A lecturer at a meeting in Osaka touted the improved safety of nuclear reactors, denounced unfounded fears of radioactivity and stressed that radiation is naturally all around us.
A lecturer at a meeting in Osaka touted the improved safety of nuclear reactors, denounced unfounded fears of radioactivity and stressed that radiation is naturally all around us.
But at a similar-sized meeting held later in Tokyo, a different lecturer warned of the terrifying dangers of radiation, particularly to children, and predicted that Fukushima Prefecture would become a wasteland.
About all the two sides had in common was their unwillingness to discuss the issue of nuclear energy with the other camp.
Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster unfolded in March 2011, proponents and opponents of nuclear energy have run campaigns advocating their versions of the truth about nuclear energy.
Still wide apart, both sides appear content to spread their respective messages to like-minded people, a situation that experts say is counterproductive.
The Consumer Affairs Agency in January held a “risk communication” session in a building in Osaka regarding radioactive materials that may be found in food.
“The only thing we learn in school about radiation is ‘nuclear weapons and death,’” the male lecturer told about 20 participants. “That is why so many people are frightened.”
The lecturer continued: “If radiation really was dangerous, humans would not have been able to survive for so long by bearing offspring. I want you to know the truth.”
The participants measured radiation in the room to find an example of the natural levels that exist around them.
The aim of the risk communication project is to inform nutritionists and public health nurses about radiation in hopes that they will relay that knowledge to their local communities and schools.
The project began in fiscal 2013 after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The session in Osaka involved employees of food companies who are in positions to deal with radiation.
“I believe I can explain to my colleagues because I have developed a certain comfort level about radiation,” said an employee at a major beverage company.
The pro-nuclear stance at the lecture should come as no surprise.
The lecturer previously worked as a researcher with the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, which is backed by the major electric power companies.
The lecturer concluded his talk with a word about nuclear reactors: “I believe risks have been reduced considerably because safety measures have been implemented.”
The Consumer Affairs Agency has commissioned the Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization to handle the risk communication project. The organization’s bylaws state that it will “actively conduct edification and dissemination of knowledge related to the peaceful usage of nuclear energy.”
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan is the largest contributor of fees to the organization, although the actual amount has not been publicized.
About 18 months after the 1999 deadly accident at JCO Co.’s nuclear fuel facility in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, the organization compiled a research report about risk communication on nuclear power.
“While attitudes toward nuclear energy have hardened due to the accident that resulted in two deaths, there is also an imbalance because there is societal acceptance of car accidents that result in 10,000 fatalities a year,” the report said.
The report added, “General magazines will very rarely publish articles promoting nuclear energy.”
To deal with that situation, the report proposed “making efforts to have the general public observe workers at nuclear plants so they can hold a sense of familiarity.”
Kohei Urano, a professor emeritus of environmental safety management at Yokohama National University, defines risk communication as “experts and citizens sharing information related to dangers in order to seek a solution from an equal standing.”
“Trying to gain the understanding of participants by only explaining from one side is not risk communication,” he said. “Moreover, if an organization handling the project is on one side of the debate, there is a strong possibility that the views of those who hold concerns about radioactive materials will not be reflected.”
A Consumer Affairs Agency official in charge of the lectures was asked if people opposed to nuclear power have been invited to talks.
“It would not do for our organization to recognize certain individuals as ‘opponents,’” the official said.
The lecture series was held on 55 occasions around Japan in fiscal 2013 and 2014. The total budget for the series and other risk communication events, such as symposiums, is 45 million yen ($376,000), funded in part by the government’s special account for rebuilding after the 2011 natural disasters.
Anti-nuclear groups have held gatherings around Japan--often without inviting anyone from the other side.
In April, about 20 participants attended a lecture in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward on the theme of radiation exposure checks in Fukushima Prefecture.
“There are many cases of malignant cancer,” the lecturer said. “Children are in danger.”
He also criticized scholars who push nuclear energy as untrustworthy. He concluded his lecture by saying it will be impossible to live in Fukushima.
A document distributed to the participants contained a section that said, “Risk communication events sponsored by local governments do more harm than good and require scrutiny.”
A few days after the event, the lecturer admitted that he had no experience in specialized research on radiation.
“Even an ordinary citizen like myself can understand that something fearful is occurring just by studying a little,” he said.
When asked why he didn’t take his case directly to the central government or electric power companies, the man said: “The nuclear energy proponents are the ones who must be held accountable, but they have not revised their stance at all. I have no intention of meeting with them because it would be meaningless to even talk with them.”
Hideyuki Ban, a co-director of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, a nonprofit organization, makes it a point to accept invitations to government-sponsored sessions about nuclear reactors. However, being an opponent of nuclear energy, Ban is in a decided minority at such events.
Although his opinions are usually not reflected in the conclusions, Ban still attends the meetings.
“If one wants to get one’s arguments across to change society even a little, the only alternative is to appear at the same forum for discussions,” Ban said.