which controls a majority in South Korea's parliament, Mr Grossi said the IAEA's review of the Japanese plans was based on "transparent" and "scientific" research.
He acknowledged concerns over how the Japanese plans would play out, and said the IAEA would establish a permanent office in Fukushima to closely monitor how the discharge process is implemented over the next three decades.
"Our conclusion has been that this plan, if it is carried out in the way it has been presented, would be in line, would be in conformity with the international safety standards," Mr Grossi said.
South Korean politicians responded by harshly criticising IAEA's review, which they say neglected long-term environmental and health impacts of the wastewater release and threatens to set a bad precedent that may encourage other countries to dispose nuclear waste into sea.
They called for Japan to scrap the discharge plans and work with neighbouring countries to find safer ways to handle the wastewater, including a possible pursuit of long-term storage on land.
The administration of President Yoo Suk Yeol has walked a fine line in its stance to Japan's discharge proposal, as it tries to improve ties with Tokyo.
But the plan has stirred anger and concern among South Koreans, prompting some shoppers to hoard excessive amount of sea salt and other items.
According to a recent joint survey by South Korea's Hankook Ilbo newspaper and Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, 84 per cent of South Koreans disapproved of the release.
In a statement released by state media on Sunday, North Korea also criticised the Japanese discharge plans, warning against "fatal adverse impact on the human lives and security and ecological environment".
The statement, which was attributed to an unidentified official in North Korea's Ministry of Land and Environment Protection, also criticised Washington and Seoul for backing the Japanese plans.
"What matters is the unreasonable behaviour of IAEA actively patronising and facilitating Japan's projected discharge of nuclear-polluted water, which is unimaginable," it said.
"Worse still, the US and [South] Korea openly express unseemly 'welcome' to Japan's discharge plan that deserves condemnation and rejection, provoking strong anger of the public."
'Nuclear is not allowed in the waters of Pacific'
Some Pacific Island nations opposed the water release over concerns about the threat to the marine environment and public health.
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the peak intergovernmental organisation representing the region, has urged the delay of the Fukushima wastewater release for the past two years.
"Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for generations to come," PIF Secretary General Henry Puna said in a recent statement.
"It is clear in my mind that more work and dialogue is needed to ensure that we all come to a common understanding on this issue."
The statement said the way forward should "involve comprehensive international consultation" with affected states, and "not only through the IAEA platform but through other relevant platforms holding the mandate on ocean and marine environmental protection".
Papua New Guinea's prime minister last month backtracked on his initial supportive position regarding Japan's release plan that led to backlash from Papua New Guineans and Pacific climate and nuclear-free campaigners.
"Nuclear is not allowed in our waters. Nuclear is not allowed in the waters of Pacific," he said during a parliament meeting.
By Jenny Cai
Original aritcle link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-09/anxiety-across-asian-countries-reactions-to-fukushima-release/102579660
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
