Resisting Oblivion: Scientific Criticism and Legal Possibilities Concerning the Discharges of Radioactive Water from Fukushima

Abstract

Japan's ongoing discharge of treated radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, approved by the IAEA as consistent with international safety standards, has generated significant scientific and legal controversy. The safety justification relies on assumptions regarding the effectiveness of TEPCO's ALPS treatment system, the reliability of monitoring methodologies, access to critical data, and the presumed minimal risks to marine ecosystems and human health. This paper challenges these premises through scientific analysis of radionuclides such as tritium, cesium-137, and strontium-90, applying fundamental dose-calculation methods to estimate organ-specific absorbed and effective doses and their potential health impacts. The findings highlight substantial uncertainties that undermine Japan's safety claims. The paper then maps each scientific uncertainty to corresponding structural weaknesses in international legal accountability mechanisms, demonstrating how empirical gaps in ALPS filtration, radionuclide monitoring, bioaccumulation assessment, and OBT characterization expose specific failures in technology verification standards, testing protocols, and oversight frameworks. The paper then explicitly maps each scientific uncertainty to corresponding structural weaknesses in international legal accountability mechanisms, demonstrating how empirical gaps in ALPS filtration, radionuclide monitoring, bioaccumulation assessment, and OBT characterization expose specific failures in technology verification standards, testing protocols, and oversight frameworks. We conclude by emphasizing the need for a more coherent and scientifically robust global regime to prevent Fukushima from establishing a harmful precedent.