Japanese public opinion in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster

In short: noone believes the JGov claims that plutonium is perfectly safe and that cesium is like a banana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

The Japanese reaction occurred after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. A nuclear emergency was declared by the government of Japan on 11 March. Later Prime Minister Naoto Kan issued instructions that people within a 20 km (12 mi) zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant must leave, and urged that those living between 20 km and 30 km from the site to stay indoors.[1][2] The latter groups were also urged to evacuate on 25 March.[3]

Japanese authorities have admitted that lax standards and poor oversight contributed to the nuclear disaster.[4] They have come under fire for their handling of the emergency, and have engaged in a pattern of withholding damaging information and denying facts of the accident.[4][5][6] Authorities apparently wanted to “limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry”. There has been public anger about an “official campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks”.[5][6] The accident is the second biggest nuclear accident after the Chernobyl disaster, but more complex as all reactors are involved.[7]

Once a proponent of building more reactors, Prime Minister Naoto Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance in the months following the Fukushima disaster. In May, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant be closed over earthquake and tsunami fears, and said he would freeze plans to build new reactors. In July 2011, Mr. Kan said that “Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy … saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the technology”.[8] In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize electricity from renewable energy sources.[9] An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says “public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged” by the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nation’s reliance on nuclear power.[10]

As of August 2011, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is still leaking low levels of radioactivity and areas surrounding it could remain uninhabitable for decades due to high radiation.[11]

Evacuations
U.S. military dependent-family dog is unloaded off an evacuation flight from Japan

After the declaration of a nuclear emergency by the Government at 19:03 on 11 March, the Fukushima prefecture ordered the evacuation of an estimated 1,864 people within a distance of 2 km from the plant. This was extended to 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) and 5,800 people at 21:23 by a directive to the local governor from the Prime Minister, together with instructions for residents within 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) of the plant to stay indoors.[23][24] The evacuation was expanded to a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) radius at 5:44 on 12 March, and then to 20 kilometres (12 mi) at 18:25, shortly before ordering use of seawater for emergency cooling.[23][25]

The Guardian reported at 17:35 JST on 12 March that NHK advised residents of the Fukushima area “to stay inside, close doors and windows and turn off air conditioning. They were also advised to cover their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs” as well as not to drink tap water.[26] Air traffic has been restricted in a 20-kilometre (12 mi) radius around the plant, according to a NOTAM.[27] The BBC has reported as of 22:49 JST (13:49 GMT) “A team from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences has been dispatched to Fukushima as a precaution, reports NHK. It was reportedly made up of doctors, nurses and other individuals with expertise in dealing with radiation exposure, and had been taken by helicopter to a base 5 km from the nuclear plant.”[28]

Over 50,000 people were evacuated during 12 March.[29] The figure increased to 170,000–200,000 people on 13 March, after officials voiced the possibility of a meltdown.[30][31]

On the morning of 15 March, the evacuation area was again extended. Prime Minister Naoto Kan issued instructions that any remaining people within a 20 km (12 mi) zone around the plant must leave, and urged that those living between 20 km and 30 km from the site should stay indoors.[1][2] A 30 km no-fly zone has been introduced around the plant.[citation needed]

On 16 March, the U.S. Embassy advised Americans in Japan to leave areas within “approximately 50 miles” (80 km) from the plant. Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said before the United States Congress, believing the Japanese government was not telling the full story, “We would recommend an evacuation to a much larger radius than has currently been provided by Japan.”[32] Spain advised to leave an area of 120 km, Germany advised to leave even the metropolitan area of Tokyo, and South Korea advised to leave farther than 80 km and plans to evacuate by all possible means.[33][34] Travel to Japan is very low, but additional flights are chartered to evacuate foreigners. Official evacuation of Japan was started by several nations.[35] The US military expects to voluntarily evacuate over 7000 family dependents from Japan,[36] and has moved ships under repair away from Japanese ports.[37]

Of 90 bedridden patients moved from a hospital in the town of Futaba-machi, a sample of three patients were tested and shown to have been exposed to radiation. The patients had been waiting outdoors for rescuers before being moved by helicopter at the time an explosion happened.[38][39] On 25 March, residents in the 30 kilometer circle were urged to leave their houses as well.[3]

On 30 March the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered 20 MBq/m2 of Iodine-131 samples taken from 18 to 26 March in Iitate, Fukushima, 40 km northwest of the Fukushima I reactor. The IAEA recommended expanding the evacuation area, based on its criteria of 10 MBq/m2. Japanese Secretary Yukio Edano stated the government would wait to see if the high radiation continued.[40] On 31 March the IAEA announced a new value of 7 MBq/m2, in samples taken from 19 to 29 March in Iitate.[41] The material decays at 8% to 9% each day.

On 11 April, with ongoing concerns about the stability of the reactors, Japan considered extending the evacuation zone around the Fukushima I.[42] Then, on 21 April 2011, the Japanese government declared a 20-km zone around Daiichi as a “no-go” zone, and threatened anyone who entered or remained in the zone with arrest or detention and fines. The order affected 80,000 residents.[43] Shortly thereafter, on 22 April, the Japanese government officially announced that the evacuation zone would be extended from the 20 km “circular” zone to an irregular zone extending northwest of the Fukushima site.[44] Then, on 16 May, the Japanese government began evacuating people from outside the official exclusion zones, including the village of Iitate, where high levels of radiation had been repeatedly measured.[45][46]

Evacuees from the radiation zone have reported that some evacuation shelters, including ones run by the city of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, have refused to allow them entrance to their facilities, claiming that the evacuees could be carrying radioactive contamination with them. The shelters have required the evacuees to present certificates obtained by the government of Fukushima prefecture stating that the evacuees are “radiation free”.[47][48]

As of September 2011, more than 100,000 Fukushima Prefecture residents are still subject to a range of evacuation measures, forcing them to live outside their home cities and towns. Some locations near the crippled nuclear power plant are estimated to be contaminated with accumulated radiation doses of more than 500 millisieverts a year, diminishing residents’ hopes of returning home anytime soon. Even areas away from the nuclear plant are still suffering from a sharp decline in tourism and sluggish financial conditions.[49]

As of 23 February 2012, 62,674 Fukushima residents had evacuated from the prefecture.[50]

In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate. He says he is haunted by the specter of an even bigger nuclear crisis forcing tens of millions of people to flee Tokyo and threatening the nation’s existence. “If things had reached that level, not only would the public have had to face hardships but Japan’s very existence would have been in peril”.[51] That convinced Kan to “declare the need for Japan to end its reliance on atomic power and promote renewable sources of energy such solar that have long taken a back seat in the resource-poor country’s energy mix”.[51] Government Officials revealed in interviews that they were grappling the possibility of a “demonic chain reaction”: If Fukushima collapsed and released enough radiation, it was “possible that other nearby nuclear power plants would have to be abandoned and could also collapse, thereby necessitating the evacuation of one of the world’s largest cities”.[52]
Evacuation drills

In Japan each fiscal year a prefecture, that has nuclear power-stations on its territory, is legally due to hold nuclear accident disaster drills. How to evacuate the population out of the 10 kilometer evacuation-zone according the governmental anti-disaster guidelines. The Fukishima Daiichi accidents proofed this 10 kilometer a big underestimation of the evacuation zones, that would be really needed to protect the population of the prefecture from escaping radiation in a proper way. On 5 September 2011 three prefectures—Aomori, Fukushima and Ibaraki—were are unable to hold the drills before March 2012. Six prefectures, including Hokkaido and Fukui, had not taken a decision to hold a drill, and were awaiting new governmental guidelines how far to evacuate. Four other prefectures, including Ehime and Saga, planned to hold drills by establishing temporary guidelines and by expanding evacuation zones on their own. The Nuclear Safety Commission aimed to review the evacuation zones and other policies by the end of October.[53]

Revising the Nuclear disaster response: widening evacuation zones

On 20 October 2011 the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan published it’s views on the evacuation zones around nuclear plants in case of accidents. In stead of the 10 kilometers evacuation-zone previously thought to be sufficient to protect inhabitants, a circle of 30 kilometer was proposed as Urgent Protective Action Planning Zones, or UPZ. This definition was in line with the emergency-response requirements proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This draft-plan included the designating of areas within 5 kilometers of plants as precautionary action zones, here residents should immediately evacuate in the event of an accident. Residents within a radius of about 50 kilometers should be prepared to take immediately action to prevent internal exposure to their thyroid-glands by taking in iodine tablets. Further studies were planned with experts and municipalities. Implementation of this plan would mean a major review of all anti-nuclear disaster programs by local governments, and it would increase the number of municipalities involved up to around 130, about 3 times more than the figure at that moment.[54][55]
Long term effects

Experts on the ground in Japan agree that Mental health challenges are the most significant issue. Stress, such as that caused by dislocation, uncertainty and concern about unseen toxicants, often manifests in physical ailments, such as heart disease. So even if radiation risks are low, people are still concerned and worried. Behavioral changes can follow, including poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation, all of which can have long-term negative health consequences. People who lost their homes, villages and family members, and even just those who survived the quake, will likely continue to face mental health challenges and the physical ailments that come with stress. Much of the damage was really the psychological stress of not knowing and of being relocated, according to U.C. Berkeley’s McKone.[56]

Meltdowns and radiation
Three of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to hydrogen explosions, which released large amounts of radioactive gases into the air.[57]

Nuclear meltdowns at three of Fukushima Daiichi’s six reactors went officially unacknowledged for months:

In one of the most damning admissions, nuclear regulators said in early June that inspectors had found tellurium 132, which experts call telltale evidence of reactor meltdowns, a day after the tsunami — but did not tell the public for nearly three months. For months after the disaster, the government flip-flopped on the level of radiation permissible on school grounds, causing continuing confusion and anguish about the safety of schoolchildren here in Fukushima.[5]

end quote. This lack of disclosure and denial of effects has been perfectly normal for nuclear authorities since 1945.. One can use the time lines of history as a slide rule. Placing the time lines of old and new disasters against each other, one can see the cycle of denial of emissions, denial of hams, admissions of emissions and still denial of harms, which decades later produce groundswells of opposition and demands for justice which are never adequately dealt with to completion by national governments. To do so would threaten the economies of many nations. And so the suppressions of effects – which crucially involve diseases of the endocrine and metabolic system most predominately and cancers as a more immediate hazard in children, continues to this day.

The nuclear industry boasts of “only” 7,000 thyroid cancers resultant from Chernobyl, and happy states that this effect is minor, whereas, the local doctors in the affected areas have a completely different view, documenting the continuing ill health of many many people. Thyroid cancer is never ever a minor diagnosis.

And so it is , as disclosures that Japanese reactors were built on active faults, and therefore vulnerable – with qualified warnings issued within Japan being ignored for years – and the known vulnerability of fuel pellets in fuel rods to compaction, powdering and compression from quakes – increasing the rods’ energy density – were all ignored.

Smoke rose from the reactors at Fukushima prior to the tsunami. The video of this, taken by a Japanese broadcasthttp://renewyamada.org/2012/08/fukushimas-best-kept-secret/er, have been repeatedly deleted by Youtube. One has to continuing keep hunting for the proof that no reactor on earth is immune from failed rods and cooling systems.

And so it is that from the time the Japanese people sensed continual lies, a national has been locked in combat with its elected governments for the truth and an appropriate response.


It’s thirty nine degrees down here. My macbook is now too hot touch. I’m signing off time Wednesday.

Happy Anniversity JGov. Go contemplate thyroid removal for yourselves and your families. Not so minor surgery when you have a valid relationship with the people involved, is it???

Which says heaps about how the nuclear elite view us plebs.

The same way they always have. Like herds of unknown beasts.

In the first year of the disaster, I received an email from a US nuclear decontamination expert based in New Mexico USA. We disagreed on some things, but not all. He had a bit of trouble discerning were I was coming from. Not surprising. In relation to him, I’m upside down. Ditto me to him.

One thing we did agree on though was his ascertions regarding the safety of the children of Japan. He considered the situation a large experiment in which the people in charge had no idea of what they were inflicting on young ones.

At the same time, I am aware that the US Homeland Security has a program aimed at reducing the consequences for the government of a nuclear attack upon the USA.

The current relationship between the people of Japan and the governments they have elected highlights strongly the failure of US and Japanese information control and thus the failure to control the awareness of free peoples.

Back to the drawing board Bobby.

2 Responses to “Japanese public opinion in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster”

  1. Brett Burnard Stokes Says:

    Thank you for challenging the lies.

    There has been (and continues to be) a parade of liars who minimise the real harms caused by the massive illegal emissions of radioactive poisons from the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi facility.

    Radioactive poisons were manufactured and emitted by TEPCO.

    My view is that the criminal responsibility extends further than TEPCO.

    Warnings should have been issued to all pregnant women during March 2011.

    Lies were told, lies used as alibis to authorise the sacrifice of our children’s lives.

    The predictable effects of radioactive poisoning might have been reduced by dietary changes if warnings had been given instead of false assurances.

    Thank you for challenging the lies.

    We will not be fooled by denial of future deaths and impacts beyond Japan.

    We will not accept fraudulent denials of :

    – impact of radioactive poisons on the unborn and children, which is known to be many times higher than the “standard model” based on a mature male subject

    – impact of internal emitters which concentrate in particular organs and tissues (iodine in the thyroid, cesium in testicles and muscle particularly the heart, strontium and plutonium in bones)

    – impact of bio accumulation, particularly in the marine environment which has copped the worst of the TEPCO Fukushima pollution

    – non linearities for “low dose” as per the Petkau Effect

    – TEPCO’s self serving versions of the Source Term (which have under stated the amount of radioactive poisons emitted and the nature of the radionuclides involved), while the reality is very different from TEPCO’s story, with massive amounts of plutonium in particular

    – the geographically non-uniform fallout, with “hot spot” areas (in southern California and elsewhere) due to local weather conditions and local terrain.

  2. CaptD Says:

    Nuclear LIE$ do not equal nuclear safety!!!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: