How concerned should Malaysians be over the Fukushima radioactive wastewater release?

By D. Kanyakumari

Southeast Asia has long-standing economic ties with Japan, with countries like Malaysia importing hundreds of millions of ringgit of Japan's fish, crustaceans and molluscs each year.

But Tokyo's recent decision to discharge treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean is raising much cause for concern.

For the record, Japan's move comes more than a decade after a 2011 tsunami destroyed the plant, triggering a massive clean-up effort that involved a staggering 1.25 million metric tonnes of contaminated water being collected, treated and stored on the site in storage tanks.

Authorities have consistently touted the safety of the decision.

And Malaysia, like Singapore and so many other countries, has opted against a ban on Japanese seafood, choosing instead to "monitor" the situation.

But how safe is safe, really?

According to Universiti Malaysia Terengganu's Dr Bryan Raveen Nelson, the answer is "very", albeit with some caveats.

"The discharge process involves diluting radioactive water to background values as per International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards for exposure and consumption before release into the sea.

"(Also), since there are (thousands of) tanks, the procedure will be gradual, with the water in each tank being treated before release," the aquatic and conservation science expert says.

Still, Dr Bryan says, the public should be made aware of the processes in place, including the concentration of radiation in the released wastewater.

Sophine Tann, vice-president of Pertubuhan Pelindung Khazanah Alam (PEKA) feels, meanwhile, that the Japanese government should have evaluated the move more thoroughly before making its decision. Her reason? There is no concrete proof the water being discharged is safe.

"Firstly, you have to address the fact that when the water is released into the Pacific Ocean, it is going to affect everything everywhere. The Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and so on. Common sense tells us this water is full of radioactive chemicals," she said.

"Yes, authorities claim it has been treated, but how much contamination can truly be filtered out? The scientific community is also saying that the water is void of tritium (a radioactive by-product of nuclear reactors). But the fact is there are many other chemicals in this water which are harmful to both sea life and humans."

Hence, in Tann's view, more explanation is sorely needed.

Will toxic seafood be a thing?

For the record, according to the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the wastewater release plan will see the discharge of over a million tonnes of treated water, with each litre containing about 190 becquerels of tritium, which is well below the World Health Organisation's (WHO) limit of 10,000 becquerels per litre.

But Tann, like many others, remains apprehensive. And the constant assurances of authorities as well as Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's sushi-eating public relations stunt to dispel worries have failed to convince them.

Worse still, China has stuck to its decision to ban seafood from Japan. And that has resulted not only in Japanese fisherfolk and seafood exporters being hit hard, but the global industry also feeling the effects.

Malaysian seafood importer Rajaratnam Palanisamy, for example, says that many people he deals with have expressed concern over the current situation.

"I myself don't import seafood from Japan. But a friend of mine who does bring in several types of fish and shellfish from there recently said that his customers who run Japanese marts and those who sell the produce at markets are anxious.

"The common question is: 'Are you sure it's safe?'. That's followed by: 'Better not take the risk'. This has affected businesses and the general sentiment among us in the industry is that it will only get worse," he said.

UMT's Dr Bryan noted, however, that public anxiety is unjustified.

"The chances of background radiation affecting fish and shellfish are relatively small because firstly, the sea (around Fukushima) is deep. Some areas have a continuous 100-metre depth. Plus, there are plankton and more than enough marine biodiversity to absorb any radioactive materials.

"It's almost impossible to throw off the balance in sea life," he said.

PEKA's Tann, however, is far from convinced, noting that accumulation is an important factor which is not being highlighted enough.

Should wastewater not be discharged at all?

UMT's Dr Bryan points out that nuclear plants must always operate under strict set guidelines, including with regard to waste disposal.

Hence, so long as all precautionary measures have been taken in considering radiological risks, with appropriate seafood monitoring in place, there is no reason for Japan to halt the discharge move.

He noted, too, that decontamination efforts at and around Fukushima have continued to be made since 2011 to secure the site and ensure environmental safety, with the goal being to decommission the plant between 2040 and 2050.

Tann, though, is of the view that other alternatives should have been assessed, including creating more on-site storage for wastewater or a discharge process via controlled evaporation.

"It is the Japanese government's duty to ensure that the environment is safe and that their actions are not harmful to their people or the population anywhere else," she added.

Do you have a story tip? Email: malaysia.newsroom@yahooinc.com.

You can also follow us on Facebook, TikTok and Twitter. Also check out our Southeast Asia, Food, and Gaming channels on YouTube.