Q1: Since 24 August 2023, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has discharged in five batches a total of over 38,000 tons of Advanced Liquid Processing System (APLS)-treated, radioactively contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific. Though the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its final report endorsed the ocean dumping of these treated contaminated water, it has met cacophony among the scientific community ranging from veiled skepticism to open criticism. In your opinion, why do you think this is a controversial decision? What is the biggest controversy involved here?

Q2: You mentioned a key fact that from a perspective of international law, the IAEA is not in a position to give the imprimatur of approval for the ocean dumping of the treated contaminated water and that power lies with the Japanese nuclear safety watchdog, which along with the TEPCO claimed that the water would be diluted until the concentration of tritium is reduced to around 1500 Bq per litre, or a mere 1/40 of the Japanese national standard. Though the IAEA and its director-general Mr. Rafael Grossi has repeatedly reassured the world of the satefy of the safety dumping, it was stated on IAEA website that its review was based on material submitted by Japan and on-site technical missions. In your opinion, why didn't the IAEA conduct its review out of an independent capacity instead of trusting the data provided by the Japanese in a seemly uncritical manner?

Q3: With due respect, Prof. Richmond, let me play the Devil's Advocate, if I may. You may be perfectly aware that there is a significant number of scholars and specialists who share the view that discharging the treated contaminated water into the ocean is the best solution available. Prof. Georg Steinhauser of TU Vienna, for one, claimed "the solution to pollution is dilution, but people don't want to believe it. The Pacific acts as a massive dilutant ... tritium is not dangerous, neither for people nor the environment, if it's slowly released in diluted form. It's a fraction of what is still in the ocean after the nuclear bomb tests. And very soon, it will be diluted to a point at which it is undetectable. So, there's no need for anyone to be scared." What is your response?

Q4: You stated on multiple occasions that there are better alternatives to ocean discharge, such as using the treated contaminated water to make concrete and build a 15-metre tall seawall. But given the fact that there are as much as 1.3 million tons of such water to be disposed of over a period of at least three decades, is your solution good enough to bail the Japanese out of the dilemma?

Q5: Based on your analysis, are you suggesting that this is not only an environmental issue but also a political issue pivotal to the well-being of the Pacific islanders?

Q6: You've repeatedly mentioned bioaccumulation of organically bound tritium and various radionuclides in the context of what you've termed in a recent paper as "small-dose, long term exposure", of which you acknowledge that we are facing a "knowledge gap". Given the fact that the half-lives of the various radionuclides involved - ranging from 30 years for cesium-137 to 5,700 years for carbon-14 - can be much longer than the life-span of those who make the irreversible decision of ocean discharge, the full consequence of which could be out of reach for many generations to come, what the scientific community can do to address this yawning gap of knowledge, however little it may be?

Q7: The roughly 38,000 tons of treated contaminated water TEPCO has discharged into the ocean is but a drop in the bucket among the total of 1.3 million of such water. Do you think it is still not too late to persuade the TEPCO and the Japanese authority to change course and to adopt a more objective, science-based, and future-technology-oriented approach to this issue, such as the one you've proposed?