Abstract
Ethos in Fukushima, a non-profit organisation, participated in 10 of the 12 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) dialogue seminars over the past 4 years. The slides and videos that were shown at the seminars are recorded on the Ethos in Fukushima website (http://ethos-fukushima.blogspot.jp/p/icrp-dialogue.html). I would like to introduce the activities of Ethos in Fukushima to date, and explain why the ICRP dialogue materials have come to be published on its website.
1. Introduction
The relationship between Suetsugi and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) dialogue seminars started from my participation in the second ICRP dialogue seminar, held in February 2012. I continued to participate in the dialogue seminars, uploading almost all ICRP dialogue videos and slides on to the Ethos in Fukushima website (http://ethos-fukushima.blogspot.jp/p/icrp-dialogue.html). I have never had a chance to explain why we are publishing the ICRP dialogue materials, so I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our activities and explain why the materials are published on our website.
2. The beginning of Ethos IN Fukushima
In Autumn 2011, soon after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, we started to take action, recognising the need to know what this accident meant for us residents of Fukushima. At this time, information (from the media and all other sources) was causing great confusion in the minds of residents as well as the public at large. In particular, the Internet was overflowing with all types of information of variable quality and credibility. I thought I had been collecting good-quality information from the early stages in the wake of the accident, and that I was able to understand the situation that I was facing to make my own judgements, but looking around at the reality in the daily lives of the people in Fukushima, there was nothing but aggravation of this chaotic state which seemed unlikely to ever return to normal. It occurred to me that communicating solely through Twitter would not be the answer to improving the situation. It was necessary to take action, and this led me to start our study group. I was strongly aware that we would need to work simultaneously like two wheels of a motorcycle; the Internet and local activities. My plan from the beginning was that although we could obtain information and human resources through the Internet, our local activities would have to depend on face-to-face contact. This plan of action enabled effective use of the massive amount of data on the Internet. Information is only useful when it is understood by its users, hence the need for face-to-face discussion. Needless to say, we recognised the effectiveness of the Internet and its power to disseminate information, but we hoped that our small group activities would cross all local boundaries to spread information to the wider group of people with the same concerns, and be of some use in providing them with useful suggestions. My intention was two-fold: to collect and transmit information.
Our first study group involved 15 local residents, and was held on 24 September 2011 in Tabito Village, Iwaki city, where I lived. We invited Prof. Yoshiyuki Mizuno of the Department of Nuclear Physics, Kyoto Women’s University. We were able to obtain the manpower needed to carry out our activities, including Prof. Mizuno, via the Internet. I feel that this study group was a success because, although the number of participants was small, there were active and focused discussions with many questions and answers. However, this meeting highlighted the fact that many things could not be solved by supplying information about radiation. The participants were local residents and the questions raised were related to their daily lives, such as, ‘Is it safe to eat spinach grown here?’, ‘What will be done to decontaminate the forest area?’, and ‘Is it safe for children to play in the sand?’ These were questions that Prof. Mizuno, even with his expertise, was not able to answer fully. It became clear that our own practical initiatives, including measuring radiation dose, were absolutely necessary.
Video recordings of these study group meetings were compiled and later distributed to those who wanted them via the Internet. We tried to connect the people and share information on the Internet by transmitting what we had learned and how our awareness of the situation had been nurtured through these meetings. The reaction to our activities was very positive, and subsequently contributed greatly to gathering much-needed support.
3. Activities on the Internet
The study group meetings gave rise to increased information exchange on the Internet. ‘What can we do to acquire practical knowledge and not just general knowledge?’ was a challenge with which the group was always confronted. As we searched for the answer, we came across ICRP
Thereafter, many volunteers have continued to translate a number of documented materials. Ethos in Fukushima is the website that we established to collect all these translated documents. The name ‘Ethos’ is a name taken from the name of the project started by Jacques Lochard in Belarus for rehabilitation of the living environment in 1995. We decided to use the name in respect and as a show of our feeling of solidarity with the people who undertook the Ethos project in Belarus, and, above all, the people of Belarus who have continued their long, bitter struggle in the affected areas. The name ‘Ethos’ will always stay with us.
4. Participation in the ICRP Dialogue Seminars
Our participation in the ICRP dialogue seminars began because one of the volunteer translators had contacted Jacques Lochard for clarification of his original text. At that time, our activities in Suetsugi had not yet started and the name of our group was not finalised, but in preparation for attending the dialogue seminar, we translated our original logo for Ethos in Fukushima into Japanese.
The presentation I made at the second ICRP dialogue seminar was made possible because of the contribution of many people via the Internet. The last few sentences of my presentation went as follows:
These words reflected the situation at the beginning of 2012 when there was still no prospect of reconstruction after the accident.
5. Collecting and Disclosing Documents of the ICRP Dialogue Seminars
After participating in the second ICRP dialogue seminar, it was decided that Ethos in Fukushima should film the dialogue sessions and upload them, together with the presentation slides, on the Ethos in Fukushima website. This was a proposal that we had made to Dr. Ohtsura Niwa, ICRP dialogue facilitator and member of the ICRP Main Commission. I knew, via the Internet, about the first ICRP dialogue seminar that took place in November 2011, but despite the dialogue seminar being a place to discuss the post-accident situation in Fukushima, the materials from the meeting were not available anywhere. I was not satisfied that the citizens of Fukushima were not able to access information that was related to them. So, as I was going to participate in the next seminar, I proposed to the organisers that the information from the seminar should be released on the Internet. The organisers felt that they did not have the capacity to collect data and publish it on the Internet. As such, with the permission of the organisers, we agreed to take on this responsibility. This was the start of our current activity, whereby (mainly) volunteers connected on the Internet undertook video recording, editing, and publishing.
6. Activities on the Internet, Activities in the Field
From March 2012, we started to work in collaboration with the Association for the Protection of Suetsugi Hometown in Hisanohama-machi district in Suetsugi. Our main activities were measuring and discussing the results. We solicited donations for our operating expenses, on the Internet, to pay for the majority of the cost of our local activities. We received a total of 1,794,602 JPY from 126 people over the period when donations were collected (12 June 2012 to 31 March 2015). We had no other source of income and this represented our total operating expenses.
Since January 2015, our activities in Suetsugi have been consigned to play a role in the Japanese Government’s ‘consultant system’. We are officially recognised by the Government to operate under government funding. Our activities of ‘measure and discuss’ remain unchanged and we do not require many additional funds. As such, we stopped accepting donations.
7. Ethos in Fukushima Today
The number of members of Ethos in Fukushima peaked at 13 at the start of the activities. The members were all residents of Fukushima prefecture, and no one was a full-time dedicated member. As the majority of our activities moved from the Internet to the field, the number of members decreased and there are just two members as I write this report. In the first place, our heavily community-based activities of practical radiation protection cannot be continued on a long-term basis other than by dedicated people who are fully committed to the cause, or by people who find it indispensable for their daily living. Our main activities have now moved to Suetsugi district, where they are focused on helping the residents in their daily lives. At the same time, the people assigned to work for the ‘consultant system’ now support our activities. Apart from our local activities, the activities of Ethos in Fukushima have many supporters who are not actual members, but it is because of all these supporters that we are able to continue our activities with a greater number of non-members.
8. Ethos in Fukushima and the ICRP Dialogue Seminars
As stated above, the activities of Ethos in Fukushima are two-fold: small local activities and activities through the Internet that often involve global participation. As you can guess from the number of members, we hardly exist as an entity. I, myself, do not consider Ethos in Fukushima as an organisation, but I think that it is a catalyst that binds the local areas with the Internet and, furthermore, Fukushima with the outside world. We can connect the people who have an interest in Fukushima and who want to help with the residents of Fukushima. I believe that this is the value of the existence of Ethos in Fukushima.
The bond that we have created on the Internet, where we have a large presence, can be said to be a tenuous relationship when compared with the real visible relationship. ICRP dialogue seminars are functional in that they bring the people connected on the Internet together to meet and to talk amongst each other. The value of the ICRP dialogue seminars, as I see it, is their contribution in bringing together the people who have the will and the aspiration to reconstruct Fukushima to speak, listen, and build human relationships.
9. The Future
Almost 5 years have passed since the turmoil of the 2011 accident. The situation has now settled down to a certain extent, but there are still areas where evacuation orders have not been lifted, or even if lifted, there are many regions where reconstruction is only half complete.
Here is a citation from the opening paragraph of the Ethos in Fukushima website:
What I can continue to do as we move forward, as a person living in Fukushima, is simply to continue to measure, to know, to think, and to dialogue to search for a common language, as mentioned above. The ICRP dialogue seminars were also an attempt to try to find a common language through dialogue.
When we turn our attention from the local areas to focus our thoughts on the social environment in the aftermath of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, I feel very strongly that the search for a common language is required not only in Fukushima but also in Japanese society at large.
One example would be with the experts. In May 2011, the then Special Advisor to the Cabinet on radiation protection issues resigned in objection to the Government’s policy. His resignation had enormous implications in Fukushima prefecture, and created a state of panic, especially among families with children. The impact of this statement made by a person in an official position of the then Government and as an expert caused a far wider effect in society. Therefore, I feel strongly, seeing the confusion within Fukushima prefecture, that it is necessary to verify the appropriateness of the statement.
However, despite the fact that this incident had such a social impact, it did not serve to create momentum for discussion among the experts. It is recognised that, in the case of an emergency event of such a specialised nature as a nuclear accident, experts, either individually or as a group, have the ethical obligation to think and discuss how they are to contribute or to engage themselves in society, and not only to discuss the right and wrong of the statement made. I cannot but be totally dissatisfied with the experts as there has not been any sign to discuss these matters.
In the wake of the accident, we, in Fukushima prefecture, have continued our efforts to communicate amongst ourselves. The results of our endeavours are nothing glorious or conspicuous, but I feel that they have definitely contributed to the improvement of people’s living environments. I would like to conclude my article with a recommendation that the efforts of dialoguing are not only for the people of affected areas, but also for relevant groups such as experts and administrators.