Can mankind live with nuclear power? This summer, 66 years after an atomic bomb devastated Hiroshima, we are once again faced with this momentous and difficult question.
Can mankind live with nuclear power? This summer, 66 years after an atomic bomb devastated Hiroshima, we are once again faced with this momentous and difficult question.
For half a century, our nation has been promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while calling for the world to rid itself of nuclear arms. That campaign has been driven by what we experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. We have been committed to building nuclear power plants, following the convenient line that there is good as well as bad nuclear power.
The accident at the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant, triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake, has resulted in radiation exposure on a catastrophic scale.
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR POWER
Some people say Japan has forgotten the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They say the country has allowed its memories of the nuclear devastation of those cities and the horrifying firsthand experience of the tremendous destructive force of nuclear power to
fade. As Japan came to underestimate the danger of nuclear power over time, they argue, it invited another nuclear disaster.
Even some of the survivors of the atomic bombings, the hibakusha, invested hope in the peaceful use of atomic energy.
In 1951, a collection of essays written by children who were exposed to radiation from the bomb, titled "Genbaku no ko: Hiroshima no shonen shojo no uttae (Children of the Atomic Bomb: Boys and girls in Hiroshima speak)," was published.
In the preface to the book, which is said to have laid the foundation for the postwar peace education in Japan, the late Arata Osada, the educationist who compiled the collection, said: "Hiroshima must be the birthplace of the age of atomic power under peaceful conditions."
Osada had himself been exposed to radiation. His fourth son, Goro Osada, 84, was also exposed and offers an explanation of his father's state of mind as he wrote the preface. Osada was thinking about how mankind could deal with the inhumane nature of atomic bombs and overcome the enormous suffering caused by them. He thought it would be a victory for mankind if the technology used to make atomic bombs could be used for peaceful purposes.
Such hopes for the peaceful use of nuclear power did not signal disregard for the devastation caused by the nuclear bombs. They actually reflected a will to struggle positively to overcome the suffering.
U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower's speech on the peaceful use of nuclear power, "Atoms for Peace," delivered in December 1953 to the United Nations General Assembly, inspired Japan to introduce nuclear power.
In March 1954, the nation's first budget to fund the development of nuclear power was proposed. Two weeks later, however, it was disclosed that a Japanese tuna fishing boat named Daigo Fukuryu Maru had been exposed to and contaminated by nuclear fallout from the U.S. thermonuclear device test conducted on Bikini Atoll on March 1.
The revelation gave rise to a nationwide movement against atomic and hydrogen bombs, but it didn't stop Japan's nuclear power generation program, which was also supported by A-bomb survivors.
THE PERSISTENCE OF THE NUCLEAR THREAT
Fifty seven years on, Japan is now absorbing the vast implications of another nuclear disaster. The country has experienced a series of nuclear tragedies: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Daigo Fukuryu Maru fallout and Fukushima. Japan must now reconsider its relationship with nuclear power, military or civilian.
What kind of long-term effect does exposure to radioactivity have on human health? This is a key question being addressed by two separate disputes related to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A series of lawsuits are challenging the government's policy concerning recognition of people as suffering from illnesses caused by atomic-bomb radiation.
In August 2009, the government signed a blanket agreement with plaintiffs demanding recognition through these class-action cases. It demonstrated its commitment to providing relief to them.
In the last fiscal year, however, the government turned down some 5,000 applications for official recognition, more than double the number the previous year.
Many of these applicants are people who were exposed to radiation when visiting places close to where the bombs were dropped. Their applications were rejected on grounds that the causal relationship between their health problems and radiation from the bombs was unclear.
Of the 220,000 people who have hibakusha health books, only 7,210, or slightly more than 3 percent, had been certified as radiation victims by the end of March, up marginally from 2.8 percent in the previous year. Certification makes people eligible for special health care benefits.
The other important policy debate on the health effects of radiation is being conducted by the health ministry's council of experts, which is addressing the issue of whether to widen the area officially acknowledged to have been affected by the radioactive "black rain" that fell after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
A large-scale survey conducted in 2008 by the city of Hiroshima indicated that black rain may have actually fallen in an area several times the size designated by the central government.
People who were in the designated area are eligible for health care benefits under the atomic bomb victims' relief law.
In response to demands from many local residents worried about the effects of radiation on their health, the government is current carrying out a scientific review of the scope of the designated black rain area.
Meanwhile, in Fukushima Prefecture, there are serious concerns about the health effects of long-term exposure to low levels of radiation following the nuclear accident.
The Fukushima prefectural government has started a long-term health survey of all residents in the prefecture. It plans to keep track on the health of residents over a 30-year period.
The survey will try to estimate the total radiation exposure of each resident by ascertaining the numbers of hour they spent outdoors or in other exposed places during the two weeks from March 11, when the earthquake and tsunami triggered the nuclear crisis.
The problems caused by radiation from the atomic bombings are similar in nature to that produced by exposure to radiation from the crippled nuclear power plant. They require persistent, long-term efforts to identify and deal with the effects of invisible radioactivity.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE NEXT GENERATION
Nuclear energy is also a symbol of the dramatic progress of science in the 20th century.
We have made repeated calls for the elimination of nuclear arms, which can wipe out populations instantly and inflict tremendous long-term suffering on survivors.
The nuclear power plants now operating around the world use the same materials and technologies as those used for making nuclear weapons and therefore carry the same kind of inherent risks.
Once a nuclear power plant runs out of control, it will continue to pose a serious threat to both human society and the environment for a very long time.
Now that the Fukushima disaster has shown how easily the safety of nuclear power generation can be endangered, we should also begin to look for a way to wean ourselves from our dependence on nuclear power.
There are an estimated 23,000 nuclear warheads in the world. There are 440 nuclear reactors in service. This will be a long and difficult path.
Japan should not just keep campaigning for the elimination of nuclear arms. It should also make an exhaustive investigation of the safety of nuclear power generation and start the process of phasing out its nuclear power plants.
We owe that to the victims of the disasters in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and also to the next generation.
As we ponder the future of our nation, we are convinced that Japan, which has experienced all these nuclear tragedies, should be the first country to take steps toward phasing out all nuclear power, instead of trying to live with it.
--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 6