Flight from Fukushima
Nobuko Akita
(right: autumn in
Fukushima)
(left: Fukushima
Prefecture shown in red)
Fukushima is a beautiful place. It is especially bestowed with the gift of
nature. The prefecture’s main industry
has been agriculture and fishery. Along
its coast, there are two nuclear power plants operated by Tokyo Electric Power
Company. After the coalmines closed, the
plants were built to create jobs for the local communities. The electricity generated there is not for
the use within the prefecture but to service the Tokyo Metropolitan area.
The earthquake and tsunami on March 11,
2011 damaged the homeland and claimed almost 20,000 lives in Northeastern parts
of Japan. The subsequent accident at
Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is ranked as Level 7, the highest in
severity according to the International Nuclear Event Scale and compared only
with the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The radioactive contamination has delayed the
recovery of the entire area and, worse yet, deprived the near-by residents of
their livelihood indefinitely. Approximately
160,000 people out of 2 million of the prefectural population (8%) have left
their communities behind. The recent report by the Independent Investigation Commission set up
by the Diet asserts, “It was a profoundly manmade disaster.”*
*National Diet of
Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident
Independent Investigation Commission
(NAIIC) The report was made
available online as of July 5, 2012 http://www.naiic.jp/en/
<The Nuclear Accident and Evacuation>
In 4 hours from the quake, the Government of Japan issued a “Declaration
of Nuclear Emergency Situation.” Two and
a half hours later, it issued an evacuation order to the residents living
within 3 km from the plant and for those living within 10 km range to remain
indoors. On the 12th, the
first hydrogen explosion occured at the reactor #1. In three hours from the explosion, the
national government revised the evacuation order to the residents living within
20 km from the plant. By the 15th, four
reactors out of six at Fukushima Daiichi exploded and the national government made
the third revision in the evacuation order.
Yet none of these orders were forced for the next five weeks. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary Mr. Edano, a
spokesperson on behalf of the national government, kept saying that those
explosions had no immediate health impact and that evacuation was only for
precaution. Therefore, some residents
decided to stay home because they were too old and weak to move to distant
shelters. Others decided to stay to look
after their livestocks.
<Inappropriate Evacuation “Direction”>
The disaster prevention scheme by the government stipulated that the residents
in 10 km range from the nuclear power plant should evacuate and that they
should receive
directions/instuctions from the government via local municipalities. Those municipalities and some of the residents have
actually done evacuation drills. When more
municipalities beyound the 10 km range were abruptly swallowed up by the
evacuation zone, they had little
know-how or information to handle sthe situation. Some residents left by buses that local
government had chartered. Others were transported
by the Self Defence Forces trucks. The
flight was carried off with very little direction. When the evacuees finally arrived after a
long ride, they sometimes found the place already full. Because they somehow thought they could return
to their homes in several hours or so, they brought only the bare necessities. They had no idea that they would freeze and
starve at shelters for days or weeks to come. Some even lost their lives during the
evacuation.
(above The number of times the evacuees across 12 municipalities surrounding Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant had to be relocated.
Percentage breakdown in 6 bands--- once to six times or more. Ex.
Abount 30% of residents in Namie town (top) relocated 6 times or more while 10
% relocated two times or less by March 2012. NAIIC Report 4.2.2-4)
People in the areas between 20 and 30 km range
who had been ordered to stay indoors were soon isolated and faced with shortage
of food and water, because the order itself stopped all access from outside. The radioactivity in some of those areas were
actually quite high but the government did not share such data with the locals.
There was also no guidance to take iodine agent for the protection of
thyroid from radiation exposure.
It was on March
25 that residents in 20 to 30 km zone were told to evacuate. On April 22, the national government finally
designated those areas as “planned evacuation areas,” mandating that the
remaining residents, mostly farmers, should leave the area by the end of
May. Eventually in July 2011, the
government set up a barricade and proclaimed the area “off-limits.” The NAIIC report says, “Some residents were
evacuated to high dose areas, … Some people evacuated to
areas with high levels of radiation and were then neglected …. Insufficient
evacuation planning led to many residents receiving unnecessary radiation
exposure.” * (NAIIC report, p19)
Areas are zoned by annual
dose levels,
Orange: 20mSv< off
limit in principle
Yellow: 1.0mSv<20mSv
“safe”
Green: 1.0mSv>)
<Where to
Go>
As of August
2012, of the 160,000 evacuees in Fukushima, 60,000 had fled out of the
prefecture and the remaining 100,000, have taken refuge within the prefecture. Practically speaking, Fukushima is currently
divided into two zones; one designated “off-limits” and from which residents
have been ordered to evacuate, and the other where radiation level is under 20mSv
annually and determined “safe” by the national as well as local
government. But people are still worried
with this 20mSv criterion and some leave voluntarily, since it is extremely
high compared to the existing domestic standard. For example, the Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Law stipulates 1mSv/year as the permissible limit for the general population. For those who work in an X-ray lab, the limit
is 5.2mSv per year but children under the age of 18 are prohibited to work in
such an environment. The NAIIC Report warns,
“there is no widely accepted threshold for long-term radiation damage caused by
low doses. The impact of radiation on
health may vary from one person to another depending on age, sensitivity to
radiation and other factors, some unknown.” Even under these conditions, for the residents to
move out and restart their
life in a foreign environment is a difficult choice. According to a survey co-organized by two
NGOs in the summer of 2011, the majority of respondents answered that they were
unable to evacuate because of economic unforeseeableness. *(Hinan
no Kenri Kakuritsu no Tameni, http://www.foejapan.org/climate/library/book_hinankenri.html)
(abovet: Survey by FoE Japan and Citizens Against the Fukushima Aging Nuclear Power Plants, , July 25, 2011)
Some people
leave, especially when they have small children. Yet, they are often looked upon with a frown,
if not openly criticized because evacuation is taken as abandoning the community. Moreover, in many cases only
the mother and children evacuate while the father remain in Fukushima because
of his job. Thus, different
opinions toward radiation break up families and communities in Fukushima even today
both physically as well as emotionally. Those
mothers’ fear is often brushed aside as having no “scientific bases,” citing
that epidemiological research does not show significant correlation between the
relative cancer risk and doses of 100 mGy or less. Epidemiology or probability argument,
however, does not ease mothers’ fear. Unless
her child is examined individually, her fear would not be eliminated as the NAIIC
report suggests that health impact on individuals varies from one to another. For instance, a professor of radiotherapeutics called
for an examination based on the personalized medicine perspective to determine
individual risk of cancer to address the fear of citizens. That is to examine his/her gene level to find
out the onset of cancer. The professor, Dr.Tatsuhiko
Kodama, was asked for professional advice on July 27, 2011 at the Welfare and
Labor Committee of the House of Representatives but unfortunately his advice
has not been heard yet. At least, we
know that weary mothers’ claim can be scientifically addressed if not epidemiologically.
:
(Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the accident)
<Being
Scientific?>
As we have seen contrasting attitudes among the scientists, let us go
back and remind ourselves how a scientific argument is constructed. Any scientific logic determines a scope within
which to establish a coherency upon relevant facts and findings. Then, we should recognize that it is
essentially limited in nature, in other words, certain phenomena and conditions
are judged beyond the scope for coherency’s sake. We recall that Tokyo Electric Power Company
ignored the possibility of AC power loss, which in fact, happened when its
electric transmission tower fell by the jolt of the earthquake and stopped
feeding electricity to the entire plant.
They also brushed aside the possibility of DC power failure of the
seawater pumps, which were designed to send cooling water in case of
emergency. Now they excuse themselves
that these circumstances had been beyond their expectations but they cannot
deny the fact that they had put such conditions out of their scope when discussing
the plant system “scientifically.” A
number of other possibilities/conditions had been excluded from their scope of
nuclear power generation design, which they claim to be “secure and safe.”
Then, if
someone denounces an arguement as “poor in scientific bases,” we should ask in
return what is the scope of his/her arguemnt.
“Isn’t your arguement poor in conditions to discuss?”
<Right to Evacuate and NGOs>
In order to
help the troubled evacuees and those who hesitate to evacuate, NGOs and lawyers
have started a movement to help establish the right to evacuate, which has its
origin in Chernobyl legislations following the 1986 nuclear accident and has been
effective in supporting the survivors over the past 26 years.
It consists of three rights; right to know the risks, right to receive due
compensation, and right to be supported by the administration. The Japanese lawyers claim these rights as
covered by the Constitution of Japan which guarntees its citizens a right to
lead a minimum level of healthy and cultured life, and to pursue happiness. Thanks to this movement, the government
announced a guideline providing compensation to those who had evacuated
voluntarily from, as well as those who have chosen to stay in, the “safe” zone
for the first time at the end of 2011.
This is a step forward in admitting the legitimacy of voluntary
evacuation.
People in
Fukushima have suffered from radiation, evacuation, and misunderstanding arising
thereof. What we need to do first is to
know the truth. As the truth is often
hidden, sometimes intentionally, we may have to make efforts to know the
truth. Secondly, it is necessary to
believe that justice is on our side.
Confidence is important to fight back.
If we cannot do these by ourselves, networking is there to help. The above-mentioned lawyers educate the
general Japanese as well as those weary mothers that the current standard (20mSv/y)
in Fukushima is not safe and that flight to obtain healthy living is a
legitimate human right.
There are a number
of movements taking place in this country. People became aware that nuclear power
generation is incompatible with the living and they are beginning to stand up
for human rights. Women are quick to see
its threat as they often take care of children, the or the weak; one and only unique being. Farmers know what is irretrievable because
they raise livestocks and toil the land. Once their land is damaged, they have learned,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to recover.
Those physical laborers who work themselves to the bone on-site of the
Fukushima Daiichi know the fragility of life very well. Likewise, due respect to the uniqueness of
human beings should also be paid by the government, the academia and the
industry in whatever decision they may make.
This is an
original text written in
English by Nobuko Akita
No comments:
Post a Comment