By Linda Pentz Gunter (with special thanks to Kurumi Sugita)
Yoko Shimozawa is a young Japanese mother who evacuated from Tokyo three years after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, due to concerns for her young daughter’s health.
Despite a massive campaign of information suppression in Japan, Ms. Shimozawa decided to take to the streets to sound the warning against efforts to downplay and effectively “normalize” radiation exposure in Japan. The text below is an excerpt in English of what she had to say. The video of her speech is viewable on Facebook — she begins speaking in English 38 seconds in.
“I am standing here to tell you that the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe is not over.
When British visual artist Lis Fields, (pictured above) participated in a study tour of Fukushima, in October 2016, she didn’t simply take photos. She documented stories, talked to evacuees, scientists and others, and built a presentation that goes beyond the visual experience. She called it “20 millisieverts per year.”
Fields’ visit to Japan was under the auspices of Green Cross Switzerland, the international environmental NGO founded by Mikhail Gorbachev who, ironically, was president of the Soviet Union at the time of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine.
The ‘20 millisieverts per year’ exhibition title refers to the maximum dose of ionizing radiation originating from a nuclear power plant to which citizens of Fukushima can now be exposed in a year. In the rest of Japan and the rest of the world the maximum permitted non-occupational dose to a citizen is 1 millisievert per year, as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. (Note: Japan’s 20msv yr standard is now under review as Japan has agreed to — and should sign off on this week at the UN — the UN recommended exposure level of 1 msv.)
By Linda Pentz Gunter
It started with wolves. The packs around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which exploded on April 26, 1986, were thriving, said reports. Benefitting from the absence of human predators, and seemingly unaffected by the high radiation levels that still persist in the area, the wolves, they claimed, were doing better than ever.
Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Abundant does not necessarily mean healthy. And that is exactly what evolutionary biologist, Dr. Timothy Mousseau and his team began to find out as, over the years, they traveled to and researched in and around the Chernobyl disaster site in the Ukraine. Then, when a similar nuclear disaster hit in Japan — with the triple explosions and meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi on March 11, 2011 — Mousseau’s team added that region to its research itinerary.
Mousseau has now spent more than 17 years looking at the effects on wildlife and the ecosystem of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He and his colleagues have also spent the last half dozen years studying how non-human biota is faring in the wake of Fukushima. Ninety articles later, they are able to conclude definitively that animals and plants around Chernobyl and Fukushima are very far indeed from flourishing.
By Linda Pentz Gunter
Update: Nicolas Sarkozy has now been charged with corruption in relation to bribes from Libya. But in 2007 the then French president couldn’t wait to rush to Libya to try to sell then Libyan premier, Moammar Gadhafi, French made nuclear power plants. And as we now watch the Middle East race to nuclearization, here is what Sarkozy said then: “If we dare to say that civilian nuclear energy is reserved for the northern coast of the Mediterranean and that the Arab world is not responsible enough for nuclear energy, then we are humiliating them and paving the way for a war of civilizations.” Clearly, any security concerns were over-ridden by nuclear profiteering and, as it turns out, potentially the personal kind as well.
The following article first appeared on Truthout on March 9, 2018. Since its publication, and as anticipated, France and India have now inked a deal to “accelerate” the French nuclear project at Jaitapur.
Ten years ago, The Washington Post called then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy “the world’s most aggressive salesman for nuclear power.” Today, that mantle has been passed to the country’s current president, Emmanuel Macron — just another case of “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”)
As if to dispel any remaining doubt about his commitment to the French nuclear sector, Macron was happy to accept an invitation to India to cement a French nuclear deal there, according to Indian officials. He was scheduled to ink the deal on March 11, the seven-year anniversary of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan. Ironically, just a few days later, former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, now an outspoken critic against nuclear energy, will be at the Flamanville European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) Unit 3 site in France to support anti-nuclear activists and their campaign to halt construction.
A series of major financial and technical setbacks at French nuclear projects at home and abroad have thrown the French state-owned nuclear companies Areva and Électricité de France (EDF) into virtual bankruptcy, saved only by taxpayer bailouts. Despite his stated intention to “modernize” the aging French nuclear fleet while allowing some closures, Macron will have to accept an inevitable reduction in France’s 75 percent reliance on nuclear energy for electricity and domestic heating. Consequently, in order to maintain French nuclear “prestige,” and to resuscitate EDF and Areva, Macron is intent on remarketing French nuclear technology abroad, to anyone and everyone who will risk buying into it.
By Linda Pentz Gunter
“Coverage of the USS Ronald Reagan has been astoundingly limited,” wrote Der Spiegel in a February 2015 story. Since then, nothing much has changed.
The German magazine was referring to the saga of the American Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier whose crew pitched in to help victims of the March 11, 2011 Tsunami and earthquake in Japan, then found themselves under the radioactive plume from the stricken coastal nuclear reactors at Fukushima. Since then, crew members in eye-popping numbers have come down with unexplained illnesses — more than 70 and still counting. Some have died. And many are suing.
The USS Reagan was part of Operation Tomodachi, a U.S. armed forces mission involving 24,000 U.S. service members, and numerous ships and aircraft bringing aid to the victims of the tsunami and earthquake.
On January 5, 2018, a federal judge in San Diego, CA, dismissed the latest version of a class action lawsuit brought by USS Reagan sailors and US Marines. This was just the latest milestone in a long and winding path to justice strewn with roadblocks and delays.
By Dr. Ian Fairlie
(The following is an excerpt from a longer article on the subject of evacuations after severe nuclear accidents. While this section focuses on Fukushima, there are lessons here for all nuclear sites and the likely failure of “on paper” evacuation plans.)
If another severe nuclear accident, such as Windscale (in 1957), Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011) were to occur, then the most important response, in terms of preventing future cancer epidemics, is evacuation. The other main responses are shelter and stable iodine prophylaxis. Adverse health effects would primarily depend on wind direction and on the nature of the accident. This article looks primarily at the Fukushima evacuation and its after-effects.
When the Fukushima-Daiichi, Japan nuclear disaster began on March 11, 2011, evacuations were not immediate and some were hampered by the destructive after-effects of the Tsunami and earthquake that precipitated the nuclear crisis.
Once people were evacuated, little, if any, consideration seems to have been given to how long such evacuations would last. For example, the large majority of the 160,000 people who left or were evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture are still living outside the Prefecture. Many are living in makeshift shelters such as shipping containers or prefabricated houses.
At present, the Japanese Government is attempting to force evacuees (by withdrawing state compensation) to return to less contaminated areas, with little success. Currently, seven years after the accident, an area of about 1,000 square kilometers is still subject to evacuation and no entry orders. This compares with the area of 2,700 square kilometers still evacuated and subject to no or restricted entry at Chernobyl, almost 32 years after the accident.