---

"The significance of the Fukushima water release is primarily political and environmental," said Stefan Angrick, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics. The Japanese government began releasing waste water from the ruined Fukushima Daichi nuclear facility into the Pacific Ocean on August 24, and the process will continue for the next 30 years. It has been met with opposition from the United Nations human rights group, Greenpeace, South Korean citizens, and Pacific Island nations. Although it has been approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there is no way to rule out the possibility that the remaining Tritium poses a long-term life threat to human health.  

Japan decided to release the treated water in order to empty the one thousand tanks because it requires the land occupied by the tanks to construct new decommissioning equipment. They are also concerned that a natural calamity could cause the tanks to burst, so it is preferable to release the treated water gradually before it is released untreated into the ocean. Essentially, the nuclear materials inside the reactor become so hot that they begin to melt. Workers inundate the reactor with water to halt the meltdown. Approximately 350 million gallons of water have been stored on-site in over 1000 containers. Advanced Liquid Processing System was developed by the Japanese government to remove radioactive isotopes from water. "Tritium" is one radioactive isotope that cannot be removed by this process. Tritium is a hydrogen isotope. Since hydrogen is a component of water, there is no filter that can eradicate it. Tritium is naturally present in the environment and is less hazardous than other isotopes. The amount of tritium in the wastewater mixtures is anticipated to be well below the World Health Organization standards for drinking water quality – 1500 becquerels per liter versus the WHO limit of 10,000 becquerels per liter, levels comparable to those in water released from normally operating nuclear power plants in China, the United Kingdom, and Canada. 

The Chinese ban on Japanese seafood imports has political backdrop and economic consequences. Hong Kong, the financial center of Asia, and Macau, the casino center, both under Chinese rule, have banned imports from ten Japanese regions. However, Japan's total export is dominated by 100 trillion-yen worth of automobiles and machinery, so the seafood export prohibition is negligible. From China's perspective, they import seafood mainly from Russia ad India. Therefore, a ban on the import of seafood is more of a political than an environmental decision. China, North Korea, and Russia have immediately lashed out at Japan’s decision to release contaminated water due to its close military ties with South Korea and the United States. North Korea asserted that Japan bribed the United Nations to make such a selfish decision. The South Korean government has welcomed the IAEA's decision regarding the disposal of Fukushima's contaminated water, but their citizens have been vocal in their opposition. They broke into the Japanese embassy while carrying a banner that read, "The sea is not Japan's trush-bin." South Korea's government has a policy against pollution in sea water, but they are supportive of Japan's decision. Human rights activists and the opposition party in South Korea have broken the silence. The concern of Pacific islanders is that no one can prevent the devastation the disposal can cause to human lives, which will have long-term effects on their fishing businesses and lives. Because the hazards associated with Tritium were tested on mice and rats, which led to cancer and infertility, but the effects on human lives are not yet known. Kenneth Buesseler is a prominent scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a marine radiochemist. Because the water is in direct contact with the molten coil, according to Buesseler, it is exposed to more radiation than cooling water in typically functioning nuclear reactors. 

Therefore, the water will need to be treated multiple times to meet Japan's promised health standards. Experts are of the opinion that Japan should not opt for the cheapest and most politically viable options, but should instead retain the water and wait for new technologies to purify it. Japan must remember its international responsibility to prevent transboundary environmental damage. Inadequate radiological and ecological impact assessments can cause severe damage to the ocean floor and marine life, including the marine food chain. 

Debi Karmakar, Is a Research Assistant at CGS