It’s really OK if Japan dumps radioactive Fukushima water into the ocean

By James Conca

In a news briefing in Tokyo earlier this week, Japan’s Minister of the Environment, Yoshiaki Harada, told reporters that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will have to dump radioactive water from its crippled Fukushima nuclear power plants into the Pacific Ocean.

Tanks of water at Fukushima that have been scrubbed of all radioactive materials except mildly radioactive tritium, and which can be slowly released to the ocean with no environmental harm. GETTY IMAGES

Tanks of water at Fukushima that have been scrubbed of all radioactive materials except mildly radioactive tritium, and which can be slowly released to the ocean with no environmental harm. GETTY IMAGES

He went so far as to say it is “the only option”. Which is actually true.

They just don’t have any room left to store it. And storing it is the wrong strategy anyway. TEPCO has collected more than 250 million gallons of contaminated water from the cooling pipes used to keep fuel cores from melting since the plant was destroyed by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

The funny thing is that putting this water in the ocean is actually the best way to handle it. And that’s because it’s contaminated mainly with tritium, the least radioactive, and least harmful, of all radioactive elements. All of the other radioactive elements have been removed from the water by chemical treatment and the amount of other elements in the water is relatively small and wouldn’t pose a hazard.

The Japanese government awaits a report from an expert panel before making a final decision, and quickly pointed out that Harada’s opinion was his alone and did not indicate a policy decision. TEPCO will abide by whatever the government decides.

Critics, like Greenpeace, weighed with the usual every-atom-is-dangerous and this water should be stored and treated forever. They don’t seem to understand the radiation or chemistry for tritium.

But few do.

Those of us who do understand have suggested slowly releasing the tritium-contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean over about a ten-year period. The water is stored on-site in almost a thousand large tanks.

Although not intuitive, this is a very good idea. Tritium is the mildly radioactive isotope of hydrogen that has two neutrons and one proton, with radioactivity so low that no environmental or human problems have ever come from it, even though it is a common radioactive element in the environment. Tritium is formed naturally by atmospheric processes as well as in nuclear weapons testing and in nuclear power plants.

Let’s say that again – no harm has ever come to humans or the environment from tritium, no matter what the concentration or the dose.

Tritium is just assumed to be carcinogenic to humans at extremely high levels, although that claim is only hypothetical since adverse health effects from tritium have never appeared in humans or in the environment. Only laboratory studies on mice at extremely high levels have shown any adverse health effects and even they were not fatal, even after ingesting 37,000,000 Bq/liter.

Putting this water into the ocean is without doubt the best way to get rid of it. Concentrating it and containerizing it actually causes more of a potential hazard to people and the environment. And is very very expensive with no apparent benefit.

Unfortunately, the idea of releasing radioactivity of any sort makes most people cringe. But that’s the problem, only the perception of tritium is bad, not the reality. And in our new world of anti-science, such a wrong idea might rule over what is the right thing to do, wasting precious resources and time.

The scientific reality is tritium emits an incredibly weak beta particle that is easily stopped by our dead skin layer. It only goes a quarter inch in air. Even ingestion of tritium doesn’t do anything. We’ve tried.

The health risks of tritium-contaminated water are so low that all the countries of the world have no idea what regulatory limits to put on it.

Using Becquerel per liter as the concentration unit (a Bq is a disintegration of a single nucleus per second), the United States has set 740 Bq/L for drinking water, but Canada has 7,000 Bq/L as its limit. Switzerland set 10,000 Bq/L, and Australia a whopping 76,103 Bq/L.

But these limits were just taken out of thin air. They are not health-based. They were chosen because they were easy to achieve. Meaning none of these levels, or a hundred times these levels, are harmful.

Why is this the case?

Hydrogen is a really small atom and easily gets through microscopic pores, even biological membranes and cell walls. Tritium, which is still hydrogen chemically) can be found in water molecules, which are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Tritium has two neutrons and one proton. The two neutrons make the nucleus unstable and it gives off an extremely weak beta particle to become helium-3, two protons and one neutron. Hydrogen has only a proton but its chemistry and that of tritium are the same. HPS

Tritium has two neutrons and one proton. The two neutrons make the nucleus unstable and it gives off an extremely weak beta particle to become helium-3, two protons and one neutron. Hydrogen has only a proton but its chemistry and that of tritium are the same. HPS

Because tritium is three times heavier than normal hydrogen because of two neutrons in its nucleus, tritium tends to replace normal hydrogen in water molecules, rapidly diluting any tritium in our bodies and in the environment. Tritium likes to be in water, not in tissue.

Our bodies are mostly hydrogen, and that is mostly in water. So while tritium’s radioactive half-life is 12.3 years, its biological half-life in our bodies is only 10 days. Therefore, ingestion of this weak emitter doesn’t have the same effect as most other ingested radionuclides.

It’s also difficult for the extremely low-energy beta from tritium to get through the water, cell walls and other materials in between the radionuclide and any critical molecule like DNA. The energy in the slow-moving beta from tritium mostly gets dispersed within the electron clouds of other molecules through inelastic collisions and the Bremsstrahlung effect. This turns the kinetic energy of the beta emission into electromagnetic non-ionizing energy.

In the end, it is impossible to get a significant radiation dose from tritium, unlike any other radionuclide. It exits the body and is diluted too quickly.

Even more important, there’s more tritium in the atmosphere from natural processes and left over from old bomb testing, than ever has been, or will be, released from commercial reactors. Cosmic rays produce four million curies worth of tritium every year (150,000,000,000,000,000 Bq) in the upper atmosphere, much of which rains out into surface waters that we end up drinking.

These amounts of tritium from other sources are millions of times greater than what would be slowly released from these tanks at Fukushima. Since there’s been no health or environmental effects from any of these larger sources, it’s hard to get excited about dumping such a tiny amount from Fukushima into the ocean.

Besides, there are 16,280,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bq of potassium-40, rubidium-87 and many more radionuclides already in the world’s oceans. So the fish are swimming in plenty of natural radioactive material anyway, more than this Fukushima water could ever provide.

The biological half-life of tritium in fish and marine life is even shorter than in humans, less than 2 days, and the dilution in seawater is too rapid for any significant dose to get back to any people because the physical and chemical properties of tritium mean it does not concentrate up the food change – it dilutes up the food chain.

So while Japanese fishermen fear this strategy of release from a public relations perspective, their fish will still test negative with respect to food radiation limits and their packaged fish sold at market would still carry the official ‘safe’ stickers.

As usual, it all comes down to perception and fear. We as scientists can give you the answers, but you can ignore them if you want, especially since non-scientists make these decisions anyway.

This particular problem with Fukushima is really important because Japan needs to restart most of their reactors that were shut down after the earthquake in 2011. They were not affected by the quake or the tsunami that followed, and wouldn’t be by future ones.

Nucear power is critical to addressing global warming, not to mention the Japan’s economic doldrums. Japan was once at the forefront in the fight against global warming but their carbon emissions have skyrocketed since the output from their nuclear plants were unnecessarily replaced by fossil fuels.

Dr. James ConcaDr. James Conca is an ANS member as well as a member of the ANS Social Media Team. Dr. Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at

This story can be found on Forbes website.

Feel free to leave a constructive remark or question for the author in the comment section below.


13 thoughts on “It’s really OK if Japan dumps radioactive Fukushima water into the ocean

  1. Mark G.

    This author needs to use this water for his drinking water then we would believe this layman explanation of tritium.Nuclear power will never be the answer as long as it has so many dangers to mankind.

  2. Phillipa Pfyne

    If one did not know better, being an ethical person, with upstanding values & goodwill towards all people (except drug addicts & bent officials) one might assume that the placement of nuclear installations along fault lines suggests an immanent sculpting event of continental proportions. I could be blowing it up out of all proportion, but it looks like a lovely sculpted asteroid to me, the Expanding Earth theory goes only so far to explain the straight line along the Bay of Biscay & other pictorial displays. Just saying & wondering.

  3. Harry pfeiler

    Why not, they have been releasing 300,000 tons a day for the past 11 years. Whats a little more.

  4. Henry Spitz

    …”contaminated mainly with tritium…” If the water contains ONLY tritium, then this method of disposal is likely a good choice. However, the article does not describe what other radioactive isotopes are in the water and leaves some doubt that can be used by others to distrust the method. Full disclosure of the isotopes being released to the sea is essential if one is to defer criticism.

  5. Jeff Sim

    Problem is, a continuous stream of people from all over the world go through the excellent museum in Hiroshima. I’d wager most’d come out with a negative attitude towards anything nuclear.

  6. Mary Miller

    Good article. People don’t understand the (non) health effects. Can the Canadians extract the tritium for use in their reactors? They pay a lot to get tritium from any source.

    Thanks for your article.


  7. robert w. albrecht

    Thanks, We (humanity) are in need of more rational approaches to radioactivity like this. I’d also like to see a rational discussion about waste disposal, including burning actinides and reprocessing.

  8. Ed DeLaney

    Great article. Oh how perception overrules science. Do you have any recommended articles on Fukushima’s radiological and health impacts has had on the Japanese local population?

  9. Bruce Montgomery

    Great layman’s explanation of tritium. I think it would have added value to have included a note on the average concentration of tritium in the tanks at Fukushima along with the total volume of water. Would give us some numbers we could crunch for fun.
    Bruce M.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>