Abstract
At the ICRP International Conference on Recovery After Nuclear Accidents Session 3.4 Forum on the Transmission of Experience held in December 2020, a panel discussion took place on the topic, ‘How to overcome the difficulty to talk about the experience of nuclear accidents?’. The facilitator was Ryoko Ando (NPO Fukushima Dialogue) and the following six people participated as panelists: Atsushi Chiba (teacher at Fukushima Prefectural Asaka High School), Yoshiko Aoki (NPO Group of Storytellers About 311 in Tomioka), Miku Endo (Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum), Kenji Shiga (former Director of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum), Thierry Schneider (Centre d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire), and Noboru Takamura (Director of Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum, Nagasaki University).
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
The collection of materials at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum was started by Shogo Nagaoka, who taught at the Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Hiroshima University of Literature and Science. Two days after the atomic bomb was dropped on 6 August 1945, Nagaoka entered Hiroshima City, where Hiroshima University of Literature and Science was located. Having noticed the changes caused by the heat rays of the granite in the city, he started collecting materials related to the atomic bombing. Although this had been a personal collection of bomb-related materials, in 1948, after retiring from Hiroshima University of Literature and Science, Nagaoka was hired by Hiroshima City Hall as a specialist in conducting material surveys, and the materials that he owned at that time became the property of Hiroshima City. In 1949, the Atomic Bomb Reference Material Display Room was established based on these materials. In 1955, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum opened, and Nagaoka became the first Director. The exhibition at that time included exhibits related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, as well as materials from the atomic bombings. In 1975, a large-scale renovation was carried out, the contents of the exhibition were renewed, and the exhibition on the peaceful use of nuclear energy was removed. In 1991, a second major renovation was carried out, and in 2019, a third large-scale renovation was carried out.
1.2. Belarus Bragin Museum
In the Bragin district of Belarus, the Bragin Museum, which conveys memories of the Chernobyl accident, was renovated as part of the European Union’s Chernobyl disaster area support project CORE programme, which was carried out from 2004 to 2008. The exhibition was divided into four sections after the refurbishment: exhibition of works by painters from the 30-km exclusion zone; exhibition of items from the 30-km exclusion zone; memorial to the young firefighters of Bragin who were victims of the accident; and a special exhibition, ‘The Lost Land’. ‘The Lost Land’ was the result of collaborative work between adult volunteers, artists, and professional curators, consisting of six groups in the Bragin district. Volunteers had the opportunity to talk about what they had witnessed and experienced in the process of preparing for the exhibition, and were able to express not only their hardships but also the beauty of their hometown and their desire to continue living there. The exhibits are things collected by a volunteer group of residents. In this process, the residents came up with a common language, and that became a new way to talk about the accident and the circumstances that had been experienced. It also became the procedure to reconnect the past and present of the disaster area that had been disconnected by the accident.
1.3. The Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum
The Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum aims to record and disseminate memories of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the nuclear disaster, and the subsequent reconstruction process. This museum was constructed and opened in Futaba-machi, Fukushima Prefecture – the area affected by the nuclear disaster – in September 2019. There are three basic concepts: (i) records and lessons learned from nuclear disasters and reconstruction – ‘passing on to the future and sharing with the world’; (ii) ‘disaster prevention/mitigation’ that makes use of the experiences and lessons learned from nuclear disasters that are unique to Fukushima; and (iii) collaboration with people who care about Fukushima to ‘contribute to the acceleration of reconstruction’ by revitalising local communities, culture, and traditions, and developing human resources that will be responsible for reconstruction in collaboration with local communities and organisations. The exhibition consists of six booths, and the contents of the exhibition are organised in chronological order starting from the time of the accident. In the hall, it is also possible to hear the testimonies of those who experienced the earthquake (storytellers).
2. PANEL DISCUSSIONS
The panel discussion proceeded by asking the panellists two questions prepared by the facilitator. A summary of the panellists’ responses to the questions is given below.
2.1. Have you ever felt that it was difficult to talk about your experience of the nuclear disaster? If so, when did you feel that way? Moreover, why do you think that was the case?
As a teacher in Fukushima Prefecture, Chiba is engaged in activities such as radiation education for students and study tour in disaster areas. From the results of a questionnaire conducted by Chiba for high school students inside and outside Fukushima Prefecture in 2019, it was inferred that the overall knowledge of radiation was poor and that the culture of ‘learning’ radiation itself was not fostered. In respect of understanding of the earthquake, knowledge about the scale of the earthquake itself has not been passed on to the next generation, such as not knowing the results of rice radioactivity tests in Fukushima Prefecture, and thinking that the area where evacuation orders were issued represented 50% of Fukushima Prefecture. Immediately after the accident in 2011, difficulties associated with talking about a nuclear disaster were too delicate to handle in class, and there was a great deal of trouble because no data and teaching materials had been prepared. Nowadays, all the data are available and teaching materials have been prepared, so issues can be dealt with. According to Chiba, there are three points of difficulty for students to talk about nuclear disasters:
They lack underlying knowledge. Today's high school students experienced the earthquake when they were in elementary and junior high school, so there is little information about their experiences at that time, and adults are not able to convey it well. It is difficult to talk about due to the seriousness of the experience. At Asaka High School in Koriyama City, some students have returned after evacuating, while others have moved to Koriyama from the evacuation areas, and it seems that it is difficult for students who have different experiences to talk to each other. On the other hand, the importance of the experience of the disaster is recognised, and many opinions are put forward when there is time for discussions after lessons relating to the disaster. The lessons learned from the disaster, including among adults, have not been summarised. Although the current situation in Fukushima Prefecture is still complex, it may be difficult to talk about because it has not been summarised in an easy-to-understand format.
Aoki, who has been working to tell the story of the earthquake and nuclear disaster in Tomioka-Town since 2013, finds it difficult to talk about because the damage caused by the nuclear disaster is not visible. Even within Fukushima Prefecture, the status of the disaster has not been shared, and there is concern that there is prejudice about Futaba-Region, which became the disaster site. It is very difficult to explain the damage to the nuclear disaster areas in Fukushima Prefecture compared with the areas physically damaged by the tsunami, such as Miyagi and Iwate. Nuclear disasters are more terrifying than the health risks of radiation, which are often described by medical professionals and physicists, as they gradually uproot people’s lives due to changes in social conditions, such as the inability to live for a long period of time, but it is difficult for that to be understood.
Endo, who has been working at the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum since April 2019, was a third-year elementary school student living in Iwaki City at the time of the earthquake. After evacuating for approximately 2 weeks, she returned home. She chose Futaba Mirai Gakuen High School as her high school which was established in Hirono-town, Futaba-region, and decided to learn about nuclear disasters as part of her studies. She took a job at the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum as she was keenly aware of the heavy responsibility, and at the same time, there was conflict regarding whether she would be able to work as a staff member as she was not a direct victim of the nuclear disaster. At the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum, she heard many people’s stories and learnt a lot looking through various documents. However, there is always conflict about whether one can speak with little knowledge. Furthermore, there are more opportunities for interviews and although it may be difficult to remember the time of nuclear accident evacuation, she also believes that it is important to talk about one's own experience.
Shiga, the former Director of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, responded by mentioning the experience of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima. There are testimonies that people did not wish to discuss their own experiences straight after the bombing. ‘Storytellers’ started to appear after a certain point in time, but there may have been some barriers to overcome or time that had to pass first. Currently, the storytelling of the experience is mainly conducted for students on school trips, but while there is a great deal of anxiety about how much they have been conveyed. In Hiroshima although there is an overflowing number of experiences of the atomic bombing being conveyed, there is concern that the communication has become one-way. This means that a ‘common language’ to talk with each other has not been formed, and there is concern that some people may be blocking their ears in the flood of one-way narratives. The cause of the difficulty in talking is that the atomic bomb disaster was so huge that the narrator gives up, and feels that the listener is not a party. It seems that a nuclear disaster may create a ‘groove’ between those who did and did not experience it.
Schneider, who has experience in supporting Belarus after the Chernobyl accident, talked about two difficulties from the perspective of supporting the reconstruction of Fukushima after the accident. The first difficulty was the sense of distance between experts and residents which he had felt when he visited the disaster-stricken areas of Belarus in the 1990s. To overcome that distance, experts had to take things one step at a time, and feel the importance of listening to the residents’ voices. While a scientific point of view is also important, it is the recovery of normal daily life that is important for the residents. A strategic approach that fits radiation prevention to reality by making use of scientific knowledge is important. Another difficulty was communicating the experience in the disaster area within a community of radiation protection professionals. Two panellists living in Fukushima mentioned that their lives had changed significantly, but despite the fact that everything started from that point, it is actually often difficult to communicate what is happening in day-to-day life within the professional world. Currently, importance is placed on the involvement of stakeholders in radiation protection, and it is believed that it is important to look at the reality while listening to the words of local people when passing on memories.
Takamura talked about his experience as the Director of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum and as an expert on radiation exposure and health effects, having been involved in communication with residents immediately after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The main cause of difficulty in explaining is the fact that radioactivity cannot be perceived by the five senses. Although it was possible to confirm numerical values easily as long as measuring instruments were available, no one initially explained the meaning of the numerical values. It seems that this may have caused major confusion. In the time that has passed since the accident, more and more machines have become available and more people have taken measurements, but even then, as experts, we have tried to explain the meaning of these values.
2.2. Having heard the others, what do you think is needed to get over the difficulty of speaking about it?
Chiba pointed out the importance of overcoming the ‘groove’ that was seen in the first round of answers. There are three points of importance. The first point is education. It is important to first broaden understanding within Fukushima Prefecture, such as visiting the affected areas, removing prejudice, and learning about efforts for reconstruction. That will spread throughout the Prefecture. Currently, momentum for on-site training in Fukushima Prefecture has slowed. The second point is to understand and talk about not only radiation but also the Great East Japan Earthquake and the entire nuclear disaster. Students have much they want to talk about, and the opportunity to talk is important. The third point is for adults to know about it. Should we not take the opportunity of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum to create a ‘culture of radiation protection’?
Aoki explained that imagination was more important than anything in order to overcome difficulty of talking about the experience of a nuclear disaster. It would be good to use imagination to learn that what happened in Fukushima Prefecture and Futaba Region is not something local that happened in a single region, but is something that could occur anywhere in the world. Tomioka-town must rebuild a city in the future with a population that has declined sharply since the disaster. Aoki wants to increase the number of people who think of it as their own task to as many as possible, and feels that this belief is necessary to overcome the difficulty of talking.
Endo said that the need to improve knowledge is important. She thinks that listening to individual episodes is one such method. At the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum, the storyteller's experiences tell us what people were thinking about at the time of the disaster. It is also possible to get a real-time view of Fukushima Prefecture as it heads toward reconstruction. By knowing these things, the difficulty of talking will perhaps gradually disappear by accumulating learning about the earthquake disaster as if it is happening to yourself.
Shiga said that the ‘imagination’ that Aoki pointed out earlier is also an important keyword in the exhibition at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. In order to stir the imagination, the exhibit was changed to be one that asked questions, but ‘grooves’ had to be overcome. At Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, storytellers talk about their bombing experiences. This museum mainly targets elementary to junior high school students on school excursions. The situation that someone of the same age as you was exposed to an atomic bomb brings about a unique atmosphere, and has a common language. Another point was that mentioning a victim’s name had a great impression on the students’ reactions. The damage caused by the atomic bomb is often talked about in numbers, and if you grow up in Hiroshima, you will visit the museum many times and hear about the experience of being bombed. Students had been listening to Shiga's lecture with the same feelings, but said their impression changed part of the way through. What was mentioned at that time was the episode of an 18-year-old first-born woman who died after giving birth to a boy while suffering severe burns on the night of 6 August 1945. The midwife who helped with the birth was also severely burned by the bombing. I talked while showing the tools used for childbirth, and the name of the woman was also written there. When the students saw it, they said that although they had thought it was distant history, a story of the past, they realised that there was a person with that name, and that she had given birth to a child. Perhaps the students only became aware of the ‘individual’, and could only feel that it was an event that had happened to a human being once they saw her name.
For Schneider, it has been 10 years since the Fukushima accident and now it is time to pass down memories. Objectivity is important for this, but this is not just by talking about the past but also by heading into the future. To that end, it is important to build a collaborative relationship, and that will also encourage dialogue, both about science and about daily life. It is also important to draw lessons for the next disaster.
Takamura pointed out the importance of learning from the past for the future. Shouldn't we ask again what we learned from the Chernobyl accident that preceded the Fukushima accident? It is important to enhance education, learn from the past, and incorporate what has been learned as knowledge.
3. CONCLUSION
In this discussion, it was testified that there would be many ‘grooves’ in a nuclear disaster. The ‘groove’ appears as a risk perception groove for radioactivity between experts and the general public immediately after the accident. Over time, as well as the recognition of risk of radioactivity, new ‘grooves’ will be created in multiple layers, such as parties and non-parties, generations, and within the expert community. This is largely caused due to the fact that nuclear disasters are extremely rare, so few people have the same experience, and it is not easy to imagine. At the same time, because the damage is so great or invisible, it is often expressed as a statistical value, and it is thought that it is difficult to actually feel it. In particular, regarding the situation in the disaster area, the amount of knowledge in the expert community is large considering that there is a gap in communication between experts who actually experience the affected area and those who do not. Rather than the problem of the above, it is considered that experience of the disaster or non-experience of the disaster is a major factor in the gap. Furthermore, this gap still exists between individuals who experienced the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and those who did not, suggesting that this gap will not disappear naturally over time.
In order to eliminate this gap, it is very important to ‘collaborate’ and share experience. As experience/non-experience is an important factor, simply thinking about sharing experience is the most effective way to eliminate the groove. If that is not possible, it is important to discuss the experience continuously in words and find a ‘common language’. On the other hand, verbal communication has its limits. Imagination is the most important factor to convey and understand what you have not experienced, but empathy is essential to make your imagination work. It is almost impossible to use your imagination for something you cannot sympathise with.
Here, it is very interesting that Shiga pointed out that the ‘unique name’ of a victim was the major driving force that evoked sympathy for the atomic bombing experience in Hiroshima. The ‘unique name’ highlighted that it was not an unspecified number of anonymous people who experienced the event (the atomic bomb) at that time, but many unique people who could not be replaced. By focusing on the story of an individual who lived there, the historical event that was only vaguely perceived by the recipients of the information can be realised as a living event that they can relate to themselves. Furthermore, the irreplaceableness of individual life and existence can be shown through use of a victim’s name. Simply put, it is a matter of course that there was an irreplaceable life there, but this can be rephrased as finding the universal value of ‘human dignity’. Finding universal value in the individual event of a unique name made it possible to take on an unknown event as an experience that one can relate to oneself. It can be said that this is the core of passing on and sharing experiences. I would like to conclude this paper by pointing out that what was clarified in this discussion was the importance of finding universal value in handing down experiences.