Is It Safe to Drink? South Korea’s Support for Japan’s Fukushima Wastewater Release

What was released back in August 2023? Oppenheimer, Barbie, Meg 2, and nuclear wastewater. During the summer, Japan began releasing treated nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean, sparking intense backlash and controversy, especially from neighbouring countries. Deeply concerned leaders and governments openly criticized Japan’s decision, describing it as “irresponsible and harmful.” Despite affirmations from Japanese authorities and international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that these wastewater releases are safe, many people, including government officials, remain skeptical of claims that such discharges cause no or minimal environmental damage and minimal impact on the daily lives of surrounding communities. Critics emphasize that contaminated marine life has already been found, and that such detriments to the ecosystem—whose products were enjoyed by “everybody”—cannot be reversed. In essence, the argument contends that all consequences of the discharge will be endured not only by Japan but by its neighbours, causing significant unrest within neighbouring countries. 

Nowhere was the public response more volatile than in South Korea. Hundreds of citizens took to the streets to rally against Japan’s decision, calling for governmental intervention and diplomatic retaliation. In light of the severe environmental consequences of the release, outrage spread across South Korean society. Political representatives, including the opposition leader of the South Korean government, voiced the people’s indignation in response to the claim that the discharged wastewater was safe to drink: “If it is safe enough to drink, they should use it as drinking water.” Yet shortly after, the South Korean government, after its own review and assessment of the nuclear wastewater, chose to openly endorse Japan’s decision, confirming that the treated materials should comply with international safety standards and inflict minimal damage to local environments. This gesture of support came as an unwanted surprise for many South Koreans, arousing further fury and sparking claims that describe the enablement of Japan to release nuclear wastewater as an “international crime.” The people’s anger stemmed not only from environmental concerns but also from distrust—distrust of Japan’s assurances, of the IAEA report declaring the wastewater safe, and of their own government’s assessment. In the eyes of many South Koreans, wastewater discharge almost certainly posed an imminent threat to their health and safety—a perception shaped by longstanding tensions between the two nations, rooted in Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, forced labour during WWII, and ongoing territorial disputes.

Despite public backlash, domestic pressure, and social tension, the South Korean government nonetheless made the controversial decision to officially support Japan’s actions. This choice, which many South Korean citizens consider a sacrifice of public safety, likely results from Seoul’s prioritization of security alliances and diplomatic relations with the US and Japan. This apparent disregard for widespread public sentiment raises further questions about the reliance of democratic legitimacy on the government’s commitment to represent its citizens’ interests.

As anxiety levels continue to rise across the country due to the apprehensive, fearful attitude prevalent in Korean society, we must examine the geopolitical transformations in East Asia to understand why the South Korean government made this endorsement. The August 2023 trilateral summit at Camp David, during which leaders from Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul formed a new pact encompassing economic, financial, technological, and political cooperation, was central to the geopolitical transformations in East Asia. For South Korea, whose own national security has long been influenced by North Korea’s nuclear development and historical tensions with Japan, involvement in this pact is a diplomatic venture and an opportunity for political and economic alliances. Given the context of the pact, the South Korean government has likely turned the Fukushima wastewater controversy from an environmental issue into a political lever. It has previously been recognized that the South Korea-Japan relationship is “central” to the effectiveness of the trilateral pact and thus to diplomatic cooperation, meaning that the endorsement of Japan amidst the nuclear wastewater issue is potentially a diplomatic strategy employed by South Korea to normalize and improve the two countries’ political ties. By displaying its support, the government of South Korea has effectively prioritized strengthening political alliances over ensuring public safety and valuing public opinions and perspectives within its borders.

The public’s distrust of the government’s stance was intensified by the information conflict between Japan’s narrative, South Korea’s own assessment, and the public’s risk perception. Despite experts emphasizing that the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) used to treat wastewater could significantly reduce radioactive substances to levels below international safety standards, activists have noted that certain contaminants cannot be completely filtered out. For example, tritium, one of the radioactive materials that cannot be filtered by ALPS, is a contaminant that can impose a higher risk of cancer and other health damage following consumption or exposure in large quantities. Due to conflicting narratives from international and domestic sources, South Koreans were inclined to question the credibility of safety claims and thus more likely to perceive their government’s alignment with Japan as a political compromise rather than a purely scientific conclusion. 

Some may argue that by strengthening its ties with Japan, South Korea has prioritized the collective good of the nation and invested in a more promising future. However, the danger of such a notion lies in its neglect of the profound democratic costs that inevitably follow decisions made authoritatively. At its core, a democratic regime demands that the state represent the collective interests of its citizens—not only the public interests as perceived by the state, but also those explicitly expressed by individuals. When governments make decisions that contradict overwhelming public sentiment, especially while failing to provide transparency and public deliberation, two important criteria of democratic government, they risk eroding public trust. In the case of Fukushima, citizens’ collective decision to take to the streets in protest can be seen as a clear indication of such distrust. The perception that Seoul had sided with Japan’s “selfish” decision amplified the widespread fears that the government was prioritizing international alliances at the expense of its own people’s collective security. 

As the controversy intensified, the wastewater release became a symbol of broader political struggles—between transparency and authority, national identity and global cooperation, and democratic legitimacy and the geopolitical scramble for power. What began as a seemingly environmental issue quickly evolved into a test of democratic accountability. While South Korea’s endorsement of Japan’s wastewater release may be understood as a strategic move shaped by political alliances and regional security concerns, it nevertheless demands a democratic cost. By prioritizing diplomatic relations over its citizens’ fears, the government risks weakening public trust, intensifying political polarization, and compromising the democratic nature of its regime. The Fukushima wastewater issue is therefore more than an environmental dilemma—it is a reminder that effective governance must defend not only national interests but also the democratic principles that bind the state to its people and its people to the state.

Edited by Georgia Massis

Featured image: “Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Two types of above-ground water tanks and underground pool.jpg” by IAEA Imagebank is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.