Pic: AP.
Pic: AP.
It’s been roughly 4.5 years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and news about how the situation is progressing keeps trickling in. But what do we really know about the current state of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl? And what questions should we still be asking?
It was the largest-ever accidental oceanic release of radioactive contaminants.
However, both the Japanese government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are apparently failing to gather important data on radiation and coastal populations that may be at risk. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stopped its emergency monitoring just two months after the disaster took place.
From the Ecologist:
UK research shows that such mechanisms can occur at least 200km (by sea) distant from the point source of radioactivity, and that populations living in such areas are exposed to terrestrial food stuffs which can deliver a higher marine radioactivity (dietary) dose than do locally harvested sea foods.
Analysis of this research has shown that coastal populations ‘distant’ from a discharge point of ‘liquid’ radioactive wastes, may receive higher doses of marine radioactivity through their local terrestrial diet, than populations living adjacent to liquid radioactive waste point sources receive through their local sea foods.
While some experts have downplayed the risks of oceanic cesium drifting from Fukushima,others take issue with their methodology.
Fukushima is still leaking radiation.
More and more radioactive material has leaked into the ocean, something that wentunreported for 10 months by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.), the utilities company in charge of the running of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. TEPCO has been further criticized for poorly monitoring periodic radiation leaks, which still occur in the event of heavy rains.
While overflow from drainage systems can carry radiation from the plant into the ocean, the same radiation can also re-enter land, contaminating coastal shores many miles down the coast
Fukushima temporary waste storage. Pic: Ricardo Herrgott/Global 2000 (Flickr CC)
Fukushima temporary waste storage. Pic: Ricardo Herrgott/Global 2000 (Flickr CC)
Has the disaster boosted cancer rates around Fukushima?
Some research has linked elevated thyroid cancer rates among local children to the 2011 meltdowns. Japanese officials have claimed increased screening has resulted in more positive test results, while other researchers have pointed to studies showing no significant differences between children from areas exposed to the disaster and those from other parts of Fukushima prefecture.
A return to normalcy?
In a spot of positive news, the town of Naraha in Fukushima prefecture, located some nine miles south of the nuclear plant and epicenter of the disaster, has been declared safe after a major government cleanup. Naraha is the first town to have its evacuation order 100 percent lifted. So far only around 200 of the original 7,800 residents have returned. Baby steps.
79-year-old Naraha returnee Kohei Yamauchi is quoted in the Guardian:
We’re too old to be worried about getting cancer from radiation exposure. I expect a lot of older people will return, but not their children or grandchildren. It’s going to be difficult to raise children here.
As these photos of abandoned locations in Fukushima attest, there is a long way to go before things go back to “normal”.
A doll sits on the balcony of a house in an abandoned town just outside the nuclear exclusion zone surrounding the crippled Fukushima plant in Japan. Pic: AP.
A doll sits on the balcony of a house in an abandoned town just outside the nuclear exclusion zone surrounding the crippled Fukushima plant in Japan. Pic: AP.
Silence = death
For those who don’t share certain residents’ sense of resigned stoicism, including those living outside Fukushima — or anywhere around the world, for that matter — worry and skepticism are understandable reactions in a story that continues to develop. Official statements come too late or are contradicted by experts, scientific studies contradict one another, information is even hidden.
It is no wonder that there is paranoia and mistrust regarding the nuclear industry. While it is never helpful to sensationalize, exaggerate or fuel panic, nor is it constructive to be silent, ignore information or downplay risk.
In a hyper-mediated world where “compassion fatigue” — or in this case concern fatigue — is normal, we must be careful not to become bored by bad news. This is especially important when it is in the interests of those who would continue with business as usual — i.e. large corporations like TEPCO or BP — that we lose interest and allow such disasters to carry on unabated.