JDR Vol.16 No.5 pp. 840-865
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2021.p0840


Impact on Fisheries in Contaminated Water Discharged from Nuclear Power and Reprocessing Plants: The Cases of La Hague Reprocessing Plant, Sellafield Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, and TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Tetsuya Nakamura*,†, Steven Lloyd*, Atsushi Maruyama**, and Satoru Masuda***

*Kyoei University
4158 Uchimaki, Kasukabe, Saitama 344-0051, Japan

Corresponding author

**Chiba University, Chiba, Japan

***Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

October 1, 2020
June 24, 2021
August 1, 2021
La Hague Reprocessing Plant, Sellafield Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, release of radioactively contaminated water, compensation for loss or damage

This paper statistically analyzes residents’ understanding of problems related to radioactively contaminated water discharged from nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing plants. Moreover, this paper examines their impact on the surrounding fisheries by using the cases of La Hague, Sellafield, and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Survey data shows that more than 60% respondents disagree with the release of contaminated water, and this sentiment is particularly strong among both British and French respondents. Regarding seafood caught in the vicinity of the nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing plants, although British respondents noted that they hold it in high regard, many people do not purchase this seafood. In contrast, many Japanese respondents reported that they were less concerned, and thus, willingly purchase seafood caught off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture. In all three countries, many people did not trust government information on the release of contaminated water. Compensation to the affected people was provided by the central government, companies involved, and local governments, in that order. Japanese and British respondents reported higher expectation for compensation as compared to French respondents. Japanese and French respondents noted that they have knowledge of radioactive materials and contaminated water, and many of them purchased seafood caught in the vicinity of the nuclear power and reprocessing plants. British respondents were the most opposed to the release of contaminated water, whereas Japanese respondents were the least reliant on government information about the release of contaminated water. Finally, among those who trusted information from the government and retailers, French respondents were the least concerned about contamination. French respondents were also the least likely to expect any compensation for the fishermen affected by contamination. Both British and French residents around the affected plants expected the central government to compensate the affected fishermen, whereas those who did not reside around the affected plants did not expect the fishermen to be compensated. French respondents were more likely to expect compensation from the local governments; affluent respondents were more likely to expect the compensation to be funded by taxation, whereas less affluent respondents expected them to be funded by donations. Respondents who were more skeptical of government information wanted the companies involved to compensate the fishermen. British respondents reported a tendency for wanting the companies involved to provide this compensation, and did not support the concept of compensation provided through donations.

Cite this article as:
Tetsuya Nakamura, Steven Lloyd, Atsushi Maruyama, and Satoru Masuda, “Impact on Fisheries in Contaminated Water Discharged from Nuclear Power and Reprocessing Plants: The Cases of La Hague Reprocessing Plant, Sellafield Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, and TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.16, No.5, pp. 840-865, 2021.
Data files:
  1. [1] Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc. (TEPCO), Treated water portal site, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  2. [2] TEPCO, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  3. [3] BBC NEWS Japan, “Environment Minister Harada: ‘We have no choice but to release the contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea’,” September 11, 2019, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  4. [4] Discover the Evidence (DtE), “Windscale – The Nuclear Laundry – (Sellafield),” (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  5. [5] British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), [accessed July 14, 2021]
  6. [6] D. Black, “Investigation of the possible increased incidence of cancer in West Cumbria: Report of the independent advisory group,” 104pp., Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1984.
  7. [7] M. J. Gardner et al., “Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria,” British Medical J., Vol.300, No.6722, pp. 423-429, doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6722.423, 1990.
  8. [8] J. Gray, S. R. Jones, and A. D. Smith, “Discharges to the environment from the Sellafield site, 1951-1992,” J. of Radiological Protection, Vol.15, No.2, pp. 99-131, doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/15/2/001, 1995.
  9. [9] L. J. Kinlen, “Can paternal preconceptional radiation account for the increase of leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Seascale?,” British Medical J., Vol.306, No.6894, pp. 1718-1721, doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6894.1718, 1993.
  10. [10] Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), “ATOMICA: Sellafield Movement on the reprocessing plant,” 2002, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  11. [11] British Government, “Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): Fourth Report,” [accessed July 14, 2021]
  12. [12] JAEA, “ATOMICA: La Hague Movement on the reprocessing plant,” 2010, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  13. [13] “Greenpeace installs webcam at the end of France’s nuclear reprocessing discharge pipe ‘to open the eyes of Governments’,” Greenpeace website archive, June 26, 2000, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  14. [14] J.-F. Viel, D. Pobel, and A. Carré, “Incidence of leukaemia in young people around the La hague nuclear waste reprocessing plant: A sensitivity analysis,” Statistics of Medicine, Vol.14, No.21-22, pp. 2459-2472, doi: 10.1002/sim.4780142114, 1995.
  15. [15] D. Pobel and J.-F. Viel, “Case-control study of leukaemia among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: The environmental hypothesis revisited,” British Medical J., Vol.314, No.7074, pp. 101-106, doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7074.101, 1997.
  16. [16] The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), [accessed July 14, 2021]
  17. [17] Orano Cycle (COGEMA and Areva NC), [accessed July 14, 2021]
  18. [18] M. Dousset, “Cancer mortality around La Hague nuclear facilities,” Health Physics, Vol.56, No.6, pp. 875-884, doi: 10.1097/00004032-198906000-00005, 1989.
  19. [19] J.-M. Hattchouel, A. Laplanche, and C. Hill, “Leukaemia mortality around French nuclear sites,” British J. of Cancer, Vol.71, No.3, pp. 651-653, doi: 10.1038/bjc.1995.129, 1995.
  20. [20] T. Yanai, “Current status and issues of fishery reconstruction in Fukushima Prefecture,” Trends in the Sciences, Vol.24, No.7, pp. 7_26-7_31, doi: 10.5363/tits.24.7_26, 2019 (in Japanese).
  21. [21] Jiji Press, “Eight years after the Great East Japan Earthquake, fish catches off the coast of Fukushima,” February 23, 2019, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  22. [22] The Asahi Shimbun Digital, “Cesium from blue rockfish caught off Fukushima coast, shipment suspended,” February 23, 2021, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  23. [23] Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), “Radioactive Materials in Black Rockfish off the Coast of Fukushima Prefecture Exceeding Standards: Shipment Suspended,” February 22, 2021, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  24. [24] The Tokyo Shimbun, “Fukushima No.1 cleanup water ‘opposed to discharge into the ocean,’ says Fukushima fisheries federation chief,” April 2, 2020, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  25. [25] Nihon Keizai Shimbun, “Miyagi fishermen’s association opposes release of treated water from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean,” June 15, 2020, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  26. [26] C. Reiher, “Food safety and consumer trust in post-Fukushima Japan,” Japan Forum, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 53-76, doi: 10.1080/09555803.2016.1227351, 2017.
  27. [27] P. M. Figueroa, “Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: An anthropological approach,” Asia Europe J., Vol.11, No.1, pp. 53-64, doi 10.1007/s10308-013-0343-9, 2013.
  28. [28] T. Shimura et al., “Public health activities for mitigation of radiation exposures and risk communication challenges after the Fukushima nuclear accident,” J. of Radiation Research, Vol.56, No.3, pp. 422-429, doi:, 2015.
  29. [29] Reconstruction Agency, “Transcript of the press conference by Minister of Reconstruction Hirasawa (April 16, 2021),” (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  30. [30] Environment Agency, Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and Scottish Environment Protection Agency, “Radioactivity in food and environment, 2015 (RIFE-21),” 2016, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  31. [31] Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), “Canadian national report for convention on nuclear safety – 7th report,” 2016, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  32. [32] Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN), “Livre blanc du tritium,” 2021, (in French) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  33. [33] C.-S. Kim et al., “Assessment of environmental radioactivity surveillance results around Korean nuclear power utilization facilities in 2017,” J. of Radiation Protection and Research, Vol.44, No.3, pp. 118-126, doi: 10.14407/jrpr.2019.44.3.118, 2019.
  34. [34] The Tokyo Shimbun, “Tritium discharged into the sea more than five times as much as ‘treated water’ at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Ibaraki Tokai Reprosessing Plant,” April 16, 2021, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  35. [35] Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), “About ALPS Treated Water (Decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant),” March 2021, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  36. [36] The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), [accessed July 14, 2021]
  37. [37] Association pour le contrôle de la radioactivité dans l’Ouest (ACRO), [accessed July 14, 2021]
  38. [38] ACRO, “Les rejets de substances radioactives en mer: Cas de l’iode-129 et du tritium,” April 22. 2013 (in French) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  39. [39] M. Castrillejo et al., “Impact of nuclear fuel reprocessing on the temporal evolution of marine radiocarbon,” Science of the Total Environment, Vol.738, Article No.139700, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139700, 2020.
  40. [40] E. Behrens et al., “Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol.7, No.3, Article No.034004, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034004, 2012.
  41. [41] Google Earth, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  42. [42] OnTarget Inc., Azimuthal Map, Anywhere, Equidistant, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  43. [43] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “INES: The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale: User’s Manual 2008 Edition,” 2013, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  44. [44] IAEA, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  45. [45] Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), [accessed July 14, 2021]
  46. [46] T. Nakamura and A. Maruyama, “Attitude of foreign citizens toward nuclear energy policy and radioactive materials in food: A Case study on Lorraine region, France,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.27, No.2, pp. 13-27, 2016 (in Japanese).
  47. [47] T. Nakamura and A. Maruyama, “Analysis on the measures to mitigate the risk of radioactive contamination in foods: A Survey for parents of junior and high school students,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 36-48, 2017 (in Japanese).
  48. [48] T. Nakamura, Y. Yano, and A. Maruyama, “Evaluation of public awareness of and safety measures regarding radioactive substances: A case study of Ukraine after the Minsk Agreement,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.29, No.2, pp. 27-43, 2018 (in Japanese).
  49. [49] Subcommittee on the Handling of Treated Water from Radionuclide Removal Facilities, The Atomic Energy Commission of the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), “ Report of the Subcommittee on Environment and Safety (Environmental Radioactivity Subcommittee),” (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  50. [50] A. Melintescu and D. Galeriu, “Uncertainty of current understanding regarding OBT formation in plants,” arXiv: 1609.05052, 2016.
  51. [51] Japan Atomic Energy Commission, “Subcommittee on the Handling of Treated Water from Radionuclide Removal Facilities,” 1974, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]
  52. [52] D. McCubbin et al., “Incorporation of organic tritium (3H) by marine organisms and sediment in the Severn Estuary/Bristol Channel (UK),” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol.42, No.10, pp. 852-863, doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00039-X, 2001.
  53. [53] K. D. Kok, “Nuclear Engineering Handbook,” CRC Press. p. 332, 2009.
  54. [54] T. Nakamura et al., “Public attitudes toward nuclear accidents and policies for radioactive materials,” J. of Rural Economics, Special Issue 2013, pp. 266-273, 2013 (in Japanese).
  55. [55] Sky UK, Chernobyl, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  56. [56] BBC News, “Fukushima: Radioactive water may be dumped in Pacific,” September 10, 2019, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  57. [57] BBC News, “Japan cancels failed $9bn Monju nuclear reactor,” December 21, 2016, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  58. [58] Nuclear Engineering International, “More problems for Japan’s Rokkasho reprocessing plant,” September 4, 2018, [accessed July 14, 2021]
  59. [59] The Yomiuri Shimbun, “Government officially decides to release water from Fukushima Daiich Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean – Compensation caused by damage to reputation to be compensated indefinitely,” April 13, 2021, (in Japanese) [accessed July 14, 2021]

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Sep. 24, 2021