Would you like Carbon-14 with your Sushi?

"It's no good the scientists saying it's safe; what matters is what people think. And people think it's dangerous." Japanese Fisherman. 

After mainland China, Hong Kong is Japan's second-largest market for fisheries exports. Japanese food is a firm favourite here. That is about to change.

With the Japanese authorities set to release 500 Olympic-sized pools of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, Hong Kong is banning seafood from several regions in Japan. And as the release could take 30 years to complete, this issue will remain a matter of contention for decades.

Japanese restaurants in Hong Kong are scrambling to source ingredients from elsewhere to sustain their business and dispel public fears of serving contaminated food. 

This concern is despite experts asserting that the Fukushima water is safe because of dilution and treatment. That may be so, but when dealing with anything deemed 'radioactive,' the public demands the utmost caution. 

As a Japanese fisherman facing ruin said, "It's no good the scientists saying it's safe; what matters is what people think. And people think it's dangerous. "

Some scientists support that view. They are sceptical about the assumptions underpinning the modelling to justify the release. They point out flaws in the models that ignore the uptake and accumulation of radioactive material in marine organisms and the transfer to people eating affected seafood.

There are 62 known radionuclides in the Fukushima wastewater; including Cesium-137 with a half-life of 30 years, and Carbon-14 which can be a threat for 5,700 years. In some media reports, Japan claims that the treated wastewater contains only the relatively safe isotope Tritium. Other reports mention traces of several radioactive elements.

Hence the howls of concern across Asia. Issues like this matter because radioactive materials, including those emitting low-energy beta particles, can cause damage once they enter the human body. The risk of cancers and other health problems increases.

One commentator asked, "If the water is safe, why not use it on Japanese crops or invite the prime minister to swim in it? This pointed question is facile, because that doesn't make it right, given the issues discussed above. 

When the Fukushima disaster unfolded in 2011, tourism from Hong Kong to Japan dropped. Then, experts pointed out that the level of background environmental radiation in Hong Kong is higher than in Tokyo. Our geology, with the presence of granite rock, pushes up the levels. But that isn't a risk, because the radioactive radon gas released from rocks soon disperses. 

Yet, the Fukushima scenario is different. The radionuclides in the water can accumulate in our food chain. 

Further, it's unclear what options Japan explored to deal with the waste, including solidification and deep burial. With repair work due at the Fukushima site, engineers even proposed using the water to produce concrete on-site. They surmised that this option is safe if the radiation levels are as low as stated. Moreover, it prevents much of the hazardous material from reaching the food chain. 

Why the rush? Well, a considerable amount of highly radioactive material remains on site, including fuel rods. The space taken up by the holding tanks for the wastewater is needed to handle this truly nasty stuff, which cannot be left unattended much longer. 


For sure, the Pacific Ocean provides a cheap, quick and simple option; but that's hardly justification, especially as it is irreversible.