The nuclear disaster at Fukushima was
seven years ago, in March 2011. In the immediate aftermath, over 130,000 people
left or were evacuated from the region. Some have now returned. And the
government wants more to do so. However,
a comprehensive survey by Greenpeace Japan in the towns of Iitate and
Namie in Fukushima prefecture, including the exclusion zone, found radiation
levels up to 100 times higher than the international limit for public exposure.
They claim that the high radiation levels in these areas pose a significant
risk to returning evacuees until at least the 2050’s and maybe well into next
century. ‘In all of the areas
we surveyed, including where people are permitted to live, the radiation levels
are such that if it was in a nuclear facility it would require strict controls.
Yet this is public land. Citizens, including children and pregnant women
returning to their contaminated homes, are at risk of receiving radiation doses
equivalent to one chest X-ray every week. This is unacceptable and a clear
violation of their human rights,’ said Jan Vande Putte,
radiation specialist with Greenpeace Belgium and leader of the survey project.
Greenpeace Japan conducted the investigations in September and
October last year, measuring tens of thousands of data points around homes,
forests, roads and farmland in the open areas of Namie and Iitate, as well as
inside the closed Namie exclusion zone. The government plans to open up small
areas of the zone, including Obori and Tsushima, for human habitation in 2023.
The survey shows the decontamination programme to be ineffective, combined with
a region that is 70-80% mountainous forest which cannot be decontaminated. http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/japan/pdf/RefFksm_EN.pdf
Key finding from the survey:
•
Even after decontamination, in four of six
houses in Iitate, the average radiation levels were 3 times higher than the
government long term target. Some areas showed an increase from the previous
year, which could have come from recontamination.
•
At a house in Tsushima in the Namie exclusion
zone, despite it being used as a test bed for decontamination in 2011-12, a
dose of 7 mSv per year is estimated, while the international limit for public
exposure in a non-accidental situation is 1 mSv/y. This reveals the
ineffectiveness of decontamination work.
•
At a school in Namie town, where the evacuation
order was lifted, decontamination had failed to significantly reduce radiation
risks, with levels in a nearby forest with an average dose rate of more than 10
mSv per year. Children are particularly at risk from radiation exposure.
•
In one zone in Obori, the maximum radiation
measured at 1m would give the equivalent of 101 mSv per year or one hundred
times the recommended maximum annual limit, assuming a person would stay there
for a full year These high levels are a clear threat, in the first instance, to
thousands of decontamination workers who will spend many hours in that area.
To put it in context, the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) sets a maximum dose of 1 mSv/ year
in normal situations for the public, and in the range of 1-20 mSv/y under
post-nuclear accident situations, such as that resulting from Fukushima
Daiichi. The ICRP recommends that governments select the lower part of the 1–20
mSv/year range for protection of people living in contaminated areas, and ‘to reduce all individual exposures
associated with the event to as low as reasonably achievable.’
Based on its study, Greenpeace says ‘This contamination presents a long term risk, and means that the
government’s long-term radiation target (1ｍSv/year which is equivalent to 0.23μSv/hour) are
unlikely to be reached before at least the middle of the century in many areas
that are currently open and into next century for the exclusion zone of Namie.
In an admission of failure, the government has recently initiated a review of
its radiation target levels with the aim of raising it even higher. The
Government’s policy to effectively force people to return by ending housing and
other financial support is not working, with population return rates of 2.5% and 7% in Namie
and Iitate respectively as of December 2017’. It noted that ‘in
November last year, the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Japan issued
four recommendations on Fukushima issues. Member governments (Austria, Portugal, Mexico and
Germany) called for Japan to respect the human rights of Fukushima evacuees and
adopt strong measures to reduce the radiation risks to citizens, in particular
women and children and to fully support self evacuees. Germany called on Japan
to return to maximum permissible radiation of 1 mSv per year, while the current
government policy in Japan is to permit up to 20 mSv per year. If this
recommendation was applied, the Japanese government’s lifting of evacuation
orders would have be halted’. Fortunately,
some action on that does at last seem to be be likely: http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/news/press/2018/pr20180308/
While all that will hopefully play itself
out, it is also important to look past nuclear, and its problems and legacies,
to the future. Most of Japan’s nuclear plants remain shut down, and although the
government would like to start more up, local opposition remains strong, with
legal battles over the few restarts, reversing some if them: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-High-court-orders-suspension-of-Ikata-3-operation-1312174.html In theory Japan is aiming to move away from nuclear and expand
its use of renewable sources so that they supply 22-24% of its power by 2030,
but progress, even given this relatively low target (much less than the UK gets
now), is very slow: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/06/national/media-national/japan-spends-scant-energy-renewables/ and
The result is that Japan is having to import
a lot of gas, at massive cost and with significant emissions being produced. In effect, and embarrassingly, it has had to abandon its Kyoto climate
pledges. It seems to be sleepwalking on energy policy, with the shaky economy
relying on the upcoming Olympics for a boost. So the last thing the government
wants is bad news about radiation risks, which might deter visitors. However,
even if it admits there are problems in an around Fukushima, that can perhaps
be portrayed as being far away and of no consequence as far as the Olympics are
concerned. Locally however, it’s a different matter:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/the-fukushima-nuclear-waste-crisis-is-a-human/blog/60904/
And it may not in fact just be a local issue https://phys.org/news/2017-10-scientists-source-radioactivity-fukushima-disaster.html Or
a trivial one, with hot particles still turning up: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180228092241.htm
It’s hard to see how it can all be decontaminated. For a harrowing
report and video, which shows the clean up so far, with the vast areas of water
tanks and top soil in bags, see: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-radiation-residents-return-safety-9888552
The post-Fukushima clean up
programme has been extensive and costly
and is nowhere near complete- it will take many decades. Indeed, it may never
be. The total cost may be vastly more than the official estimate, perhaps
£150bn: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-¥70-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank That is money that had to be spent, but would have done
so much good in helping Japan head for a sustainable future. It is nevertheless trying. There is over
100GW of renewable capacity in place, about half of it being PV solar- well
suited to Japan. Some of the big projects are quite spectacular: www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2017-07-13/japan-s-renewable-energy-revolution But much more is
needed. Maybe something to show the Olympic tourists, and the rest of us, and
also the beleaguered Fukushima area residents, that there is hope for the
future. Though it may be some way off. But Boris is happy! www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/boris-johnson-swigs-can-of-peach-juice-from-fukushima
No comments:
Post a Comment