Antinuclear

 More than a year on from the Japanese tsunami, which claimed an estimated 19,000 lives and caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster, I visited the nuclear zone as a medical practitioner to hear the testimony of the local people whose lives had been irrevocably changed…….

Transparency and openness are essential to regaining the trust of citizens, and vital to encouraging them to return. Part of achieving this was being frank about radiation levels. We drove by numerous radiation meters in public areas which gave a real-time measure of ambient gamma dose rate (groundshine). It is a confronting experience to see a gamma dose rate meter where one would normally expect to see a statue or fountain, or to see radioactivity levels on fresh produce sold at the market (confirming that it is below the regulated threshold) where prices are normally posted.Decontamination of public spaces and monitoring of radiation levels is also vital to confidence. Usually this involves removing the topsoil and replacing it. By necessity however, this can only be of limited success. Living in a valley entails recurrent contamination from cesium being washed down from the more highly contaminated forest (and incidentally polluting the streams and fish stocks within them). At best we can only consider this as control rather than elimination of the hazard. And no one is contemplating decontaminating the forest, which would involve razing all vegetation and removing the topsoil. This is the reality of living in a nuclear fallout zone.

For other, more heavily contaminated communities, decontamination has failed. The mayor of nearby Iitate village recently declared decontamination efforts a failure and reluctantly concluded that this spelled the end of the village community.

Progressively, we came to appreciate the importance of continuity of a community in the recovery from a nuclear disaster. The psychological impacts are immediate, extensive and prolonged. Decisions to relocate come with trade-offs that need to be considered in the decision to return. What level of cancer risk (the only recognised health risk at these radiation levels) is one prepared to live with to regain one’s previous life?

At an excess of 10mSv per annum (roughly three times standard background radiation levels in Australia) the approximate risk is one extra cancer per 1000 people. Science can provide an estimate of the risks which can assist people make the final decisions, but ultimately these decisions are beyond the realm of science and only able to be made by an informed populace. For some, relocation and rebuilding may be the outcome they choose, for other communities, remediation and return is the answer.

Citizens need the resources (health, financial, administrative and political) to implement their decisions rather than be coerced or deceived into predetermined politically convenient outcomes. Prescriptive values of cut-off radiation thresholds as “safe” are simplistic, and undermine confidence.

Ultimately, the earthquake and tsunami not only caused physical destruction, but also, through the associated nuclear disaster, ruptured the delicate threads of trust that bind citizens and their elected leaders responsible for their welfare. The government was revealed to be part of the corrupt “nuclear village”, which promoted the nuclear industry’s interest at the expense of the public’s safety. Trust will only be regained slowly, if at all, and recovery will be commensurately compromised.

The consequences of the nuclear disaster pervade every level of Japanese society and will continue to echo for decades. http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=313461