World will watch Korean inspectors in Fukushima

A team of Korean inspectors will visit nuclear plants in Fukushima, Japan, on May 23.

The inspection tour was one of the few significant results of the summit between President Yoon Suk Yeol and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Sunday.

However, the visit will likely end up being little more than a field trip. A Japanese official said Tuesday that the inspection is "not meant to evaluate or certify" the safety of the contaminated water that is possibly going to be released into the sea.

The remark came only a day after Kishida returned to Japan.

Its intent is clear. Tokyo wanted to ensure the upcoming visit is purely observational in terms of how well Japan treats its nuclear-contaminated water before letting it flow into the Pacific Ocean. The comment was also a response to Seoul's claims of joint verification of the water's safety. Why is there such a wide gap between their positions?

There are two possibilities.

First, the Korean side might have agreed, to certain things, on a very basic level at the summit and then tried to maximize their aims through broader interpretations later. One cannot help but have a sense of deja vu. After the Korea-U.S. summit last month, Seoul described the extended nuclear deterrence as "nuclear sharing." Washington wasted no time in refuting that claim, saying that it was "not even de facto nuclear sharing." This appears to be the result of poor negotiating skills and awkward attempts to fill the void later.

Second, Korea and Japan might have agreed - if only informally - on the meaning of the inspection and its limitations, but wanted to calm the public's concerns. Before taking office, Yoon gave the impression of not caring much about that issue, citing "scientific" verification. His administration uses the word "disposal," which is synonymous with the word "release," a word that is part of Tokyo's lexicon. According to a media report, Seoul is also considering replacing the word "contaminated" with the word "treated" when referring to the water as Tokyo currently does.

This is a far cry from the previous government that studied the possibility of bringing Japan to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea if Tokyo fails to completely resolve neighboring countries' concerns. After all, this government regards the resumption of nuclear power generation as one of its most significant accomplishments. A prominent symbol of rectifying the previous government's supposed mistakes that is. The ruling party even characterizes the opposition, which is calling for a thorough verification regarding safety concerns, as trying to win political points through "unscientific" fearmongering.

However, scientists are divided on this issue.

Many agree that filtering pollutants will reduce harm to the environment to a negligible level. They note that watering down tritium, an inseparable radioactive isotope of hydrogen, can also lower its risk to a safe level. But others point to Tokyo's lack of research into tritium's impact on marine ecosystems.

Proponents say it would take one to five years for filtered and diluted matter to reach foreign shores. Opponents point to the accumulated harm that could be caused through the food chain, noting that the ocean is more unpredictable than it seems. Yet others say humans have yet to comprehend fully the actual harms caused by tritium.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said Wednesday, "If the water is safe, why does Japan not use it for industrial uses or farming irrigation at home?" An organization representing 18 Pacific Island nations said, "If it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington."

These criticisms may not be 100 percent right, objectively speaking. But they reflect the concerns of neighboring countries, especially regarding their fishing industries. Japan also subsidizes fishermen in Fukushima. The world's third-largest economy has the money and technology to seek alternatives, including land storage and vaporizing the tainted water. It must do so.

All this explains why Seoul must negotiate carefully for the scheduled trip in a working-level meeting that begins today. It must demand joint verification or a "de facto" investigation. Korea is the closest country to Japan geographically, but the farthest one emotionally. If Seoul nods or appears to do so, Tokyo will rejoice. The whole world is watching.

Source: Yonhap News Agency