35

Questions Raised by the Nuclear Power Accident ofMarch 11, 2011
SHIMAZONO Susumu*

Research Report from Germany’s Ethics Committee
Germany immediately established an ethics committee and decided toabandon nuclear power after the March 11 Fukushima nuclear power plant
accident, which indicates that nuclear power plants are an ethical issue. The
reason that the ethics committee was formed is included in the report.
Germany’s action subsequently had a tremendous impact on Japan. Ethics are
an important issue in social policy; in fact, I believe the concept that ethics isthe determinant factor has tremendous resonance in Japan.
What is the definition of ethics in the joint venture report for safe energy
in Germany? There are about fifteen people on the committee, of whom three
are representatives of Christian churches. There are some scientists, but there
are more committee members in the humanities. Of course safe energy is aproblem of science and technology, but it is also an issue of public policy andthe choices we make about how to live. I think that’s the realization.
Looking at the content of the report, however, it is written comparatively
logically. What appears in the report is the “concept that is key to ethicalvalue judgments is having sustainability and responsibility.” As we heard a
few minutes ago, the German committee’s fundamental concept is sustainability and responsibility for future generations. This is also paraphrased as
the interaction between humans and nature or the relationship between society
and nature.
When it comes to ethics in Christianity and European culture, we are notsimply talking about rules. Naturally, our sense of values is based on culture.
While we inherit our sense of right and wrong from our traditions, we also
formulate our own sense of values. In Europe, the consensus is that humans
have the responsibility to protect and pass down the environment granted tothem from God. It is a position based on the inheritance of religious tradi* Shimazono Susumu 島薗進 is a professor in the Faculty of Theology and director of
the Institute of Grief Care, Sophia University

36

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 7 2016

tions.
There is a term called “ecological responsibility,” which means to preserveand protect the environment, not to destroy one’s own environment, but tomaintain it for future generations. There were four conditions in Mr.
Kusajima’s presentation that exactly describe the ethical responsibilities foraddressing this issue.
It isn’t right for people to do all the things that are technologically possible.
It is a concern that people have no compunction about doing things if they are
economically profitable.
The German ethics committee is concerned about nuclear problems, butthere has been an ethics committee for the life sciences since long before that.
That committee deals with issues such as designer babies, regenerative
medicine, human enhancement, and pre-selection of the gender of babies.
An important issue is that people may end up becoming inhuman humans.
Some people call this post-human. This is the type of development which canhappen in the life sciences. Some people now desire to do these things, andbecause medicine cannot refuse them, such things happen. The question of
how to stop these things from happening is quite serious and also extends tothese problems.
The German ethics committee has gone in the direction of abandoning
nuclear power in this way. We will gain strength from choosing a new direction. I am saying that in order to achieve this, it is necessary to consider thecultural, social, economic, individual, systemic, and overall picture. Although
this is a problem of science and technology, it affects life overall. That is how
I think of it. Since that is the case, I think that it naturally leads to thedimension of religion and ethics.
I think that we have naturally come to understand this after having
experienced the Fukushima disasters. What struck me as particularly aproposa few minutes ago was the conflict between the farmers and fishermen of the
Ariake Sea. Professor Tanaka said that this was an occurrence of a ripping
apart of the heart, and I think that Fukushima had a tremendous impact in thisway.
I think the reason this occurred was, in short, that the entire environment
was destroyed, the base of which was damage to health from radiation. In
such an unlivable environment, even if people continued to live there, various
activities, such as playing outside and living with the environment, weretaken away from them. Many conflicts have arisen in this milieu. I strongly
feel that this was the case.
I also joined the Citizen’s Commission on Nuclear Energy and was incharge of thinking about the overall picture of damage. Actually, the entire
life structure was destroyed. This is what caused the division of the commu-

Questions Raised by the Nuclear Power Accident of March 11, 201137

nity. There are probably many kinds of damage, such as bad rumors, but theworst damage was that of division.
Even inside families, opinion was divided. Generations were at odds; theolder people wanted to stay, while the younger generation wanted to leave.
People are needed to take care of the elderly who stayed behind, but noyoung people would come forward. You can’t force them because that willcause more conflict. I think this problem is still happening today. I think you
can probably understand how problems that were latent in nuclear power
plants were revealed to a large extent in the Fukushima disasters.

Declaration by Religious Groups for Abandoning Nuclear PowerThis is also in the declaration by the Japan Buddhist Federation. It cameout on December 1, 2011. Since most of the traditional Buddhist sects belong
to the Japan Buddhist Federation, we can say that this is a declaration thatwas made on a Buddhist foundation or on a common Japanese religious baseregardless of doctrinal differences or differences in faith.
What was invoked first—and this is probably different from the German
declaration—was that we must always remember that the victims are always
in a situation of having their entire lives ruined. I think that continues to be
the case. There are probably still several tens of thousands of evacuees.
And in the minds of those who remain, there is always the thought ofharm from radiation. And they don’t know what is going to happen in the
future. They are suffering, having no prospect of figuring out how to recover.
In particular, there is anxiety for the children. This is, of course, concern for
future life. Through the nuclear power plant disaster we have experienced
acutely what has been destroyed.
It goes without saying that this is inextricably linked to our experience
with the nuclear bomb. That is also mentioned in the Japan Buddhist
Federation declaration. That can be said in the words “inochi (Life)” and“peace.” We have had the experience of depending far too much on militarymight during World War II and heading toward militarism as a means to solve
all matters militarily. In that process we experienced having nuclear bombs
dropped on us. We should have reflected on this outcome, but instead wehave suffered again from the same kind of nuclear damage. The backdrop to
this situation is that we did not think enough about the people whose lives
were threatened by the nuclear power plant. And as we just heard Professor
Tanaka and Mr. Kusajima say, in a myriad ways we are being confronted
with the gap between the enormous sums of money that are being pursued
and what we think of as activities to foster life in the lifestyles of regional
areas. I think this also receives attention in the declaration.
In the pursuit of convenience large amounts of money are involved, and38

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 7 2016

there is tremendous profit to be made. It seems like it is convenient for many
people, but in reality, it is destructive. I think there are elements that threatenlife and peace hidden in it. In very characteristic language, the Japan
Buddhist Federation declaration states, “we must not desire to create wealthon the back of some victim, but to choose a path where personal happinessand ethical welfare are in harmony.”
Nuclear power is built on the backs of victims. The workers, laborers who
work at nuclear power plants, are from the outset exposed to unnecessarily
high levels of radiation. That is why they suffer from health hazards, but weoverlook them. Every time there is an accident the local people incur greatdamage.
But there are profits within reach, that is, subsidies are scattered aroundthat local area. That is why tremendous advertising fees are expended tospread the myth of safety. This is how predictable harm and all sorts ofdisadvantages are covered over. Such victims existed in the past, in thecurrent age, and above all, will become victims in future generations.
The German declaration emphasizes the responsibility to future generations. In contrast, when you look at the various declarations of organizations,especially of religious organizations, after Japan’s nuclear power plant accident, nuclear power is built on a foundation of sacrifice. Takahashi Tetsuya
and others talk about the structure of sacrifice, while comparing it with
Okinawa, and I think this is the unique characteristic. I think that inGermany, even if society tries to sacrifice those in weak positions, the structure does not allow this to happen as readily as in Japan.
However, the characteristic of the religious world is that in such times
people reexamine themselves. People take stock of how they have lived up
until now. People accept each thing as their own problem. They say, “Escapefrom excessive material desire; know what is enough; live a life that ishumble in the face of nature.” This is a very religious thing to say. Thus, in
one way we might say it is desirable and easily understandable by many
people. Depending on how one thinks of it, and this is true from a religious
point of view, but it could be considered cruel to ask average society
members to follow this. If this results in a smaller-scaled economic structure,
there is a fear that there will be people whose economic activity will behampered. I think that gives room for counterargument to what is said in thisdeclaration.
The declaration from the German ethics committee and the one put out
by Japan’s religious groups, as well as ethical issues, form the basis forevaluation of the nuclear power station problem. For example, the court
ruling on the lawsuit for the shutdown of the Ōi nuclear power plant in Fukui
Prefecture was made in May, 2014, and the ruling did indeed contain thisQuestions Raised by the Nuclear Power Accident of March 11, 201139

type of language.
Most rulings on lawsuits in Japan on nuclear power plants up until thistime were made on the side of those promoting nuclear power. This [the Ōi
nuclear power plant] was a big turning point. One of the biggest issues
involved was ethics.
The representative of the plaintiffs in the suit to shut down the Ōi nuclear
power plant was the head Buddhist priest, Nakajima Tetsuen. He is a local
person from a temple with a long and distinguished history in Obama, Fukui
Prefecture. When you meet him, he truly exudes a Buddhist essence. He wasinvolved in this problem for many years and so took on being the representative in the lawsuit. The reason there are Buddhist elements in the ruling isbecause of the judge’s discernment, but I think it also comes from the structure of the lawsuit.
Here what is suggested is that basic to the ruling is respect of personal
rights in the Constitution. The experience with Fukushima is also a large
factor. Here I will quote Nakajima Tetsuen. He applied the Buddhist spirit bysaying about the problem of ethical responsibility, “harmony for oneself andothers; have few desires and know what is enough.”
He tried to find a way for the Buddhist tradition to deal with current
environmental problems. Or put the other way, Japan’s religions had not been
putting sufficient effort into this issue. In the case of Germany, debates onenvironmental issues or life science issues have been proceeding within
Christian churches and are reflected in politics. In terms of the spiritual andcultural or ethical dimensions, debate is based on a religious culture and isadequately reflected even at academic conferences. Such debate is also
reflected in the courts and in government policies.
In the case of Japan, there is effort made by scientists, as is true in thetalks we are having today, and there are steady efforts at activities in regional
areas by politicians. There is some cooperation from scholars in the humanities but I think they have not been able to go so far as to have the confidence
to debate issues on a spiritual or cultural dimension. I think there is a seachange on this point occurring right now. We can point to personal rights andthe ruling based on Articles 13 and 25 of the Constitution.
And getting back to Nakajima Tetsuen, he is referring to “Path to a Zero
Nuclear Plant Society” published in April, 2014 by the Citizen’s Commission
on Nuclear Energy. In that document ethical viewpoints were emphasized.
I have been discussing Buddhism so far, but there is also a declaration
issued by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Japan. The declaration was put
out in November 2011, and thus predates the one by the Japan Buddhist
Federation. Other Christian churches also issued declarations around the same
time.

40

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 7 2016

At the outset, the Catholic Church regretted that it did not issue a
declaration calling for the ban of nuclear power plants before the 2011
Fukushima power plant disaster occurred. The same is true of the Protestantchurches. Of course, there are still people in the Catholic Church, Protestantchurches, and Japan Buddhist Federation who take the position that it is allright to proceed with nuclear power, however.
In this milieu, the fact that some among them dare to manifest theirintentions as groups means that they are putting much effort into the project
and as they have discussed the issues among them, they have managed tocome to the point they have reached today. I think this is what has changedin the last three years for both the Catholic Church and the Protestantchurches. In both instances, call it the mainstream perhaps, but the majority
have taken the position that nuclear power is not appropriate for the wellbeing of humanity or that they cannot approve of it in principle. I think the
Fukushima disaster has been a large factor in this turn-around.
Responsibility for future generations is greatly emphasized in the declaration by the Catholic Church. At the same time, it emphasizes the myth ofsafety, or in other words, that a great falsehood is part of nuclear power. This
also receives attention in the several declarations issued by the religious
world.
Also, nuclear power has the characteristic of causing division. As is statedin the German declaration, it will be by sharing the objective of abandoning
nuclear power and adopting renewal energy that we can transcend social
divisions. This can also be given as an example.
Here, too, this is being said based on Christianity. The Catholic Bishops’
Conference of Japan takes into consideration Japanese culture and says thatJapanese Catholics can share a commonality with Shinto and the Buddhist
religions. While the premise is that there are differences in culture and religion, they demonstrate a consciousness of finding ways to transcend thosedifferences.
This is where the term “honest poverty” comes into play. I mentioned
earlier the Buddhist expression, “have few desires and know what is enough,”but “honest poverty” is also found on the Christian side, and is often seen in
the lives of Catholic clergy. This is what they are saying.
As I mentioned earlier, this doesn’t appear much in the German ethics
report. If they stress this point, they will invite the counterargument, “butisn’t economic development important?” In order to reach wide agreement it
is perhaps best to delay using these expressions.
As a long-term goal, the concepts of not squandering resources, notdestroying the natural environment, not being wasteful, and not using excessive amounts of energy are central to a sustainable lifestyle. In terms of aQuestions Raised by the Nuclear Power Accident of March 11, 2011

41

time axis, I don’t think this can be realized right away. In that sense, thedeclarations made by the religious world do not say much about this.
I have written my own opinions about this. Would many people choose
to resign themselves to a life of honest poverty? This might be all right as areligious declaration aimed at those inside religious organizations, but whenit comes to public spaces, I think it is somewhat lame.
What I have been discussing so far is the declarations, but I think thatwhat the focus should be here in terms of the relationship between nuclear
power and religion is that religion has put down roots in regional communities. They cannot be cut off from regional environments. As I touched on a
few minutes ago, the government and prefectures look at the overall picture,
and adhere to using very large budgets. Accordingly, they value what can bedone in that way.
In contrast, people in local cities, towns, and villages know what is
important based on their own personal experiences. I think there is a gap
between the two sides. When it comes to which side religion is closest to, it
is clear that it is closer to local communities.
For example, if the Buddhist temple priests left the community, the basis
for their livelihood would disappear. Even if they oppose nuclear power, they
can’t leave. They are in an extremely difficult position.

The Nuclear Power Plant Disaster and Activities by Religious
In this milieu, they work together with the people who have remained
behind. Their representative is the chief monk at Jōenji Temple in Fukushima
City, Abe Kōyū. He has been working on decontamination. Of course, thegovernment has been doing decontamination on a large scale, but the first six
months to one-year period the government did almost nothing at all.
Nevertheless, children were living in that environment. No matter how manytimes they asked the bureaucrats, they did nothing, so the Buddhist priest
decided to do the work himself.
In areas where the doses for soil decontamination were high, Monk Abe
piled the soil up in his own temple grounds. The temple is in the outskirts oftown and so has some land and mountain forests. Thus, he provided his own
land and took responsibility for decontamination himself.
I joined him in this effort. There is a school route on the side of the temple.
The route still had a level of twenty millisieverts per year here and there forone year, two years, even three years after the disaster. Such places have tobe decontaminated frequently. Monk Abe has been doing that the entire time.
Jōenji Temple is a Sōtō Zen Buddhist temple, and the people who have been
helping him are other young monks from the temple and people from thelocal area. These were the people who were active in doing such work.

42

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 7 2016

Monk Abe goes by the hiragana nickname, “Monk Tsururin,” but his realname is composed of the kanji for “crane” and “grove.” Monk Tsururin has
involved himself in these issues with the local people in complete accordancewith his beliefs.
It’s that kind of temple. They laid out the plans inside the main hall of
the temple and made preparations. They are young monks. We watched theactivities of these young monks, who are in their thirties, with very mixed
feelings. Of course, we were concerned for them. There were some among
them who could have children in the future.
That is why we thought it was absolutely imperative to have senior citizen
volunteers, but it was difficult to bring this idea to fruition.
This is what Monk Tsururin said at the time. It was around the beginningof 2012. He said that he had mixed feelings when he tried to give people
gifts. He wondered if they would take the gifts or if they would throw themaway somewhere. While he was distressed about this, there were some monks
who were active with the local people. It wasn’t just Buddhist monks. There
were Protestant ministers and probably all kinds of people who were doing
this kind of steady, honest work.

Summary of the Non-ethical Nature of Nuclear PowerI think we have now come to have some degree of a coherent opinion on
the unethical nature of nuclear power after all of this. First, these kinds ofaccidents lead to catastrophic results.
This is something that Takagi Jinzaburō has been saying for some time,
but it is certain that something catastrophic will happen at some point and all
we can do is imagine what that catastrophe will be. If we say something, weare scolded for crying wolf. If such a thing does happen, terrible things
result. A “culture of death” occurs.
I think it would be more appropriate to say that we have a “culture ofdivisiveness” today, and an anxiety over the future that we can never shakeoff. What is going to happen? We live with the distress of being unable toforesee the future.
And “harm and considerable risk affect certain people.” This is thesacrifice. The one who argues this point coherently is the physicist, Professor
Ikeuchi Satoru. His arguments can be summarized into three points. The firstis coercion of local areas. These are regions on the margins with no village
industries. Such areas are targeted for the construction of nuclear power
plants. Then the nuclear power plant people sweeten the deal to increase thenumber of supporters. There are inevitably those who oppose the power
plants, so that’s where the divisiveness is caused. That’s where the supporters
throw large amounts of all different kinds of money at it. But once an acci-

Questions Raised by the Nuclear Power Accident of March 11, 201143

dent happens, damage extends to that entire region, and as we found out thistime, even to a far wide-ranging area.
Second, there are the laborers who are involved. There are many of thesepeople, including those who are at the nuclear power plants, processing
uranium and reprocessing. This time there are also people involved indecontamination. The concern now is that the number of laborers will fallshort. The number needed each day to do the work is several thousand,perhaps six thousand. It’s beyond our imagination to think of just how many
decades this will continue.
It is expected that there will be health problems from this. The subcontracting is very complex so we do not know if the health damage can actually
be tracked or not.
The third point is future generations. We must think of several thousandor tens of thousands of years. People in the future will truly receive nobenefit at all from nuclear power. If anything, they will bear the brunt of thenegative aspects and will be compelled to make tremendous efforts in orderto protect themselves against harm. This can only be described as an outrage.
Professor Ikeuchi’s argument is comprised of these three points; that is, hediscusses the coercion or the sacrifice that will occur.
What I have been emphasizing is the splintering of society caused by
nuclear power, as well as the corruption and loss of trust caused by money
and power. I’m talking about reports from industry, government, finance, andacademia. Even academics and journalists are included in generating reams ofdeception and lies. Scholars bought off by the government as a group holdpeculiar ideas based on certain beliefs that they put out continuously as if
they were objective. I think this is the problem with radiation.
For people who profit from nuclear power it seems like a good thing, butthere are always people who do not benefit. I think this structure of conflictis characteristic of nuclear power. It is destroying the base and foundation oftrust in society. Local people do not put much confidence in academia, thecurrent government, bureaucrats, or industry. Large newspapers are on theside of government and industry. In contrast, local newspapers tend to be
critical. This is what has happened and so society has become fractured as aresult.
I don’t think there was much of this in Germany. I am focusing on thefact that even then, Germany overcame the structure of division throughabandoning nuclear power. I think this is a very important point of view.
I mentioned this a few minutes ago, but sometimes when I say, “It’s moneyover life, isn’t it,” there are people who understand and agree. That is, inregional communities, people support each other’s lives. Within that construct
there is the environment, communities, and the life of each individual. And

44

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 7 2016

then there is the profit that is derived from making calculations on computers
through a tremendous profit structure. That is why things that look likeinsignificant damage are ignored.
Actually, those calculations are extremely dubious, but when people givenumerical value to things, there is room for duplicity. That is what I think ishappening.
In June, 2011, Murakami Haruki was one of the first to make an observation like that in his speech in Catalonia. Japanese made a momentous
mistake. After the war we said “we will never repeat the mistake,” but wehave been making light of our pledge. Why is that? For efficiency. That’s
what Murakami said.
Because we put our efforts into economic development, we still do not
fully understand the importance of what we experienced in the war. I think
we are now back at the point with Fukushima whereby we can grasp what we
failed to notice during the process of Japan’s modernization.

How Should We Accept Natural Disasters?
Lastly, what I will talk about next we can understand through what I’ve
already said about nuclear power. The damage from nuclear power on the
Sanriku coast was not that big, but it was felt within the construct of damage
from the tsunami. What I am quoting here is what people from theKonkō-kyō sectarian Shinto church in Tokyo said in an article in the Konkō
Shinbun as things stood in 2011.
One mother explained the disasters to her child as the earth sneezing andpassing gas. We are allowed to live thanks to the blessings of heaven andearth, but we humans have presumed to rearrange nature to make it moreuser-friendly for ourselves. But when the earth suddenly trembled, there wasa big tsunami.
This explanation does not use the concept of God, and does not say that
our religion teaches us such-and-such so things are this way. But I do think
this explanation teaches us something important.
If the theory of divine punishment is true, I think this view would be far
off the mark. But in Buddhism there is the term “true dharma,” which refers
to the idea that if you turn your back on the natural law, you will also upset
nature. I think this concept is also in Confucianism.
What’s different between this and divine punishment is that the person
who suffers is not responsible for that suffering. Humanity is responsible forderailing society overall. We are part of that, too. We must learn to reexamine
this idea. It is a notion in the Japanese religious perspective that fits thesituation exactly.
After the disaster, Miyazawa Kenji’s poem, “Ame ni mo makezu” (BeQuestions Raised by the Nuclear Power Accident of March 11, 201145

Not Defeated by the Rain) was often cited. Actually, the “fool” character inthis poem is the Jofukyo Bosatsu (Sadāparibhūta Bodhisattva) in the Lotus
Sutra. Miyazawa Kenji’s notes about this were found in his notebook after his
death. The problematic issue in the poem is the word, man (慢). This is theman of zōjōman (増上慢) or “conceited Zen.” The image is how the Jofukyo
Bosatsu, the Bodhisattva who is always disparaged, manages never todisparage anyone himself.
Thus, while we recognize that we have been extremely hubristic, we havebeen given a clue to how modern civilization, including our having had theatomic bomb dropped on us because of the war, and then our developing
nuclear power within that civilization, has erred. This is not just about
nuclear power; it includes the tsunami. I think we must recognize that thebuilding of that colossal levee must be considered as part of the sameproblem.
Many symposia have been held at a variety of venues since 2011. The
religious world also became deeply aware of the issue. Unless it can be said
that personal spirituality and what happens in society are unrelated, we haveto move from considering spirituality simply as a personal affair and reconsider the issue from the opposite angle, that is, as an ethical issue that occurs
in society and as a problem of spiritual culture. I think this is also whatsociety demands and what the religious world is attempting to address.