In the wake of Japan’s decision to release treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear reactor into the Pacific Ocean, China has been fueling anger and disseminating misinformation surrounding the move. Despite receiving approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency for the safety of the released water, China has reacted with outrage, exacerbated by dubious claims propagated through social media posts lacking scientific credibility.
The release of treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima nuclear reactor has ignited a wave of fury in China. This fury has prompted Chinese netizens to advocate for the boycott of various Japanese products and even stockpile essential supplies. These calls for boycotts have been amplified by viral posts promoting baseless conspiracy theories.
Despite the affirmation of safety from the International Atomic Energy Agency, neighboring countries, particularly China, have expressed strong dissent towards Japan’s wastewater release. Historical tensions between Japan and its neighbors have sown distrust in the public’s perception of the plan.
Amid a deepening diplomatic clash between Beijing and Tokyo, misinformation on social media has added fuel to the fire. State-controlled media outlets and associated commentators have often propagated this misinformation, with active support from pro-government social media users.
Prominent nationalist commentator Hu Xijin posted on Weibo, “Of course [the discharge] should be opposed! It’s polluting oceans and creating known long-term risks that we don’t quite understand.” Government officials have also joined in, such as Beijing’s Consul General in Belfast Zhang Meifang, who posted an animation depicting Godzilla surrounded by flames as a symbolic gesture against Japan’s water release.
In addition to calls for boycotting Japanese products, Chinese netizens have expressed their displeasure through viral videos on Chinese social media platforms. These videos include incidents like a Japanese restaurant owner damaging his business due to nationalistic sentiment and a teacher characterizing Japan’s behavior as “shameless.”
Viral animations falsely portraying nuclear material spreading across the Pacific have also been circulated. Despite being based on a 2012 study from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, these animations have been shared widely on Chinese social media platforms, leading to further misinformation.
Experts have emphasized the safety of the released water, highlighting that radioactivity levels remain within acceptable limits. Tom Scott from the University of Bristol stated, “When released into the Pacific, the tritium is further diluted into a vast body of water and would quickly get to a radioactivity level which is not discernibly different from normal seawater.”
Nonetheless, China’s official state news agency CGTN released a musical parody implying that Japan was dumping “polluted water and poisoned fish” into the sea.
China’s decision to ban all aquatic products from Japan following the start of the wastewater release has caused a significant disruption in China’s seafood sourcing. This move has led to panic buying of iodized salt as false beliefs about its radiation protection properties have spread.
While anti-Japan sentiments are flourishing on the internet, Japanese businesses and organizations have faced harassment and hostility. Some experts suggest that China may be using anti-Japan sentiment to convey a message to Tokyo or to divert attention from pressing domestic challenges.
Despite the online nationalist sentiment, analysts indicate that China’s official response of banning Japanese seafood imports appears relatively restrained. This restraint might be rooted in China’s need for Japanese parts and technology in its supply chain and a desire to avoid damaging economic repercussions.
Experts assert that while China is allowing nationalist sentiment to thrive online, the government will likely work to prevent the situation from escalating to the instability witnessed in 2012.
Disclaimer: The views, suggestions, and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Press Echo 360 journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.