By Jheel Doshi

Abstract

On March 11, 2011, a devastating earthquake and tsunami led to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, sending shockwaves in Japan and around the world. In all, 19,729 people (with 2559 still missing) died due to Earthquake and Tsunami. The nuclear disaster had a significant environmental impact and far-reaching implications for the Japanese economy and energy policy. This article assesses the three major implications of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, including their effects on the environment, the economy, and the following policy changes.

The Nuclear Disaster and the Aftermath 

The tsunami that followed the earthquake cut off power and disabled the cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors.  In the first three days, all three cores largely melted. According to the World Nuclear Association, due to large radioactive releases spanning 4 to 6 days, the event was assessed level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale of 7.

The Fukushima Daiichi accident’s most evident and immediate effect was that significant amounts of radioactive caesium, iodine, and strontium were released into the environment and the Pacific Ocean because of the meltdown of three reactors. These chemicals contaminated air, water, soil and marine life. Marine life was particularly adversely affected. Radioactive waste in the Pacific Ocean harmed the marine ecology and fueled consumer suspicion of seafood. Caesium has been found in fish caught off the coast of Japan years later. The accident had long-term consequences for the environment and human health.

Actions undertaken by the Government 

The Japanese Government set up evacuation zones to contain radioactive exposure, just after the nuclear accident. Residents within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant were instructed to leave, and those within a 20–30-kilometer radius were given the go-ahead to stay inside. Around 16000 were forced to relocate elsewhere. Evacuation disrupted lives, strained local economies, and had a significant social and psychological impact. Around 1,539 stress-related deaths occurred due to relocation. This could have been avoided if the government had been proactive in alleviating the concerned population’s disconcertment. The process of going back home is still difficult because of ongoing contamination worries.

The initial economic costs of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster were enormous. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), the nuclear plant’s operator, was facing large compensation claims. TEPCO required financial help from the Japanese government, putting a major strain on the national budget. Following the catastrophe, Japan declared a shutdown on nuclear power for safety checks. This made the country highly dependent on imported fossil fuels to fulfil its energy requirements. It resulted in a sharp rise in energy prices and also widened Japan’s trade deficit.

Associated Economic Costs

The ongoing economic costs of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster concentrate mostly on the management and cleanup of polluted water at the site. TEPCO had to pump a significant quantity of water into the damaged reactors to cool the fuel cores, resulting in the contamination of radioactive isotopes, mainly tritium. TEPCO built a comprehensive water treatment method (Advanced Liquid Processing System) to eliminate most radioactive pollutants, except tritium, which is difficult to separate. The structural costs include building, maintaining storage tanks, and preventing leaks or accidents.

Local corporations, mainly in Fukushima, suffered immensely. Agriculture and fisheries have been significantly affected because of radiation worries. Tourism in the location additionally took a hit as travellers prevented regions with radiation fears. This economic downturn exacerbated the distress of local people.

Shift in Policy Making across the World

The Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe sparked a chief reassessment of Japan’s power policy. The authorities pledged to reduce its reliance on nuclear energy at the same time as boosting the share of renewables in its energy mix. As a result of this trend, investments in wind, sun, and different opportunity energy assets have improved.

The catastrophe induced an international overview of nuclear safety guidelines. Japan enacted stricter safety regulations for its ultimate nuclear reactors, necessitating steeply-priced renovations to fulfil new safety standards. This rendered several older reactors commercially unviable for continued operation. The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) was founded in Japan to supervise nuclear safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission imposed more potent seismic and tsunami protection criteria, requiring nuclear power stations to update their equipment to resist greater powerful earthquakes and tsunamis. Existing plants, if corrigible, were also modified to meet the new standards. Existing plants, if corrigible, were also modified to meet the new standards.

The Fukushima Daiichi disaster has global implications, influencing nuclear policy around the world. Many countries evaluated their nuclear energy programmes, with some opting to abandon nuclear energy entirely. It also spurred debates about the role of nuclear energy in climate change mitigation and the significance of catastrophe preparedness.

After Effects Even After a Decade

The cleanup and decommissioning (dismantling) method necessitated large economic investment and government assistance, highlighting the monetary cost of nuclear mishaps and the significance of stringent protection regulations. Therefore, on 24 August 2023, Japan started discharging treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Japan states that the treated water only consists of tritium. According to the plan, over 1 million tonnes of treated wastewater has to be discharged over 30 years. Tritium can only be diluted in the water. This plan Is essential for the decommissioning of the Fukushima plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) authorised the plan in July, pointing out it fulfils international requirements and would have a negligible effect on human beings and the surroundings. Fishermen worry that the discharge of water will result in loss of marine life, lack of consumers, and other monetary drawbacks. International scrutiny is also normal. China strongly opposes Japan’s plan to launch treated radioactive water into the ocean, bringing up issues of contamination. In retaliation, China banned Japanese seafood imports. Japan, in flip, asked that China revoke the ban. Along with issues regarding the environment, monetary rivalry with Japan also led to this strong reaction.

Policy Recommendations 

To deal with those complex issues, Japan should interact in open and ongoing conversations with fishermen, actively incorporating them in selection-making and sharing safety checks to establish confidence and alleviate their anxieties. To deal with transboundary concerns, collaborative techniques and statistics sharing with neighbouring nations are necessary. Japan must spend funds on public cognizance to educate customers about the social stigma associated with Fukushima seafood. Furthermore, providing monetary assistance to nearby fishermen tormented by the water discharge implications can be helpful. To make certain that any environmental and health hazards are minimised and that the issues of fishermen and foreign partners are correctly addressed, Japan must prioritise strict international safety standards throughout the entire process of wastewater discharge.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe became a devastating incident with far-reaching outcomes for Japan and the world. Its environmental, monetary, and policy implications are intertwined, subtly influencing each other. This incident highlighted the need for strict safety policies, the need to diversify energy sources, consideration of public grievances and coordination with international partners.

Author’s Bio

Jheel Doshi is a 2nd year BA Economics student at O.P. Jindal Global University. Her research interest lies in Macroeconomics, Development Economics and Game Theory.

Image Source: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/ii-2-golay.pdf