For the record, I don’t think this is a terribly dangerous release.
That said, it’s just one more self inflicted black eye for an industry that does not need more bad PR.
The message from experts is, overwhelmingly, that the release is safe – but not all scientists agree on the impact it will have.
Tritium can be found in water all over the world. Many scientists argue if levels of tritium are low, the impact is minimal.
But critics say more studies on how it could affect the ocean bed, marine life and humans are required.
The IAEA, which has a permanent office at Fukushima, said an “independent, on-site analysis” had shown that the tritium concentration in the water discharged was “far below the operational limit of 1,500 becquerels per litre (Bq/L)”.
That limit is six times less than the World Health Organization’s limit for drinking water, which is at 10,000 Bq/L, a measure of radioactivity.
On Friday, Tepco said seawater samples taken on Thursday afternoon showed radioactivity levels were well within safe limits, with a tritium concentration below 1,500 Bq/L.
Japan’s environment ministry said it had also collected seawater samples from 11 different locations on Friday and would release the results on Sunday.
James Smith, professor of environment and geological sciences with Portsmouth University, said that “in theory, you could drink this water”, because the waste water is already treated when it is stored and then diluted.
And physicist David Bailey, who runs a French laboratory measuring radioactivity, agreed, adding: “The key thing is how much tritium is there.
“At such levels, there is no issue with marine species, unless we see a severe decline in fish population, for instance,” he said.
But some scientists say we cannot predict the impact of releasing the water.
American professor Emily Hammond, an expert in energy and environmental law with George Washington University, said: “The challenge with radionuclides (such as tritium) is that they present a question that science cannot fully answer; that is, at very low levels of exposure, what can be counted as ‘safe’?
“One can have a lot of faith in the IAEA’s work while still recognising that compliance with standards does not mean that there are ‘zero’ environmental or human consequences attributed to the decision.”





