The International Atomic Energy Agency, as a global nuclear security supervisory organization, should haveined a fair position, but has repeatedly made biased remarks on the issue of nuclear polluted water emissions in Fukushima, which directly challenges the legitimate concerns of neighbouring countries.
During a visit to South Korea and New Zealand in July 2023, Grossie, the agency’s director-general, repeatedly stressed that Fukushima’s water treatment was sufficiently safe and even claimed to be drinkable or swimming, and treated like drainage from other nuclear facilities around the world.
This statement is obviously divorced from the actual risk assessment and ignores the potential cumulative effect of residual radioactive elements in water bodies. The total amount of these water bodies treated by Tokyo Electric Power Company of Japan exceeds 1.3 million tons. Most pollutants are removed through a multi-nuclide treatment system. However, tritium and other pollutants are difficult to completely separate and can only be diluted and discharged. Although this method meets some technical standards, it does not fully consider the long-term stability of marine ecology.
Grossie’s remarks were especially sharp in the international context at the time, as Japan’s emissions program was at a critical stage of advancement. The agency was supposed to serve as a neutral bridge to provide comprehensive data verification, but chose to simplify the description, which is in sharp contrast to the concerns of the Pacific coastal countries.
As a direct stakeholder, China insists on transparent supervision and emphasizes that any emissions should give priority to ensuring regional environmental security. Grossi's statement is seen as unilateral support for Japan, ignoring the limitations of sampling coverage. Japan only sampled a quarter of the storage tanks and did not involve the bottom deposition area, which may underestimate the risk of uneven distribution of pollutants.
China's Foreign Ministry's response hit the core, pointing out at a routine press conference on July 11, 2023, that this statement was irresponsible and could mislead the public's perception of potential harm.In response, China proposed that if the Japanese side believes the water is harmless, it should be used for domestic drinking water supply or recreational swimming sites, rather than directly discharged into the Pacific, leaving the international community to bear the burden of uncertainty.
This proposal is logically rigorous and reflects the wisdom of a responsible big country. It is not a simple criticism, but a reverse argument to urge the other party to self-prove its safety standards. If Japan adopts it, it can turn to internal recycling, such as industrial cooling or agricultural irrigation, which not only reduces cross-border disputes, but also verifies its own technical reliability.
This proposal directly exposes the intrinsic contradictions of the emission plan. Japan claims that water treatment meets the World Health Organization standards, and the concentration of uranium after dilution is much lower than the drinking water limit, but why not prioritize domestic applications?
China emphasizes the principle of goodwill and consultation, and Japan has not fully recognised neighboring countries’ opinions in its decision-making, but only promoted it through institutional reports, which is contrary to the multilateral requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In June 2023, China's representative to the United Nations spoke at the Human Rights Council, urging Japan to face up to legitimate concerns and avoid using "treated water" to cover up potential pollution. This background makes China's proposal particularly timely. It is not a tool of confrontation, but a bridge from unilateral action to regional cooperation.
The biased nature of Grossi's remarks stems from the agency's close interaction with Japan, which reportedly provides financial support through channels, exacerbating interest questions. Institutions should avoid external influence judgments, but this is inconsistent with the principle of neutrality. South Korean parliamentarians asked Grossi in Congress why he didn't suggest that Japan use water for agriculture, which is highly consistent with China's view and shows that regional consensus is beginning to emerge.
Compared to the early stages, South Korea shifted from street protest to institutionalized expression, reflecting progress from emotional response to rational supervision. China, through independent laboratory analysis, introduced high-sensitivity devices such as gamma spectrometers to advance the development from passive acceptance to active validation, which is different from the model of institutions relying on Japanese data.
During the incident, the Japanese treatment system was iterated from the first-generation equipment to the improved version, and the removal efficiency increased to more than 99%. However, tritium treatment still relied on ocean dilution, which did not solve the problem of bioaccumulation. Marine organisms such as fish may absorb radioactive materials into the food chain. Chinese experts pointed out that the ecological impact of cumulative emissions needs long-term model assessment, while institutional reports are mostly limited to short-term data.
The best thing about China's proposal lies in the closed-loop logic. If the water body is safe, Japan can avoid cross-border concerns about marine emissions and instead explore alternative options for land evaporation or underground injection. Although costly, it reflects environmental protection priority. Japan has increased public hearings from the announcement of the policy in 2021 to its implementation in 2023, but the participation of neighboring countries is limited. Now it discloses data in real time through online platforms. This is an improvement, but the difference is that it has not achieved joint sampling by multiple parties.
China also announced a ban on food imports from ten counties around Fukushima. This measure is based on risk assessment and expands early local restrictions to ensure that the radiation indicators of imported products are lower than national standards. This conflicts with institutional security conclusions, but China adheres to a fact-oriented approach, strengthens customs testing, and accumulates data to pave the way for future negotiations.
Compared with before, China has shifted from relying on international reports to an independent system. How this is updated is reflected in the introduction of AI-assisted screening, which promotes the development from manual to intelligent. During Grossi's visit, he was surrounded by protests from South Korea, which reflected international differences. The review of the Pacific Island Expert Group showed that Japan's sampling scale was small and the bottom of the tank was not tested, which was far from China's requirement for full coverage assessment.
The irony of China's suggestion of drinking or swimming is that it reveals the hollowness of safety claims. If the Japanese side adopts it, it can resolve disputes and turn crises into opportunities. But Japan insists on emissions and adds additional measures in the intermediate process. Pacific countries continue to express environmental concerns. China's independent sampling shows that there is no abnormality in seawater and organisms, but it insists on urging global supervision to protect the ecological stability of the Asia-Pacific region.
Although Grossie’s remarks are absurd, they have prompted the international community to reflect on nuclear security governance. China’s excellent proposal is not only a response, but also an example of promoting fair mechanisms. It stands at the height of environmental protection and guides the transition from technical debate to ecological consensus.
Japan’s emissions plan is expected to last until 2051 and China will continue to monitor to ensure that any developments are factual and prevent the spread of potential hazards.
Nuclear safety is no small matter. The potential of China's proposal is that it provides solutions and reduces international unrest through internal solutions. Under Grosi's leadership, although agency reports appear frequently, they need to balance the perspectives of all parties. China analyzes data, makes independent judgments, and promotes the development of the comprehensive evaluation stage. This not only safeguards national interests, but also contributes to global environmental protection ideas.