On Tuesday the International Atomic Energy Agency released its final assessment report on Japan's plan to discharge the nuclear-contaminated wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea. It was greeted with relief by Tokyo, but with concerns, questions and objections by much of the international community.

The IAEA report does not provide Tokyo with a license to go ahead with its irresponsible plan to dispose of the contaminated wastewater by dumping it in the ocean. Neither the report nor the Fumio Kishida government has provided convincing evidence that the plan is the safest and the best. Instead, they have only triggered more doubts and anger at what is an irresponsibly high-handed action.

Chinese experts have pointed out that the IAEA report fails to fully reflect the opinions of all the experts involved in the review, and that the conclusions presented are limited and biased. Since Japan deliberately restricted the IAEA technical working group's authorization to voice critical opinion, the review is exclusively focused on the option of discharging the nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea, excluding other possible disposal options.

Not to mention that Tokyo has not proved the long-term effectiveness and reliability of the devices used to purify the nuclear-contaminated wastewater, which will be dumped in the ocean for decades, and that the IAEA's report pointed out that Japan's multi-nuclide removal facilities can't remove all the radionuclides from the contaminated wastewater.

It should also be noted that Tokyo has not proved the authenticity of the relevant data. Tokyo Electric Power Company has repeatedly concealed or tampered with data over the years. Nor has Tokyo proved that the discharge plan is harmless to the marine environment and human health.

According to the China Atomic Energy Authority, the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater contains more than 60 radionuclides, many of which can't be effectively treated. Some of these radionuclides may spread with ocean currents, and it is not clear how they may affect the ecological balance and marine environment.

It seems Japan has devoted more time and energy into trying to persuade and cajole others, including its own citizens, into believing that its hastily adopted plan is safe than in considering what would be the safest way to dispose of its watery hot potato.

The widespread opposition in Japan to the move indicates that even the Japanese public does not trust the government's claims. All schools in Fukushima prefecture rejected the Japanese government's proposal to use Fukushima seafood in their meals. Which is probably wise considering the level of caesium-137 in fish caught in the waters off Fukushima prefecture has exceeded the national safety level, and fish caught in the harbor of Fukushima recently had levels 180 times more than the maximum stipulated in Japan's food safety law.

Tokyo should sincerely fulfill its obligation to fully consult with all the other stakeholders, as well as relevant international institutions before proceeding full tilt with its imprudent plan.