{"title":"Japan’s Strategic Maneuvering in the Fukushima Controversy: The Argumentative Move from the Contaminated Water to the Treated Water","authors":"Hiroko Okuda","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09663-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines the evolution of arguments surrounding Japan’s administrative decision to release the radioactive wastewater that the Tokyo Electronic Power Company (TEPCO) initially pledged to store and lower the radiation levels on its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site. In so doing, it focuses specifically on how Japan selected the argumentative move to reconcile the technical and public dimensions of the disagreement about the issue of Fukushima water in strategic maneuvering. The study will provide a critical insight into how Tokyo sought to establish a common ground to release the officially-called “Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water” for the reconstruction of Fukushima. In support of dialectical reasonableness drawn from the sphere of scientific arguments in which a premium is placed on techno-efficiency, the treated water became recontextualized in a technical and administrative sense not just to be distinguished from the contaminated water in a rhetorically effective way, but to be more generally and more relevantly accepted in a wider public.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 2","pages":"193 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-025-09663-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examines the evolution of arguments surrounding Japan’s administrative decision to release the radioactive wastewater that the Tokyo Electronic Power Company (TEPCO) initially pledged to store and lower the radiation levels on its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site. In so doing, it focuses specifically on how Japan selected the argumentative move to reconcile the technical and public dimensions of the disagreement about the issue of Fukushima water in strategic maneuvering. The study will provide a critical insight into how Tokyo sought to establish a common ground to release the officially-called “Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water” for the reconstruction of Fukushima. In support of dialectical reasonableness drawn from the sphere of scientific arguments in which a premium is placed on techno-efficiency, the treated water became recontextualized in a technical and administrative sense not just to be distinguished from the contaminated water in a rhetorically effective way, but to be more generally and more relevantly accepted in a wider public.
期刊介绍:
Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1. Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2. Pose a clear and relevant research question 3. Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4. Be sound in methodology and analysis 5. Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6. Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English