Ten years after the Great East Japan Earthquake and the resulting nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the Japanese government is proposing to release over a million tons of water used to cool the power station, which is still stored at the site, into the ocean after treating and reducing the radioactive materials.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has deemed the proposal safe, but it remains society’s grave event with opposition from domestic and international organizations. Some scientists believe the water would be diluted quickly in the ocean’s vastness, posing a low risk to human and animal health. Critics are concerned about potential harm to the environment and local communities and suggest exploring safer and more sustainable alternatives.

Despite global concerns, Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) plans to discharge the treated water from the damaged power station starting as early as this spring.

Hence, Real Research, an online survey app, launched a survey on Japan releasing contaminated water from the Fukushima power plant to the ocean to gather further views on the Fukushima radioactive water release.

Highlights:

  • Almost 90% (89.35%) of respondents are aware of the Fukushima wastewater release
  • 45.64% state that the Fukushima wastewater release is highly safe
  • 44.53% oppose Japan’s proposal to release radioactive waste

In other news related to the Fukushima radioactive water release, a recent study by the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute showed that the release of wastewater from the plant would have a negligible effect on South Korean waters. According to the study, the level of tritium in Korean waters would only rise by 0.001 becquerels per cubic meter in ten years, compared to the current average of 172 becquerels per cubic meter of tritium.

The level of public awareness regarding the potential release of wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant is high. In fact, according to a recent survey, 89.35% of people are aware of this issue, while 10.65% remain unaware. This survey is one of many that have been conducted in response to growing concerns about the safety of releasing treated water into the ocean and the Fukushima water release impact on human health and the environment.

Is It Safe? Hear What Our Respondents Say

Survey results revealed that 45.64% of respondents stated highly safe, followed by moderately safe (22.59%), somewhat safe (8.36%), barely safe (8.21%), and not safe at all (15.2%).

According to the same survey on the Fukushima radioactive water release, 15.56% of respondents said it could pose a threat to the environment and marine life, despite the low level of radioactive materials. Additionally, 12.55% of respondents expressed concern about the potential risks, given that the ocean is connected to various streams of rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water.

opinions-on-the-Fukushima-radioactive-water-release
Figure 1: Respondents’ opinions on the Fukushima radioactive water release

Furthermore, 11.08% of respondents felt that releasing wastewater into the ocean is not an appropriate solution. Some respondents were concerned that the ocean could also lead to other international waters, causing global concerns and panic, with 17.44% expressing this view. 12.81% of respondents believed that the radioactive materials are too toxic to release into the ocean.

On the other hand, 10.9% of respondents felt that releasing the wastewater into the ocean is the only viable option, given the limited storage space. Finally, 9.8% of respondents believed that releasing the contaminated water into the ocean seems feasible if the waste water is adequately treated.

Transparency Call: Pacific Islands Forum Criticized Japan’s Fukushima Wastewater Plan

Last month, five scientists who were working with the Pacific Islands Forum challenged the Tokyo Electric data they had received regarding the treated water in the tanks as being of poor quality and cast doubt on the efficacy of the purification procedure, calling it a “lack of transparency.”

Results revealed that 18.56% say the government should adhere to international standards, while 17.78% say that the government should have open and transparent communication with neighboring countries. Followed by the government should engage with international experts (13.41%) or in public consultation (13.39%). The rest say the government should commission independent assessment and monitoring (12.11%).

opinions-on-neighboring-countries-concerns
Figure 2: Respondents’ opinions on neighboring countries’ concerns

Furthermore, figure 2 suggests that a significant proportion of respondents hold the view that both neighboring countries and local fishermen have a valid reason to oppose Japan’s decision to release water, with 19.54% of respondents expressing this opinion. Meanwhile, 17.16% of respondents believe that it’s the neighboring countries are right to oppose the decision, while 13.61% believe that it’s the local fishermen are right to oppose the decision.

Conversely, a smaller proportion of respondents, 11.9%, believe that both neighboring countries and local fishermen have no reason to oppose the decision, and nearly 15.89% of respondents remained unsure or had no opinion on the matter, indicating that there is a lack of a clear consensus among the general public.

The Risks Involved if Japan Proceeds

Results revealed a majority said risks to human life (14.21%) and local communities such as the fishermen and farmers (13.99%). Followed by a risk to the environment (11.39%), a risk to marine life (11.03%), damaged international relations with Japan (9.18%), economic impacts such as loss of tourism (8.83%), and a global backlash against Japan (8.49%).

Alternatives To Releasing the Contaminated Water From the Fukushima Power Plant Into the Ocean

The survey results suggest that the general public has a range of opinions on the alternatives to releasing contaminated water from the Fukushima power plant into the ocean. The two most commonly cited alternatives are long-term storage until the level of radioactive materials drops to a safe level (22.31%) and rigorous treatment and processing of the contaminated water to remove the radioactive materials (22.27%), which are both favored by a similar proportion of respondents.

Another significant proportion of respondents (21.7%) suggested the option of evaporation of the contaminated water as a means of concentrating the radioactive materials and allowing for safer disposal. The least popular option among respondents was injecting contaminated water into deep underground formations (14.64%).

It is worth noting that a small proportion of respondents (19.08%) suggested other alternatives, indicating that there may be additional options that were not listed in the survey question.

Respondents’ Stance on Japan’s Proposal

30.69% of respondents supported Japan’s Fukushima radioactive water release, and 44.53% opposed Japan’s proposal. Whereas 24.78% remained unsure.

Respondents-stance-on-the-proposal
Figure 3: Respondents’ stance on the proposal

Methodology

Survey TitleSurvey on Japan Releasing Contaminated Water From Fukushima Power Plant to the Ocean
DurationFebruary 11, 2023 – February 18, 2023
Number of Participants10,000
DemographicsMales and females, aged 21 to 99
Participating Countries Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, China (Hong Kong) China (Macao), China (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greanada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Maldives, Maluritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar [Burma], Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.