The Fukushima Wastewater ‘Discharge’: What’s in a Name? – technostrategic language.
Japan is very carefully shaping the narrative around its release of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.
The Diplomat By Maxime Polleri, June 12, 2023
Japan is planning to soon release a million tons of radioactive water from the Fukushima power plant. Since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, water used to cool the crippled power plant has become contaminated, while being kept in huge storage tanks. Advanced techniques of water treatment have removed many of the radioactive substances from this stored water, but one pollutant, radioactive tritium, remains especially tricky to get rid of. Since tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen – a key component of water – it cannot be removed by purification and remains in the treated water.
Currently, tritium-contaminated water is filling Japan’s tanks to the brink and the government has no choice but to release this water in the sea. This decision is fueling numerous controversies surrounding the potential danger of releasing nuclear wastewater in the ocean. It is notably facing stark opposition from Japan’s fishing industry, which has been scrambling to recover ever since the 2011 nuclear meltdowns.
As a social anthropologist working on this disaster, I am less concerned about the scientific debates over the safety vs. danger, and more interested in another type of battle that surrounds this decision: a linguistic one. For instance, when fishermen discuss their concerns, they at times use a specific narrative that accuses the authorities of treating the sea as a garbage dump. On the other hand, state authorities and nuclear organizations like The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), rarely talk about “dumping” wastewater in the sea. Instead, they use words like “release,” “disposal,” or even “dilution.” Words like “garbage,” “pollutants,” “contaminants,” or “waste” are also utterly absent from these expert organizations’ vocabulary. In talking about tritium-contaminated water, for example, IAEA prefers resorting to highly technical terms like Advanced Liquid Processing System-treated water.
These words are not random choices. They reflect highly peculiar ways of governing environmental risks in the aftermath of nuclear disasters. In particular, they echo what scholar Carol Cohn famously called “technostrategic language,” that is, terminologies that disregard particular realities in the face of risks, while preventing the expression of specific values. Cohn first talked about technostrategic languages in the context of nuclear defense intellectuals, arguing that their specific language allowed a rejection of the idea that they too could become victims of the wrath of nuclear weapons.
Similarly, words like “discharge,” “dilution,” or “treated water” are part of governance techniques that have powerful symbolic functions. This language imbues post-disaster narratives with specific values, while shutting out alternatives. Let us examine some of the consequences of this technostrategic language.
First, technical words provide an aura of expertise, legitimacy, and control toward the things that cannot be governed, such as the slow accumulation of tons of contaminated water………………………..
Second, much like the phenomenon of radioactive decay – a process where unstable atomic elements gradually transform themselves into wholly different elements – bringing discussions of contamination into the technical sphere literally transmutes the narrative of “waste dumping” into what appears to be a sound policy of “treated-water management.”………………….
Third, the use of scientific jargon also creates powerful hierarchical divisions between people and experts. For instance, Japanese fishermen are worried that the release of radioactive water will affect their livelihood. Yet they can rarely compete against the technical lingo of reified expertise. https://thediplomat.com/2023/06/the-fukushima-wastewater-discharge-whats-in-a-name/
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- December 2025 (249)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Leave a comment