The Fukushima nuclear disaster: 8 years on

MARCH 11, 2019
tags: Fukushima, health, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,
IPPNW, Japan, Japan nuclear crisis, nuclear energy
by Tilman Ruff

The ongoing nuclear reactor disaster at Fukushima began on March 11, 2011
Japanese translation
Eight years after the world’s most complex nuclear disaster, the damaged Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plants and spent fuel ponds are still leaking and dangerous, vast
amounts of contaminated water continue to accumulate, 8000 odd clean-up workers labour
daily and will need to for many decades, the needs of people exposed to radioactivity arestill neglected, no one is in prison for a disaster fundamentally caused by the negligence ofthe operator and the government, and most of the lessons of Fukushima have yet to heeded.
Professor Kiyoshi Kurokawa, who chaired the Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Commission, Japan’s first ever independent parliamentary investigation commission, has
written recently that since the Commission submitted its recommendations to the national
Diet in 2012, “little progress of significance can be observed”.[1] He describes theregulatory changes as “only amounting to cosmetic changes”. This textbook case ofregulatory capture, with Japanese nuclear regulatory agencies serving the interests of thenuclear power industry instead of protecting the safety of the people, has changed relatively
little. Kurokawa describes the changes prompted by the Commission’s report amongst
governmental bodies “have been formalities at the minimum required level”. He writes“that the structures of regulatory capture are still firmly maintained”.
It is the people of Japan who not only suffer the impacts of the disaster, but largely bear thecost, such as through the US$119 billion interest-free loan TEPCO secured from thegovernment, paid by citizens’ taxes.
In light of the mainly indirect but strong evidence that radioactivity began leaking from
Unit 1 as a result of the earthquake, before the tsunami hit, the Commission recommended
that the implications should be seriously considered for all other nuclear power plants inJapan. This has not happened. Since 2011, 9 nuclear power reactors in Japan have been
re-started. One can have little confidence, should things go wrong again in Fukushima or
elsewhere, that crisis management would be much better than in the debacle that unfoldedin Fukushima 8 years ago.

Tilman Ruff has monitored the health impacts of the Fukushima disaster closely during
the eight years since the reactor meltdowns.
The Japanese government seems determined to present the Fukushima disaster as a past
problem with things essentially back to normal and under control in the lead-up to the2020 Olympics in Japan. The start of the Olympic torch relay, softball and baseball games
are scheduled to take place in Fukushima. Grossly misleading claims by Prime Minister Abe
in 2013 underpinned Japan’s bid for the Olympics. He stated that “the situation in
Fukushima is under control”, that “it has never done nor will do any damage to Tokyo”, andthat “there have never been any health problems nor will there be”.
There may have been more than misrepresentation about Fukushima involved in Japansecuring the 2020 Olympics. On 10 Dec 2018, Tsunekazu Takeda, the president of theJapanese Olympic Committee, and chair of the International Olympic Committee’smarketing commission, was indicted on corruption charges in France. France’s financial
crimes prosecutors contend that money was paid to African Olympic committee officials tovote for Japan’s Olympic bid.[2]The present situation in Fukushima
The 2018 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status report provides a good overview.[3]Plans for spent fuel removal from the damaged reactors have slipped repeatedly into the
future, and the methods for removal of fuel debris have yet to be determined. For all thereactors, melted fuel debris is present both inside the damaged containment vessels as wellas on the pedestals outside them. Reactors 1 – 3 which suffered meltdowns still requirecontinuous injection of 3 m³ of water per hour per reactor, which runs out of the cracked
containments and mixes with water which penetrates the damaged basements from anunderground river. While the rate of contaminated water production has been reduced,
there are over 1,000,000 m³ of contaminated water, and growing, held on site, which
although decontaminated of many radioactive elements, still contains very high levels oftritium (> 500,000 Bq/l), with continuing local objections to its release into the sea. The
multi-billion dollar frozen soil wall commissioned in 2016 has been of limited effectiveness.
By 2017, a total of 40,000 workers had been involved in the extensive decommissioning
work which will be required for many decades. About 8000 work at any one time. Over
90% of these are subcontractors, who have poorer training and conditions and receive on
average more than twice the radiation exposure compared with TEPCO employees.
Maximum exposures for subcontractors in Jan 2018 were documented at over 10
mSv/month. Thus far 5 cases of cancer among clean-up workers have been officiallyrecognised as occupationally-related – including 3 cases of leukemia, one thyroid cancer,
and 1 case of lung cancer.
The Japanese government has been aggressively pushing the lifting of restrictions orders
for contaminated municipalities in Fukushima. This artificially reduces the number ofofficially recognised evacuees. While attempting to create a misleading illusion of return tonormality, the government is still now, 8 years after the disaster, applying an allowableradiation annual dose limit for the public of 20 mSv. It is the only government worldwide

to accept such a high level so many years after a nuclear disaster. It has even established 4reconstruction sites in areas where residents would accumulate more than 50 mSv/y, andscheduled returns to these areas by 2023. People who have relocated from areas whererestriction orders have been lifted are under significant pressure to return to an
unacceptably hazardous environment, or lose all financial support. Despite these pressures,
only 3-29% of citizens have returned to 5 municipalities where restriction orders have been
lifted, and up to half of former residents have decided not to return, with many undecided.
Consistent with its failure to prioritise the safety and health of its citizens, the governmentof Japan still continues to promote the scientifically fraudulent position that less than 100
mSv of radiation is not associated with proven health harm.
Important data on population radiation exposures have emerged regarding external gamma
exposure measurements from extensive glass badge individual monitors undertaken from2012 among more than 50,000 residents of Date City. Just northeast of Fukushima City,
most of Date is more than 50 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and it is not one of themost contaminated municipalities. Two published papers yield some important findings:•

External radiation exposure measured by glass badge individual monitors correlated wellwith airborne survey data; [4]•No effect of exposure reduction was observed related to decontamination activities;•

Allowing for a 3-fold underestimate of estimated lifetime doses in the published paper [5]recently acknowledged by the senior author,[6] the estimated lifetime average doses forresidents in different zones in Date range from 33 to 54 mSv, while the 99th centile doses
range from 60 to 105 mSv. These are significant doses based on actual exposure
measurements; much greater than those typically estimated for people outside the mostcontaminated areas.
Regrettably very serious ethical and integrity issues have been raised in relation to the
conduct of this research.[7]By Sep 2018, the Japan Reconstruction Agency identified 2202 deaths as related to the
nuclear disaster – principally through suicide and interrupted or diminished medical care.
However comprehensive long-term prospective mechanisms linked to radiation exposure
have not been established to monitor population health impacts of the nuclear disaster. If
you don’t look, you won’t find. Given the fragmented and incomplete nature of cancer
registries in Japan, it is quite possible that health effects would not be detected.
The one area that promised to be an exception was monitoring for thyroid cancer throughregular ultrasound screening among those in Fukushima aged under 18 years at the time ofthe disaster. By Dec 2018, 166 surgically confirmed thyroid cancer had been identified
among 207 cytologically suspected cancers. Independent analysis has strongly indicatedthat while a screening effect is also present, the incidence is much higher than nationally,
with a gradient mirroring contamination levels in Fukushima Prefecture, [8] and no
indication that cases identified tend to be benign, with 92% of operated cases reported ashaving evidence of metastases and/or extrathyroidal extension.[9] However, the screening
program is being curtailed, timely and transparent release of data is lacking, cases
diagnosed or treated outside Fukushima Medical University are excluded, and participation
rates in successive surveys are falling, likely reflecting declining public confidence in the
program. Participation rates in the 3rd round survey, both initial and confirmatory
examinations, have declined to around 60%, and only 16% among those aged over 18. [10]Effects in other animals and plants
Evidence continues to accumulate of harmful biological effects in direct proportion to thedegree of radioactive contamination, without any apparent threshold, in virtually every
species and ecological community studied – soil bacteria and fungi through trees, various

insects, spiders, diverse birds, and large and small mammals – in the contaminated regionsof both Chernobyl and Fukushima. In the intertidal zone along the Fukushima coast, there
are much lower numbers of species and populations of molluscs within 30 km of thenuclear plant. Most effects are apparent across the range of 1–10 mGy/y. Like for humanradiation health effects, the more we know, the worse it looks.
Much of this important work has been by Timothy Mousseau and Anders Møller.[11] They
have documented effects at every biological level, including increased genetic mutations;adverse developmental effects, including albinism, asymmetry, reduced brain size, cataracts,
reduced fertility and sperm number with increases in abnormal and immotile sperm;
increased tumours; behavioural abnormalities such as in bird calls; reduced abundancesand biodiversity. Their findings indicate that populations living under the full range ofnatural stressors (biotic and abiotic) are almost 10 times more sensitive to ionisingradiation than predicted by conventional laboratory-based approaches.
It is biologically implausible that humans would be somehow immune to similar effects.
Human rights considerations
In 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Realisation of the Right to Health, Anand
Grover visited Fukushima and made multiple recommendations in a report to the UN
Human Rights Council. They included independent monitoring and regulation of thenuclear industry; accurate information for the public and evacuations driven by radiation
exposure level dose (including hot spots), not simply distance; public provision of unbiased
radiation risk information; a timeline for achievement of 1mSv maximum additionalradiation exposure; comprehensive long-term health studies in all affected areas; patients
having better access to their medical results and documentation; long-term monitoring andtreatment for nuclear workers; financial support for those in contaminated areas who choseto evacuate or to stay; TEPCO and not taxpayers should pay for the costs of the disaster;and public participation in all aspects of post-disaster management, such as design ofshelters and health surveys, and decontamination implementation. The Japanese
government was hostile to Human Rights Council attention and these landmark
recommendations, and has implemented very few (eg an epidemiological study of worker
health is currently underway). The government was also hostile to and sought to weaken an
important 2013 WHO Health risk Assessment report on the nuclear accident.
In 2017 in a periodic review of Japan, a number of delegations made recommendations toJapan in the UN Human Rights Council: [12]– Austria urged provision of continued support for voluntary evacuees from thehigh-radiation areas of Fukushima, with housing, financial and other life-assisting means
and with periodic health monitoring of those affected, in particular those who were children
at the time of the accident;– Portugal called for the application of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
to all those impacted by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, in order to ensure full andequal participation for both women and men in decision-making processes regarding theirresettlement (forcible return of evacuees is contrary to these principles);– Germany advocated respect for the rights of persons living in the area of Fukushima, inparticular of pregnant women and children, to the highest level of physical and mental
health, notably by restoring the allowable dose of radiation to the 1 mSv/year limit, and by acontinuing support to the evacuees and residents;– Mexico recommended guarantee of access to health services for those affected by the
Fukushima nuclear accident, as well as for the generations of survivors of the use of nuclear
weapons.

While Japan responded that it was or would implement these recommendations (but not
any particular provisions for second and subsequent generation survivors), nocorresponding measures have yet been taken.
It is important that the international public health and medical communities monitor
continuing health needs related to the disaster and advocate for the policies, resources andother measures to address them, and support the efforts of those in Japan working for
public and environmental health. We should utilise the 2020 Olympics in Japan to shine alight on the lessons of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the impacts and needs from thedisaster, and ensure that they are not swept under the carpet.
[1] Kurokawa K, NInomiya AR. Examining regulatory capture: looking back at the Fukushima nuclear
power plant disaster, seven years later. University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review 2018;13(2), Article
2. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/alr/vol13/iss2/2/[2] Panja T, Tabuchi H. Japan’s Olympics chief faces corruption charges in France. New York Times, 11
Jan 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/world/europe/japan-olympics-corruption-tsunekazu-takeda.html[3]Schneider M, Froggatt A et al. The world nuclear industry status report 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/world/europe/japan-olympics-corruption-tsunekazu-takeda.html
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20180902wnisr2018-lr.pdf[4] Miyazaki M, Hayano R. Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive
dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): 1. Prediction of lifetime additional
effective dose and evaluating the effect of decontamination on individual dose. J Radiol Prot
2017;37:623-34. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/aa6094/meta[5] Miyazaki M, Hayano R. Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive
dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): 1. Comparison of individual dose with
ambient dose rate monitored by aircraft surveys. J Radiol Prot 2017;37:1-12.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/37/1/1/meta[6] Kurokawa S. Professor Emeritus Kurokawa sets straight dishonesty and misrepresentation in the“statement” by Ryugo Hayano, the author of the radiation dose study with alleged misconduct. Fukushima
Voice Version 2E. 11 Fe 2019.
http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com/2019/02/shin-ichi-kurokawa-sets-straight.html[7] Kurokawa S, Shima A. A Glass Badge Study That Failed and Betrayed Residents —A Study with Seven
Violations of Ethical Guidelines Can Be No Ground for Government Policies. Kagaku.
2019;89(2):e0017-e0024.
https://www.iwanami.co.jp/kagaku/eKagaku_201902_Kurokawa_Shima.pdf[8] Tsuda T, Tokinobu A, Yamamota E, Suzuki E. Thyroid cancer detection by ultrasound among residents
ages 18 years and younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014. Epidemiology 2016;27: 316–22.
[9] Tsuda T, Tokinobu A, Suzuki E. Thyroid cancer under age 19 in Fukushima – as of 57 months after theaccident. Presentation at International IPPNW Congress, 5 years living with Fukushima, 30 years livingwith Chernobyl, Berlin, 27 Feb 2016.
http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/T30F5/P1_Tsuda_pres_final.
pdf[10] Hiranuma Y. Fukushima thyroid examination December 2018: 166 surgically confirmed as thyroid
cancer among 207 cytology suspected cases. 10 Jan 2019.
http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com/2019/01/fukushima-thyroid-examination-decem
ber.html[11] Mousseau TA, Møller AP. Nuclear energy and its ecological byproducts: Lessons from Chernobyl and
Fukushima. In: van Ness P, Gurtov M (eds.). Learning from Fukushima. Nuclear power in East Asia.
Acton; ANU Press, 2017: 261-83. https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/learning-fukushima
Released in Japanese on 13 Feb 2019:https://press.anu.edu.au/learning-fukushima-now-published-japanese[12] Human Rights Council. Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. Japan. 4 Jan
2018. UN Document A/HRC/37/15.
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/002/35/PDF/G1800235.pdf?OpenElement

Japanese translation