Abstract
I have learned a great deal by participating in the ICRP dialogue seminars. I will summarise what I have observed and felt regarding the thoughts of the inhabitants of Fukushima over the last four and a half years, and what the ICRP dialogue seminars meant to them.
1. MY ENGAGEMENT WITH FUKUSHIMA
I myself was hardly impacted by the Great East Japan Earthquake. I spent that unforgettable day, 11 March 2011, in Oita city in Kyushu where not a single tremor was felt. After moving to Tokyo with my family, there was hardly any change to our daily life except for the recommendation to save power. The affected territories were, for me, a world within the screens of computers and television sets.
My first encounter with Fukushima was in August 2012 when I was in my first year at university. I participated in the support programme, the ‘Mura juku’ project, in Iitate village. This was an educational initiative that Iitate village had entrusted to a cram school in Fukushima city in order to improve the scholastic aptitude of junior high school students from the village. I participated in 2012 and 2013 as a volunteer tutor.
I also participated in the fifth ICRP dialogue seminar in March 2013, and subsequently attended a further seven dialogue seminars up to the last one in December 2015.
2. MY IMPRESSIONS AND THOUGHTS ON FUKUSHIMA PRIOR TO PARTICIPATION IN THE DIALOGUE SEMINARS
I was in Tokyo preparing for my university entrance examination the year after the nuclear accident. The people who had suffered unspeakable losses of their loved ones and their cherished belongings were always on my mind while I concentrated on my studies. I even felt apologetic, close to a sense of guilt that I was studying for my entrance examinations, unaffected by the disaster.
During all this, I was thinking that I would search for what I could possibly contribute once I started university. This determination led me to participate in the ‘Mura juku’ project in Iitate village. I had always had an interest in the affected area, feeling sympathy for the people, as I heard about it from my father who went to Fukushima regularly.
3. MY THOUGHTS ON THE DIALOGUE SEMINARS
Looking back at the eight ICRP dialogue seminars I attended, there were many different aspects of the post-accident situation. I would like to summarise my thoughts and impressions, dividing them chronologically into the following three phases – first phase: awareness and shock (fifth to seventh ICRP dialogue seminars); second phase: sense of helplessness and doubt (eighth and ninth ICRP dialogue seminars); and third phase: a feeble light ahead (10th to 12th ICRP dialogue seminars).
3.1. First phase: awareness and shock (fifth dialogue seminar ‘Homecoming’, sixth dialogue seminar ‘Iitate’, seventh dialogue seminar ‘Iwaki and Hamadori’)
In the first phase, I came directly into contact with the mixed feelings and emotional turmoil of people who had to evacuate from their beloved hometowns. I could not listen to the words of the affected people without pain in my heart; they spoke in a matter-of-fact yet desperate tone, and at times in a choking voice as they talked about the agony of being separated from their families and friends, the excruciating pain of leaving the land handed down from their ancestors and letting the fields be desolate, fear of radiation, and the hardships in their daily lives. I was embarrassed to have thought I already knew enough about Fukushima by imagining the situation from what the media reported. In reality, I knew so little.
At the same time, I was to learn that only a few of the affected community members were participating in the ICRP dialogue seminars, and so many affected people had lost all hope and energy and were not able to raise their voices. The ‘voices of the voiceless’ were muffled up and buried away. Also, Fukushima is always referred to as an area affected by the nuclear power plant accident in the context of the Great East Japan Earthquake, but I was reminded that the initial damage was brought upon Fukushima by the tsunami. It made me realise how limited my mental horizon was, and that I had nothing more than an image of the situation.
The first phase jolted me with ‘awareness and shock’ that I knew nothing.
3.2. Second phase: sense of helplessness and doubt (eighth dialogue seminar ‘Minamisoma’, ninth dialogue seminar ‘Child rearing’)
In the second phase, I felt strongly that the affected people were beset with doubts and suspicion towards the authorities and experts, and I was tormented with a deep feeling of paralysis and my own helplessness of not being able to do anything. Mothers with small children were tormented constantly with anxiety and stress, thinking that they had to bring up their children in as safe an environment as possible, and had to protect them at all costs in a situation that was full of things beyond their understanding. Suspicion accumulated as they struggled in solitude. Were they able to continue to live under the influence of radiation? Where should they bring up their children? Was it safe to go outside? What was safe to eat and not safe to eat? What was the Government doing? Were the experts talking irresponsibly? Was information hidden or manoeuvered? Their anxiety and doubts seemed to be so deep-rooted and desperate that nothing could erase them, and a solution was nowhere to be found.
Initially, I hoped that the ICRP dialogue seminars would provide an opportunity to make people look forwards. However, my expectations were crumbling as time went on, with a feeling of stagnation and helplessness. I was even starting to feel doubts towards the ICRP dialogue seminars themself.
3.3. Third phase: a feeble light ahead (10th dialogue seminar ‘Tradition and culture’, 11th dialogue seminar ‘Life and measuring’, 12th dialogue seminar ‘Past and future’)
As the dialogue seminars entered their third phase, topics selected for discussion changed to those that gave us feelings of hope. Many activities were introduced, such as reviving local festivals and arts; reviving little by little the food culture of Fukushima, including wild vegetables (‘sansais’); and re-examining the residents’ lives through measuring radiation dose. These activities could be the basis of their lives tomorrow and in the future. Determined, future-oriented action programmes were suggested to revive the human bonds that had been severed by the accident and to recreate damaged lives. No one was free from injury and trauma, but even when confronted by diverse problems, they spoke of reviving their lives through what each could contribute.
It was the third phase that raised hopes in positive attitudes and ways to look at the real life of the participants in the ICRP dialogue seminars.
4. WHAT I LEARNED FROM THE DIALOGUE SEMINARS
The struggle and activities of the affected inhabitants after the accident were reported at the ICRP dialogue seminars. However, what struck my heart most was not the actual reports but each person’s own pain, sadness, and determination. Gradually, society began to free itself from the impact of the accident, forgot it, and continued to change. Nevertheless, it was terrible to see the sadness and pain of those who were trapped and abandoned in the ‘aftermath of the accident’, feeling like time had stood still. ‘How can we live in this environment?’ This phrase touched me as an expression of bewilderment, anxiety, and strong fear rather than a presentation of the actual problem. However, the participants of the ICRP dialogue seminars have strong willpower to face and overcome their wounds and sadness. I believe that their power to rise above pessimism is the underlying basis of the 12 ICRP dialogue seminars.
5. WHAT THE DIALOGUE SEMINARS EMPHASISED
Generally speaking, society places emphasis on efficient, public, universal, logical, and objective approachs. However, focusing on those aspects alone can lead to neglect of the human heart. In quite a few cases, objective and convincing solutions ignore the voices of scattered minorities who remain unconvinced and are left alone to suffer.
The ICRP dialogue seminars took an alternative approach, focusing on different aspects to those valued in society. They made a consistent, inefficient approach to find solutions, listening to personal/individual and emotional/subjective voices. At times, this process also uncovered people’s emotions that had been buried intentionally and rationally to move forwards. Participants spoke of their thoughts and feelings, listened to individual sufferings, and there were no voices that denied or criticised the opinions of others. I believe that the essential point of the ICRP dialogue seminars was getting close to and supporting affected people, and this enabled them to move forwards.
6. HOW TO CONFRONT PROBLEMS
Society tends to place emphasis on what can be seen and what can be heard when trying to face problems. It aims to have productive discussions based on correct information to find solutions or make decisions. However, the ICRP dialogue seminars focused on what is unseen and what is unheard. In other words, people’s feelings and their determination, which can only be revealed through human relationships. Sometimes, just being at one’s side in silence makes it possible for people to open their hearts and build trust between each other. It is the ‘unseen’ that inspires people into action. The ICRP dialogue seminars have promoted human relationships in this way. It is not that they neglected what can be ‘seen’ and ‘heard’, but they paid more attention to the ‘unseen’ and the ‘unheard’.
It goes without saying that a rational approach to what is visible is indispensable. However, society is a gathering of living human beings burdened with emotional conflict and individual past history, and it would be inhumane to try to move forwards ignoring individual feelings. I think the ICRP dialogue seminars showed us the power and importance of the inefficient but humane approach.
I conclude with two quotes that represent my thoughts on the stance of the ICRP dialogue seminars and what I have learned:
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3 (words of Polonius)
Khalil Gibran