In 2018, television reporting on the water containing tritium stored at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station emphasized opposition and fear of reputational harm while failing to explain adequately the nature of tritium, releases from nuclear facilities around the world, the scale of the radiological risk, and the realities of compensation and recovery in Fukushima’s fishing industry.
Through Yoshiko Sakurai’s essay, this article examines how incomplete reporting can itself create reputational damage and obstruct regional recovery.

August 3, 2020
When I watched it, the program was once again praising Shigeru Ishiba and criticizing Prime Minister Abe in its coverage of the Liberal Democratic Party presidential election, with a commentator from Kyodo News who was virtually acting as a representative of the Asahi Shimbun.
I am republishing the chapter issued on September 6, 2019, under the title: “The Circumstances Are More Complicated, and When One Visits the Area, One Realizes That Fisheries Compensation Can Be Broadly Divided into Two Types.”
This is the chapter originally issued on September 6, 2018, under the title: “Hodo Station Completely Failed to Address Two Questions: First, How Japan and the Rest of the World Handle Contaminated Water Containing Tritium; and Second, Whether Tritium Is Harmful.”
A friend bought me today’s newly released issue of Shukan Shincho.
This week’s installment of the regular column once again proves that Yoshiko Sakurai is a woman worthy of receiving the People’s Honour Award.
It is an essay with which the people of Japan and people throughout the world will agree completely that my highest respect for her is entirely natural.
Reading her essay, I was reminded of Saicho’s concept of the “national treasure.”
It is a magnificent article that perfectly criticizes, through accurate verification representing the complete opposite of their conduct, the continuing wickedness of the people who created the situation in which electricity was cut off to every household in Hokkaido.
This is truly an article warning the nation.
Emphasis within the text, other than the headings, and the passages enclosed by asterisks were added by me.
Is Hodo Station Encouraging Reputational Harm to Fukushima?
Ms. Sakurai has demonstrated brilliantly that it is no exaggeration to say that Hodo Station, the Asahi Shimbun, NHK and South Korea act with a single mind.
Public hearings were held on August 30 and 31 in Tomioka, Fukushima Prefecture, and other locations concerning the disposal of water containing tritium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
Yumiko Nishimoto, a local resident and chairperson of the nonprofit organization Happy Road Net, spoke with obvious concern.
“The media once again covered only the surface of the issue and did nothing but intensify the confusion.
We have repeatedly suffered because they report as though they understand the reality of the region and the thoughts of local people.
More than the nuclear accident itself, we continue to suffer from reputational harm created and still encouraged by the news media.”
I had in fact been angered by the one-sided nature of TV Asahi’s Hodo Station report on tritium-contaminated water on August 30.
Hodo Station failed to communicate any of the basic information necessary for understanding the problem.
I no longer watch this program at all.
Recently, however, I was misled by a false internet article claiming that the nature of its reporting had changed completely and watched it again.
It was exactly the same as before.
In its coverage of the Liberal Democratic Party presidential election, the program once again praised Shigeru Ishiba and criticized Prime Minister Abe.
The commentator was a certain person from Kyodo News who was effectively acting as a representative of the Asahi Shimbun.
In the 2012 presidential election, the late Nobutaka Machimura, the leader of the faction to which Prime Minister Abe belonged, was also a candidate.
Consequently, Abe had almost no opportunity to campaign for votes among regional party members.
That was why Ishiba won overwhelmingly among them.
The program failed to communicate this basic fact, even though it had been reported several days earlier by the Yomiuri Shimbun and subsequently by the Sankei Shimbun.
Can a program properly call itself a news program when it withholds the information necessary for viewers to understand the whole picture and the most important issue?
When a program fails to identify the essence of a matter and confines itself to superficial criticism, it becomes no different from a gossip-based television talk show.
Such irresponsible reporting destroys the efforts of local people attempting to overcome the nuclear accident, revitalize their communities and rebuild their lives.
Nishimoto accurately described this as “reputational harm caused by the media.”
On that day, Hodo Station combined its coverage of the public hearing on contaminated water with a report on the beginning of nuclear-fuel removal work at the Monju fast breeder reactor.
The following summarizes the public-hearing portion.
A female presenter began by stating that contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi was “continuing to increase rapidly,” that there were “900 tanks containing treated water,” and that “a public hearing had been held concerning a proposal to dilute the water and release it into the sea.”
The program then moved to recorded footage.
Tritium Is Effectively Harmless
The report began with a forceful comment from fisherman Haruo Ono.
“I am absolutely opposed to releasing it into the sea off Fukushima Prefecture.”
The narration explained that more than one million tons of tritiated water was stored at Fukushima Daiichi and continuing to increase, that securing additional storage space was difficult, and that dilution and release into the sea was under consideration.
It also introduced the opinion of a researcher that marine disposal was the most economically advantageous method.
Immediately afterward, Ono was again shown speaking in a highly emotional manner.
“Whether the release of tritium into the sea is safe or not, the moment it is released, another layer of reputational harm will be added.
There is absolutely no possibility that we would support it because we wanted compensation.”
This was followed by criticism from another participant and an observer.
“Reputational harm will expand.
I do not want to eat seafood produced under such circumstances.”
“I am currently evacuated in Iwaki, and if they do something like this, the possibility of returning home becomes even more remote.”
The public-hearing segment then ended.
Hodo Station completely failed to address two questions.
First, how Japan and the rest of the world handle contaminated water containing tritium.
Second, whether tritium is harmful.
On the first question, contaminated water from Fukushima Daiichi is processed through a multi-nuclide removal system that removes sixty-two dangerous radioactive substances, leaving tritium.
It is then diluted sufficiently and released into the sea.
This is the international standard.
China, South Korea, Russia, the United States and every other country release such water into the sea under this standard.
Japan has done the same in the past and continues to do so.
Fukushima alone was treated as an exception.
On the second question, tritium is a nuclide that exists naturally and emits a small quantity of radiation.
Because it has properties similar to water, it does not concentrate within living organisms and is completely harmless to humans when sufficiently diluted.
Cosmic rays from space collide with moisture in clouds and the atmosphere, producing tritium.
We live in that environment.
Tritium does not cause external exposure to the human body.
Whether it enters the body or comes from outside, tritium is effectively harmless.
What was Hodo Station’s purpose in failing to communicate these facts?
One cannot help suspecting that it was attempting to divert viewers’ attention from the truth about tritiated water, destroy the solution of marine release adopted internationally and give new momentum to the anti-nuclear movement.
Another point Hodo Station ignored was Ono’s statement that fishermen would never support the discharge merely to obtain compensation.
The continuing confusion in Fukushima and the backward-looking conduct that has consequently obstructed reconstruction are closely intertwined with compensation.
By the end of July that year, TEPCO had already paid the enormous sum of approximately 8.3 trillion yen in compensation since March 11, 2011.
A large portion was concentrated in Fukushima Prefecture.
Distrust of the Media