Yong Hoon Jeong

Nuclear and Quantum Engineering
KAIST

Quantitative facts understood by experts
based on publicly available dataWorldwide natural production of tritium
200g or more per year

Tritium contained in the rain on the East Sea
3g or more per year

3g total tritium
stored in Fukushima

When 1500 Bq/L of effluent isadditionally mixed with 1.5
tons of seawater,
1 becquerel/liter

Tritium concentration in ocean~
0.1 becquerel/liter

Tritium concentration inriver water
1 becquerel/liter

Several tens of kilometers
after the discharge point
1 becquerel/liter or less

5

The amount of cesium, strontium and carbon-14 is minimal.
❖ Compared to the amount of Cs and Sr released immediately after the accident, theamount currently stored in the tank is 1/1,000,000 to 1/1,000❖ Since there was no change in concentration in our waters after the Fukushima
accident, a change in concentration cannot be expected this time as well. Inaddition, additional filtration will be done.
❖ The total amount of C-14 is about 0.3 g•Approximately 10 kg of C-14 produced in nature each year•
about 1 ton in the atmosphere•
The highest concentration in the tank is 215 Bq/kg•
C-14 in living organisms is about 200 Bq/kg-C•
1 kg of meat contains about 60-70 becquerels

Description of the negligible risk of negligible exposure❖ 1 µSv• An increase of 6 m above the ground adds 1 µSv per year
• Eating 10 bananas adds 1 microsievert• 1 µSv by eating banana = 1 µSv by drinking tritiated water• 400 µSv of natural exposure to food per year
❖ 1 nSv• An increase of 6 mm above the ground adds 1 nSv per year
• 10-5 µSv = 0.06 mm• It can be expressed as a non-zero number, but it is a meaningless
numberGovernment Position

The official position of the Korean government
The government expresses strong opposition and concern
with respect to the decision of the Japanese government on
April 13 (Tuesday) to discharge radioactively contaminatedwater stored at the Fukushima nuclear power plant site into
the ocean.

• Establishment and operation of task force forrelated ministries in response to the discharge ofcontaminated water from the Fukushima nuclearpower plant• Establishment of multiple radiation monitoring
system• Request international cooperation and objective
verification by international community

10

Location of domestic seawaterradioactivity monitoring

Imported food radiation safety information website

Nuclear Safety and Security Commission
Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries

11Perception by public
no change = something huge is coming

12Reaction by public• Resolutely oppose the discharge of contaminated water from FK-1 site
• Immediately withdraw the discharge of contaminated water from FK-1 site

13

Some so-called experts say• “Can you drink contaminated water? Please make Fukushima beer.”• How do you believe the Japanese government's announcement?
• Fukushima contaminated water cannot be purified. - The properties are different fromthose of tritium in other countries.
• Contains over 200 radioactive contaminants. Tritium is not filtered out. There are cases
where ALPS does not completely filter.
• Even if diluted, the total amount is the same.

• When it comes to radiation, no matter how much we worry about it, we cannot overdo it.
• We need to look for other alternatives besides releasing.
• It affects Jeju after 6 months.

• It's out there just to save money. There is a better way, but I don't want to.

What is not true is definitely not true.
Even statements that contain facts may not be true.

14

Suggestions to solve the problem

❖ There is a limit to obtaining the consent of the Korean people for theanalysis because it is only possible to analyze the data that TEPCO
discloses. Japan should make an more effort to make the data public.
❖ Increase the scope and frequency of information disclosure so that it
becomes common knowledge that it is openly disclosed.
❖ Descriptive language should be translated into everyday language sothat quantitative facts can be easily understood.

❖ Comparison of effluents and nuclear power plants in operation canbe misleading, so it is reasonable to compare them with backgroundradiation that is easily accepted and lived in nature.

❖ A convincing explanation is needed for the claim that the release waschosen because it was the cheapest.
❖ We need to accept the fact that there is anti-Japanese sentiment as afact and find a solution. It is impossible to find a solution bydissolving anti-Japanese sentiment.