Original Japanese written by  staffer
The English below translated from the original Japanese by Heeday
The English translation edited by Rev. Dr. Henry French, ELCA

(Based on articles from the December 4^th, 2015 edition of the Fukushima Minpo newspaper)
▼Click each image and read the caption.

The local governments of Fukushima Prefecture and Tomioka and Naraha Towns have decided to accommodate the Japanese government’s plan to bury the “specified waste” from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in controlled disposal sites in Tomioka Town and elsewhere, Fukushima Prefecture. The burying is expected to begin in June 2016, at the earliest.

Here, “specified waste” refers to waste containing 8,000 becquerels or more of radioactive cesium per kg (per 2.2 lb.), and which has been specified by Japan’s Minister of the Environment as such waste. Where should such waste go? In compliance with the nation’s Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Pollution by Radioactive Materials, such waste is categorized according to its radioactive substance contents, and each category is buried in a different site. Waste containing 8,000 becquerels or more and up to 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kg (per 2.2 lb.) are to be buried in “Fukushima Eco Tech Clean Center,” a controlled disposal site located in Tomioka Town. High-density waste, containing more than 100,000 becquerels, needs to be kept within a containment disposal facility surrounded by concrete walls. Since there is currently no such facility in Fukushima Prefecture, such waste from Fukushima Daiichi are to be buried in storage dedicated to such waste at an interim storage facility to be built in Okuma and Futaba Towns. Meanwhile, the contaminated soil collected in the decontamination work is not treated as “specified” and is to be kept in such interim storage facilities regardless of its density of radioactive substances.

(*1 “Becquerel” is a unit of measurement of radioactivity. If an atom’s nucleus decays and emits radiation every one second, it is counted as “1 becquerel.” Now, “radioactivity” is the capability to emit radiation, and “becquerel” measures such capability, while “sievert” (Sv) is about the radiation dose a human is exposed to. Where there is a single source of radiation (becquerel), the actual radiation dose people are exposed to (sievert) from the source can differ, depending on situational conditions—the kind of the radioactive substance in the source, the distance between the source and a person, the effectiveness of the shield (if any) between the two, and so on. Meanwhile Japan’s Food Sanitation Act defines some tentative regulations on radioactive substances contained in foods. 1kg (2.2 lb.) of drinking water or milk must not contain more than 200 becquerels of radioactive iodine. 2,000 becquerels for vegetables. For radioactive cesium, no more than 200 becquerels per 1kg (2.2 lb.) of drinking water or milk, and no more than 500 becquerels per the same weight of vegetables, cereal, meat, eggs, etc. The Act demands of municipalities that any foods containing radioactive substances in excess of those limits should not be consumed by humans.)

While there is a national plan to build storage facilities for “specified waste” in six prefectures of Japan, Fukushima has become the first to accommodate such a facility. In the other targeted prefectures, many residents around a planned facility site are opposed to the plan, making it lag behind schedule. Fukushima’s decision to accept the national plan might provide a model of consensus building, and many are concerned over such “consensus” building.

(Based on articles from the November 29^th, 2015 edition of the Fukushima Minpo newspaper)
▼Click each image and read the caption.

Turning our eyes to final disposal facilities of high-level radioactive substances (“nuclear waste”), the Fukushima Minpo newspaper reported, in its November 29, 2015 edition, on a survey conducted by Kyodo News with all of the 47 prefectural governments of Japan about such facilities. None of the 47, including Fukushima, is willing to accommodate such a final disposal facility.

The survey found 13 prefectures replying “no intention to accommodate (such a facility) at all,” and the 13 included Fukushima. Of them, four are currently accommodating a NPP or more. Eight others said “it is hard to accommodate (such a facility),” while 24 others responded with no policy about such facilities. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) are planning to announce some “scientifically” hopeful candidate sites, i.e., sites considered to be “scientifically” acceptable for accommodating a final disposal facility. In the current situation, however, such an announcement can invite harsh objections from the citizens of those “candidate” sites.

So far, Japan’s national government has been developing nuclear power policies while postponing decisions on what to do with radioactive waste management. This is the time when we should decide what to do with the final disposal of nuclear waste. Every municipality, as well as every citizen, needs to consider this grave issue. Considering this issue can help many reconsider whether nuclear power is truly necessary or not, which would lead to reconsideration of the energy policies of the Japanese government.

Original Japanese written by  staffer
The English below translated from the original Japanese by Heeday
The English translation edited by Rev. Dr. Henry French, ELCA

(Based on an article from the November 19^th, 2015 edition of the Asahi Shimbun newspaper)

▼Click the image to read the caption.

–Thyroid cancer found in “many” children—or not–
Opinions by
Prof. Toshihide Tsuda, environmental epidemiology, Okayama University Graduate school of Medicine
Mr. Shoichiro Tsugane, Director, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center

Following the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), the Fukushima Prefectural Government has been conducting thyroid examinations of children. The examinations have so far determined that 104 children examined have thyroid cancer. Are those “many” cases of the cancer ascribable to radiation, or not? Here, two epidemiology experts with contradictory opinions describe their respective viewpoints.

・Toshihide Tsuda, environmental epidemiology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine

Some people claim that those thyroid examinations have resulted in some “over-diagnosis, which counts very slowly growing cancer that will actually never fully develop during the lifetime of the patient.” Yet the claim of “over-diagnosis” would imply that an unnecessary thyroid cancer operation has been conducted in more than a hundred children. In fact, however, a report by Fukushima Medical University shows that, in some 40% of those 96 children confirmed to have thyroid cancer and who were operated on at the University’s hospital, the cancer had spread outside the thyroid. In more than 70% of them, the cancer had metastasized to lymph nodes.
Also, Fukushima Prefecture and the northern Kanto Region have population densities several times greater than that of Chernobyl, which explains why exposure to low-level radiation has caused this many cases of thyroid cancer.
A major outbreak of thyroid cancer cases is expected. We need to prepare the health care system to face it. Pregnant women and infants can rest in, or move to, somewhere with much lower levels of radiation. Any policy must be postponed that intends to bring evacuees back into the “specified evacuation zones.” Also, we need to survey cancer cases in the northern Kanto Region as well.
The role science has to play, in this particular case, is to predict what can happen in the future based on data available and suggest what measures should be taken for the sake of the affected residents, before it is too late.

• Shoichiro Tsugane, Director, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center

At this moment, it is rational to ascribe those “many” cases to “over-diagnosis.”

Since over-diagnosis seems quite probable, thyroid examinations should not spread beyond Fukushima Prefecture. Such expanded examinations might save one patient, while many more would be diagnosed as having cancer that would actually be difficult to diagnose otherwise. Then, if many such people were given cancer treatments, they would experience many disadvantages, including changes to their lifestyles. In case of Fukushima’s children with detected cancer, we should consider the option of wait-and-see. Less than one patient under 40 years of age dies of thyroid cancer in Fukushima Prefecture, according to the mortality ratios there.
We need to continue the current examinations and rationally analyze influences from radiation. This is something the national government should do.

(Opinion of the staffer writing this.)
I live in Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture, where we still have many “hot spots,” here and there—small places with high radiation doses—more than four years after the meltdown began. We who live here are unable to completely avoid exposure to low radiation doses.
Living in a place like this, I am seriously worried that the national government will delay implementation of countermeasures by postponing its admission that the many cases of child thyroid cancer here are ascribable to exposure to radiation,. Such a delay can lead to more children falling victims to radiation-caused diseases.
Of course, the diagnosis and treatment of child thyroid cancer should be conducted carefully. At the same time, the national government needs to take more measures both to help people avoid more radiation exposure and to facilitate care to people already exposed.
In the year of the Chernobyl disaster, the number of cases of child thyroid cancer expanded in number. Medical doctors there told the whole world about this. The IAEA’s survey of 1990 to 1991, however, denied that there were “many” such incidents, saying that surveys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that more than a decade is necessary for child thyroid cancer to develop. Thus, it was more than a decade after the disaster, before they admitted many occurrences of such cancer. This attitude of the IAEA drastically reduced the amount of help offered to Chernobyl from the rest of the world.
Belarus has nine recuperation facilities aided by its national government. They are meant to enhance the immunity of those children exposed to radiation and help such children remove radioactive substances from their bodies. Many are still in recuperation at those facilities, and the effects of recuperation are obvious in almost all of those children, according to reports. I believe Japan’s government should also learn from those examples and come up with government-funded recuperation programs.
We adults are responsible for our children’s health. We should not let radiation exposure cast dark shadows over the futures of such children. I do believe, therefore, that we adults have to take any measures we can to protect such children.

Original Japanese written by  staffer
The English below translated from the original Japanese by Heeday
The English translation edited by Rev. Dr. Henry French, ELCA

(Based on articles from the October 27^th and November 5^th editions of the Fukushima Minpo and Asahi Shimbun newspapers)

▼Click each image and read the caption.

Governor Tokihiro Nakamura of Ehime Prefecture, on October 26^th, announced his agreement to the planned restart of Unit 3, Ikata Nuclear Power Plant of the Shikoku Electric Power Company (“NPP,” Ikata Town, Ehime). This is the second case where the governor of a prefecture where a NPP is located has agreed to the restart of the NPP (following that of Kyushu Electric Power’s Sendai NPP (Units 1 and 2), located in Satsumasendai City, Kagoshima Prefecture). Both restarts come after Japan has instituted its new regulatory standards for NPPs. In the coming months, the Nuclear Regulation Authority is to conduct examinations and follow the necessary approval procedures. Ikata NPP is expected to restart in or after January 2016.

More than four years have passed since the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown began, and still some 70,000 citizens of Fukushima Prefecture are in evacuation. Learning from this tragedy, the new regulatory standard legally requires that an evacuation plan has to be prepared for the residents who live within 30km (18.7 miles) of a NPP. Basically, the hosting and neighboring municipalities should draft such a plan, prepare for possible evacuations, and lead the affected residents in the case of a major accident. This time, however, the governor has won consent for the planned restart from the hosting municipality alone. Also, Japan has yet to secure a place for a final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste from reprocessed nuclear fuels. In spite of all these grave issues being unresolved, the restart procedure is already in process.

In reaching the agreement, Governor Nakamura successfully made Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledge that the “national government should take responsibilities.” Located at the root of “Japan’s thinnest peninsula,” Sata Misaki Peninsula, Ikata NPP poses serious difficulties for residents should they need to evacuate in the case of a major accident. Considering how great and serious the devastations caused by the Fukushima meltdown are, it is obviously necessary to insist that the national government make evacuation plans and secure the implementation of such plans, for example, through amendments to the Disaster Countermeasure Basic Act.

Amid those moves and issues, the Nuclear Regulation Authority on November 4, 2015, decided to submit a recommendation to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, who is responsible for the Monju Fast Breeder Reactor. One control and managerial error after another has occurred at the breeder reactor. The recommendation claims that the current operator of Monju, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, is “not up to the job” and, therefore, argues that the Minister should find another operator within a half year or so. In case the Minister fails to do so, one possible option is to decommission the breeder reactor. This is the first recommendation the recently installed Authority has ever submitted.

We have yet to see any conclusion to Fukushima’s radioactive contamination problems. With numerous problems remaining unresolved, there are nevertheless moves to restart Japan’s existing NPPs. I pray there never be another Fukushima.