Independent nuclear experts have offered to drink water and eat fish from the Pacific Ocean after Japan dumps its nuclear waste water into the Pacific.

Japan is planning to ditch over one million tonnes of ALPS-treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean over 30 to 40 years starting from sometime this year.

ALPS is an Advanced Liquid Processing System.

New Zealand and Australian experts told media at an online panel discussion hosted by NZ’s Science Media Centre that Japan had good intentions.

• READ MORE: Other Japan nuclear waste reports

The experts said they believed that as long as the wastewater was tested before it was released the operation would be safe.

Two even went as far as saying they would “take a sip” of the treated wastewater.

“I would drink the water. I mean, it’s like going down to the beach and swallowing a mouthful of water when you’re swimming,” said University of Auckland physics senior lecturer Dr David Krofcheck.

“It’s saltwater. I prefer the desalinated before I drink it,” he added. Dr Krofcheck specialises in nuclear physics and natural radiation from the environment.

“Would I eat the fish? Yes, I would,” Adelaide University’s School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences associate professor Tony Hooker added.

‘The least bad option’
The contaminated water has been used to cool the melted reactor of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

More than 1000 tanks are now full and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of storage space.

Japan has said it will treat the water to ensure it is harmless. It will also dilute the water and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

Dr Krofcheck said that option was the “best one”.

“That’s probably the least bad option. Not that that’s a bad option. Because the dose, or the amount of tritium being diluted is so small. But I think the least bad option is releasing,” he said.

Ocean circulation modeller and researcher in Taiwan, Professor Chau-Ron Wu, told media he predicted the water from Fukushima would take 2-3 years to reach North America, one year to get to Taiwan and sweep across much of the Pacific.

No release date has been set, but associate professor Tony Hooker said that what was known is, “The water is going to be released in [northern hemisphere] summer 2023.”

“I think the release is imminent. And I guess that will be a decision for the Japanese government. Ultimately, they can make that decision. They don’t need to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other agency.”

Associate professor Hooker said that as long as it was only tritium and carbon 14 that’s released, and in small quantities, he is confident it would be safe.

Dr Krofcheck agrees: “I’m very comfortable with releasing it, as long as we can guarantee the Royal Science Society can guarantee that the nasty strontium, caesium, iodine, cobalt 60 can be removed”.

They will be removed by an ALPS.

“So, most of the ALPS processes are using a zeolite clay and which is very absorbent. Once the water has gone through that the radionuclides are bound to a solid, you can dry that out and store it as radioactive waste,” Hooker explained.

‘I really thought they reconsider it’
There is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the release project.

Japan is in talks with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and has been providing data to their independent expert panel to analyse, which Hooker is a part of.

He acknowledged those who want to end nuclear waste dumping, which he says already happens around the world.

“Whilst there’s no issues from a radiation safety perspective about putting this radiation into the sea, should there be some level of discussion or intensive research about how we can minimise disposing into the sea in the future?”

‘Retraumatising’ for Tahitian
A Mā’ohi anti-nuclear activist in Tahiti, Hinamoeura Cross, found the news of Japan pushing forward with its plans despite backlash retraumatising.

“I’m really shocked by what the Japanese are going to do. We know that they have planned that for many years, but I really thought that they will reconsider that,” Cross said.

For her, all nuclear issues are personal. Japan’s plans are of interest in particular as they impact on her ocean, the Pacific.

“I remember my great grandmother and my grandmother that were sick. Then my mum and my auntie, they had the thyroid cancer,” Cross said.

When Cross was aged about 10, her sister got sick and at 23-years-old she was diagnosed with leukaemia.

All of the women she loves and looked up to were “poisoned” by French nuclear testing in the Pacific, she said.

Now that she is a mother of two, her voice has become staunchly against nuclear colonialism. She wants better healthcare for survivors of French nuclear testing.

“I’m anxious about the health care of my children; are they going to be sick or not? We really need this healthcare in Tahiti because of the 193 nuclear bomb (tests that France detonated in the Pacific),” Cross said.

Pacific reacts to Japan’s plans
Pacific leaders have been voicing their views on the upcoming release, which Japan says it needs to do in an effort to make progress on decommissioning the power plant.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is the latest leader to issue his support after being assured of the project’s safety by Japan.

Safety is a sentiment echoed by TEPCO, the owners of the plant.

“The release into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear (plant) would be the most realistic approach,” TEPCO Chief Officer for ALPS treated water management Junichi Matsumoto told RNZ Pacific in January 2023.

The dumping operation is expected to take between 30 and 40 years as it needs to be treated by the ALPS system and then diluted by sea water to meet regulatory standards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is reviewing the processes.

The IAEA’s latest report has found TEPCO has managed to demonstrate it can measure the radionuclides in the treated water stored on site accurately and precisely.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

While ostensibly about improving Aotearoa New Zealand’s water infrastructure, the government’s proposed Three Waters reforms have instead become a lightning rod for political division and distrust.

Critics cite concerns about local democracy, de facto privatisation and co-governance with Māori as reasons to oppose the Water Services Entities Bill currently before Parliament.

With the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch now proposing an alternative plan, the reforms may be far from a done deal.

• READ MORE: The UK’s water industry is broken – here’s how to fix it
• 11,000 litres of water to make one litre of milk? New questions about the freshwater impact of NZ dairy farming
• If we want to improve NZ’s freshwater quality, first we need to improve the quality of our democracy

But behind the debate lies an undeniable truth: clean water is a necessity of life. In fact, 20 years ago this month the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights first affirmed that water is a human right.

The anniversary is a timely reminder of what Aotearoa’s proposed water reforms are essentially about.

Covering drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (hence the “three waters” label), the reforms would have a wider remit than the human right to water. They fold in environmental and cultural considerations alongside public health concerns.

But the human right to water, as well as lessons learned from implementing that right, have important implications for the Three Waters debate, not least around water quality and affordability.

An alternate three waters plan has been proposed by the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch, with control and ownership remaining with local councils, and the type and degree of iwi involvement decided locally.https://t.co/prVSbJuuSL

— RNZ (@radionz) October 31, 2022

A fragile right
By acknowledging it to be a human right in 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights argued water is indispensable for leading a dignified life and essential for other human rights.

Since then, the human right to water has been repeatedly declared, including by the UN General Assembly and the European Union. This right is included in the constitutions and laws of numerous countries.

Despite this, 1 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water, and six out of ten people live with inadequate sanitation. More than 2 billion people live in areas of water scarcity, likely to become an even bigger issue due to climate change.

The human right to water covers five essential factors:

• access to enough water for drinking, personal sanitation, washing clothes, preparing food, personal and household hygiene
• water that is clean and won’t cause harm
• the look and smell of water should be acceptable
• water sources should be within easy reach and accessible without danger
• the cost should be low enough to ensure everyone can buy enough water to meet their needs.

Access and affordability
Internationally, there is evidence that the adoption of a human right to water has made a difference. In South Africa, where access to sufficient water is a constitutional right, the courts have repeatedly referred to the human right to water when determining government obligations around water services.

In 2014, the first European Citizens’ Initiative pushed the European Union to exclude water supply and water resources management from the rules governing the European internal market. This means EU citizens have a stronger voice in water governance decisions.

In 2016, Slovenia became the first EU country to make access to drinkable water a fundamental right in its constitution.

New Zealand’s Three Waters reforms are not unrelated to these basic issues of safety, accessibility and affordability. They aim to address significant problems with the country’s existing water services model, including ageing infrastructure, historical under-investment, the need for climate change resilience, and rising consumer demand.

These all require a serious programme of water service transformation — one the government believes is beyond what local councils (which currently administer most water assets) will be able to deliver.

The projected cost is estimated at between NZ$120 billion and $185 billion (on top of currently planned investment), rolled out over the next 30 years.

Three Waters debates need to be based on fact – Ardernhttps://t.co/mNtkdKTjpw pic.twitter.com/NxvlJgtpeR

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) July 20, 2022

Ambition and equity
One way or another, the work has to be done. Last year elevated lead levels were found in the water in east Otago. Ageing infrastructure and increasing demand are likely to increase the risk of similar incidents unless expensive upgrades are undertaken.

Without reform, the government argues, the huge cost of those upgrades will be unevenly spread across households, with a substantially higher burden on rural consumers.

To be affordable and equitable for everyone, therefore, the Three Waters plan involves creating four publicly owned, multi-regional entities. These will benefit from greater scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility compared to local councils.

But because councils could still contract out water services for 35 years, concerns have been raised about the potential for creeping privatisation.

Indeed, similar concerns, including failed attempts to privatise water services in other countries, were a significant catalyst for asserting the human right to water more than two decades ago.

While international acknowledgment of water as a human right doesn’t automatically create binding obligations on New Zealand’s government, it can still inform the Three Waters debate.

Over the past 20 years, many of the benefits of this right have accrued from its ability to focus attention on securing high-quality and sustainable water services for everyone. That remains an essential ambition for New Zealand in 2022 and beyond.

Dr Nathan Cooper is associate professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.