> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://sn.olafwrieden.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Fukushima: Environmental Harm or the Best Solution?
- URL: https://sn.olafwrieden.com/umweltsuende/
- Published: 2021-04-14T19:08:55.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-10T20:15:46.000Z
- Description: Japan and plant operator Tepco planned to release contaminated water into the ocean. The original debate set environmental objections against reassurances about health risks.
- Author: Olaf Wrieden
- Tags: News, #archive-import

Japan and power plant operator Tepco planned to discharge contaminated water into the ocean.

## At a loss for words

Japan's government and power plant operator Tepco planned to release around a billion litres of contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima reactor into the sea over the following years. Environmental harm—or the best solution?

> “Using the oceans as dilution machines is irresponsible,” criticises Diemo Niemann, chair of the environmental and nature conservation organisation Save Nemo e.V.

According to Tepco, the water would be treated to remove most radioactive isotopes. Tritium would remain, described in the original account as harmless in small amounts. Doubts remained. Environmental campaigners, fishers and farmers were already strongly opposing the plans. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War called the discharge of contaminated water into the ocean a “horror scenario”.

Niemann argues that radioactive material accumulates in plankton, which is eaten by fish and crustaceans. These, in turn, become prey for predatory fish such as tuna, which ends up in supermarkets and restaurants. The original article states that every catch from the Pacific is tested in its country of origin and removed from circulation if measurements exceed 100 becquerels per kilogram of fish. But, it asks, is this really a risk worth taking? China's foreign ministry called the proposal “extremely irresponsible”. South Korea described the discharge as a “danger to the underwater world”.

![](https://sn.olafwrieden.com/content/images/2026/09/52448464_7.png)

There were other views, too. “That is a lot of water, yes, but it poses no health hazard,” says Burkhard Heuel-Fabianek, head of radiation protection at Forschungszentrum Jülich. He explains that the danger posed by tritium cannot be compared with that of strontium-90 or caesium-137.

> “When tritiated water is drunk, the tritium is absorbed almost completely in the gastrointestinal tract. Water already present in the body mixes with the absorbed tritiated water. Only a small proportion of the tritium becomes organically bound. After about ten days, half of the tritium that is not organically bound has been excreted again from an adult's body.”

Radioactivity is measured in becquerels. The original article gives Japan's limit as 60,000 becquerels of tritium per litre and reports that, according to Tepco, the water to be discharged would not exceed that level.

> “That is six times the WHO limit for tritium of 10,000 becquerels per litre,” says Diemo Niemann, adding: “In the short term, this may not pose a health risk. But what about in 10, 15 or 20 years?”

---

*Originally published in German on 15 April 2021\.* [*Read the archived original*](https://web.archive.org/web/20251017105822/https://save-nemo.org/umweltsuende/)*.*