One year ago today, the Japanese government announced its controversial decision to release radioactively contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which was damaged by a tsunami 11 years ago.

Despite strong opposition at home and abroad, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the nuclear facility, is reportedly to begin building the undersea outlet for the radioactive waste water soon, the completion of which would mean substantial progress toward the set goal of starting the release next year.

It was against such a backdrop that several non-governmental organizations in Japan's Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures recently handed over a petition to the government and the operator. The petition, signed by more than 180,000 people, opposes the planned release, and calls for alternative ways to deal with the contaminated water.

Considering the Japanese authorities' unilateral approach to the matter from the beginning, there is a very slim chance this may have any bearing on the way they handle the matter. But ignoring broad concerns about the potentially disastrous consequences of the release and pressing ahead without proper scientific support and consultation with stakeholders, domestic and international, would create an all-lose scenario. Strained relations aside, this would have real negative impacts on not only the Japanese fishing industry, but a considerable number of foreign populaces in the area.

The fishing communities in Fukushima and Miyagi have every reason to worry, because the planned release will inevitably affect outside perception of their product safety, and bring irreparable damage to the local economy.

But what matters certainly is more serious than mere perception, because radioactive materials have proven harmful not only to marine species, but to human health too. And China, for one, had already detected pollutants from the Fukushima nuclear accident in the waters under its jurisdiction at the end of 2013.

The Japanese authorities have yet to even come up with convincing data as to how well they will be able to reduce the harmful elements in the water to be discharged, and what will be the short-, mid- and long-term impacts of the discharged water on the maritime environment. Not to mention they have not even bothered to consult with international stakeholders, including China and the two Koreas, its closest neighbors.

As one of the most serious nuclear accidents since humanity began to peacefully use nuclear energy, dealing with the aftermath calls for much greater transparency and oversight than the Japanese authorities have so far allowed.

Japan has an obligation to do its utmost to avoid or reduce the potential harm the contaminated water may cause to other countries and the global marine environment. Neighboring countries' legitimate concerns deserve more than a deaf ear.

The advantage of ocean discharge is that in the immediate term at least it is the cheapest option for Japan. But that is outweighed by the disadvantages which include the long-term costs to the marine environment, Japan's international image and its relations with its neighbors.

Tokyo's stubbornness will come back to haunt it.