Unequal Impact

Women’s & Children’s Human Rights Violations
and the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear DisasterContents
Executive Summary

04

Introduction

10

Political and Legal Framework

13

Gender Difference:

16

Evacuation

19

Economic Impacts

23

Atomic Divorce

25

Radiation Stigma and Marriage Discrimination

27

Radiation Impacts

29

Mental Health Consequences

35

Children’s Rights Violations

37

Women’s Activism

42

Conclusion

45

Cultural Constructs and Power Dynamics

Kendra Ulrich, Greenpeace Japan
Edited by Ai Kashiwagi and Kazue Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan
Special thanks to Dr. Nanako Shimizu of Utsunomiya University and
Dr. Rianne Teule for their valuable input and insights
March 2017

“I think it’s one of the evil words of our day - fukko (reconstruction) because it excuses everything that is going on: the forced returns,
the use of workers in very questionable circumstances and work
environments, what is done to children.”
Norma Field, Professor of Japanese Studies, University of Chicago 1

Cover photo: Mrs. Suzuki and her youngest daughter,
residents of Fukushima City, Fukushima Prefecture.
November 2011.
© Robert Knoth / GreenpeaceThis page: Map of the radioactive fallout from the 2011
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
© Daniel Mueller / Greenpeace

Back cover: Two girls sit in front of their house in Fukushima
Prefecture in a pre-disaster photograph. The nuclear
accident contaminated their former home and community,
forcing them to evacuate to Kyoto with their mother.
© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace© Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Executive Summary
Greenpeace measures radiation levels far above the internationally accepted limit outside
a school in Iitate, approximately 40km from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, in
March 2011. The organization called for the immediate evacuation of the community on
27 March 2011. The government did not begin the evacuation until 22 April 2011.

Japan is party to multiple international humanrights treaties, under which it is obligatedto protect individuals’ right to “the highest
attainable standard of mental and physicalhealth.” These include the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights; the Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Racial Discrimination; theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women; the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, including its two
Optional Protocols, and the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance. The rightto health as it is defined in the terms ofthese treaties includes the right to complete
and accurate information and the right toparticipation. The country is further obligatedunder its international commitments to uphold
the rights of internally displaced persons, withparticular recognition of the special needsof vulnerable groups (women, children, theelderly and the disabled), e.g. protection
against outrages against personal dignity, suchas gender-based violence, and the right ofchildren to play.
However, the Japanese government’s responseto the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster ofMarch 2011, in both the immediate aftermath
and the ensuing years, resulted in multiple
human rights violations – particularly for womenand children.

Emergency Response and Evacuation
In the immediate aftermath of the disaster
women were faced with multiple gross violationsof their rights. Sexual violence increased,
particularly during blackouts. Domestic
violence also increased and persisted longafter people left the evacuation centers. The

4

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Japanese government both failed to enact
adequate preventative measures to protect
women from these attacks and to provide theneeded formal support networks for survivors.

Many women evacuated without their husbands,
who chose to remain in the Fukushimacontaminated region. Some women lived
separated from their spouses, while others
divorced. Women who have suffered both theeconomic consequences of the disaster andhave left their partners are particularly vulnerable
to poverty. As was noted by the Fukushima Bar
Association in 2013, this issue has been ignoredby the government in the disaster recovery
efforts. No emphasis was placed on assisting
women to achieve financial independence,exacerbated by a notable lack of support forfoundations that assist women’s businessstartups and a failure to address conditions at,and support, women’s workplaces.

Evacuation centers were further run by men.
Women had little say in the decisions that
directly impacted them, which resulted in theirneeds being ignored, e.g. the centers lacked
privacy for changing clothing and breastfeeding,as well as basic sanitary products. Disastertraumatized women were further burdened withsignificantly increased domestic chores, as it
was expected that they would be responsible
for nursing the sick and cooking the meals forthe entire center.
The evacuation centers also neglected the needsof children, as safe spaces for children to playwere not provided in most evacuation centers.
This is recognized as an essential tenet of therights of the child under the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), as well as an important
tenet of the Children’s Charter for Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR).

Mistakes, (Mis) Information, and Health
Risks
Women’s and children’s rights to accurate andcomplete information have been repeatedly
violated in both the aftermath of the disaster andin the ensuing years. This is due to the failuresand deliberate obfuscation of both the Japanese
government and Tokyo Electric Power Company(TEPCO) regarding the situation at the crippled
reactor site and in affected areas.

Economic Hardship: the feminization of(nuclear) poverty
Japan is a nation with a yawning gender gap.
In 2012, women employed full-time only earned
69.3% of their male counterparts’ wages. With
part-time workers included, women only made
51.0% of the salaries of their male counterparts
were paid. This enormous resource disparity
meant that women were at a significant
disadvantage for coping with the impacts of thedisaster. This was compounded by the fact thatin the aftermath, part-time work was heavily
impacted. As women comprised the majority ofthe part-time workforce, they suffered greater
economic insecurity as a result.

In June 2016, over five years after the disasterbegan, TEPCO President Naomi Hirose,acknowledged that its then-President orderedthat the term “core meltdown” not be used at apress conference on March 14, 2011 and for twomonths afterward. Yet that same day, the 14th ofMarch, TEPCO’s own computer modelling had
shown that 25 – 55% of the fuel rods had beendamaged. TEPCO’s internal manuals defined ameltdown as damage to 5% of the fuel rods. 2
In the acute phase of the disaster, government
failures also led to unnecessary exposures.
It chose not to disclose radiation dispersion
modelling data, which meant that some people
evacuated to areas with higher radiationlevels than where they had been living. Delaysin evacuating more distant contaminatedcommunities, like Iitate which is locatedapproximately 30 - 50km away, also exposed
the public – including women and children –to unnecessarily high doses over days andweeks. The lack of accurate and complete
information also meant that elementary and

In addition, compensation payments were madeto married couples as a family unit – dispensed tothe head of the household, which was usually theadult male. This meant that women’s access tocompensation funds was solely at the discretionof their husbands. This was particularly cruelin situations where women were victims ofdomestic violence, as both financial and formal
support networks to leave an abusive situation
were utterly lacking in disaster response.

5Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

junior high schools in Fukushima prefecture werepermitted to resume classes in the spring of 2011,prior to decontamination.

investigation in 2012, this violates survivors’
right to the highest attainable standard of health.
Data from contaminated regions show an abrupt
increase in perinatal mortality at 10 months
post-disaster. The heavily contaminatedprefectures saw a greater increase at 15%
than the concurrent increase of 6.8% in themoderately contaminated prefectures. No similar
increase was seen in the unaffected prefectures
throughout Japan in this timeframe. The sudden
increase in perinatal mortality rates in January
2012 in affected prefectures was followed by adecreasing trend, albeit at a higher level than
the initial pre-disaster downward trend. Thisis consistent with perinatal mortality data in
Europe, post-Chernobyl.

Women and children – and particularly female
fetuses, infants, and girls – are more vulnerable
to the health effects of radiation exposure
than their male and/or adult counterparts.
Epidemiological studies of atomic bomb
survivors have shown significantly greatercancer risk, excluding leukemia, for women ascompared to men. This is consistent with thefindings of medical CT scan exposure studies,
which have also shown greater vulnerability
for all-cancer mortality, excluding leukemia,
for women. Other documented healthconsequences of radiation exposure include,
but are not limited to: miscarriage, perinatal
mortality, deformities, and cardiovasculardisease.

Children are particularly vulnerable todeveloping thyroid cancer as a result of
exposures to radioactive iodine. Delays inthe distribution of iodine pills that can help
reduce this risk meant that many children incontaminated communities were likely exposed
to preventable high doses of radioactive iodine.

In the wake of the disaster, the government
raised the officially “acceptable” level ofradiation exposure to 20 mSv/year, where it still
remains nearly six years later. This standard isapplied to the general population in Fukushimacontaminated areas – including those that are
known to be more vulnerable. As stated by the
UN Human Rights Rapporteur following his

Higher-than-expected rates of thyroid lesions,cysts and cancers were discovered as aresult of post-Fukushima testing, but adispute remains over causation, i.e. whether

Bags of radioactive waste piled next toa home in Iitate, Fukushima Prefecture.
October 2014.

© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

6

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace monitors radiationlevels at a kindergarten in
Fukushima City, Fukushima Prefecture.
August 2011.

these findings are the effects of exposure toradiation or “overdiagnosis” due to screening
bias. Patients were given a poor-quality copyof their ultrasound images, (supposedly toprevent falsification), but they were forced tofile Freedom of Information (FOI) requests toaccess their own complete medical files.

sense of security for children and their parents,
thus leading to behaviors that could increasechildren’s exposures.

Resettlement: Japan’s Sacrificial
System and Economic Coercion
Unfortunately for the victims of Fukushima, andreactor communities across Japan, the Abegovernment’s resettlement and nuclear restart
policies are a politically-driven effort to minimize
the impact of the disaster on the industry, to thedetriment of the nuclear evacuees themselves.
This has resulted in deliberate efforts to obscure
the facts related to the decontamination andunjustifiably downplay the risks of radiation
exposure.

Further, public relations campaigns sought tominimize the economic impacts of the disasteron the Fukushima agricultural industry, which
resulted in the dissemination and consumption ofcontaminated foods in at least eight prefectures
before this was caught. In at least one confirmed
instance, which occurred in Tochigi prefecture,potentially contaminated beef was deliberately
fed to children in their school lunches –purportedly to demonstrate its “safety”.

The estimated costs related to the Fukushimadisaster were recently revised to a staggering
21.5 trillion JPY. This includes 12 trillion JPY fordecontamination and decommissioning, thoughthese massive efforts have delivered very limited
results. Greenpeace investigations have shownthat contamination in areas where evacuation
orders are to be lifted remain far in excess ofinternationally recommended maximum doseChildren were also intentionally targeted withmisinformation, including required readingin their school textbooks that presented
misleading information regarding radiation
risks and neglected to mention the additional
vulnerability of children to the effects of ionizing
radiation exposures. This could create a false

7© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Mothers who evacuated from Fukushima
Prefecture, and went to court demanding faircompensation, stand in front of the Kyoto District
Court in Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture. January 2017.

limits. Cumulative lifetime exposures are
particularly concerning for women and children,as they are more vulnerable to physical impactsof radiation exposure.

to secure fair compensation. They have been adriving force behind mass demonstrations andnonviolent direct actions. Many are involved in
the fights to keep reactors throughout Japan
offline. They have started online networks toshare information and even founded radiation
testing labs for their communities.

The lifting of evacuation orders in parts of thecontaminated region in March 2017 also meansthat survivors from these areas will lose theiralready inadequate compensation paymentsa year later. Many evacuees are already facedwith the loss of housing support. As womenare at significant economic disadvantage, theloss of essential financial support for evacuees
has potentially far greater impacts for them.
Many may be forced to return to contaminatedcommunities against their wishes because theycannot afford to stay where they are currently
living. This is economic coercion, not a choicefreely made.

Fixing What’s Broken
Although the Japanese government cannot
reverse the ongoing radiological crisis in
Fukushima-impacted areas, it can enact
policies that protect the human rights ofnuclear disaster survivors. Thus, Greenpeaceurges the government of Japan to:
1. Ensure survivors are fully compensatedfor their losses – including continuationof compensation payments and housing
support for those who choose to remain
evacuated, and compensation for those
returning for their loss of community, inorder that individuals may freely exercise
their right to choose where to live; and,

Women have not, however, been silent victims.
They have shown immense resiliency andleadership in the face of unthinkable hardships.
They have been at the forefront of legal
challenges from spearheading cases that brought
criminal charges against TEPCO to filing lawsuits

8

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

2. Provide full, complete, accurate, andeasily accessible information regarding
radiation levels, the scope of
decontamination efforts, and radiation
risks to the public, including ageappropriate materials for children; and,and inclusion of the elderly and disabled;and,7. Develop and support initiatives aimed
at helping Fukushima-impacted womenachieve financial independence including,but not limited to, supporting women’s
startup businesses, addressing income
gaps, and improving the conditions andworkplaces of women; and,3. Provide full, readily available access for
Fukushima victims to their own and theirdependents’ medical files and test
results; and,

8. Appoint a public ombudsperson forchildren, responsible for safeguarding
the rights of children and young
persons, especially those affected by the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

4. Reduce the acceptable additional annual
exposure level in Fukushima-impacted
areas to a maximum of 1 mSv/year,
which would reflect the international
standard; and,
5. Ensure full and equal public participation
and a formal role for women as well as
men in all decision-making processes
regarding future lifting of evacuation
orders, emergency planning schemes, andnuclear restart decisions; and,© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

6. Ensure the equal representation of womenin leadership positions on emergency
planning entities, and full consultation

An elderly woman sets flowers outside the temporary,prefab housing in the evacuation center of Tamura City,
Fukushima Prefecture. October 2013.

9© Digital Globe

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Introduction
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant,
Fukushima Prefecture. March 2011.

The massive disaster that struck the east coastof Japan on 11 March 2011 has been referred
to as a “triple disaster” – earthquake, tsunami,
and triple reactor core meltdowns. The tsunami
and earthquake claimed tens of thousands of
lives and devastated coastal communities. The
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster forced many
more people from their homes, communities,
and livelihoods and has prevented their return.
Nearly six years later, as of December 2016,
approximately 81,000 are still evacuated – afigure that excludes those that could buy
permanent housing and settle elsewhere.
It does not fully reflect the number of selfevacuated persons, who are not well-tracked bygovernment agencies.3– whether they chose to evacuate or to stay –the burden and consequences have createda disproportionate and continuing impact onvulnerable populations, notably women, children,
the elderly, and the disabled.4
These vulnerable groups were not only
inordinately impacted by the nuclear accident,
but will also bear the greatest hardships andinjustices from the Abe government’s coercive
repopulation program. This is particularly true forwomen and children.
This report will thus begin with gender as theinitial point of analysis and examine the way inwhich gender impacted both individual response
and women’s experience of the Fukushimadisaster, including: disproportionate economic
impacts; escalated violence – both rape anddomestic violence; perceptions of risk, labelingand stigmas; and exclusion from decisionmaking roles in evacuation and recovery. In
addition, it examines the violations of children’s

The radiological disaster has resulted in an
ongoing human security crisis due to the failuresof successive Japanese governments to protect
the human rights of nuclear survivors. And,
while the disaster had an undeniably enormous
impact on all those in the affected communities

10

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

rights as well as the impacts of these violations
on the women in their culturally-valued
motherhood roles.

The repopulation policy also means that
Fukushima victims will lose their alreadyinadequate compensation payments one year
after the evacuation designations are lifted. Many
are already faced with the loss of their housing
support. Women, already at a severe economic
disadvantage, will be more heavily impacted.
Many may be forced to return against theirwishes.

Women and children are not only in a sociallydisadvantaged position, but are also more
vulnerable to both the physical impacts ofionizing radiation5 as well as adverse mental
health outcomes. Mothers with young children
are a particularly high risk group for the latter.6

This impossible decision of whether to return foreconomic reasons is a looming human rights
crisis – and one in a successive list of humanrights violations perpetrated by the Japanese
government against the Fukushima nuclear
victims.

Moreover, the current policies of the Abegovernment to push for nuclear reactor restarts
and repopulation of the contaminated zones canonly be characterized as deliberate, structural
violence against the victims of the Fukushimadisaster. It is the direct result of the pressure
from both the domestic and international ‘nuclear
village’7 to minimize the political and social costsof the Fukushima disaster.

Tetsuya Takahashi, philosophy professor at
University of Tokyo and a native of Fukushima,
has characterized Japan’s nuclear policy as a“sacrificial system”, which is quite apt when
considering the Abe government’s resettlement
policy.9 He defines it thus: “a system in which
the benefits accruing to some parties are madepossible at the expense of others’ lives (whether
as biological existence, health, daily routine,
property, dignity, or hope).” 10And, minimizing the impacts on the industry has
required a deliberate effort to downplay radiation
risks and advocate resettlement. Avoiding a large
exclusion zone that would serve as a constantreminder of the impacts of a nuclear disaster– like the Chernobyl exclusion zone – hasbeen the driving force behind policy decisions– irrespective of the reality that many of thecontaminated areas cannot be decontaminated.8

While some might point out that Fukushimaresidents willfully embraced the siting of

A school girl runs past bags of radioactive waste
piled near homes and apartments in Fukushima City,
Fukushima Prefecture. October 2015.

© Greenpeace11

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

a nuclear reactor in their community andbenefitted from both subsidies and employment,these communities are largely economicallyvulnerable.11 As a result, they are compelled
to accept the risk of radiation exposure posedby a nuclear plant in order to secure a meansof livelihood – a decision which is not faced insuch terms by those in economically privileged
positions.12 Takahashi further asserts that
this choice between life and livelihood in thesacrificial system is a violation of an individual’s
right to life.13

impacts than natural disasters alone. 19 Due tothe long latency periods for other potential healthoutcomes (e.g. cancers, cardiovascular diseases,
and birth defects), mental health effects should
be regarded as simply the first measurable
serious health consequence to manifest following
a catastrophic nuclear disaster.
This report evaluates the impact of the Fukushimacatastrophe on women as a particularly
vulnerable population within the context ofspecific cultural norms and circumstances. And
though they have borne some of the greatest
burdens of the disaster, they have also been
instrumental in the opposition to nuclear
restarts; legal challenges against TEPCO, thegovernment, and the nuclear village; organizing
nonviolent direct actions and protests forvictims’ rights; establishing online networking
communities for information sharing; and evenestablishing radiation testing and monitoring
centers. Thus, women’s leadership in theantinuclear movement and personal agency will
also be explored.

In the case of Fukushima, the beneficiaries werethe economically-privileged Tokyo residents
that consumed the electricity produced at
Fukushima Daiichi from the far safer distanceof approximately 200km away, while the rural,poorer communities in Fukushima bore theprimary radiological risk. Further, the Soso
district – where Fukushima Daiichi is located –is the most economically depressed area in theregion.14
To extend this concept, while Fukushima andsurrounding prefectures were at an economic
disadvantage to Tokyo, so women are at a
disadvantaged position to men. As a result,some women have remained in the contaminatedregion as a result of their husband’s decision to
do so, even if they wished to evacuate – thus
accepting increased radiological risks due to alack of other economic options for supporting
oneself. Others left their husbands to evacuate,
though many Fukushima-impacted women are
now facing poverty.15

This analysis presents some perspectives andtheories based on the research of social andbehavioral scientists that are useful when
considering the unique intersections of natural
disaster, human-created technological/industrial
disaster, and the social and cultural constructs
that influence individual responses and ability
to recover from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.
This is not to say every person was impacted in
the same way, but this analysis identifies someoverarching trends.

Women are not only at an economic and social
disadvantage, but are also more vulnerable
to the effects of radiation exposure. Women,
female fetuses, infants, and girls are at greaterrisk of all cancer mortality, excluding leukemia,
as a result of radiation exposures than theirmale counterparts.16 Other health consequences
include: miscarriage, perinatal mortality,
deformities, and cardiovascular disease.
Women, especially mothers with young children,
are also one of the two highest risk groups formental health consequences – the other highrisk group being first responders.17 Further,human-made toxicological disasters, like nuclear
disasters,18 have more severe mental health12© Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Political and Legal Framework
Fukushima survivors delivered 123,455 petition signatures to the National Diet
calling for the implementation of the ‘Nuclear Disaster Victims Support Act’
on May 27, 2015. The Act was passed unanimously by the Diet on June 21,
2012, but the government failed to put its terms into practice.

Long before the Fukushima Daiichi disaster,
Japan had made human security issues as
they relate to structural violence, such as
underdevelopment, a major centerpiece of its
international aid work.20 It has also championed
the concept of structural violence threats tohuman security within the United Nations,
including establishing the UN Trust Fund for
Human Security in 1999.21

the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women; the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, including its two
Optional Protocols; and the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance.

Per a document issued by Japan’s Ministryof Foreign Affairs, Global Issues Cooperation
Division in 2010, human security: “aims toprotect people from critical and pervasive threats
to human lives, livelihoods and dignity, and toenhance human fulfillment.”22

The right to health is defined by the UN as the“right of everyone to the enjoyment of thehighest attainable standard of physical andmental health.”
Japan’s constitution, Articles 13 and 25, also
enshrines the protection of Personal Rights – somuch so that a district court judge ruled in 2014
that the threat to individuals’ personal rights,
particularly the threat to health and lifestyle,by an impending restart of the Ohi 3&4 nuclear

Japan has further ratified multiple international
human rights treaties that acknowledge the rightof everyone to the highest attainable standardof physical and mental health. These include:13

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

reactors violated Japan’s constitution.23 Ina similar ruling, the Otsu district court in2016 barred the operation of the Takahama
3&4 reactors. This resulted in the immediate
shutdown of the Takahama 3 reactor, which
had restarted just weeks prior, and prevented
the restart of the unit 4 reactor.24

The basic principles stipulated under Article 2 of
the Act 27 state:
1. Support Measures for the Lives of Disaster
Victims must be implemented while trying
to provide accurate information on thestatus of the disasters resulting from theTEPCO Nuclear Accident and the statusof reconstruction, etc. following said
disasters.

Despite this legal and political framework, whenthe 2011 Fukushima disaster created nearly
163,000 nuclear evacuees,25 the government
failed to extend the same people-centeredapproach to resolving human insecurity issues
to its own citizens that it had championed in its
foreign policies. Further, the ensuing policies of
the Abe government to promote nuclear power
and to resettle the contaminated areas not only
threatens citizens’ right to health, but represent
the very kinds of structural violence that theJapanese government has worked to end inother countries.

2. Support Measures for the Lives of Disaster
Victims must be implemented so as toenable each Disaster Victim to make a
voluntary choice as to whether to residein an area under the support measures
set forth in Article 8, paragraph (1), to
relocate to another area, or to return tothe area they lived in prior to relocation,
while ensuring that appropriate support isoffered irrespective of their choices.
3. Support Measures for the Lives of Disaster
Victims must be such that the utmost
efforts are made to eliminate any healthconcerns of the Disaster Victims as
regards external and internal exposure toradiation pertaining to the TEPCO Nuclear
Accident at an early date.

Building on the sacrificial system concept
within the framework of human security,
Nanako Shimizu, an Associate Professor in the
Faculty of International Studies, Utsunomiya
University, characterized the situation thus:
Since the disaster, citizens have learnt a
bitter lesson that their rights and securities
can be endangered not only by “foreign
enemies” but by the policies of their own
governments. The victims of “dysfunctionof the state” usually reside in ruralmunicipalities such as Fukushima, and it is
the corporate managers and policy makers
in metropolitan cities who decide where tobuild or whether to restart nuclear power
plants, so that the sacrifices of the victims
are often neglected or left unnoticed. The
typical structural violence arising from thiscenter-periphery structure, which is calleda “sacrificial system,” has become a major
problem in post-Fukushima Japan.26

4. When implementing Support Measures for
the Lives of Disaster Victims, appropriate
consideration must be given so as not togenerate unreasonable discrimination
against them.
5. When implementing Support Measures
for the Lives of Disaster Victims, special
consideration must be given to children
and pregnant women, considering the factthat children (including fetuses) are more
susceptible to radiation, while ensuring all
possible means of reducing radiation doses
and caring for the health of such individuals
from the viewpoint of preventing healthhazards from affecting them.
6. Considering the possibility that the effectof radiation pertaining to the TEPCO
Nuclear Accident may continue for along period of time, there should be acommitment to reliably implementing
Support Measures for the Lives of Disaster
Victims for as long as there is a need forDisaster Victims to be supported.

In addition to its international commitments andconstitutional mandate, in June 2012, Japan also
passed the ‘Nuclear Disaster Victims Support
Act.’ This legislation clearly defined the legal
obligations of the Japanese government toFukushima survivors.

14© Drop of Light / Shutterstock, Inc.

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

United Nations Headquarters in New York, USA.

While this Act was passed unanimously in theDiet,28 the federal government subsequently
failed to create regulatory enforcement
mechanisms.29

Thus, Japan’s response to the Fukushimadisaster has not only resulted in a failure tomeet its obligations under multiple humanrights treaties, but also clearly violates its
own domestic law regarding the treatment ofFukushima-impacted peoples.

Thus, while this is currently a law, it has not been
fully implemented. It is quite clear that the Abe
Government’s resettlement policy violates its
terms, particularly principles two and six.
Further, the misinformation regarding radiation
health risks and the enormous challenges facedby survivors in accessing medical files clearly
violate principles one and three.

15© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Gender Difference:

Cultural Constructs and Power Dynamics
An evacuee returns to her home for a short visit in Tamura City,
Fukushima Prefecture. October 2013.

Disasters exacerbate underlying social issues
within a society30 – and the ongoing Fukushima
nuclear disaster is no exception. To better
understand the gendered difference in theimpact and response of the Fukushima nuclear
catastrophe, it is helpful to first explore theunderlying social framework that created andsupported these responses.

Social roles and everyday activities are still
predominantly dictated by gender, wherein
women are placed largely within the domestic
sphere and men engaged in business, politics,
science and as the primary breadwinners.33
Masculinity, in this context, is contingent on
economic prowess and maintaining stability,
which leads to a preoccupation with work. Men
are expected to prioritize work over private life.34

Japan has long been a nation characterized bya significant gender imbalance in power andresource distribution. For the past decade, it
has consistently been ranked in approximately
the bottom third of nations evaluated in theWorld Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index –together with countries like Cambodia, Qatar,
Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates, among
others. In 2006, Japan was 79th out of 115
countries evaluated.31 In 2016, it had fallen to
the bottom quartile, ranking at 111th out of 144
countries evaluated.32

One perspective in the field of social psychology
asserts that gender is a cultural construct, andthus:... masculinity is an aspect of institutions
produced by institutional life, as muchas it is an aspect of personality. In thisperspective, men and women think andact as they do not because of innatecharacteristics or internalized socialization,
but because concepts about femininity andmasculinity are adopted from the general16

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

culture. In this view, gender is a normative
category of thoughts, feelings andactions that are adopted and reinforced
through social interactions. Based on thisperspective, men’s risk taking behaviors
can be seen as a means to demonstratemasculinity. Hegemonic masculinity,
gendered practices that ensure thedominant social position of men, is
historically associated with industrial
capitalism. It discourages men fromdoubting institutions in control of risk
management, and emphasizes technicalmanagement of risk problems throughmastery over nature rather than concerns
for broader social and ecologicalconsiderations [emphasis added]. 35

their white male counterparts in the U.S. Of themost recent ranking of the 34 OECD countries
on gender wage gap, Japan was one of thebottom three with only South Korea and Estonia
ranking lower.39
This huge income disparity put women in auniquely disadvantaged position for coping with
the impacts of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.
To further illustrate, in 2012 women employedfull-time only earned 69.3% of what their malecounterparts earned. With part-time workers
included, women only made 51.0% of thesalaries their male counterparts were paid.40
Further, while just 20.1% of Japan’s male
workforce were employed in part-time positions,for women this was more than double with
54.6% of the female workforce employed parttime.41 The impacts of this yawning wage andemployment gap will be explored further below.

Further, men are more accepting of risks36and more trusting of institutions due to theirprivileged position within society that shields
them from much of the negative consequences
these create. As such, the findings of the “whitemale effect” in the U.S. are potentially usefulwhen considering differential risk perception
between men and women in the context of the
Fukushima disaster, which concludes:

But, regarding the differentiated responses
between the sexes in the aftermath of the
Fukushima nuclear disaster, Morioka (2014)
notes that: “men’s memberships in workorganizations exposed fathers to masculine
social norms that prioritized economic stability
and recessed the risk of radiation.” 42 This isfurther summarized as:

White males with better education,
income, and conservative views put
more trust in authorities and have lessconcern about environmental risks. Theirhistorically privileged position andmembership in the most advantaged
group socializes them for risk taking,while women rely more on collective
resources. Since risks are often createdand handled by men, men perceive risks
as more acceptable than women.37 ... The
privileged social position of men and theirneed to maintain a sense of control andstability can influence their evaluations ofrisk created by central institutions ... trustin social institutions [has been referred]
to as a ‘protective cocoon’ that guards
the self against overwhelming threats ofchange [emphasis added].38

Long work hours and an inability to
enforce labor laws reflect the corporate
driven national policies that prioritize
economic stability and growth. The
resultant work culture extols masculine
self-sacrifice to the company and pushes
male workers to adopt the perspectivesof “corporate warriors.” The phenomenon
called karoshi, deaths from overwork, is
one reflection of the “corporate centeredsociety” which distorts worker’s healthperceptions ... Japanese salary men [havebeen depicted] as “beneficiaries of thepatriarchal dividend” expressed in power
and material resources, but who are also
expected to put loyalty to their companies
above personal family needs ... Father’s
disinterest in radiation risk can be viewed
as the cost for the “patriarchal dividend”
that families pay under the banner of
economic recovery.43

As discussed above, educated Japanese men
occupy a distinctly privileged position within
Japanese society that in many ways mirrors

17© Markel Redondo / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

A mother and her daughter leave
a convenience store near Koriyama, 70km
from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
Greenpeace worked in the area to monitor radioactive
contamination of food and soil to estimate the healthand safety risks for the local population. April 2011.

Also, it is important to note that the very
presence of radioactive contamination
represents the imminent possibility of drasticchanges, presenting a very real threat of
instability – particularly economic instability.
This directly affronts the cultural expectationthat men maintain stability for the family andprovide economically. As such, men are primed
to seek to reduce this instability, in order toreduce the threat to their definition of self andplace within their family and societal structures.
This, paired with the greater risk acceptanceand greater innate trust in institutions due tosocially privileged positions, meant men weremore likely to accept government assurancesof safety.44

radiation by perceived authorities, listening
to and weighing the concerns of their wives
became too onerous. Many became angry
and frustrated, telling their wives they were
neurotic and obsessive – and women, in theirsubordinate position in the home and society,are particularly vulnerable to being labeled anddismissed.46
Unfortunately, this view is also reflected in
the wider discourses both within Japan andinternationally, which misuse radiophobia todismiss anyone who expresses concerns overradiation exposure.47 Given that most decisionmakers were and are male, women’s ability to
express and act on their concerns, much lesssee them reflected in policy, were severely
limited.

Additionally, men “are more likely than women to
see environmental risk as being counterbalancedby economic benefits.” 45 Conversely, womenare more likely to express concern about theenvironment – a difference that persists evenamong women employed full-time.
Thus, once fathers had decided to trust the“official” interpretations of facts regarding18

© Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Evacuation
A mother comforts her child in an evacuation center in Yonezawa City, Yamagata
Prefecture. They had fled from Fukushima Prefecture to escape the radiologicalcontamination in the days following the nuclear accident. March 2011.

The evacuation of Fukushima Daiichi-impacted
communities was fraught with problems that
violated citizens’ right to health. While themagnitude of the triple disaster would challenge
any government to respond effectively, the lackof public transparency regarding reactor risks,
as well as issues related to accident prevention
and response, were raised by international
bodies a decade before the 2011 catastrophe.

And that:
The Committee recommends increasedtransparency and disclosure to the
population concerned of all necessary
information, on issues relating to thesafety of nuclear power installations, andfurther urges the State Party to step up
its preparation of plans for the preventionof, and early reaction to, nuclear
accidents. 49

In 2001, the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights stated that:

The Japanese government responded with theThird Periodic Report by the Government ofJapan (December 2009) under Articles 16 and
17 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in whichit committed to ramping up information
disclosure and public communication efforts,
as well as emergency planning measures.50

The Committee is concerned about
reported incidents in nuclear power
stations and the lack of transparency
and disclosure of necessary information
regarding the safety of such installations,and also the lack of advance nationwide
and community preparation for theprevention and handling of nuclear
accidents. 48

19Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Under the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement 51:•

Principle 11 stipulates internally displaced
persons’ rights to be protected against
outrages upon personal dignity such as
gender-based violence.

•Principle 18 stipulates internally displaced
persons’ rights to adequate standardsof living. It requests the authorities incharge to assure adequate food, drinking
water, basic shelter and housing, clothing,
medical services and sanitation facilities.
It also requests that special efforts to bemade to ensure full participation of womenin planning and distribution of these basic
supplies.

•

Unfortunately, the Fukushima disasterhighlighted the utter failure of the Japanese
government to meet its human rights
commitments. 53 For example, the evacuation
centers themselves largely excluded womenfrom decision-making roles, as they were run
by men. 54 As a result, women’s needs wereignored, such as privacy for breastfeeding andchanging clothing, as well as meeting basic
needs such as sanitary materials. 55
Women – traumatized and suffering as a resultof the disaster and evacuation conditions –also found their domestic burden dramaticallyincreased due to the strict gender roles
within Japanese society that shifted thesedomestic tasks solely into women’s realm of‘responsibility.’ 56 As a result, women were
expected to cook for the entire center and nurse
the sick (as public nursing services were largely
discontinued). 57 As Ando notes in an analysis of
the situation for the Fukushima Bar Association:“It is quite a different thing to perform domestic
chores at home in a familiar setting than in an
evacuation center or in a community where
everything has turned upside down.” 58

Principles 4 and 19 stipulate the rights ofchildren, women, persons with disabilities
and the elderly to receive treatment andservices that meet their special needs.

Further, as the UN Special Rapporteur to the
Human Rights Council Anand Grover statedfollowing his post-Fukushima special mission to
Japan:

Even more appalling was the complete failureon the part of the government to protect thefemale victims of the Fukushima disaster fromgendered violence – despite the government’s
commitment in Principle 11 under the ICESCR
which explicitly acknowledges that womenmust be protected in these circumstances fromoutrages against personal dignity. 59

The right to health requires the Stateto pay special attention to the needsof vulnerable groups. The State is also
under an immediate obligation to prevent
discrimination, especially against
vulnerable groups in its policies orpractice, even during times of resource
constraint . . . Participation of the
population at all stages of decision-making
processes at national and community
levels is a critical feature of the right tohealth framework. Health-related laws
and policies should be instituted only withdirect, active and effective involvementof communities, since they are mostimpacted by these decisions ... The Special
Rapporteur urges the Government to involve
individuals and community organizations
in current and future nuclear and healthpolicies, including in data collection andradiation monitoring, planning evacuation
centres, designing health management
surveys, decisions regarding radiationlevels and evacuation zones and in settingcompensation amounts [emphasis added]. 52

Post-disaster Japan saw a severe problem withescalated gender-based violence60 in impacted
areas, including rape during blackouts andincreased domestic violence – particularly whenfamilies moved from the evacuation centers
to temporary housing.61 This escalating trend
in violence against women and other social
issues persisted long after people had leftthe evacuation centers. As Noriko Kubota, aprofessor of clinical psychology at the local
Iwaki Meisei University stated in 2013: “Weare starting to see more cases of suicide,
depression, alcoholism, gambling and domestic
violence across the area.” 62
According to a submission by the Japanese
government posted on the Human Rights

20

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Advisory Committee’s website, Japan madeefforts to uphold its commitments to humanrights including protecting the rights of womenand children,63 stating that it:•

Took measures to ensure as much privacy
as possible to evacuees•

Provided meals prepared by professionals•

Implemented routine inspections by publichealth workers•

Organized study groups led by college
students for elementary and junior highschool students,•

Secured a playing space for kids.

•

Fukushima Prefecture also secured a spacefor women and girls by reserving a room inshelters. The Fukushima Gender Equality
Centre supervised the operation of sucha space with assistance from volunteer
groups. This space aimed to provide
women with a place where they can staywith security and comfort. Women livingin the shelter have been able to talk tostaff about their worries, and staffs also
helped them receive special assistancefrom specialised counselling organizations
in case of, inter alia, domestic violence andsexual abuse.64

Further, the Cabinet Office issued a report in2012 stating that crime rates had fallen in the
Fukushima-impacted prefectures. It assertsthat confirmed cases of sexual violence fell frompreceding years and that it provided support andcounselling services to victims. 65
The use of the word “confirmed” is criticallyimportant, as it has been noted that in thewake of the disaster:[e]ffective means to prevent this kind of[sexual and domestic] violence have notbeen established however and even incases where abuse victims have been
publicly noted, most of these have notresulted in an official notification to
the police. There is no system in place
for personal consultations that abused
women can utilize, so there is an urgent
need to establish mechanisms to protect
disaster victims from violence [emphasis
added].66
And, while the Japanese government’s white
paper on this issue may contain some elementsof truth, the credibility of this version of theevacuation centers and the protection ofvulnerable populations is further called into

Evacuees sit in an evacuation center. The evacuation centers throughout
the region were largely run by men, and women had difficulty getting
basic needs met, such as the provision of sanitary materials andprivacy for breastfeeding or changing clothing. Yonezawa,
Yamagata prefecture. March 2011.

© Christian Åslund / Greenpeace21

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

question when one considers the stark contrast
to the findings of the UN Special Rapporteuron the right to health, Anand Grover. In hissummary report of his mission to Japan to meetwith nuclear evacuees as well as officials withlocal and national governments and relevant
regulatory agencies from November 15th – 26th
2012, he stated:

While these stated objectives arecommendable, the national and local
governments utterly failed to realize them inpractice. Ando notes that:... only one of the 15 members of thegovernment’s Reconstruction Design
Council in response to the Great East
Japan Earthquake is a woman and theCommittees for earthquake recovery ineach of the three prefectures of Iwate,
Miyagi and Fukushima have only one
female member. The rate of participationof women in planning in the autonomous
government organs, regional government
bodies and in different industries isabysmal. Of course, it is not satisfactory
to just make up the numbers, but withconditions as they are, it is hardly
possible for the views of women, who
hardly have a voice, to be properly
represented and reflected in policy. 69

The right to health requires the Stateto pay special attention to the needsof vulnerable groups. The State is also
under an immediate obligation to prevent
discrimination, especially against
vulnerable groups in its policies orpractice, even during times of resource
constraint ... Older persons, children,
women and persons with disabilities are
more susceptible to ill effects of disasters.
During the visit, such groups sharedgrievances with the Special Rapporteurthat they had no say in decisions that
affected them. He was also pained tolearn that evacuation centres often did
not have an accessible environment for
persons with disabilities and women,
including women with young children.
Despite the existence of Japan’s Third
Basic Plan for Gender Equality 2010,
which promotes gender equality in disasterprevention and response, women faced
greater disadvantage in evacuation
centres, as the Plan‘s regulations were
not fully implemented [emphasis added]. 67

Thus, women had, and continue to have, little
opportunity to contribute to the systems that
impact their lives or to enact preventative
measures and safe community systems. As aresult, many of the hardships unnecessarily
borne by women in the evacuation centers andthe violence perpetrated against them in thewake of the disaster resulted from systemic
failures in inclusion, prevention, and adequate
support.

It is important to note that the March2011 triple disaster was not the first majordisaster to highlight the impact of genderedsocial problems within Japanese society on
emergency response consequences. In 1995,
Japan experienced the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake; and in 2004, the Niigata Chuetsu
Earthquake, followed by the more severe 2007
earthquake near the same site. Due to the factthat many women and elderly were left behindin the earlier two disasters, amendments weremade to the Basic Disaster Management Plan
in 2005. The second and third Basic Plan for
Gender Equality also emphasized the needfor equal participation between the sexes fordisaster prevention and environment. 66

22© Robert Knoth / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Economic Impacts

caption と本文の間。
caption は写真下からから 15下Ms. Ikeda, whose family had lived in Iitate for nine generations, ran a farm together
with her sons. The nuclear accident heavily contaminated Iitate, forcing her toleave the farm and evacuate to Fukushima City. She sometimes goes backfor a day or so to check on and maintain her house. November 2011.

the head of household, which was typically theadult male. This not only worsened unequalhousehold power distribution and decisionmaking ability, but was particularly cruel indomestic violence situations.71

Women are at a significant economic
disadvantage in Japanese society due to theenormous disparity in earned income between
the sexes. Prior to the disaster, women werealready in a severely disadvantaged position to
respond to it according to their own wishes andknowledge.

The Japanese government continues tocompletely fail to address this problem.
According to a 2013 analysis by Y. Ando, of
the Fukushima Bar Association, in the disasterrecovery efforts, “[t]here is no emphasis
however, on assisting women to become
financially independent, women’s workplaces
and the conditions and foundations forbusiness start-ups by women are not being
supported, and many women are now left
facing poverty. Single mothers are especiallychallenged by these conditions.”72

This was exacerbated by the fact that in thewake of the earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi
disaster, initiatives for industrial recovery
in the impacted areas were suspended. As
funds dried up, temporary workers weretargeted for termination – and women madeup 70% of those temporary workers. It was
their employment and income that faced thegreatest insecurity and was most impacted. 70
Compounding the economic hardships faced
by impacted women, the Japanese Civil Codetreats each household as a unit. Support andcompensation payments are directed solely to

As will be discussed further below, the nuclear
disaster is also linked to divorce and separation,
as mothers seek to protect themselves and their

23

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact© Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

An elderly farmer carries a basket of products on
the outskirts of Koriyama City. Greenpeace worked
in the area in 2011 to monitor radioactive
contamination of food and soil.
April 2011.

children from radiation and/or leave abusive
domestic situations – leading to increasing
numbers of such single mothers. This iscertainly a concern, as a pre-disaster reportfrom 2010 stated that roughly half of Japan’ssingle mothers were poor or impoverished.73

is currently under negotiation, with the aim
to lift orders by April 1, 2017. 74 By 2022, thegovernment plans to partially lift the evacuation
orders in the “difficult-to-return” zone (Area 3:
annual integrated doses exceeding 50 mSv/
year). It plans to completely lift the orders
in Area 3 at an undetermined date.75 For
those evacuees affected by the March 2017
order, they will lose their already inadequate
compensation payments one year after theorders are lifted. Further, though the timing
varies from prefecture to prefecture dependingon where former Fukushima victims evacuatedto, the housing support victims receive will also
be lost.

Female Fukushima evacuees face a unique setof circumstances, including: loss of income
and property, marital discord and a potential
split with the primary income earner in thehousehold, lack of access to compensation
money and/or inadequate compensation,
relocation and child rearing costs, and radiation
discrimination (which will be discussed more
fully later). Given this, there are several factorsthat would make it increasingly likely that many
Fukushima single mothers could face poverty.

As a result, nuclear disaster victims are being
forced to make the impossible choice between
returning to areas where orders are liftedbut radiation levels remain far in excess ofinternationally recommended maximum dose
limits, or attempt to survive without financial
support once that is ended a year later. In theface of having lost everything in the disaster,and the much greater vulnerability to poverty for
women, such policies are economic coercion,
not choices freely made.

These same women are now facing anotherimpossible economic dilemma – however, thisone is calculated and intentional.
In March 2017, just six years after the disaster,
the Japanese government plans to lift evacuation
orders in parts of Iitate and Kawamata. The
lifting of orders in much of Tomioka and Namie

24

© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Atomic Divorce
Toys sit on a shelf in the home of a mother of three. After her original house
was designated for evacuation due to localized high radiation levels, herfamily evacuated to a home in a lower radiation area in the same city.
Her grandmother still lives in their former house. January 2014.

Women have frequently been labeled asneurotic or irrational and their concerns about
radiation exposure dismissed, by both theirpartners and as a matter of policy.76 Many
women found it impossible to insist on taking
precautions against radiation when theirhusbands became angry or accusatory. Somegave up – either on enacting preventative
measures and/or evacuating – in the face of
their husband’s opposition. 77

been radiated(sic) to a degree, but it must
be within an acceptable limit. Deep down, I
think I have decided that I will be ok. I want
to believe that everything will be fine. I am
not working for a company that allows me
to move. My wife has asked why I don’t
evacuate with them, but all I could say was
if you want to go, you could go. But I will
stay here working and making a living.
... for my child, I do need to be careful. I
need to pay for living expenses, mortgage,
and school fees. If I was alone, I could
make a living anywhere. But I have to think
about my child’s future.

Many men chose to believe the official
assurances of safety despite the radiationlevels, and made decisions based on what they
thought would guarantee the economic securityof their families. As a male resident stated in aninterview on this subject:

Honestly, I think it was this company who
made me who I am today ... I was able togrow this much because of this company... The part that work occupies in my life ishuge.78

I am not moving because I believe things
will be fine. There is some information thatmakes me worried a little, and I might have25

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Thus, as noted by R. Morioka (2014), his
response illustrates the crux of the difference
between his response and his wife’s – while
he was concerned for his child, his concern
was for financial security for his child, notnecessarily health. And in addition, his work
was also a source of identity and self-worth– something that was impossible for him topart with. His wife eventually gave up hope of
relocating. 79

As one former female Fukushima City resident
explained of her decision to divorce her husband
when he refused to leave, “I think [my husband]
believed I was overreacting ... I felt like that if
I stayed with him, I wouldn’t be able to keep
my children from harm, and that’s how I got
here.” 82

Others, many others, separated or filed for
divorce, as a result of constant low-levelanxiety, plus differences in highly personal
decisions such as whether to leave or stay,radiation risk perception, and whether to havechildren post-disaster. 80 Many of these women
have expressed that they felt they had no otherchoice but to split with their partners in order tomove themselves and their children to a safer,
uncontaminated environment. 81© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

While there are not firm figures for the numberof families that have split as a result of thedisaster, it is common enough that there isa name for it, “genpatsu rikon.” This literallytranslates to “atomic divorce.”

An old telephone hangs in a vacanthouse in Tamura City, Fukushima
Prefecture. The homeowners
evacuated in the wake of thenuclear disaster. October 2013.

26

© AP / AFLO

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Radiation Stigma andMarriage Discrimination
A doll sits on the balcony of a house in the abandoned
town of Namie, Fukushima Prefecture. March 2013.

In addition to personal health concerns and theenormous evacuation and economic hardships,
the Fukushima survivors are further subjected todiscrimination from their fellow countrymen andwomen due to an unfounded belief in radiation
contagion. 83

the Ecosystem Conservation Society of Japan,
stated in a public meeting that: “People in areas
over which the radioactive plumes passed
should not marry ... If they give birth to theirchildren after getting married, the incidence of
deformities will become way higher.” 86

Evacuees face a wide range of discriminationand prejudice, ranging from bullying in school,
refused entry in shelters and centers, requests
to provide radiation testing results on job
applications, and social isolation in wider
Japanese society. 84

The statement was met with outrage and an
enormous backlash from the Fukushima City
Assembly members. However, the city assembly
cannot respond to every incident or preventthe pervasive societal discrimination against
Fukushima disaster survivors.

Fukushima women are often portrayed as“damaged goods” by wider Japanese society– as has been insinuated in many Japanesewebsites and articles since the disaster.85 Evensome of those who are supposedly allies ofthe victims, like prominent environmentalist
and antinuclear activist, Hobun Ikeya, haveinstead thrown the women of the affected areas
on the garbage pile. Ikeya, who is the head ofMany victims, themselves, fear to have children
in the wake of the disaster due to concern thatthey will have genetically damaged offspring. 87
The sentiment is akin to the discrimination andbullying faced by atomic bomb survivors inJapan. As one study on the social impacts of thebombings notes:

27

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact© Robert Knoth / Greenpeace

An abandoned house in Tomioka town. The level ofradiation was recorded at 2.72 microsievert per hour.
The normal rate before the Fukushima nuclear disasterwas 0.08 microsievert per hour. June 2014.

“Survivors of the atomic bombing were
stigmatized by harmful rumors after thewar. It was said that female survivors
would bear retarded children, and that
false belief excluded many A-bomb
survivors from marriage ... the rumor
that all survivors were more likely tobear children with birth defects was so
powerful that it was treated as if it had
been true.” 88This stigma may be particularly damaging to
the social standing and the emotional andpsychological health of Fukushima women,
given that their role in Japanese society as
women is largely defined by traditional genderroles, and therefore tied to the domestic sphereand responsibilities. Being viewed as unable tomarry or start a healthy family fundamentallydenies these culturally defined characteristics ofwomanhood to the victims of the disaster.

28

© Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Radiation Impacts
An emergency worker directs a young woman at a government screening
center in Kawamata, Fukushima Prefecture. March 2011.

Given the long latency times between exposure
to ionizing radiation and its effects, the impactsof the Fukushima Daiichi disaster on physicalhealth will largely remain to be seen in the
coming years and decades.

Despite this, the Japanese government has
maintained its post-disaster elevated standard of
up to 20 mSv/year for resettlement. It should be
noted that the 20 mSv/year standard is the samelevel as nuclear workers’ annual limit, averaged
over a 5-year period, per the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
recommendations.91 For children aged 16-18
that are in apprenticeships for radiation-related
fields, the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) stipulates that exposures should be no
more than 6 mSv/year.

While environmental contamination, evento known carcinogens such as radiation, is
impossible to link definitively to individual casesof cancer or other known health outcomes,
numerous studies of chronic low-dose exposure
across diverse populations have demonstrated
significant effects on human health.

The increased mortality risks of long-term low
dose exposures for nuclear workers is obviously
concerning. Yet, it is quite a different situationfor employees to willingly accept these increased
risks than it is for the public, including womenand children, to be exposed in their daily lives tothe same radiation risks as nuclear workers. Thislevel is also 20 times higher than the international
and Japanese standards (outside Fukushimaimpacted areas) for “acceptable” exposures ofFor example, a 15-country collaborative researchstudy on the health effects of low-dose exposurefor 400,000 nuclear workers, which encompassed
5.2 million person-years of follow-up, found asignificant association between radiation doseand all-cause mortality.90 This was primarily due
to dose-related increases in all-cancer mortality,
excluding leukemia.

29

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

the general public to human-made radiation, as
well as the long-term decontamination targets
for the contaminated region.

Just one month after the disaster, the Ministryof Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries (MAFF)
launched a “let’s support by eating!” campaign.
Together, the head of the Consumer Affairs
Agency and the MAFF minister also issued ajoint statement encouraging the consumptionof products from the affected areas.96 Threemonths later, it was discovered that cesiumcontaminated beef was on the market and had
been consumed in eight prefectures. 97

This concern for vulnerable populations being
exposed up to 20 mSv per year was expressedon May 12, 2011 by the Japan Medical
Association, which said in a statement:
The scientific basis for choosing the
maximum amount of 20 mSv in the band of
1 to 20 mSv is not clear. The government’s
action should be more carefully deliberated
considering the fact that growing children
are more sensitive to radiation exposurecompared to adults. We as a nation
should make the utmost effort to reduce
the exposure to radiation of children, as
well as adults. We are responsible for thechildren’s health and life ... We urgently
request that the Japanese National
government strive to reduce children’s
exposure to radiation in the fastest andmost effective way possible. 92 [translated

In another example, after a shipment ban on
beef from Tochigi prefecture was lifted – which
had been put in place only 2 months earlier
due to cesium levels in beef far exceeding theprovisional safety limits 98 – Kanuma City, in
Tochigi prefecture, attempted to demonstrate
the beef was “safe.” To do this, they fed thepotentially contaminated beef to elementarychildren in their school lunches. 99
Children are at greater risk for developing
thyroid cancer following exposures toradioactive iodine ( 131I), as was seen in
Chernobyl. 100 The risk can be greatly reduced if
stable iodine pills are distributed immediately
following an accident, which saturates the
thyroid and inhibits the uptake of 131 I. In
Fukushima, orders to distribute the iodine
pills that were waiting in stock in the towns in
the emergency planning zone were delayed
until 5 days after the accident. By then, many
residents had already fled the nuclear disasterarea, and the window had passed for the pills
to be effective in their preventative role.101 This
likely meant that many children were exposed
to preventable high doses of radioactive iodine.

from Japanese 93 ]The concern regarding the 20 mSv per year
standard was echoed in 2013 by the UN Special
Rapporteur Grover. His report to the Human
Rights Council stated:
However, life span epidemiological studies
of survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings point to causal links between
long-term exposure to low doses ofradiation and the increased incidenceof cancer. The Special Rapporteur
considers that disregarding thesefindings diminishes the understandingof and increases vulnerability to healtheffects of long-term exposure to low-dose
ionising radiation [emphasis added]. 94

In June 2011, the Fukushima Prefectural People’s
Health Management Survey was launched to
conduct thyroid screenings of people who were
under the age of 18 at the time of the radioactive
releases due to the triple reactor core meltdowns.
The study was headed by Professor Yamashita
Shunichi and Prof. Suzuki Shinichi, who statedthat its purpose was, “to calm the anxiety ofthe population” and to convince the public that“the health impact of the nuclear accident ofFukushima can be assumed to be very minor.” 102

The policies of the Japanese government are
particularly concerning, as in the wake of thedisaster, it instituted a propaganda campaign
to encourage the consumption of foods from
Fukushima, without adequate testing regimes
in place to ensure its safety. 95 This resulted in
potentially increased radiation exposures andthe spread of contaminated food far from theimpacted region.

The credibility of this research has been called
into question by outside observers,103 giventhat the head researchers began with the30© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Greenpeace monitors radiation levels
at a kindergarten in Fukushima City,
Fukushima Prefecture. August 2011.

commitment to a stated outcome before thestudy even began – much less any results
known. In addition, Professor Yamashita also
notoriously said in the wake of the disaster:own medical files. While patients were given
a poor-quality print of their ultrasound results(supposedly to prevent forgery), they havebeen forced to file Freedom of Information (FOI)
requests to gain access to their own complete
medical files. 106 This is not only wholly unfair,
but is a gross violation of their right to health –including their right to information.

The effects of radiation do not come topeople who are happy and laughing, theycome to people who are being weakspirited. This has been clearly proventhrough animal experiments. For good orfor bad, those who drink alcohol are lesssusceptible to the impacts of radiation.
I am not saying you should drink. But,
laughing will remove your phobic fear ofradiation. 104

There is an ongoing contentious debate over thecauses of the higher-than-expected thyroid
abnormalities and cancers amongst Fukushima
children. It is unclear whether this is a resultof radiation exposure or of screening bias (i.e.
more abnormalities and cancers are found
due to widespread screening). As of December
2016, 145 children were found to have thyroid
cancer. 107

This statement is, of course, completely
contradictory to the findings of over sevendecades of research on the impacts of ionizing
radiation. The study also failed to properly
account for migration, and there are significant
issues with patient follow up. 105

Numerous bodies and scientists have proposedthat the increase in the detection of thyroid
abnormalities in Fukushima children in the years
immediately following the accident is due toscreening bias and more sensitive ultrasonic
testing.108 The Fukushima prefectural review
panel conclusion is that the results can be most
likely explained through the screening effect andis unlikely to be due to radiation exposure. 109

But perhaps the worst aspect of this study is not
the failure of its lead researchers to approach
the subject objectively nor the flaws in the
study’s methods, but rather the difficulty forpatients and their parents to gain access to their31

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

This is not the view of others, who contend
that the incidence of thyroid cancer detected in
Fukushima, when compared to national levels,
cannot be explained solely based on screening.
These experts assert that the high incidence
can be explained, to a significant degree, by
exposure to radiation. 110

As previously stated, pregnant women are more
vulnerable to the impacts of radiation – andone study appears to show the effects of the
Fukushima nuclear disaster less than a year
after the disaster. The authors noted that in theaftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, perinatal
mortality rates increased after a 10-month timelag. In an effort to determine whether a similar
uptick in perinatal deaths was evident after the
Fukushima disaster, the researchers analyzed
perinatal mortality data for the 47 prefectures ofJapan from live births at 22 weeks of pregnancy
to seven days after birth from 2001 - 2014.113
The data was solely sourced from the Japanese
government’s records. The study comparedunaffected and less affected prefecturesnationwide with the heavily contaminated(Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Iwate, Miyagi,
and Tochigi) and moderately contaminatedprefectures (Chiba, Saitama, and Tokyo).

The French national nuclear researchorganization, Institute for RadiologicalProtection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), analyzed
studies of children from four prefectures noteffected by the Fukushima Daiichi accident, asa control group. IRSN then concluded that:... during the period 2011-2014, foursystematic screening campaigns forthyroid cancer were carried out in children
under 18 years of age in prefectures notaffected by the Fukushima accident. The
data from these studies shows that theannual incidence estimated on the basisof systematic screening of thyroid cancer
in children is between 23 and 130 out of
100,000.

To evaluate the impacts of the tsunami andearthquake, which might also influence
perinatal mortality, the authors further divided
the heavily contaminated prefectures into twogroups based upon the number of dead andmissing. Group 1 (Iwate and Miyagi) suffered
the high rates of dead and missing due to thetsunami and earthquake. Group 2 (Fukushima,
Ibaraki, Tochigi, and Gunma) were heavily
impacted by the nuclear disaster, but sufferedcasualty and missing person rates 20 times
lower than those of Group 1.

In conclusion, this data shows that there
is no significant difference between
the annual incidence observed in the
Fukushima prefecture and that estimatedon the basis of a systematic screening
programme in prefectures that were
unaffected by the fallout from the
Fukushima accident. 111

The results showed that for Group 1, there
was a significant increase of more than 50%
in perinatal mortality immediately following theearthquake and tsunami in March and April 2011,
with no further increases the rest of the year.
In Group 2, there was no significant increase inperinatal mortality in the immediate aftermathand for the remainder of 2011. However, all
six of these heavily contaminated prefectures
showed a long-term jump in infant mortality
rates 10 months after the nuclear disaster, fromJanuary 2012 onwards, of approximately 15%.
In the less contaminated prefectures of Chiba,
Saitama, and Tokyo, perinatal mortality also
increased 10 months after the disaster, albeit at
the lower rate of 6.8%.

At the same time, the IRSN also holds that thescreening program must continue and that, “aconnection with the Fukushima accident may
only be made if the annual incidence of thyroid
cancer in children increases starting from theperiod 2016-2018.”
This is not to say that there will be no healthimpact in the future. This is recognition thatthyroid cancer has a long latency period. In
fact, significant increases in thyroid cancer
incidence for those who were children andteenagers at the time of the 1986 Chernobyl
nuclear disaster did not become evident inmost regions until between 4-5 years after thedisaster. 112

32

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

In these prefectures, perinatal mortality has
steadily fallen, though at an elevated rate fromprevious trends.

both cancer and non-cancer mortality imply
that longevity is related to dose ... there is aclear decrease in median life expectancy withincreasing radiation dose ...” 114

No similar jump in perinatal rates was observedin prefectures unaffected by the disaster, whereperinatal mortality continued to steadily fall withnational trends over the time period studied.
The authors conclude that these findings are
consistent with those seen in Europe following
the Chernobyl nuclear accident, though morestudy is needed. Given the 10-month timelag, the authors also note that this suggests
an impact on ovum and sperm, rather than an
impact on embryo and fetus.

There were 10 cancers related to in utero
radiation exposure, with a statistically significant
dose-response correlation; the findings for
fetuses were not significantly different fromthose exposed at 5 years or younger. However,
it is important to note that 9 of these 10 cancers
occurred in females, and the significant
difference between the sexes persisted evenwhen female-specific cancers were excluded(breast, ovary, and uterus). 115

There is further a significant body of evidence
from atomic bomb survivors, to support
the conclusion not only that radiation dose
increases mortality, and that there are potential
health risks even at low doses, but also thatwomen, girls, and female fetuses are more
vulnerable to a number of radiation-induced
health problems.

The decrease in risk for developing leukemia withattained age was more rapid for men than for
women. 116 The Excess Relative Risk (ERR, whichquantifies the increased risk for persons with agiven radiation dose compared to non-exposed
persons) for all solid cancer mortality, excluding
leukemia and other hematopoietic (i.e. blood)cancers, for females was double that of males. 117

According to a report from the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences, which examined researchon the health effects of radiation dose in atomic
bomb survivors, “dose related increases in

For site-specific cancers (stomach, colon,
liver, lung, and female breast) the largest ERR
per Sievert radiation dose (ERR/Sv) was forbreast cancer.118 Proliferative breast disease,

Wheelchair-bound Annya Pesenko, born in a
Chernobyl-contaminated area, was diagnosed
with brain cancer at age of four. She carriescertificate no. 000358. It reads: ‘This person
has the right to the privileges that are givenby the government of the Republic of
Belarus for the victims of the Chernobyl
catastrophe as specified under article
18/ issued by the Gomel Municipality’.
March 2011.

© Robert Knoth / Greenpeace

33

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

both in general and atypical hyperplasia (i.e.
precancerous accumulation of abnormal breast
cells), was positively associated with radiationdose, with the strongest association in the
40-49 age-at-exposure cohort. 119 Researchers
hypothesize that this is related to the ageat-exposure risk for radiation-induced breast
cancer, and that potential cancers inducedin this age group received too little hormonal
exposure to progress to full-blown cancers. 120

who had undergone pediatric (under 15 years
at the time of the procedure) CT brain and/or abdominal scans. 128 It concluded that the
lifetime cancer mortality rates attributable to the
CT scans were an order of magnitude higher for
pediatric patients than for individuals who were
adults at the time of receiving the scan. Women
were also at greater risk for developing cancer
as a result of the pediatric CT scans, though
this increased risk was primarily for abdominal
examinations.

The ERR/Sv for females for stomach cancer was
found to be about three times that of males. 121
The sex association for lung cancer is similarly
strong, with female ERR/Sv at about 4 times thatof males. 122

Other studies of fetal low-dose exposuresappear to confer greater health risk than for
any other group, including infants and children.
Studies have also shown that a single x-ray
examination of the abdomen of a pregnant
woman increased the likelihood of childhood
cancers by 40-50%. 129 These studies also
found that the risk for childhood cancers
increased proportionately to the amount of inutero x-ray exposure.

It is also worth noting that, despite misleading
information presented to Fukushima survivors– including pregnant women and children –regarding risks at doses below 100 mSv, thereport highlights research that found evidenceof a statistically significant dose-response
ratio for solid cancers at low radiation doselevels (0 - 100 mSv).123 Statistically significant
dose-response was also found for nervous
system cancers and schwannomas 124 (i.e. nerve
sheath tumors) at low dose levels (less than
1Sv).125 Similarly, while non-cancer radiationinduced diseases were not found to differ
significantly between the sexes, researchers
did note statistically significant dose-response
relationships for heart disease, stroke,
respiratory disease and digestive disease. 126

The placenta can also transfer radionuclides
that have been ingested or inhaled to thedeveloping fetus. 130 Radionuclides that
accumulate in the bladder can cause radiation
exposure to the nearby fetus as well. 131
Depending on the stage of development andthe dose received, such exposures can resultin a wide range of impacts, such as pregnancy
loss, malformations, neurobehavioral
abnormalities, fetal growth retardation, andcancer.132

The increased vulnerability of women to
the impacts of radiation exposure is further
corroborated by studies of diagnostic medical
exposures. One study of CT scans found thatthough there was variance of exposure levels
between hospitals and procedures, women –particularly young women – were at significantly
greater risk than men for developing cancerfrom diagnostic procedures.127 For example, forwomen who underwent a coronary angiography
CT at the age of 40, their risk of developing
cancer from the procedure was 1 in 270. For
men, the risk was 1 in 600. For 20 year olds, therisk doubled.

It follows that it is particularly important for
women who are pregnant or may become
pregnant to avoid unnecessary ionizing radiation
exposures, both internal and external. Thus, theviolation of women’s human rights in the wake of
the Fukushima disaster and Abe’s resettlement
policy is particularly pointed in this area: while
radiation exposure poses a myriad of potential
health risks for all people, it is women and girls
who are most vulnerable to its effects in multiple
areas – the same population that is less likely
to be able to protect themselves from radiation
exposure due to unequal power distribution
between the sexes within households andbroader Japanese society.

Further, fetuses, infants and children are
particularly vulnerable. One study analyzed thelifetime cancer mortality risks of individuals

34© Chiaki Oshima / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Mental Health Consequences
Candles illuminate the hopes of attendees at the “Peace on Earth”
commemoration event marking the 5th anniversary of Great
East Japan Earthquake, tsunami, and the Fukushima
nuclear disaster. Tokyo, March 2016.

Trauma research has clearly shown that
exposure to disasters increases the likelihoodfor Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
and other mental illnesses, including anxiety,depression, and other negative outcomes.
Further, a review of studies of the psychologicalimpacts of disasters, encompassing humanmade (mass shootings, acts of war, etc.),
technological (radiological and chemical
accidents, plane crashes, etc.) and natural
disasters, found that PTSD rates for natural
disasters were significantly lower among
survivors than they were for human-made andtechnological disasters.133

It is quite clear that the mental healthconsequences of the Fukushima disaster are
pervasive and potentially life-threatening. In aregion of Japan that already was economicallydisadvantaged 135 and suffered much higher
suicide rates before the disaster than the
average for Japan, the ongoing radiological crisis
has exacerbated the problem. 136 In 2014, thesuicide rates in the three hardest hit prefectures(Fukushima, Iwate, and Miyagi) ranged between
110 -138 suicides per 100,000 people. The
average for Japan that year was only a fraction ofthat at 19.9 suicides/100,000 people. 137
Post-disaster mental health assessments ofFukushima victims have shown shockingly
high rates of depression and PTSD symptoms.
One case study of survivors from Hirono in
Fukushima prefecture found that “53.5% [ofparticipants] exhibited the clinically concerning
symptoms of PTSD, and among them 33.2%
indicated clinical PTSD symptoms. Additionally,

Another study that focused specifically on themental health impacts of nuclear disasters on
survivors – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, andFukushima – found not only increased rates
of mental illness, but that mothers with young
children were one of the two highest risk groups– the other being first responders. 134

35

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

66.8% reported symptoms of depression,and among them 33.2% showed mildlydepressive symptoms, while 19.1% and 14.5%
demonstrated moderate and severe depressive
symptoms, respectively.” 138

due to a number of confounding factors that are
directly related to the nuclear disaster, though
not related to physical effects of radiation
itself, including: increased domestic tensions,
violence, and/or sexual assault; loss of support
networks and lack of legal protections; loss of
income and employment; inability to accesscompensation payments due to distribution
to male heads of household; challenges intaking action to evacuate and/or take actions
to protect oneself and family against radiation
due to domestic disagreements and lack ofresources for women; and, of course, concern
about radiation exposure of themselves andtheir children.

This would be consistent with another studyof Fukushima mothers, which found that
depression rates were highest in the areas
closest to the Fukushima Daiichi site andlowest in areas least affected by the nuclear
disaster. 139 In addition, the authors note that thepercentage of Fukushima-impacted women withdepressive symptoms six months after giving
birth was remarkably high at 27.6%. Predictivemodels would indicate only 14% of mothers inthis study should screen positive for depressive
post-partum symptoms after that length of time
following giving birth.

Further, it should be noted that non-Japanese,
foreign-born women, who lacked strong
community ties, were particularly isolated in
the aftermath of the disaster. Though the vast
majority of victims were Japanese, the lack ofboth formal and social support networks forforeign-born Fukushima survivors meant these
women had even fewer resources for copingwith psychological stresses wrought by thedisaster and evacuation. 140

Thus, women are not only at greater risk
due to the physical impacts of radiation, but
are at greater risk of suffering mental healthconsequences as well. And while human-made,technological disasters increase the likelihoodof mental illnesses in both genders, this greater
mental health vulnerability for women may be© Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

Sunset over the coastline of Fukushima Prefecture,
where Greenpeace conducted an offshore seabedradiation survey in February 2016.

36

© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Children’s Rights Violations
Bags of radioactive waste piled near the swings and slide in
an elementary school playground in Iitate village,
Fukushima Prefecture. October 2014.

As mentioned previously, Japan is party tomultiple international human rights agreementsthat explicitly acknowledge the right to health,including those that protect the specific rightsof children, including the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) and its two Optional
Protocols. A systemic approach to reducing
disaster risks to children is the Children’s Charter
for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), which wasdeveloped with the participation of 600 children
in 21 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle Eastand Latin America. 141 As is noted by UNICEF,
the DRR and the CRC are mutually reinforcing. 142
Under the CRC, Japan is obligated to use
the best interest of the child as the guiding
principle, and guarantee children’s right to life,
survival, and development, as well as the rightto health. 143 The Convention of the Rights of theChild stresses, “the child’s right to participation,
including the right to be heard, to express his or
her views freely in all matters affecting the childand to have access to appropriate information(Article 12.CRC).”144 The DRR further assertsthat children have the right to participate and toaccess needed information. 145
Unfortunately, Japan’s response to the
Fukushima nuclear disaster has utterly failed
to meet its international commitments to protect
children’s human rights. These violations havebeen, and continue to be, systematic anddeliberate. The situation is only set to worsenwith the impending lifting of evacuation orders
in contaminated areas.
Like women, children are particularly vulnerable
to both the physical impacts of radiation andthe mental health consequences of a nuclear
disaster. Both the unnecessary delays inevacuating populations and the distribution ofiodine pills in the immediate aftermath of thedisaster were direct violations of children’s rightto health. 146 These led to potentially significant
exposures that could have been avoided. 147

37

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Further, a lack of adequate government monitoring– especially in schools – in the initial weeks after
the disaster resulted in opening ceremonies
being held for schools in the prefecture prior todecontamination. As a result, some children that
had evacuated with their families were broughtback to the contaminated zone. 148

In the aftermath of the disaster, safe play areas
for children were not secured, violating children’s
right to play. 150 The impacts on children’s healthwere evident in the months following the triple
disasters as the Body Mass Index (BMI) of
pre-school children significantly increased in
the two of the three most heavily impacted
prefectures (Fukushima, Iwate).151 Particularly inFukushima, the most heavily impacted by the
nuclear disaster, BMIs remained significantly
higher for both boys and girls 19 months after
the catastrophe began. 152

A joint NGO submission to the UN Human Rights
Council summarized the situation as follows:
Fukushima Prefecture did answer theparents’ demand that school grounds bemeasured for radioactive contamination,
undertaking a survey on 5th - 7th April
which covered the 1,638 schools in theprefecture. The result showed that 76%
of Fukushima prefecture schools had
levels of contamination exceeding what
triggers designation of a workplace as“radiation-controlled” (0.6 microsievert
per hour) where individuals under 18 are
not legally permitted to enter. At over
20% of the schools even higher radiationlevels were recorded, levels warranting“individual exposure control” if occurringin a workplace.

Further, though decontamination anddecommissioning are projected to cost a
staggering 12 trillion JPY, the efforts haveyielded limited results. 153 In many rural areas,decontamination efforts are concentrated in 20
meter strips along roads, around houses, and in
agricultural fields and paddies. 154
Though the decontamination efforts are limited inscope and effect, these are often presented
in a deliberately misleading way by the Abegovernment. For example, the decontamination
landing page on the Ministry of Environment(MOE) website states that 100% of the Iitatetarget area has been decontaminated. This
includes the completion of residential,
farmland, forests, and roads – the target areasfor each being 2000, 1900, 1500, and 310ha
respectively.155 That is a total of 5,710 ha of Iitate
decontaminated. Nowhere on this page nor on
the Iitate detail page156 does the website disclosethat the total area of Iitate is 23,013ha.157 In otherwords, though the decontamination is 100%
complete according to the MOE, over 75% of theheavily contaminated area of Iitate has not been
touched.

Elementary and junior high schools inFukushima prefecture commenced the newsemester on 5 April, even though radiation
contamination was at very high levels andin spite of the greater health risks andvulnerability of children to radiation.
On 17 April, compiling the informationfrom the prefectural study of school
grounds, the Fukushima Conference for
Recovery from the Nuclear-Earthquake
Disaster issued an advisory to Fukushima
Prefecture and the national government.
The advisory stated that measures should
be taken to close schools for the time
being, and that evacuation of the children
should be undertaken quickly. In themeantime, the advisory sought prompt
decontamination of school grounds. 149

Evacuation orders are set to be lifted in Iitateon 31 March 2017.
A Greenpeace radiation monitoring study in
Iitate, conducted in November 2016, showed
levels of radiation that exceed long-term
decontamination targets, both in areas that had
been decontaminated as well as those that
had not. Cumulative lifetime exposures could
therefore far exceed the accepted international
limit, should former residents permanently
return. 158 The increased health and safety
risks associated with these lifetime doses are
particularly concerning for vulnerable groups.

This lack of proactive monitoring utterly failed
to put the best interest of the child first, andviolated children’s right health, information, andsafe areas to play.

38

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

As a result, such limited decontamination efforts
will have effectively created an invisible, openair prison for citizens to return to should thelifting of orders go forward as planned. 159 Those
who return would be expected to remain in thesecleaned corridors and islands. Not only are theysurrounded by contamination, but these thenpose the threat of recontamination for the limitedareas that have been “cleaned.” 160 This not only
poses a significant risk to the right to health forboth children and adults, but directly impinges
upon children’s right to play.

play – as children are often kept indoors by theircaretakers to avoid radiation exposure. The
government has been using the measurements
taken by the WBC as justification for people
living in or returning to contaminated areas.
However, this then embeds this obstructedchildhood into formal policy, wherein kids
cannot safely play outside and must avoid
doing so in order to meet the levels measured
by the WBC that form the basis for their being
permitted to live there to begin with. Thus,
Japan is utterly ignoring its obligation to form
policies based upon what is in the best interestof the child, and instead has chosen to create
policies that are in direct violation of children’sinternationally recognized human rights – theright to health, survival, and development –which include the right to play.

In addition, the government has relied on Whole
Body Counters (WBC) to determine population
doses. This is problematic for several reasons:it only measures gamma radiation (hence theeffect of beta and alpha emitting particles is notassessed), the detection limit for 134 Cs and 137 Cs
is usually only about 300 Bq/kg (meaning lower
doses that may still impact human health are
disregarded), and there are large uncertainties
in evaluating the equivalent radiation dose
based on the WBC measurements.161 As
children are more vulnerable than adults, thismay have greater implications for them.

While the international conventions to which
Japan is party also make clear that children
have the right to access accurate information
to make informed choices, the Japanese
government instead opted to specifically target
children with a misinformation campaign
regarding the risks of radiation in theenvironment. Specifically, materials that havebeen provided – and even mandated school
reading – downplay the risks of radiation
exposure such that it may provide a false

This also means that the doses recorded are
based upon lifestyle changes that violate
children’s human rights – namely the right to© Markel Redondo / Greenpeace

A child sleeps in an evacuation center in Yonezawa City,
Yamagata Prefecture. April 2011.

39

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

sense of security, leading to greater radiation
exposures. As UN Special Human Rights
Rapporteur Grover noted following his visit:

Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice (IIMA) and Save
the Children, the Japanese government raised
the acceptable level of radiation exposure to 20
mSv/year for Fukushima-impacted areas.163 Thisis the same maximum allowable annual doserecommended by the ICRP for adult nuclear
workers – which is now being applied to men,
women, children, and infants alike.

The State should ensure accurate andscientifically sound information onradiation and radioactivity is provided
to children and, where appropriate, theirparents to facilitate informed decision
making regarding their health. Additionally,
respecting the right to health requires
the State to refrain from misrepresenting
information in health-related matters.
The Special Rapporteur was informed
about the Fukushima official curriculum
for compulsory radiation education in
public schools. The supplementary
reading and presentation materials
mention that there is no clear evidenceof excess risk of diseases, including
cancer, when exposed for a shorttime to radiation levels of 100mSv andbelow. This gave the impression that
doses below 100mSv are safe. As noted
above, this is not consistent with thelaw in Japan, international standards or
epidemiological research. Additionally,
the Special Rapporteur notes that the
textbooks do not mention the increased
vulnerability of children to the healtheffects of radiation. Such information may
give children and parents a false senseof security, which may result in children‘s
exposure to high levels of radiation. The
Special Rapporteur urges the Government
to ensure accurate representationof the health effects associated with
nuclear accident and include methodsof preventing and controlling healthproblems in a manner that is effective,
age-appropriate and easy to understand[emphasis added]. 162

It is important to understand that an area witha 20 mSv/year dose rate in 2011 means quite
a different lifetime dose than an area at 20
mSv/year in 2017. This is because an areawith contamination causing dose exposures
up to 20 mSv/year in 2011 would include both
long- and shorter-lived radionuclides. For theseareas, fairly rapid reductions in radiation levels
would be expected in the next 5 years due tothe fast decay of short-lived radionuclides. In
contrast, in 2017, as short-lived radionuclides
have largely decayed, contamination is primarily
from longer-lived radionuclides that persist
in the environment for decades to centuries.
Thus, an area with contamination causing dose
exposures up to 20 mSv/year currently willremain persistently contaminated at these highlevels for the foreseeable future.
The use of metaphor, euphemism, or technicaljargon to portray nuclear technology in aneutral or positive way164 has been enshrinedin the educational requirements for Fukushima
children. The misleading information being
presented to children in their textbooks meansthat decisions taken by children cannot be said
to be freely made as they are likely based upon
inaccurate or incomplete representations of
the facts. This is very concerning with relation
to older children as well – particularly seniorhigh school students who are more likely toinstigate events that put them at significant andunnecessary risk for radiation exposure.
The effort to normalize the ongoing radiologicaldisaster through the indoctrination of young
people with misleading information regarding
the risks of radiation appears to be a deliberate
public relations campaign. And, these efforts go
far beyond the textbook material noted by the
UN Human Rights Rapporteur and international
human rights organizations.

It is important to note that ICRP recommends a
maximum exposure limit to artificial radiation of
1 mSv/year for members of the public. For postdisaster emergency scenarios, the maximum
dose for members of the public should be
below 20 mSv/year – though long-term targets
should be as close as possible to the 1 mSv/
year standard. As was noted by the Istituto

40

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

For example, National Road 6 – which runs
along the coast past the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear plant – was identified for clean-up by the“Happy Road Network.” Middle and high school
children who were members of beautification
clubs were then mobilized to participate incleaning up sections of the road in Fukushima
prefecture. 165 Although children were notallowed in the most heavily contaminatedsections of road, basic radiation protection
measures were not taken. Few used gloves, andfewer still wore masks.166

We are determined to actively tackle local
and global issues such as the nuclear
power plant disaster and the revitalization... by appealing to people in Japan andoverseas regarding the recovery from thenuclear power plant disaster, we try to
draw the world’s attention to Fukushima,
provide people with deeper knowledge
about the accident, keep it fresh intheir minds, and wipe out the damage
caused by rumors. Finally, we produce
human resources to contribute to therevitalization [emphasis added] 171.

In an even more shocking example, Fukushima
High School requested that students be allowed
to tour the destroyed reactor site. With parental
permission, 13 students spent an hour touring
Fukushima Daiichi – including near the number 1
reactor which had its cover recently removed at
the time of the visit.167 Prior to this visit, TEPCO
had not permitted anyone under the age of 18 tovisit the reactor site, due to the prohibition under
the Labor Standards Act on employing people
under this age in areas with harmful radiation.168

The reference to “damage caused by rumors” isquite important. As Shimizu noted in her analysisof the human insecurity issues resulting fromthe dysfunction of the state in post-Fukushima
Japan:
Where food security is concerned, thelocal and national governments have tried
to convince the public that low doses ofradiation are safe by mobilizing experts,
celebrities, and the mass media. The phrase“rumor-related damage” is regularly used by
officials, experts, and the media to criticize
the choices of consumers who want to avoid
products made in the affected areas or of
tourists who want to avoid travelling there. 172

The students visiting the plant were guided bytheir teachers and a Tokyo University physics
professor. 169 This is a clear case where children,
including young girls who are far more vulnerable
to the effects of radiation, were encouraged
and guided by adults in whom they trusted
to take an unnecessary risk. They were thus
unjustifiably exposed to excess human-maderadiation, which is in breach of the justification
and ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
principles, the internationally agreed basic
radiation protection concepts. This is a definitive
case wherein children’s right to participation– based upon their ability to access accurate
information – was deliberately violated by adults
that were perceived authority figures.

It was just such rhetoric that was used to
downplay concerns and encourage theconsumption of Fukushima produce in theimmediate aftermath, prior to adequate testing,that led to the consumption of contaminatedfoodstuffs in eight prefectures, as mentioned
earlier. 173
When viewed in this context, the objective of
the new high school in Futaba county appears
particularly cynical.

This also may well be the beginning of moresuch visits of underage children to the destroyed
reactor site.
In 2015, a new high school opened in Hirono,
Fukushima in the Futaba county called the“Futaba Future High School”, which has been
designated as a part of Japan’s Super Global
High School program.170 One of the primaryobjectives listed on the school’s website states:

41

© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Women’s Activism
Ms. Fukushima, who evacuated from Fukushima to Kyoto Prefecture with her
two young children, is the co-coordinator of a plaintiffs’ group in a lawsuit
demanding fair compensation. Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture. January 2017.

Fukushima women have not been silent victims
in this grossly unjust, human-made crisis. They
have been at the forefront of legal, political,
and protest actions in the wake of the disasterdemanding justice for themselves and for theirchildren.

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 mobilized a new
demographic of women leaders in the Japanese
antinuclear movement. According to sociologist,
Koichi Hasegawa of Tohoku University:[The post-Chernobyl] fear served torevitalize and reenergize the anti-nuclear
movement with new styles and new actors
including concerned women in urban or
metropolitan areas. These new opponents
were mainly highly educated, unemployedhousewives with pre-school- or schoolage children. Many of the women activists
had experience in the student struggles
in late 1960s, opposition to the [Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP)] government, theVietnam War, and many had supported thefeminist movement ...

And, despite the enormous economic, culturaland political barriers women face, their activism
within Japanese society has a rich history.174
The use of motherhood as a galvanizing force isparalleled in many social movements, particularly
those related to labor rights and environmental
issues, across the planet.
Women’s leadership in Japan during the 1960s
and 70s citizens’ and environmental movements
was instrumental in the passage of 14 new antipollution laws during a Special Diet Session in1970. 175 Women’s leadership was also central tothe antinuclear movement during the 1970s and80s. 176

Women nuclear-power opponents
intentionally stressed a ‘‘women’s point

42

Greenpeace | Unequal Impactof view’’ and effectively linked ecologicalissues with personal concerns of family
safety. Many activists framed their activist
identities as ‘‘concerned mothers’’ andutilized the symbol of motherhood tomobilize other women and securing the
support of their husbands and other family
members. This was effective in garnering
public support for opposition to nuclear
power and served to deflect negative
public reactions. 177

evacuation of all the families of Fukushima,
where radiation emissions continue.
They ask for tougher safety standards
for food and drink in Japan, and an end
to the practice of spreading and burning
radioactive rubble from the contaminatedzone throughout the country’s various
prefectures. And, to prevent futuredisasters, they call for the permanent
closure of all nuclear power plants in Japanand throughout the world. 179

The Fukushima disaster has revitalized therole and leadership of women as a matter ofnecessity – especially concerned mothers –within Japan’s antinuclear movement.

Frustrated by a lack of accurate information
regarding radiation risks and levels in the wakeof the disaster, women employed a varietyof new media platforms to share informationand increase support, including websites,
personal blogs and social media outlets
such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.180
These online networks also gave women theopportunity to connect with others worldwide,
sharing information regarding Fukushima andalso gathering information that could be used tosupport their work.181

Whether the women affected by the disasterchose to stay, could not leave due to financial
or personal constraints, left the impacted
areas, or even divorced their partner due tofundamental disagreements over radiationand evacuation, one thing is very clear: thewomen of Fukushima have shown extraordinary
courage, resolve, and leadership in the face ofan unconscionable, human-created tragedy.

In the aftermath of the disaster, women werealso at the forefront of organizing mass protests.
For example, in October 2011, prominent
leaders of the grassroots mothers’ networks,
including Aileen Mioko Smith of Green Action
and others, organized a three-day sit-in of the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
in Tokyo. 182 They demanded the permanent
closure of Japan’s entire nuclear fleet. Over 700
people participated in the sit-in, including 100
women from Fukushima.

And, precisely because of their roles as mothers,
and especially in the current context ofJapanese society when declining childbirthrates have become a national concern, thedemands of women in this motherhood sphereplace them at the center of mainstream Japanesesociety. 178
Thus, the importance of women in postFukushima activism cannot be understated.
As Dr. Heidi Hunter, of Stony Brook University,
stated:Others have been leading the battle against
nuclear restarts and for fair compensation –such as Ms. Fukushima, a nuclear evacuee
living in Kyoto. She is both the co-coordinatorof a plaintiffs’ group in the legal battle for faircompensation for evacuees in Kyoto, and aplaintiff in a case against the restart of the Ohi
nuclear reactors. In 2014, a district court sided
with the plaintiffs in the Ohi case, holding that
restarting the reactors constituted a violationof citizens’ protected rights. The reactors werebarred from restart.183... mothers have emerged as a powerful
voice in Japan’s growing anti-nuclear
movement. To call attention to theirmessage, the mothers have organizedmarches, petitioned government officials,
fasted, and held months-long sit-ins inpublic locations. They regularly wear
symbols of maternity and motherhood indeliberately confrontational ways.

The fight for compensation is ongoing. In the
Kyoto case, there are 58 households - 178
people, mostly young mothers - that are

The mothers call for action on multiple
fronts. Most immediately, they demand the43

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

plaintiffs in the case. There are thousands ofFukushima evacuees engaged in similar legal
challenges in prefectures across Japan.

It is also important to note that women are not
only speaking about energy and nuclear risks
within the context of motherhood. This has beenan entry point for their demands within thecontext of family health and children’s rights,
but women have expanded this to engage inbroader discourses and demands regarding
Japan’s energy future, alternatives, policies andreconstruction.184

Thus, women have played and continue toplay a vital role in holding the government andTEPCO accountable for the disaster, securing
compensation for victims, information sharing
and mobilizing others, and stopping the restart ofnuclear reactors in Japan.

Witnesses from Fukushima, Japan, take part in a
protest in Germany of the Castor nuclear wastetransport to the interim storage site in Gorleben.
They joined the demonstration and were keynote
speakers. The banner they carried read:“Nuclear never again.” November 2011.

© Michael Loewa / Greenpeace44© Noriko Hayashi / Greenpeace

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Conclusion
Ms. Takagi evacuated with her children from from Fukushima Prefecture to
Kyoto Prefecture. She is an organizer for a Fukushima evacuee
mothers’ network. Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture. January 2017.

Nearly six years after the beginning of theongoing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster,
the impacts on its victims are still immense.
While all those in areas contaminated by thedisaster have suffered hardships and negative
consequences, these impacts were mostsignificant for vulnerable populations: women,children, the elderly, and disabled.

psychological, and physical costs of the disasterfor women than for men.
Further, women – especially mothers with young
children – are one of the highest risk groups formental illness. This may well be related to thegreater social and economic hardships, as wellas gender-based violence, faced by women asa result of the disaster – in addition to concern
for their health and that of their children.

Due to the significant economic and social
disadvantage of women within Japanese society
as a result of the enormous wage and genderequality gaps, they were less able to cope withthe disaster. Increased domestic and sexual
violence, lack of formal support networks, lack ofrepresentation in evacuation center management
and reconstruction planning committees,
distribution of compensation solely to the malehead of household in married families, marital
separation and divorce, and radiation stigmas
resulting in marriage discrimination have all
resulted in significantly greater social, economic,

To be clear, the physical concerns related
to radiation exposures are not unfounded,
especially for women and children. It is widely
accepted in the scientific community that ionizing
radiation is a mutagen and linked to multiple
health effects including: cancer, miscarriage,
deformity and retardation, perinatal mortality,
and cardiovascular disease. Numerous studies
have shown that women, infants, children, andthe developing fetus are at greater health risk
from radiation exposure than are adult men.

45

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Further, girls and female fetuses also appear
to be at greater risk of health effects than areboys. Some effects are already being seen, withdata showing a significant jump in perinatal
mortality rates in contaminated prefectures
10 months after the nuclear disaster began.

against women and children. These populations
have been targeted with misinformation or
incomplete information, which constitutes aviolation of their human rights as outlined in
multiple international human rights treaties thatJapan has ratified.

The Japanese government’s response to
the Fukushima disaster has resulted in thesignificant violations of women and children’s
human rights. These violations are further being
embedded into public policy. With the March2017 resettlement of parts of the contaminatedarea looming as of this writing, the human rights
situation for evacuees is only set to worsen.

Further, the lifting of evacuation orders will mean
the loss of compensation payments for evacuees
a year later – many of whom are already facedwith losing their housing support. As womenare already economically disadvantaged andburdened by higher poverty rates – particularly
among single mothers – many may have no
choice but to return to contaminated areas. This
amounts to nothing short of economic coercion.

The violations resulting from the immediate
aftermath of the disaster resulted from thedysfunction of the state and its ignoring known
issues throughout the decade preceding thedisaster. This includes the failure to address
issues with transparency regarding nuclear risk
communication and emergency planning andresponse.

When one considers the increased vulnerabilityof women and children to the health effects ofionizing radiation, and that orders are to be liftedin areas where radiation levels could potentially
far exceed the recommended maximum limitof 1 mSv/year, the resettlement policy appears
particularly cynical.

© Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert / Greenpeace

To add insult to injury, the resettlement
policies of the Abe government can only becharacterized as deliberate and intentional
structural violence perpetrated by the StateChildren walk along a roadwhich had earlier been assessedby Greenpeace for radioactive
contamination and found to have
high, unsafe levels, in Fukushima city,
Fukushima prefecture. June 2011.

46

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

orders, emergency planning schemes, andnuclear restart decisions; and,Greenpeace fully supports those impacted
by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident inmaking their own informed choices regarding
their health and, for those who evacuated,
whether to return to their former homes. In
order to do this, it is imperative that evacuees
be provided with accurate and complete
information, and well as the financial support
to be able to freely make that choice. Should
an individual choose to return, they should becompensated for the additional health risk they
will incur as a result. Should they choose toestablish a life elsewhere, they should be given
the financial means to do so.

6. Ensure the equal representation of womenin leadership positions on emergency
planning entities, and full consultation andinclusion of the elderly and disabled; and,7. Develop and support initiatives aimed
at helping Fukushima-impacted womenachieve financial independence including,but not limited to, supporting women’s
startup businesses, addressing income
gaps, and improving the conditions andworkplaces of women; and,
8. Appoint a public ombudsperson forchildren, responsible for safeguarding
the rights of children and young persons,especially those affected by the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

The Japanese government has chosen to do the
opposite of this. In so doing, it is utterly failingto fulfill its human rights obligations. Instead, it
has enshrined these violations into policy andpractice.

The women impacted directly by the Fukushimacatastrophe have shown enormous courage,
strength, and perseverance in the face ofunimaginable obstacles. Their voices must be
heard.

Greenpeace urges the Japanese government to:
1. Ensure survivors are fully compensatedfor their losses – including continuationof compensation payments and housing
support for those who choose to remain
evacuated, and compensation for those
returning for their loss of community, inorder that individuals may freely exercise
their right to choose where to live; and,This report is dedicated to them.

2. Provide full, complete, accurate, and easily
accessible information regarding raditionlevels, the scope of decontamination
efforts, and radiation risks to the public,
including age-appropriate materials forchildren; and,3. Provide full, readily available access for
Fukushima victims to their own and theirdependents’ medical files and test results;
and,
4. Reduce the acceptable additional annual
exposure level in Fukushima-impacted
areas to a maximum of 1 mSv/year, which
would reflect the international standard;
and,
5. Ensure full and equal public participation
and a formal role for women as well as
men in all decision-making processes
regarding future lifting of evacuation

47

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

A boy draws a picture in a daycare in Fukushima City. In
the aftermath of the disaster, children were only allowed
to play inside. There were originally 24 kids at this school,
but most of them evacuated to other prefectures. Only
7 were left as of the date of this picture, 6 May 2011.

© Noriko Hayashi / Panos / Greenpeace48

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

McInerny, P. (7 July 2016). “Grappling with Nuclear Catastrophe in Japan.” UCLA International Institute:
Terasaki Center for Japanese Studies. http://www.international.ucla.edu/japan/article/165856“Tepco head apologizes for 3/11 ban issued on ‘meltdown’.” (21 June 2016). The Japan Times.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/21/national/tepco-head-apologizes-311-ban-issued-meltdown/ .WKFxn7Z97_Q

平成23年東北地方太平洋沖地震による被害状況即報（第1680報）

http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/shinsai-higaijokyo.html
Ben Wisner, a visiting researcher at the Aon-Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London,and scientific advisor to the Global Network of Civil Society for Disaster Reduction, defines vulnerability
as: “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate,cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural disaster. It involves a combination of factorsthat determine the degree to which someone’s life, livelihood, property and other assets are put at risk by adiscrete identifiable event (or series of ‘cascade’ events) in nature or society.
See: Wisner, B., et al. (2003). “At Risk: Natural hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Natural Disasters. 2nd Ed.
Pg. 11. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/670_72351.pdf
See also: “Written statement* submitted by Human Rights Now, a nongovernmental organization in special
consultative status.” (2016, August) UN Human Rights Council. General Assembly. Thirty-third session.
Agenda Item 3. http://hrn.or.jp/wpHN/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/HRN-written-statement-on-Fukushimafor-33rd-HRC.pdf
See also: “Sugimoto, A., et al. (2012). “The voice of the most vulnerable: lessons from the nuclear
crisis in Fukushima, Japan.” Bull World Health Organ 90:629-630. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/8/11-094474/en/
Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., (18 October 2013). “Annotated Critique of United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) Fukushima Report to the UN General
Assembly.” http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/critique-of-unscear-fukushima.pdf
Goto, A., E. Bromet and K. Fujimori (2015). “Immediate effects of the Fukushima nuclear power plant
disaster on depressive symptoms among mothers with infants: a prefectural wide cross-sectional study fromthe Fukushima Health Management Survey.” BCM Psychiatry (for the Pregnancy and Birth Survey Group of
the Fukushima Health Management Survey). 15:59. DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0443-8
The nuclear village has been defined as, “the institutional and individual pro-nuclear advocates who comprisethe utilities, nuclear vendors, bureaucracy, Diet (Japan’s parliament), financial sector, media and academia.”
See: Kingston, J. (September 2012). “Japan’s Nuclear Village.” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 10:37.
No. 1. http://apjjf.org/2012/10/37/Jeff-Kingston/3822/article.html“Radiation Reloaded: The Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster – 5 years
later.” Greenpeace Japan. (March 2016). http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/japan/pdf/GPJFukushima-Radiation-Reloaded-Report.pdf
Tetsuya, T. (2014, May). “What March 11 Means to Me: Nuclear Power and the Sacrificial System.” AsiaPacific Journal: Japan Focus. Vol. 12, 19:1. http://apjjf.org/2014/12/19/Takahashi-Tetsuya/4114/article.html
Ibid.
“After ‘Peace and Prosperity’: Interview with Norma Field, Professor Emerita, University of Chicago” (“Heiwa
to han’ei” no ato d e). (1 March 2014). Asahi Shimbun. Cited in: Tetsuya, op. cit. (2014)
Ibid.
Tetsuya, T., op. cit. (2014)
Goto, A., et al., op. cit. (2015).

15. 女たちの21世紀 = Women’s Asia 21 (87), 26-30, 2016-09 アジア女性資料センター

http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/40020969595
16. National Academy of Sciences. (2006). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR
VII Phase 2. Committee to Assess the Health Risks of Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Board on Radiation
Effects Research. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National Research Council of the National Academies.
National Academies Press. Washington D.C. https://www.nap.edu/read/11340/chapter/1 - vii
17. Bromet, E.J. (February 2014). “Emotional Consequences of Nuclear Power Plant Disasters.” Health Phys;
106(2): 206–210. http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2014/02000/Emotional_Consequences_of_
Nuclear_Power_Plant.9.aspx
18. Ibid.
19. Goto, A., et al., op. cit. (2015).

49

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes

20. Shimizu, N. (2015). “Human Insecurity Caused by the Dysfunction of the State: New Security Issues in
Post-Fukushima Japan.” Asian Journal of Peacebuilding Vol. 3 No. 2 (2015): 165-187. http://tongil.snu.ac.kr/
ajp_pdf/201512/02_Nanako Shimizu.pdf
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. On 21 May 2014, a district court judge found in favor of community members seeking an injunction against
the restart of the Ohi 3&4 reactors due to the unacceptable risk posed by the reactors to the lives andlivelihoods of surrounding community members. The legal challenge contended that Kansai Electric not only
underestimated the seismic risk, but has also failed to develop an effective evacuation plan for the region’s
citizens. The judge’s opinion stated that, “It is appropriate that, if involved in a business whereby severe
damage would be caused to the lives, health, and livelihood of many people should a serious accident
occur, an organization should be expected to provide safety and a high degree of reliability in accordancewith the size and extent of that damage . . . interests relating to the life, body, soul, and lifestyle of an
Individual are fundamental to the individuality of each person, and the entirety of these can be considered tobe personal rights. Personal rights are enshrined in the Constitution (Articles 13 and 25), are the foundation
for people’s lives, and under the laws of our country there are no rights that have greater value. Accordingly,
when there is a risk of a tangible violation of a fundamental aspect of these personal rights, namely the
personal right to protect life and maintain one’s lifestyle, a claim can be made for an injunction against
violating acts on the basis of these personal rights. Personal rights belong to each individual, but when theform of the violation has the characteristics of simultaneously violating the personal rights of many people,
it stands to reason that the claim for an injunction there against is strong.” [Note: opinion translated forGreenpeace].
See: Outline of Judgment on Claim for Injunction on Operation of No. 3 and No. 4 Units at Ohi Nuclear
Power Plant Fukui District Court, (21 May 2014). http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/
international/briefings/nuclear/2014/Ohi-ruling-translation.pdf
See also: Adleman, J. and e. Urabe. (21 May 2014). “Kansai Electric’s Ohi Nuclear Reactors Restart Barredby Court.” Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-21/kansai-electric-s-ohi-nuclearreactors-restart-barred-by-court
24. “Court orders Takahama reactors shuttered.” (9 March 2016). DW. http://www.dw.com/en/court-orderstakahama-reactors-shuttered/a-19103482
25. Hasegawa, R., (13 May 2013). “Disaster Evacuation from Japan’s 2011 Tsunami Disaster and the Fukushima
Nuclear Accident.” Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales (IDDRI). http://www.
iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/STUDY0513_RH_DEVAST report.pdf
26. Shimizu, N., op. cit. (2015).
27. “Act on Promotion of Support Measures for the Lives of Disaster Victims to Protect and Support Children
and Other Residents Suffering Damage due to Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Nuclear Accident.” Act No.
48 of June 27, 2012. http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?kn%5B%5D=と&re=02&ky=株式&page=2
28. 子ども被災者支援法基本方針概要 Summary of basic policy of Nuclear Disaster Victims Support Act (In Japanese)
http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat2/20151002gaiyou.pdf
29. Save Fukushima Children Lawyers’ Network. (22 August 2013). http://www.saflan.jp/info/798
See also: 原発事故子ども・被災者支援法の基本方針改定を求める声明 (22 June 2014) Save Fukushima Children
Lawyers’ Network. http://www.saflan.jp/opi/879
30. Wisner, B., et al., op. cit. (2003).
See also: Ando, Y. (30 April 2013). “Fukushima and Nuclear Crisis 2011 with Gender View.” Fukushima Bar
Association, Japan. Chapter 15. Healthcare Management and Economics: Perspectives on Public andPrivate Administration: Perspectives on Public and Private Administration. Merviö, Mika Markus.. IGI Global.
http://www.igi-global.com/book/healthcare-management-economics/72354
31. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2006.” The World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
GenderGap_Report_2006.pdf
32. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2016.” World Economic Forum. http://reports.weforum.org/global-gendergap-report-2016/economies/ - economy=JPN
33. Morioka, R. (2014). “Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima Japan: The
role of hegemonic masculinity.” Social Science & Medicine. 107 105-112. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S027795361400118X
See also: Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).

50

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.

56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

See also: “Ingrained ideas on gender roles.” (19 July 2014). The Japan Times. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/
opinion/2014/07/19/editorials/ingrained-ideas-gender-roles/ - .VPmTkHZcLKA
Morioka, R op. cit. (2014).
Ibid.
Lemyre, L., et al. (15 May 2009). “Emergency Preparedness For Higher Risk Populations: Psychosocial
Considerations.” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 134, No. 3–4, pp. 207–214. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp084
Morioka, R. op. cit. (2014).
Ibid.
“Data: Gender Wage Gap.” OECD: Gender Equality. https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm
New Japan Women’s Association. “UPR Submission on the Human Rights Situation in Japan.” UN Human
Rights Council. 14th Session of the Universal Periodic Review – 2012. http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/
Documents/Session14/JP/NJWA_UPR_JPN_S14_2012_NewJapanWomensAssociation_E.pdf
Ibid.
Morioka, R. op. cit. (2014).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Folkers, C. (22 August 2013). “Can nuclear ever comply with the human right to health? Part III.” Beyond
Nuclear. http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radiation-health-whats-new/2013/8/22/can-nuclear-power-evercomply-with-the-human-right-to-health.html
Japan Federation of Bar Associations. (17 February 2012). “Submission to the Pre-Sessional Working Groupof the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” Pg. 100. http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/ja/
kokusai/humanrights_library/treaty/data/Submission_to_the_PSWG_of_CESCR_en.pdf
Ibid.
Ibid.
“Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.” (September 2004). United Nations. http://www.unhcr.org/enus/protection/idps/43ce1cff2/guiding-principles-internal-displacement.html
See also: Japan Federation of Bar Associations. op cit. (2012). Pg. 103.
Grover, A. (2 May 2013). “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoymentof the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover. Addendum. Mission to
Japan (15 - 26 November 2012).” Human Rights Council. United Nations. Twenty-third Session. Agenda
Item 3. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/
Session23/A-HRC-23-41-Add3_en.pdf
Japan Federation of Bar Associations. op cit. (2012). Pg. 101.
Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
Ibid.
See also: Human Rights Now. “Universal Periodic Stakeholder Submission” United Nations. Officeof the High Commissioner on Human Rights. http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/_layouts/15/
WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session14/JP/HRN_UPR_JPN_S14_2012_
HumanRightsNow_E.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1
Ito, K. & Y. Ando (7 March 2012). “Situation of Rural Women affected by the Great Japan Earthquake andNuclear Power Plant Accident: Recovery and Rebirth with Gender View.” http://www.gender.go.jp/kaigi/
renkei/ikenkoukan/52/pdf/siryo7.pdf
Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
Ibid.
Japan Federation of Bar Associations. op cit. (2012). Pg. 103.
“Domestic violence higher in tsunami zone.” (8 March 2013). AFP. http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Domestic-violence-higher-in-tsunami-zone-‹-Japan-Today_-Japan-News-andDiscussion.pdf
Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
Haworth, A. (24 February 2013). “After Fukushima: families on the edge of meltdown.” The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/24/divorce-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster“Human Rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations: QUESTIONNAIRE”. Human Rights Advisory
Committee. http://search.ohchr.org/results.aspx?k=Fukushima - k=Human Rights in post-disaster and postconflict situations%3A QUESTIONNAIRE Fukushima

51

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes

64. Ibid
65. “Disaster Prevention and Reconstruction from a Gender Equal Society Perspective: Lessons from theGreat East Japan Earthquake.” From the “White Paper on Gender Equality 2012”; Summary. http://www.
preventionweb.net/publications/view/29144
66. Ito, K. & Y. Ando. op. cit. (2012).
67. Grover, A. op. cit. (2013).
68. Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. Fackler, M. (21 April 2012). “Japan Tries to Face Up to Growing Poverty Problem.” The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/world/asia/22poverty.html?_r=1&
74. 避難指示解除の状況について

平成２９年１月２８日

内閣府原子力災害対策本部 原子力被災者生活支援チーム

http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat1/sub-cat1-4/20170128_kyougikai_4shiryo3-2.pdf

75. 帰還困難区域の取扱いに関する考え方

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.

93.
94.
95.
96.

平成２８年８月３１日

原子力災害対策本部 復興推進会議

Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry. Japanese Government. http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/kinkyu/pdf/2016/0831_01.pdf
Morioka, R. op. cit. (2014).
Ibid.
See also: Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
Morioka, R. op. cit. (2014).
Ibid.
Torres, I. (25 February 2013). “Atomic divorce: Fukushima disaster survivors suffering marital discord.”
Japan Press Daily. http://japandailypress.com/atomic-divorce-fukushima-disaster-survivors-sufferingmarital-discord-2524003/“‘Radiation divorce’ enters Japanese vernacular.” (23 January 2012). Japan Today. http://www.japantoday.
com/category/kuchikomi/view/radiation-divorce-enters-japanese-vernacular
Torres, I. op. cit. (2013).
Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
Tone, M. & Stone, T. (2014). “What we can learn about recovery: Lessons from the Fukushima survivors.”
Nursing and Health Sciences (2014), 16, 52–55.
See also: Haworth, A. op. cit. (2013).
Haworth, A. op. cit. (2013).
Fukushima blasts environmentalist’s remark about marriage, deformed babies. (30 August 2012).
The Asahi Shimbun. See: http://enenews.com/asahi-fukushima-govt-trying-to-stamp-out-harmful-rumorstargets-group-leader-who-discussed-deformed-babies
Haworth, A. op. cit. (2013).
Cantrell, A. & Nilep, C. (2012). “You Are Contagious”: When Talk of Radiation Fears Overwrites the Truth.”
NU Ideas. Volume 1. Nagoya University Institute of Liberal Arts & Sciences. http://nuideas.ilas.nagoya-u.
ac.jp/Volume1/Cantrell-Nilep_NUIdeas.pdf
Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., op. cit. (2013).
Cardis, E., et al. (April 2007). “The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers
in the Nuclear Industry: Estimates of Radiation-Related Cancer Risks.” Radiation Research. Vol. 167, No. 4(Apr., 2007), pp. 396-416. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4138642
ICRP, (1997). “General Principles for the Radiation Protection of Workers.” ICRP Publication 75. Ann. ICRP
27 (1). https://www.bookdepository.com/ICRP-Publication-75-v-27-1-Icrp/9780080427416
文部科学省「福島県内の学校・校庭等の利用判断における暫定的な考え方」に対する日本医師会の見解 (12 May 2011).
http://dl.med.or.jp/dl-med/teireikaiken/20110512_31.pdf
The Fukushima Network for Saving Children from Radiation, et. al. (17 August 2011). “Violation of the Human
Rights of the Children of Fukushima” NGO submission to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights/OHCHR. http://www.foejapan.org/en/news/110819.pdf
Grover, A. op. cit. (2013).
Fackler, M. (21 January 2012). “Japanese Struggle to Protect Their Food Supply.” The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/world/asia/wary-japanese-take-food-safety-into-their-own-hands.html
Shimizu, N. op cit. (2015).

52

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes

97. “Radiation-Tainted Beef Raises Safety Concern in Japan.” (14 July 2011). Bloomberg Business.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-14/beefcontaminated-byradiation-intensifies-foodsafety-concerns-in-japan Cited in: Shimizu, N. op cit. (2015).
See Also: Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., op. cit. (2013). Pg. 10.
98. Morioka, R., op. cit. (2014).
99. Ibid.
100. Kurtzman, L. (27 October 2014). “Radiation Exposure Linked to Aggressive Thyroid Cancers: International
Team Studied Children and Teens Exposed After Chernobyl.” University of California San Francisco.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/10/120011/radiation-exposure-linked-aggressive-thyroid-cancers
101. Hayashi, Y. (29 September 2011). “Japan Officials Failed to Hand Out Radiation Pills in Quake’s Aftermath.”
The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204010604576596321581004368
102. Ribault, N., Ribault, T., & Wataru, I. (8 October 2012). “Thyroid Cancer in Fukushima: Science Subverted in
the Service of the State 福島における甲状腺癌 − 国の都合で歪められる科学 ” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.
Vol. 10. 41:2. http://apjjf.org/2012/10/41/Nadine-Ribault/3841/article.html
103. Ibid.
104. The Fukushima Network for Saving Children from Radiation, et. al., op. cit. (2011).
105. Ribault, N., et. al. op. cit. (2012).
106. Ibid.
See also: Kikuchi, K. (19 December 2013). 福島県県民健康管理調査の甲状腺検査から２年半 これまで、そして今、こんなことが起こっています レポート：菊池京子. http://311.yanesen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2f46387fbc23371
adaba57ad8dd7b11b.pdf
107. “10 more thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in Fukushima.” (28 December 2016). The Mainichi.
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161228/p2a/00m/0na/008000c
108. “Fukushima Daiichi in 2016: Health Impact.” (2016). Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety(IRSN). http://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in2016-Health-impact.aspx
109. Takamura, N., M. Orita, et al. (August 2016). “Radiation and risk of thyroid cancer: Fukushima andChernobyl.” The Lancet. http://thelancetnorway.com/pdfs/journals/landia/PIIS2213-8587(16)30112-7.pdf
110. Tsuda,T., Tokinobu, A., et al. (May 2016). , “Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages
18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014.” Epidemiology. 27(3):316-22.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26441345
111. IRSN, op. cit. (2016).
112. “The Chernobyl Catastrophe: Impacts on Human Health.” (2006). Greenpeace International.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/4/chernobylhealthreport.pdf
113. Scherb, H. H., et al. (2 September 2016). “Increases in perinatal mortality in prefectures contaminated by the
Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan: A spatially stratified longitudinal study.” Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044925/
114. National Academy of Sciences. op. cit. (2006). pg. 153.
115. Ibid. pg. 151
116. Ibid. pg. 144
117. Ibid. pg. 145
118. Ibid. pg. 148
119. Ibid. pg. 151
120. Ibid. pg. 151
121. Ibid. pg. 150
122. Ibid.
123. Ibid. pg. 146
124. Nerve Sheath Tumors. For further information on this type of tumor, see: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/
neurofibrosarcoma-and-schwannoma
125. National Academy of Sciences. op. cit. (2006). pg. 152
126. Ibid. pg. 152
127. Smith-Bindman, R., et al. (14 December 2009). “Radiation Dose Associated with Common Computed
Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer.” Arch Intern Med.;
169(22): 2078–2086. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635397/
128. Brenner, D.J., et al. (February 2001). “Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from PediatricCT.” American Journal of Roentgenology. 176:289-296. http://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/
ajr.176.2.1760289

53

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes

129. Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., op. cit. (2013). Pg. 12.
130. Groen, R.S., et al. (2012 June). “Fear of the Unknown: Ionizing Radiation Exposure During Pregnancy.”
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 206(6):456-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.001. Epub
2011 Dec 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22244469
See also: Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., op. cit. (2013).
131. Groen, R.S., et al. op. cit. (2012).
132. Ibid.
133. Neria, Y. et al. (April 2008). “Post-traumatic stress disorder following disasters: a systematic review.”
Psychol Med.; 38(4): 467–480. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877688/
134. Bromet, E.J. op. cit. (2014).
135. Goto, A., et. al., op. cit. (2015).
See also: Tetsuya, T., op. cit. (2014).
136. Worland, J. (11 March 2016). “This May Be the Biggest Health Threat From Fukushima—And It’s Still
Ongoing.” TIME. http://time.com/4256088/fukushima-mental-health/137. “TABLE: Suicide deaths in prefectures affected by the earthquake and tsunami of March, 2011.” Sourced
from Cabinet Office, Japan & Japan Reconstruction Agency. http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTa
bleImage?tableId=tbl1&pii=S014067361560890X
138. Kukihara, H., et al. (2014). “Trauma, depression, and resilience of earthquake/tsunami/ nuclear disastersurvivors of Hirono, Fukushima, Japan.” Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences; 68: 524–533. doi:10.1111/
pcn.12159
139. Goto, A., et. al., op. cit. (2015).
140. Ando, Y. op. cit. (2013).
141. “Children’s Charter: An Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction for Children by Children.” Save the Children.
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-library/children’s-charter-action-plan-disaster-riskreduction-children-children
142. “UNICEF and Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction.” UNICEF.
http://unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/DRR/Child-centred DRR.pdf
143. Save the Children. (November 2012). “NGO Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Japan November 2012.” Submitted to the UN Human Rights Council.
http://www.savechildren.or.jp/scjcms/dat/img/blog/864/1340084800334.pdf
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid.
146. Grover, A. op. cit. (2013).
147. Ibid.
148. The Fukushima Network for Saving Children from Radiation, et. al., op. cit. (2011).
149. Ibid.
150. Ibid.
See also: Grover, A. op. cit. (2013).
151. Yokomichi, H., et al. (2016). “Impact of the great east Japan earthquake on the body mass index
of preschool children: a nationwide nursery school survey.” BMJ Open. 6:e010978. doi:10.1136/
bmjopen-2015-010978
152. Ibid.
153. Obayashi, Y. (9 December 2016). “Japan nearly doubles Fukushima disaster-related cost to US$188
billion.” Reuters. Channel NewsAsia. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/japan-doublesfukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-21-5-trillion/3354116.html
154. Greenpeace Japan. op. cit. (March 2016).
See Also: Greenpeace International. (July 2015). “Greenpeace investigation exposes failure of Fukushimadecontamination program: Abe’s forced return policy condemns residents to radiation risk.” http://www.
greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2015/Greenpeace-investigation-exposes-failure-ofFukushima-decontamination-program/
155. Ministry of Environment. “Environmental Remediation.” Government of Japan. http://josen.env.go.jp/en/
decontamination/ Accessed 27 January 2017
156. 住民の皆さまへ 安心できる毎日を 除染情報サイト 飯舘村 http://josen.env.go.jp/area/details/iitate.html Accessed
27 January 2017157. Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. Iitate Village. Government of Japan. http://www.machimura.
maff.go.jp/machi/contents/07/564/details.html Accessed 27 January 2017.

54

Greenpeace | Unequal Impact

Endnotes

158. “No Return to Normal.” February 2017. Greenpeace Japan. http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/
japan/pdf/NRN_FINweb4.pdf
159. Greenpeace Japan. op. cit. (March 2016).
See Also: Greenpeace International. op. cit. (July 2015).
160. Ibid.
161. Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., op. cit. (2013).
162. Grover, A. op. cit. (2013).
163. Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice (IIMA). (14 October 2012). “The Situation on the Rights of the Childin Japan.” Submitted to the Human Rights Council: Universal Periodic Review of Japan.
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session14/JP/IIMA_UPR_JPN_S14_2012_InstituInternatio
MariaAulistair_E.pdf
See also: Save the Children. op. cit. (November 2012).
164. “the use of metaphor, euphemism, or technical jargon to portray nuclear technology in a neutral or positive
way . . . [and] becomes the privileged argument which perpetuates an ideology informed by politics,
bureaucracy, and technology (devoid of contextual analysis), which benefits the nuclear industry, while
simultaneously undermining other public discourses around nuclear power.” Culley, M. R., & Anqelique, H.
(2010). Participation, Power, and the Role of Community Psychology in Environmental Disputes. American
Journal of Community Psychology, (47), 410-426. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-010-9395-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/21174146
165. McInerny, P., op. cit. (2016).
166. Ibid.
167. “High school takes students to see Fukushima nuclear reactor decommissioning.” (19 November 2016).
The Mainichi. http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161119/p2a/00m/0na/008000c
168. Ibid.
169. Ibid.
170. “SGH (Super Global High-school): Producing global leaders to accomplish revitalization after the nuclear
disaster.” http://www.futabamiraigakuen-h.fks.ed.jp/?page_id=130 Accessed 15 December 2016.
171. Ibid.
172. Shimizu, N., op. cit. (2015).
173. Ibid.
174. Slater, D. (9 November 2011). “Fukushima women against nuclear power: finding a voice from Tohoku.”
The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. http://japanfocus.org/events/view/117
See also: Freiner, N. (Fall 2013). “Mobilizing Mothers: The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe andEnvironmental Activism in Japan.” ASIANetwork Exchange. Vol. 21. http://www.asianetworkexchange.org/
articles/abstract/10.16995/ane.37/
175. Freiner, N., op. cit. (2013).
176. Miller, A.S. and C. Moore. (1991) “Japan and the Global Environment.” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=delpf
177. Hasegawa, K. (2011) A Comparative Study of Social Movements for a Post-nuclear Energy Era in Japanand the USA. East Asian Social Movements: Power, Protest, and Change in a Dynamic Region. Broadbent,
J. & Brockman, V. (eds). Springer. Pg. 71. http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/
developpement/shared/developpement/cours/IA029/East-Asian-Social-Movements.pdf
178. Slater, D., op. cit. (2011).
179. Hunter, H. (25 April 2012). “In Japan, a Mothers’ Movement Against Nuclear Power.” Yes Magazine.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/in-japan-a-mothers-movement-against-nuclear-power180. Freiner, N., op. cit. (2013).
181. Ibid.
182. Ibid.
183. “Court rules against restart of Ohi reactors.” (12 May 2014). World Nuclear News. http://www.worldnuclear-news.org/RS-Court-rules-against-restart-of-Ohi-reactors-2105146.html
184. Slater, D., op. cit. (2011).

55

Greenpeace is an independent
campaigning organisation.
Founded in 1971, it acts to change
attitudes and behavior, to protect
and conserve the environment, andpromote peace and sustainability.

Greenpeace Japan
8-13-11 NF Bldg. 2F, Nishi-Shinjuku,
Shinjuku, Tokyo 160-0023

www.greenpeace.org/japan/ERJ