In 2011, a major earthquake occurred in Japan; it registered at a 9.0, the strongest the country has ever witnessed.[1] After the incident, a tsunami was triggered that was around 30 meters in height and strong enough to reach 5 kilometers inland.[2] The tsunami caused 19,747 deaths and immense damage to Japan, specifically in the northern Honshu[3] area.[4] In the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPS) in Fukushima, Japan, the tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling system of three of the site’s reactors.[5] Several workers died due to the earthquake and tsunami.[6] The incident caused radioactive isotopes—such as iodine-131, cesium-134, and cesium-137—to be dispersed into the air, led to radioactive waste leaking into the Pacific Ocean, and resulted in a deterioration of public perception of nuclear energy and safety.[7]
The event resulted in nuclear waste that needed to be disposed of in some way. Twelve years after the 2011 incident at the FDNPS, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s autonomous nuclear safety arm, approved the release of treated water stored at the station into the sea.[8] The IAEA confirmed that such plans satisfied its own safety standards,[9] presenting a report that claimed such dumping would be of negligible harm.[10] The report was created over a multi-year period by a task force of experts from over 10 nations.[11] The task force also created six technical reports[12] and conducted “five review missions to Japan.”[13] In these missions, the task force often met with Japanese officials and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO),[14] whose treatment via an Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) removed nearly all radioactivity, aside from tritium, from the waste.[15]
Tritium, the key exception in the otherwise efficient ALPS system, is frequently cited in debates over the controversial Fukushima wastewater discharge. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission describes tritium as a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen, as well as a byproduct of electricity generation in nuclear power plants.[16] Tritium is generally hazardous only when ingested[17] and primarily affects those near nuclear sites.[18] Although naturally present in water, it can pose a cancer risk to humans[19] and fish.[20] However, in this case, the wastewater is diluted with seawater, reducing its radiation level to “one-fortieth of Japan’s safety standard and one-seventh of the World Health Organization’s drinking water limit.”[21] So, while skepticism and concern are understandable, the tritium levels discharged from Fukushima were within safe limits.
The Fukushima nuclear dumping quickly spurred regional condemnation. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) signaled its disapproval by summoning a Japanese diplomat,[22] and commenting disparagingly on the plan.[23]
Japan would later have to summon a Chinese diplomat after receiving post-dumping uproar and harassment.[24] Chinese media likewise portrayed the event negatively, labeling it as “extremely irresponsible” and “an atrocity.”[25] Meanwhile, a social media campaign emerged in China, heavily criticizing the discharge with seemingly premeditated unity.[26] Beijing further condemned Tokyo, calling the government “a saboteur of the ecological system and a polluter of the global marine environment.”[27]
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), although having left the IAEA,[28] joined Beijing in critiquing Japan’s discharge, with a statement from the country’s Land and Environment Protection Department saying, “The just international community must not sit and watch the evil, anti-humanitarian and belligerent action by the corrupt force that is trying to disrupt humanity’s home of the blue planet – and must unite to thoroughly stop and destroy them.”[29]
Both critiques should be examined in the light of their respective countries’ own track records when it comes to safeguarding the environment. China is the foremost emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world,[30] as well as the world’s largest plastic polluter.[31] Shortly after expressing concerns about the negative effects of Japan’s actions on aquaculture,[32] China went on to impose a ban on all Japanese seafood imports.[33] However, China’s largest river, the Yangtze, has well-known pollution issues,[34] as does its largest lake, the Qinghai, which contains more microplastics than its inflowing rivers and has had microplastics detected in fish.[35]
Chinese aquaculture is significantly impacted by pollution due to improper waste management and high stocking densities, leading to deteriorated water quality and ecosystem degradation.[36] The excessive nutrient load from overfeeding, inadequate waste treatment, and antibiotic misuse contribute to harmful algal blooms and water eutrophication, which compromise aquatic health and reduce fish quality. While tritium entering waterways in Japan would indeed have been concerning, China’s Fuqing power plant in the coastal Fujian province releases approximately three times more tritium into the Pacific Ocean than the amount planned for discharge from Fukushima.[37]
North Korea, like China, possesses nuclear weapons,[38] notwithstanding a slew of international violations.[39] North Korea withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons[40] and has not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.[41] Additionally, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), also known as the Moscow Treaty, is an international agreement aimed at banning nuclear weapon test explosions in the atmosphere, outer space, underwater, or any other environment if they cause radioactive debris outside the territorial limits of the state conducting the test.[42] This treaty remains relevant in the context of North Korea.
North Korea's first nuclear test site in Kilju, North Hamgyong Province, has reportedly been severely contaminated, with significant effects on agriculture in the province.[43] Past nuclear tests have also led to radioactive contamination of drinking water, impacting both aquatic and terrestrial animals and causing large-scale die-offs and long-term health risks.[44] The Tumen and Chongchon rivers have been similarly affected by chemical pollution from industrial plants.[45]
In short, North Korea's nuclear activities have raised significant health and environmental concerns. Reports detail that residents near the Punggye-ri nuclear test site suffer from severe health issues, such as mysterious illnesses and body aches, believed to be caused by radiation exposure.[46] One escapee, who lived 27 kilometers from the site, lost her child to a respiratory condition that she suspects was linked to the radiation.[47]
Recent investigations into North Korea's nuclear waste management have uncovered troubling practices. The Korean Institute of Science and Technology Information criticized the DPRK's approach, labeling it “atrocious” and dangerous.[48] At the Yongbyon nuclear site, North Korea reportedly employs outdated and unsafe methods, including dumping waste into ponds.[49] These practices raise significant concerns about environmental contamination, particularly the impact on water sources and marine ecosystems.
One major area of concern is the Punggye-ri region, where radioactive material from nuclear tests may seep into groundwater.[50] This could contaminate local streams, reservoirs, and agricultural resources, posing a risk to drinking water supplies. Experts warn of the potential for widespread ecological damage, including contamination of marine life far beyond North Korea’s borders. Additionally, U.S. experts have raised alarms about the Pyongsan uranium factories in North Hwanghae Province; satellite imagery and reports suggest that waste from these facilities, potentially containing highly enriched radioactive materials, may be leaking into the Ryesong River and flowing into the West Sea, which could impact nearby islands like Yeonpyeong and Ganghwa.[51]
A Seoul-based human rights group has echoed the warnings about radioactive contamination from Punggye-ri, highlighting risks posed to tens of thousands of people in North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and China as radioactive materials potentially spreads through groundwater and affects local populations and agricultural products.[52]
Human rights issues also play a role in this context. North Koreans, in violation of UN prohibitions, are employed in Chinese seafood processing plants in places like Shandong.[53] Uyghur Muslim minorities from Xinjiang are also subjected to forced labor programs,[54] exacerbating the risk of more illegally caught Chinese seafood[55] entering Western markets.[56] Furthermore, research suggests that China's nuclear dumping has caused significant ecological damage in Tibet.[57]
In spite of the criticisms mentioned above, the Fukushima discharge has been proven to be safe. Japan's fisheries agency reported that fish tested from waters around the Fukushima nuclear plant showed no detectable levels of the radioactive isotope tritium.[58] This follows the release of treated radioactive water by the plant operator, TEPCO, into the Pacific Ocean.[59] TEPCO’s tests indicate that the tritium levels in seawater are significantly below international safety limits.[60] The Japanese government is advocating for a scientific discussion on long-term effects to address its neighbors’ concerns and has asked China to lift its regulatory measures.[61] The US State Department has declared Japan’s handling of the situation to be safe and transparent.[62]
Despite regional backlash, including sharp criticism from China and North Korea, Japan’s discharge of treated Fukushima water has been deemed safe by international authorities like the IAEA. Tritium residuals would likely need to be much higher to qualify any skepticism as a formidable concern. Furthermore, the hypocrisy of these criticisms is evident given both countries’ own environmental challenges and questionable practices.
[1] Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, U.N. Environment Programme, https://www.unep.org/topics/disasters-and-conflicts/country-presence/japan/great-east-japan-earthquake-and-tsunami.
[2] Id.
[3] Honshu is the largest island of Japan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honshu.
[4] On This Day: 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami, Nat’l Ctrs. for Env’l Info. (March 11, 2021), https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/day-2011-japan-earthquake-and-tsunami.
[5] Fukushima Daiichi Accident, World Nuclear Ass’n. (April 29, 2024), https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Fukushima Daiichi ALPS Treated Water Discharge, IAEA, https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge.
[9] Id.
[10] IAEA Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of the ALPS-Treated Water at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, IAEA (2023), https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf.
[11] Press Release, International Atomic Energy Association, IAEA Finds Japan’s Plans to Release Treated Water into the Sea at Fukushima Consistent with International Safety Standards (July 4, 2023), https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-finds-japans-plans-to-release-treated-water-into-the-sea-at-fukushima-consistent-with-international-safety-standards.
[12] Id.
[13] IAEA Report, supra note 10.
[14] Fukushima Daiichi ALPS Treated Water Discharge - Reports, IAEA (2024), https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge/reports.
[15] IAEA Press Release, supra note 11.
[16] Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards, U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n (December 2024), https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html.
[17] Department of Environmental Protection, Facts About Radioactive Tritium, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (April, 2006), https://www.cumberlandcountypa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3173/Tritium.
[18] Nuclear Accident Response Procedures, Characteristics, Hazards, and Health Considerations of Tritium, DoD 3150.08-M, U.S. Dep’t of Defense, https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/narp/docs/pdf_Figures_Tables/PA_F11.pdf.
[19] Facts about Tritium, Gov’t of Canada (November 11, 2021), https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/tritium/.
[20] Lydia Bondareva et al., Tritium: Doses and Responses of Aquatic Living Organisms (Model Experiments), 9 Environments 51 (2022), https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/9/4/51.
[21] I. Amir et al, No need to panic over the release of ‘treated water’ containing tritium from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, 116 Q.J.M. 957 (2023), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10674086/.
[22] China summons Japanese Ambassador to lodge solemn representations over Tokyo's wastewater dumping plan, Global Times (August 22, 2023), https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1296766.shtml.
[23] Ministry of Public Affairs, Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong Makes Solemn Representations on Japan's Announcement to Start Discharging the Fukushima Nuclear-contaminated Water into the Ocean, People’s Republic of China (August 22, 2023), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/gjhdq_665435/2675_665437/2721_ 663446/2724_ 663452/202308/t20230831_11136175.html.
[24] Japan summons China ambassador over Fukushima ‘harassment’ calls, Al Jazerra (August 28, 2023), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/28/japan-summons-china-ambassador-over-fukushima-harassment-calls.
[25] Chad De Guzman, China’s Concern About Nuclear Wastewater May Be More About Politics Than Science, TIME (Sept. 8, 2023), https://time.com/6311984/china-japan-nuclear-wastewater-science-politics/.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] International Atomic Energy Agency, Fact Sheet on DPRK Nuclear Safeguards (2024), https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/dprk/fact-sheet-on-dprk-nuclear-safeguards
[29] Jake Kwon & Heather Chen, North Korea Calls on International Community to Stop Japan’s Release of Treated Fukushima Wastewater, CNN (July 9, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/world/north-korea-japan-fukushima-nuclear-wastewater-intl-hnk/index.html.
[30] Laura Paddison & Annette Choi, As Climate Chaos Accelerates, Which Countries Are Polluting the Most?, CNN (Jan. 2, 2024), https://www.cnn.com.
[31] Plastic Pollution by Country 2024, World Pop. Rev. (2024), https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/plastic-pollution-by-country.
[32] De Guzman, supra note 24.
[33] Renee Berry & Jeff Clark, Sparring over Seafood: China’s Ban on “Contaminated” Fish from Japan, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n (Feb. 2024), https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_fukushima_seafood_ban.pdf.
[34] The Yangtze, WWF (2024), https://www.wwf.org.uk/where-we-work/places/yangtze-asias-longest-river.
[35] Xiong Xiong, et al., Sources and Distribution of Microplastics in China's Largest Inland Lake – Qinghai Lake, 235 Env’l Pollution 899 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.081.
[36] Kui Li, et al., How to Control Pollution from Tailwater in Large Scale Aquaculture in China: A Review, 590 Aquaculture 741085 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741085.
[37] Amy Hawkins & Justin McCurry, Fukushima: China Accused of Hypocrisy over Its Own Release of Wastewater from Nuclear Plants, The Guardian, August 25, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/ aug/25/fukushima-china-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-its-own-release-of-wastewater-from-nuclear-plants.
[38] Fact Sheet: North Korea’s Nuclear Inventory, Ctr. Arms Control & Non-Proliferation (September 2022), https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-north-koreas-nuclear-inventory.
[39] Michael N. Schmitt & John C. Tramazzo, A Legal Assessment of North Korean Missile Tests, Lieber Inst. (August 11, 2023), https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-assessment-north-korean-missile-tests/.
[40] North Korea, Ctr. Arms Control & Non-Proliferation (2024), https://armscontrolcenter.org/north-korea.
[41] Daryl Kimball, The Status of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Signatories and Ratifiers, Arms Control Ass’n, 2024, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/CTBTsignatures.
[42] Daniel Rietiker, The (Il?)legality of Nuclear Weapons Tests Under International Law—Filling the Possible Legal Gap by Ensuring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’s Entry into Force, 21 ASIL Insights (Mar. 16, 2017), https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/21/issue/4/illegality-nuclear-weapons-tests-under-international-law-filling-possible.
[43] Kim Myong-song, N. Korean Nuclear Test Site 'Heavily Contaminated', Chosun Ilbo (Nov. 6, 2017), https://www.chosun.com.
[44] Alistair Walsh, How Nuclear Testing Leaves Lasting Environmental Scars, DW (Oct. 12, 2022), https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-testing-north-korea-environment-biodiversity/a-63418634.
[45] Soon Jick Hong, Environmental Pollution in North Korea and Inter Korean Cooperation, in 4 Econ. Korean Reunification (1999), https://www.hri.co.kr/upload/board/EUR200003_08.pdf
[46] Chin Min Jai, Jung Young & Mok Yongjae, Living Near North Korean Nuclear Test Site Caused Health Problems, Escapees Say, RADIO FREE ASIA (July 6, 2023), https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/health-07062023.html.
[47] Id.
[48] Nicolas Levi, How North Korea Handles Nuclear Waste: From Risky Disposal to Deals with Taiwan, NK News (April 20, 2023), https://www.nknews.org.
[49] Id.
[50] Id.
[51] Cho Yi-jun & Yang Seung-sik, Waste from N. Korean Uranium Factories 'Could Seep into Sea,' The Chosun Daily, August 19, 2019, https://www.chosun.com/english/north-korea-en/2019/08/19/6CPHJSXV4YSKSOUK XOHS4HIUSU/.
[52] Hyonhee Shin, Groundwater Carries Radiation Risk for North Korean Cities Near Nuke Test Site, Reuters (Feb. 21, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/groundwater-carries-radiation-risk-north-korean-cities-near-nuke-test-site-2023-02-21/.
[53] Oliver McBride, Seafish Responds to Allegations in Outlaw Ocean Investigation, The Fishing Daily, October 22, 2023, https://thefishingdaily.com/latest-news/seafish-responds-to-allegations-in-outlaw-ocean-investigation/.
[54] Id.
[55] Max Mossler, The Science of Sustainable Seafood, Explained, Sustainable Fisheries UW (Feb. 21, 2023), https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/the-science-of-sustainable-seafood-explained.
[56] Ian Urbina, How the U.S. Violates Its Own Trade Laws to Buy Seafood from China (November 21, 2023), https://huffman.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/how-the-us-violates-its-own-trade-laws-to-buy-seafood-from-china
[57] Christina M. Heischmidt, China's Dumping Ground: Genocide through Nuclear Ecocide in Tibet, 18 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 469 (2010), https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pselr/vol18/iss2/8/.
[58] Japan Says No Radioactivity Found in Fukushima Fish, Al Jazeera (Aug. 26, 2023), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/26/japan-says-no-radioactivity-found-in-fukushima-fish.
[59] Id.
[60] Id.
[61] Id.
[62] Id.
Nicolas Patrick Garon, Whose Nuclear Discharge Is Lawful? Regional Outcries Over Japan’s Fukushima Discharge and the Hypocrisy of Critics’ Own Nuclear Waste Practices (July 18, 2025), https://digital.law.nycu.edu.tw/blog-post/znaflz/.
No. 1001, Daxue Rd., East Dist., Hsinchu City 300093, Taiwan