Skip to main content

Thoughts, perceptions and concerns of coastal residents regarding the discharge of tritium-containing treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean



As a part of the decontamination process after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident of 2011, 1.32 million tonnes of tritium-containing water will be discharged from the power plant into the Pacific Ocean. Although radiobiological impacts of the treated water discharge on the public and the environment were reported to be minimal, Tomioka and Okuma locals expressed unease regarding the long-term recovery of their towns, which are economically dependent on the agricultural, fishery, and tourism sectors. This study presents thoughts, perceptions and concerns of Tomioka and Okuma locals regarding the discharge of FDNPP-treated water containing tritium into the Pacific Ocean to facilitate a more inclusive decision-making process that respects local stakeholder interests.


Conducted from November to December 2022, surveys were mailed to current residents and evacuees aged 20 years or older registered with the town councils.


Out of 1268 included responses, 71.5% were from those > 65 years. 65.6% were unemployed, 76.2% routinely visited hospitals, and 85.5% did not live with children. 61% did not want to return to Okuma/Tomioka. Anxiety about radiation-related health effects (38.7%), consuming food produced in Okuma/Tomioka (48.0%) and genetic effects (45.3%) were low. >50% reported poor physical and mental health. 40% were acceptive, 31.4% were unsure, and 29.7% objected to the discharge plans. Multinomial regression analysis revealed that, compared to acceptive responders, those who objected were more likely to be female, unemployed, and have anxiety about radiation-related genetic effects and poor mental health. Unsure responders were similarly more likely to be female, anxious about radiation-related genetic effects and have poor mental health.


The poor mental health of the locals, connected to high levels of risk perception and anxiety about the loss of economic opportunities related to the discharge plans, must be addressed. The 30-year discharge process could handicap local industries and hamper post-disaster socioeconomic recovery due to the circulation of false rumours among consumers. These results highlight the need to actively involve residents in the towns’ recovery process to address local concerns. The focus should be on the judicious combination of transparent science with the human aspect of recovery and narratives highlighting dialogues between local stakeholders and experts to enable the locals and the general public to make informed decisions about their protection and future.

Peer Review reports


A critical obstacle in the recovery of Fukushima after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on March 11 2011, is the appropriate management of Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS)-treated water (henceforth termed “treated water”). Large volumes of seawater were sprayed into the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) reactors to cool the fuel debris generated during the accident. After coming in contact with concentrated radioactive substances, the seawater became contaminated, the volume of the contaminated water has since been increasing after mixing with ground- and rainwater at the FDNPP site. To reduce the risk of radiation of FDNPP workers’ exposure to radiation in contaminated water, in August 2011, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) started treating this water with filtration, desalination and in 2013, the ALPS system. Through these effects, all radioactive substances, barring tritium, were removed [1]. Since then, 1.32 million metric tonnes of this treated water has been stored in 1,066 storage tanks on site, but site capacity at the FDNPP has been rapidly diminishing. While TEPCO has taken various countermeasures against further volume increase, leakages and accidents in case of natural disasters, the need to remove the water from this site to advance the decommissioning and recovery process remains [2]. Accordingly, on April 13 2021, the Japanese government released a statement announcing the plan to discharge almost 1.32 million tonnes of ALPS-treated water into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 years [3, 4].

As per the regulations set nationally by the Japanese government, internationally by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Regulation Authority, and taking into account submitted public comments, radiobiological impact assessments of the treated water discharge on the public and environment were conducted. The results showed minimal effects [5,6,7,8]. Due to tritium’s short physical-half-life of 12.32 years, short biological half-life in the human body of 10 days, maximum energy of emitted beta-decay electrons of 18.6 keV and low production rates in nuclear reactors, the estimated exposure was calculated to be smaller than that of global fallout and with natural production [9]. The effective dose to the public who might frequent the sea around the discharge point was 0.00002–0.000002 mSv/year, and the impact on marine ecosystems present in the surrounding sea area was 0.000001–0.0000004 mGy/day [5]. The most recent maximum radioactivity concentrations of Cs-134/137 in fish sampled in February 2023 within a 20-km radius of the FDNPP was < 5.0 Bq/kg, and the most recent maximum radioactivity concentrations of Cs-134, Cs-137, H-3, and Sr-90 in seawater collected along the coast of the power plant were 0.93 Bq/cm3, 0.98 Bq/L, 0.55 Bq/L, and 0.0062 Bq/L, respectively [10].

The effective management of treated water is a crucial milestone in the mid-and long-term roadmap towards complete decommissioning of the FDNPP and recovery of Fukushima Prefecture. Although the plan for discharge was approved, neighbouring countries like China, South Korea, Taiwan and the Pacific Islands have expressed discontent with this decision and stated that they were not consulted during the decision-making process [11]. Various international environmental nongovernmental organisations and local Fukushima residents, particularly those involved in fisheries, voiced their doubts regarding the minimal long-term effects of prolonged exposure to a large amount of tritium on human health, the marine environment and global ecosystems [12, 13]. Local fisheries also expressed concerns regarding reputational damage and socioeconomic impacts caused by the discharge of water perceived as “contaminated” in commercial fishing zones [14, 15]. Those concerned accordingly proposed various discharge method alternatives, such as transport to a remote site or long-term storage of the treated water. The latter, however, required consent from the local landowners and local governments, who are also important stakeholders in this decision. Mayors of both Okuma and Futaba towns have resolutely opposed the proposal of long-term storage of treated water, with Okuma’s mayor stating, “There will be no change of use. It’s a betrayal of the townspeople who provided us with the land for reconstruction.” [16] It is thought that the stored water would act as a source of radioactive concern in the case of another natural disaster, hindering the return of past residents to their towns or the arrival of new ones.

Due to the protracted nature and significant social, psychological, and economic impacts of the discharge process, the inclusion and participation of local stakeholders in related decision-making processes are necessary to address concerns and safeguard regional interests. This is especially true for the residents of coastal towns along Fukushima, such as Tomioka and Okuma, who will face the daily and long-term effects of the treated water discharge. The evacuation order was lifted for 85% of the area in Tomioka in 2017, and for 40% of the area in Okuma in 2019, excluding the difficult-to-return zones, allowing residents to return to their hometowns. Since then, while Tomioka and Okuma have been endeavouring to achieve long-term socioeconomic recovery, locals feel that these discharge plans impede the recovery process by being a source of continuous risk [17]. Areas that exhibit long-term recovery from disasters are characterised by strong networks and active local governance [18], where the participation of residents has led to favourable changes in policy and outcomes [19, 20]. As coastal residents will be grappling with the daily consequences of the 30-year discharge process, examining their views, concerns and perceptions of potential risks is crucial [21, 22]. This research is part of the perspective of setting up a more integrated decision-making process that is more inclusive and respectful of the local interests of cities in the process of recovery. Presenting may contribute to a community dimension to the plan elaborated by the authorities.



This study was conducted in Okuma and Tomioka towns from November to December 2022. The target study participants were current residents and current evacuees still registered with the Okuma/Tomioka town council as of November 2022, aged 20 and over, and who can receive mailings from Okuma/Tomioka town council and have given their consent to participate in the study. The municipal office distributed two questionnaires to each household within the study area. We instructed that, if the household consisted of only one target participant, the second questionnaire be discarded. If there were three or more target participants in the household, additional questionnaires would be mailed.

Excluding residents aged less than 19 years, the total population of both towns combined was approximately 17,400 (8700 males and 8700 females), and the number of total households was approximately 10,400, according to national statistics. All study protocols were approved by the ethics committee of Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (approval No. 22,081,901, 5 September 2022).


The current questionnaire was based on the Fukushima Health Management Survey [23] and on previous studies conducted within these towns [24, 25]. It contained questions related to participant demographics (age, sex, current prefecture of residence, occupation, and if currently living with children below the age of 18), intention to return to Okuma/Tomioka, perception of radiation-related risks associated with living in Okuma/Tomioka (health effects, genetic effects, fear of consuming food produced from these towns), thoughts about the plan to discharge the treated water into the Pacific Ocean (acceptance, non-acceptance, unsure), specific worries regarding the discharge of treated water, desire to know specific information regarding the discharge of treated water, and preferred type of risk communication method. Responses were in the form of yes/no, or where relevant, as a multiple-choice answer. Responses were provided as 4-point scales (1 = strong yes, 2 = probably yes/a lot, 3 = probably no/a little, 4 = strong no). Risk perception was assessed using Lindell’s 4-point Likert scale [26, 27].

Quality of life was assessed using the validated Japanese version of the HR-QoL Short Form-8 (SF-8) scale [28, 29], which measures the health status of eight dimensions: general health, physical function, physical role (limitations in role due to physical health dysfunction), bodily pain, vitality, social function, mental health, and role emotional (limitations in role due to emotional health dysfunction). Answers were provided on a 5- or 6-point response scale, ranging from 1 (very good/not hindered at all) to 5 or 6 (very bad/inability to function). The SF-8 is interpreted based on scaled scores for two broad classifications: the Physical Component Summary (PCS; comprising general health, physical function, physical role, and bodily pain) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS; comprising vitality, social function, mental health, and role emotional). Scores higher than 50 ± 10 were considered good health, based on mean values among the general population in Japan [28].

Statistical methods

The present study analysed the views of residents and evacuees on the decision to discharge treated water into the Pacific Ocean. Responder frequencies for each variable were first noted. The factors that played a significant role in responders belonging to each group (acceptance, non-acceptance, unsure) regarding the discharge of treated water were identified using the chi-square test. Pair-wise deletion of cases was done for factor analysis. Multinomial regression analysis was then used to determine the characteristics of responders based on their views of the decision to discharge treated water. Responders who chose not to disclose their sex (n = 2) were excluded from this analysis. Odds ratios (OR)s with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were obtained. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.


From 10,400 households, 1360 responses were received. After excluding responses due to missing data, a final sample of 1268 responders were examined regarding their thoughts on the discharge of treated water into the Pacific Ocean.

Responder characteristics

Most responders were elderly (71.5%) and residing within Fukushima prefecture (74.8%). Males (50.3%) and females (49.5%) were equally represented among the responders. The majority of responders were unemployed (65.6%), but the most common form of employment was as a company employee (17.1%). Most responders routinely visited hospitals (76.2%) and did not currently live with a child (85.5%). Around 61% of responders did not want to return to Okuma or Tomioka, although the risk perception regarding radiation-related health effects (38.7%), consuming food produced from Okuma and Tomioka (48.0%) and radiation-related genetic effects (45.3%) were not high. Most responders reported poor physical (57.4%) and mental (54.3%) health. Although 84.6% of the sample indicated their feelings of reciprocity as high, the majority expressed no civic participation (67.4%) or social cohesion (33.3%) in their communities. (Table 1: Responder characteristics)

Table 1 Responder characteristics

Thoughts on the plan to discharge treated water into the Pacific Ocean

Around 40% of responders stated that they accepted the plans to discharge treated water, 31.4% said they were unsure, and the remaining 29.7% were unaccepting this decision. The majority of the responders who accepted the decision were male (p < 0.001), not living with children (p = 0.035), residing within Fukushima prefecture (p = 0.003) and currently unemployed (p < 0.001). This group of responders did not want to return to Okuma or Tomioka (p = 0.024) and had no or low perception of risk regarding radiation-related health effects (p < 0.001), genetic effects (p < 0.001) or consuming food produced in Okuma or Tomioka (p < 0.001). These responders were naturally not worried about the discharge of treated water (p < 0.001), but the majority, similar to the responders in the “unsure” or “unaccepting” group, had the desire to gain more information regarding the effects of this discharge on marine ecosystems (p < 0.001). More than half of the responders of the “accepting” group reported good mental health (p < 0.001), but 51.5% stated that their physical health was poor (p = 0.003). (Table 2: Factors related to thoughts on the plan to discharge treated water into the Pacific Ocean)

Table 2 Factors related to thoughts on the plan to discharge treated water into the Pacific Ocean

Multinomial regression analysis

A multinomial regression analysis was conducted, where the reference group was the “acceptance” responders regarding their thoughts on the plan to discharge treated water into the Pacific Ocean. Compared to this group, responders who were unaccepting of this decision had 1.693 times higher odds of being female (95% CI 1.253–2.289, p < 0.001), 1.507 times higher odds of being unemployed (95% CI 1.089–2.085, p = 0.013), 7.277 times higher odds of perceiving high risk regarding radiation-related genetic effects (95% CI 5.333–9.928, p < 0.001) and 1.751 times higher odds of reporting poor mental health (95% CI 1.291–2.373, p < 0.001).

Compared to the reference group, responders who were unsure about the decision had 2.324 times higher odds of being female (95% CI 1.757–3.074, p < 0.001), 1.919 times higher odds of perceiving high risk regarding radiation-related genetic effects (95% CI 1.433–2.570, p < 0.001) and 1.704 times higher odds of reporting poor mental health (95% CI 1.287–2.256, p < 0.001). (Table 3: Multinomial regression analysis)

Table 3 Multinomial regression analysis


While 38.9% of responders accepted the plans to discharge the treated water into the Pacific Ocean, 29.7% stated that they felt unsure, and 31.4% could not accept these plans. Compared to responders who thought the discharge plans were acceptable, those who were unaccepting had higher odds of being women (OR 1.693, 95% CI 1.253–2.289, p < 0.001), being unemployed (OR 1.507, 95% CI 1.089–2.085, p = 0.013), perceive a higher risk of radiation-related genetic effects (OR 7.277, 95% CI 5.333–9.928, p < 0.001) and report poor mental health (OR 1.751, 95% CI 1.291–2.373, p < 0.001). Similarly, those who were unsure had higher odds of being female (OR 2.324 times, 95% CI 1.757–3.074, p < 0.001), perceiving a higher risk of radiation-related genetic effects (OR 1.919, 95% CI 1.433–2.570, p < 0.001) and report poor mental health (OR 1.704 95% CI 1.287–2.256, p < 0.001).

Studies set in these affected towns reported similar results of females perceiving higher genetic risk and reporting poorer mental health scores, which were shaped by psychological distress from the disaster [30, 31]. Morioka et al. conducted interviews with radiation-protection activist networks in Tokyo, Fukushima, and Sendai, Japan, and found that risk perception was also higher among women outside Fukushima prefecture as well, owing to cultural values and the social context of gender values [32]. However, to our knowledge, no such study regarding the relationship between demographic features and the acceptance of discharge plans has yet been published.

Our results thus indicated that the responders who were unsure or unaccepting of the plans to discharge the treated water had higher likelihoods of perceiving radiation-related genetic effects, health effects, and fears of consuming food produced in these towns. When compared to an unaffected region, Kashiwazki et al. found that the perception of radiation-related genetic effects between Fukushima and Tokyo residents aged 20–59 in 2018 indicated that, while 54.6% of Fukushima residents perceived a high genetic risk, 61.3% from Tokyo perceived the same (χ2 = 3.867, df = 2, p < 0.05). One reason for the reduced risk perception in Fukushima could be the regular risk communication sessions with radiation experts that still occur in the affected prefectures [27]. However, Kashiwazaki et al.‘s sample represents a younger population compared to our responders, whose mean age was 77 years. It has been demonstrated that older people generally have a higher risk perception compared to the younger population [33, 34]. Therefore, even though the risk perception among Fukushima residents is lower, the concerns and uncertainties of the older population have been overrepresented in the present study. It is thought that those who were exposed to risk communication efforts perceive less risk and are less inclined to be opposed to, or at the very least, not feel unsure about, the discharge plans.

Responders who were unsure or unaccepting of the plans to discharge the treated water also reported relatively poorer mental health scores. Poor mental health was defined as scores reported below 50, based on standardised values in a national Japanese cohort [29]. For age-specific scores, the mean ± standard deviation was 51.50 ± 5.75 for Japanese individuals aged 70–79 years old [35]. A more recent study conducted in 2015 in the Chiba prefecture among 715 participants reported mean scores for those aged 65 and older as 51.4 ± 5.9 [36]. Although no statistically significant differences were demonstrated, both these means were slightly higher relative to our study mean of 48 ± 5.7. Our results also showed a difference between the scores of responders who accept the discharge and those who do not or who are unsure about the discharge. Therefore, general mental health has been demonstrated to be better in unaffected parts of Japan, as compared to Fukushima. The perception of radiation risk is closely tied to mental health and can be influenced by variables such as age, gender, past experiences, and psychological distress from the disaster. While these multiple factors shape individual risk perception and mental health [37,38,39] in a post-disaster setting, chronic PTSD and psychosocial disturbances were repeatedly proven to be associated with higher levels of risk perception [40, 41]. The interplay between poor mental health as a result of the long-term effects of the disaster can manifest as high perceptions of risk, intolerance of information uncertainty and paying selective attention to risk [31]. This high-risk perception of the discharge, and anticipation of fewer consumers and tourists in their towns due to harmful damage resulting from it could be factors contributing to the non-acceptance expressed by some responders. There is a need to acknowledge and follow up on the high levels of radiation-related risk perception and poor mental health in the local Tomioka and Okuma communities, particularly among women, to ensure that they do not become worse among this group. Promoting interactions with experts and authorities not only allows residents to gain knowledge and resolve uncertainties, it also provides opportunities for local stakeholders to bring attention to and formulate solutions that tackle reputational damage and are, more importantly, acceptable to locals.

After the FDNPP disaster and a protracted evacuation period, Tomioka and Okuma have been striving towards socioeconomic recovery. In the face of a lengthy decontamination and decommissioning period, these areas had to re-establish the collapsed socioeconomic infrastructures after the disaster to create sufficient economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for residents. However, with the announcement of the plans to discharge treated water into the Pacific Ocean, these coastal communities faced a further setback in their long-term rehabilitation. Regional industries expressed their dismay with the discharge plans due to rumours about potential harms and high levels of risk perception that might be held by their consumers [42], decreasing the number of visitors, reducing the demand for local products and yielding detrimental long-term socioeconomic impacts to this region [17]. While TEPCO [5], international authorities [15], and the national government [6] collectively confirmed the safety of the discharge process, the present study demonstrated that the uncertainty among the responders regarding the long-term effects of releasing large volumes of tritium-containing water over the coming decades, especially regarding its movements in the ocean and accumulation in the marine ecosystem, remained.

The most productive way of addressing local concerns tied to high levels of risk perception is establishing an open, two-way dialogue between experts and the responders. The confusion among residents in the aftermath of the 2011 disaster demonstrated the importance of experts in acknowledging local concerns regarding potential hazards and having conversations about worst-case scenarios [43]. Communicating risk-related information should be a bilateral process in which ethical concerns and concerns based on the local knowledge of affected stakeholders are considered. The aim of risk communication sessions is the promotion of a “practical radiological culture” [44], encouraging the provision of sufficient information to locals for making informed decisions rather than convincing them about scientific facts. Studies have revealed that while purely science-based discussions may hamper reaching resolutions [42], narrative evidence is helpful in the formulation of more widely accepted policies. Kobayashi et al. [45] revealed that risk communication among family, friends and acquittances, regardless of expert involvement, was more influential in post-disaster recovery among affected locals. While experts could provide factual knowledge, they must function more as advisors and facilitators rather than the main actors in risk communication sessions. To address this mistrust, forming an independent body composed of trusted local leaders who, besides acting as middlemen between the locals and experts, also partake in data collection and analysis is beneficial. The ETHOS project in Belarus following the Chornobyl nuclear accident was the first experience to demonstrate that the involvement of local actors in the management of their daily living conditions in an area contaminated by radioactivity not only improved the protection of the inhabitants against radiation as well as their quality of life but contributed positively to the collective efforts of the authorities [17]. The involvement of local representatives, non-conventional actors and humanities and social sciences experts was advantageous in the decision-making process for steering the discussions between experts and non-traditional agents. As recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the Nuclear Energy Agency, the involvement of local stakeholders in cooperative processes combining scientific expertise and knowledge of local living conditions is essential for the success of risk assessment and management in complex exposure situations of populations residing in contaminated areas [46,47,48].

All local stakeholders must be encouraged to participate in dialogue sessions to voice their opinions, partake in seafood sampling practices and engage in ocean monitoring exercises [49]. There is a resulting improved level of trust and confidence in results, improvement in public education, and fostering of social ties as residents face obstacles together. By allowing the affected residents to regain control over the decisions about their daily lives, their sense of dignity is preserved, which will improve their well-being and lead to policy changes favouring local interests [50,51,52]. Indeed, the expert committee for the discharge of treated water was composed dominantly of engineering and physical science experts and TEPCO. The fishery representatives complained that their involvement in the consultations occurred after the details of the discharge were finalised among other experts [12]. It will be economically beneficial for coastal towns to encourage collaborations between the government, the nuclear industry and fishermen who have local knowledge of the movement of fish and peak tourist season to decide on discharge plans collectively. It is vital to seek out and opportunistically promote the active participation of the residents in these discussions, especially those who hold relatively higher perceptions of risk and report poorer mental health (more likely to be women, as shown by our results) so that this group does not feel like their concerns are being ignored.

Limitations of our study included those common to cross-sectional surveys, such as undetermined causality, a low response rate, and response bias. While we attempted to improve the response rate by posting questionnaires to all eligible households within the two towns, a majority of this population has chosen to remain in their evacuation areas, due to better employment opportunities and infrastructure. As such, many are not inclined to participate in the recovery efforts of their former towns of residence. There is also a selection bias of elderly responders, due to the strong sentimental value they place on their hometown compared to the younger generation of residents [53]. In the present study, only 30% of the sample were aged less than 60 years, and only 35% were employed. Owing to this small sample size, firm conclusions regarding this group of responders cannot be derived. There were no significant differences in perceptions of the discharge plans between younger and older responders, but compared to those who were employed, those who were unemployed were significantly more likely to be unaccepting or unsure.

In a randomly generated telephone poll conducted by a national newspaper from a voter pool in August 2023, among 1,042 responses, 53% were in favour of the discharge plans and 41% were opposed [54]. In comparison to our sample, a higher national proportion agrees with the discharge plans (53% versus 39%).

It is thought that a relatively smaller proportion of the study sample agrees with the discharge plans, as these responders would be directly affected by the long-term social, psychological, and economic impacts of the discharge that hinder the socioeconomic recovery of the towns, rather than the perception of radiobiological risks. Indeed, the most pressing issue is the reputational damage that the fishery and tourism industries of these towns would face as a result of this discharge. Concerns have been raised, particularly by those employed in the fishery industry, due to the potential reputational damage to Fukushima seafood and its effects on their business [55]. With this in mind, it is thought that responders who did not participate in the survey would likely be less interested in the discharge plans or have no major objections. Our results generally represent the views of the elderly locals who were directly affected by the nuclear accident and the impending discharge plans.


Our results revealed that, compared to responders who thought the discharge plans were acceptable, those who were unaccepting had higher odds of being women, being unemployed, perceiving a higher risk of radiation-related genetic effects and reporting poor mental health. Similarly, those unsure had higher odds of being female, perceiving a higher risk of radiation-related genetic effects and reporting poor mental health. The discharge of treated water is a long-term problem that will persist until the completion of the decontamination and decommissioning processes. The results of this study are valuable to better address residents’ concerns regarding the decision to discharge treated water into the surrounding ocean. This study also suggests a possible strategy for involving residents in the long-term recovery process. The current focus should be on the judicious combination of transparent science with the human aspect of recovery and the inclusion of narratives emphasising dialogues between local stakeholders and experts with the aim of enabling the locals and general public to make informed decisions about their protection and their future. Additional research on the conditions and means of implementing an effective dialogue between experts and local stakeholders should make it possible to influence policies in order to take better account of local interests. Given the interest and also the concerns expressed at the international level, such a dialogue should also be conducted with foreign stakeholders and experts.

Data Availability

All data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Treatment of Contaminated Water. [ Accessed 22 March 2023.

  2. ALPS Treated Water, etc. Storage - Tank Safety []23/03/2023. Accessed 23 March 2023.

  3. Ministry of Economy TaI. : Japan’s efforts after the announcement of the Basic Policy on handling of the ALPS treated water at the TEPCO’s FDNPS. In.; 2022. Accessed 23 March 2023.

  4. Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings: WATER MANAGEMENT AT FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI. In. ; 2021. Accessed 24 March 2023.

  5. Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings I, Fukushima Daiichi, D&D Engineering Company,. : Report of Assessment of Radiological Impact on Public and Environment Regarding the Discharge of ALPS Treated Water into the Sea (Construction stage). In.; 2022. Accessed 24/03/2023.

  6. METI (Agency for Natural Resources and Energy): Discharge into the ocean of ALPS treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power Station (FDNPS). In. Edited by Nuclear Accident Response Office AfNRaE: Fukushima Today. ; 2022. Accessed 26/10/2023.

  7. International Atomic Energy Agency: IAEA Confirms Tritium Level Far Below Japan’s Operational Limit in Second Batch of ALPS Treated Water Released Today. In. Vienna, Austria. ; 2023. Accessed 10 October 2023.

  8. Bezhenar R, Takata H, de With G, Maderich V. Planned release of contaminated water from the Fukushima storage tanks into the ocean: Simulation scenarios of radiological impact for aquatic biota and human from seafood consumption. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;173:112969.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Povinec PP, Liong Wee Kwong L, Kaizer J, Molnár M, Nies H, Palcsu L, Papp L, Pham MK, Jean-Baptiste P. Impact of the Fukushima Accident on tritium, radiocarbon and radiocesium levels in seawater of the western North Pacific Ocean: a comparison with pre-fukushima situation. J Environ Radioact. 2017;166(Pt 1):56–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. FDDDEC: Results of Radioactive Material Analysis in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. In.; 2023.

  11. Wang L, Li F. State duty to cooperate on the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water release. Mar Policy. 2022;136:104878. Accessed 24 March 2023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mabon L, Kawabe M. Bring voices from the coast into the Fukushima treated water debate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2022, 119(45):e2205431119.

  13. Buesseler KO. Opening the floodgates at Fukushima. Science. 2020;369(6504):621–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Businesses worry about. Reputational damage from Fukushima water discharge. Fukushima Minpo. Japan: Japan Times; 2022. Accessed 23 March 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  15. International Atomic Energy Agency: Report 3: Status of IAEA’s Independent Sampling, Data Corroboration, and Analysis. In: IAEA Review of Safety Related Aspects of Handling ALPS-Treated Water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. 2022: 48. Accessed 6 March 2023.

  16. SYNODOS. : Prolonged storage of treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is not an effective solution to the problem. In.; 2020. Accessed 16 March 2023.

  17. Yoshida H. Synthesis of the JHPS International Symposium on Tritiated Water. Ann ICRP 2021, 50(1_suppl):62–67.

  18. Okada A. Black Wave: How Networks and Governance Shaped Japan’s 3/11 Disasters (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2019), 264pp., $27.50 (paperback), ISBN: 978-0226638430. International Journal of Policy Studies 2020, 11(1):111–114.

  19. Vlachopoulou EI, Mizuta DD. Shellfish aquaculture and resilience: Leadership experiences from Kesennuma Bay, Japan. Mar Policy. 2018;92:111–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lochard J. Stakeholder engagement in regaining decent living conditions after Chernobyl. Radioactivity in the Environment. Volume 19. edn.: Elsevier; 2013. pp. 311–31.

  21. Sato A, Lyamzina Y. Diversity of concerns in recovery after a Nuclear Accident: a perspective from Fukushima. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(2):350.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Figueroa PM. Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear Disaster: an anthropological approach. Asia Europe Journal. 2013;11(1):53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yasumura S, Hosoya M, Yamashita S, Kamiya K, Abe M, Akashi M, Kodama K, Ozasa K. Study protocol for the Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Epidemiol. 2012;22(5):375–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsunaga H, Orita M, Oishi K, Taira Y, Takamura N. Intention to return in residents of Okuma and its characteristics: the evacuation order was lifted eight years after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident. J Radiat Res. 2021;62(5):868–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Orita M, Taira Y, Matsunaga H, Maeda M, Takamura N. Quality of life and intention to return among former residents of Tomioka town, Fukushima Prefecture 9 years after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6625.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindell MK, Barnes VE. Protective response to technological emergency: risk perception and behavioral intention. Nuclear Saf. 1986;27(4):457–67.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kashiwazaki Y, Takebayashi Y, Murakami M. The relationship between geographical region and perceptions of radiation risk after the Fukushima Accident: the mediational role of knowledge. Radioprotection. 2022;57(1):17–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tokuda Y, Okubo T, Ohde S, Jacobs J, Takahashi O, Omata F, Yanai H, Hinohara S, Fukui T. Assessing items on the SF-8 Japanese version for health‐related quality of life: a psychometric analysis based on the nominal categories model of item response theory. Value in Health. 2009;12(4):568–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fukuhara S. Manual of SF-36v2 Japanese version. Inst Health Outcomes Process Evaluation Research: Kyoto 2004:7–145.

  30. Suzuki Y, Takebayashi Y, Yasumura S, Murakami M, Harigane M, Yabe H, Ohira T, Ohtsuru A, Nakajima S, Maeda M. Changes in risk perception of the Health effects of Radiation and Mental Health Status: the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018, 15(6).

  31. Kashiwazaki Y, Takebayashi Y, Murakami M. Relationships between radiation risk perception and health anxiety, and contribution of mindfulness to alleviating psychological distress after the Fukushima accident: cross-sectional study using a path model. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0235517.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Morioka R. Gender difference in risk perception following the Fukushima nuclear plant Disaster. Soc Sci Med. 2015;107:105–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hande V, Orita M, Matsunaga H, Kashiwazaki Y, Taira Y, Takamura N. Comparison of quality of life between elderly and non-elderly adult residents in Okuma town, Japan, in a post-disaster setting. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(2):e0281678.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Suzuki Y, Yabe H, Yasumura S, Ohira T, Niwa S, Ohtsuru A, Mashiko H, Maeda M, Abe M. Psychological distress and the perception of radiation risks: the Fukushima health management survey. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(9):598–605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Tsutsumi F. Evaluation of QOL for cared-old persons: using the MOS 36-Item short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). J Japanese Phys Therapy Association. 2007;34(4):189–92.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kobayashi M, Marui E. Factors affecting the health-related quality of life of community-dwelling elderly in Japan: a focus on spirituality. Health. 2017;9(7):1095–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Maeda M, Lyamzina Y, Ito A. The Psychosocial Consequences of the Fukushima Disaster: What Are We Suffering From? In: Nuclear Emergencies: A Holistic Approach to Preparedness and Response edn. Edited by Steinhauser G, Koizumi A, Shozugawa K. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019: 63–75.

  38. Maeda M, Oe M. Mental Health consequences and Social issues after the Fukushima Disaster. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2017;29(2suppl):36S–46S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Murakami M, Hirosaki M, Suzuki Y, Maeda M, Yabe H, Yasumura S, Ohira T. Reduction of radiation-related anxiety promoted wellbeing after the 2011 Disaster: ‘Fukushima Health Management Survey’. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38(4):1428–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Miura I, Nagai M, Maeda M, Harigane M, Fujii S, Oe M, Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Takahashi H, Ohira T et al. Perception of Radiation Risk as a predictor of Mid-term Mental Health after a nuclear Disaster: the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017, 14(9).

  41. Adams RE, Guey LT, Gluzman SF, Bromet EJ. Psychological well-being and risk perceptions of mothers in Kyiv, Ukraine, 19 years after the Chornobyl Disaster. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2011;57(6):637–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mabon L, Kawabe M. Fighting against harmful rumours, or for fisheries? Evaluating framings and narrations of risk governance in marine radiation after the Fukushima nuclear Accident. Split Waters. edn.: Routledge India; 2021. pp. 51–68.

  43. Kasperson R. Four questions for risk communication. J Risk Res. 2014;17(10):1233–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wada Y, Nakata S, Fukumoto T. Developing ‘practical radiological culture’. A proposal of’Kizuna Square’in Fukushima. Nippon Genshiryoku Gakkai-Shi. 2013;55(9):520–3.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kobayashi T, Takebayashi Y, Goto A, Nakayachi K, Murakami M. May risk communication with non-experts contribute to post-disaster restoration of normalcy? A survey on the disaster-struck prefectures after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2021, 65.

  46. Ng KH, Yoong D, Gong J. Overcoming the Fukushima Wastewater Crisis: what the Japanese authorities could do to address opposing views. Health Phys. 2022;122(6):696–704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). : Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency. In.; 2011. Accessed 25 October 2022.

  48. Nuclear Energy Agency: Stakeholders and Radiological Protection: Lessons from Chernobyl 20 Years After. In: A Report by the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). vol. NEA No. 6170. France: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. ; 2006. Accessed 21 April 2023.

  49. Thu Zar W, Lochard J, Taira Y, Takamura N, Orita M, Matsunaga H. Risk communication in the recovery phase after a nuclear Accident: the contribution of the co-expertise process. Radioprotection. 2022;57(4):281–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Iwasaki K, Sawada Y, Aldrich DP. Social capital as a shield against anxiety among displaced residents from Fukushima. Nat Hazards. 2017;89:405–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Magwood IVWD, Creswell L, Gauntt R, McCree VM, Weightman M, Muroya N, Morita S, Hah Y, Vasquez-Maignan X, Ivanova T. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident, ten years on: Progress, lessons and challenges. In.: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development; 2021. Accessed 17 March 2023.

  52. Schneider T, Lochard J. Supporting societal and economic dynamics of recovery: lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Ann ICRP. 2021;50(1suppl):68–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hashimoto S. Fukushima Nuclear Accident and its Aftermath: a Survey of Futaba District. Sociol Theory Methods. 2013;28(2):223–45.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hiroyoshi Osaki SF. Poll: 75% say safety talks fail over Fukushima water release. In: THE ASAHI SHIMBUN Japan; 2023. Accessed 11 October 2023.

  55. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: Fukushima residents react cautiously after start of treated water release. In: THE ASAHI SHIMBUN. Japan. ; 2023. Accessed 11 October 2023.

Download references


Not Applicable.


This work was supported by Research Project on the Health Effects of Radiation organized by Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



V.H. and N.T. clarified the concept.M.O., Y.K., and X.X. conducted the investigation. V.H., and M.O. conducted the formal analysis. V.H., T.S. and M.O wrote the main manuscript text. J.L. and N.T. conducted the review and editing, All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Makiko Orita.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent

All the procedures were followed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and all study protocols were approved by the ethics committee of the Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (approval No. 22081901, 5 September 2022). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hande, V., Orita, M., Matsunaga, H. et al. Thoughts, perceptions and concerns of coastal residents regarding the discharge of tritium-containing treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean. BMC Public Health 23, 2436 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: