The past year of politics outweighing science

system mandating an accurate reflection of the opinions of accredited scientists will certainly reduce unnecessary disputes and social costs.

Cho Yang-kiThe author is a professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and the director of the Research Institute of Oceanography at Seoul National University. About a year ago when the country fretted and raged over Japan’s release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima power plant that had been devastated by a tsunami in 2011, I received a torrent of calls asking about my opinion as a scientist on the potential impact on marine life. They inquired about the safety of seafood, including salt. Their biggest worry was about health risks related to marine products. I tried my best to relieve their concerns based on scientific grounds, but they couldn’t be convinced. The government spent over 1.5 trillion won ($1.1 billion) on safety tests and seafood promotion over the past year.

On March 11, 2011, a gigantic 9.1-magnitude earthquake accompanied by a powerful tsunami swept over the northeastern coast of Japan, home to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex. The destruction of cooling systems caused overheating in the fuel rods in three reactors and a consequential meltdown and radiation leak. Over the span of 12 years, Japan’s power plant operator Tepco pumped water to cool the fuel rods and stored the contaminated water in 1,000 tanks. As it had reached the limits on the storage, Tokyo decided to gradually release the wastewater into the ocean, stoking fears that the contaminated water could reach Korea within months.

Since the theory couldn’t be backed by ocean science, our research team tracked the travel period of contaminated materials and changes in their concentration during the journey from Fukushima through simulation. The results — published in an international journal — found that it could take at least 9 years for the discharged water to impact the sea life around the Korean Peninsula. It takes four to five years for the water from Fukushima riding on the Kuroshio current to travel east across the Pacific Ocean to reach U.S. shores and then it takes equally that long to flow back westward.

Over the span of nearly a decade, the radioactive elements would be diluted in the seawater. Seawater unrelated to the Fukushima meltdown normally contains cesium of 1 to 2 becquerels per cubic meter and titanium of about 100 becquerels per cubic meter. Our simulation projected one tenths of the normal sea radioactivity level by the time the discharged water arrives on Korean shores.

A year has passed since the discharge operation began. The persistent monitoring and analysis of concentration levels in various locations around the Korean seas by the Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries thankfully coincided with our projection, showing little signs of increases in radioactivity.

The wastewater discharge is expected to continue until the Fukushima plants are fully dismantled by 2051. Korea should keep watch on the waters further off Korean waters across the Pacific. A platform enabling comparable posts on the measurements could help ease public concerns over safety.

It is a pity that the opinions of experts are often neglected and fail to reach the public whenever environmental issues spill over. The situation was no different with the Fukushima discharge news. Various irrational theories in the political cocktail overruled scientific opinions to cause an unnecessary scare. Until today, politicians have failed to atone for their irresponsible behaviors.

The shock and impact from manmade or natural disasters should be dissected through rigorous tests and discussions by expert groups based on scientific grounds. Politicians must coordinate and draw consensus based on the findings by scientists. The general public should be accurately and transparently informed about the process.

Yet the deliberation period to draw agreement on scientific judgement is often neglected to instead highlight unscientific claims in the media for political interest. Due to the ideological divide, scientists also were split and lost a united voice based on science. If politics overrule science, the toll falls on the people.

Our society must learn from the controversy over the Fukushima discharge and change its response pattern. A system mandating an accurate reflection of the opinions of accredited scientists will certainly reduce unnecessary disputes and social costs.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.