NO-NUKE Q&A

Published by The Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation,
the Anglican-Episcopal Church in Japan
Editor-in-chief of the original Japanese: Masaharu Kawata,
The Association to Help Chernobyl, Chubu, Japan
Translated from the original Japanese by Heeday
1st English edition edited by Louise Watson
2nd English edition edited by Rev. Dr. Henry French (ELCA)

【Introduction】
Things we should keep in mind —“For a World Without Nuclear Power Plants - The Anglican/Episcopal
Church in Japan Opposed to Nuclear Power Generation” (A resolutionof the 59th General Synod of Nippon Sei Ko Kai [The Anglican Episcopal
Church in Japan], May 23rd, 2012 .)As of the writing of the Japanese edition of this second edition, three
and a half years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake
in March 2011, where a meltdown occurred at Tokyo Electric Power
Company’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (“Fukushima I”). Little
improvement has been seen during these years in the circumstances of
those affected by the calamities. Most of the victims, especially thoseevacuated from the areas adjacent to the nuclear plant, are still unable
to return to their homelands. Residents who remain in areas close to thepower plant, particularly children, are still continuously exposed to thehazard of radiation.
Japan’s government, power companies, and its mass media claim thatthe meltdown is an accident of the past. They are even saying thatradiation exposure should not cause serious harm, while insisting thatwith additional safety measures in place, nuclear power is not only safe
but indispensable to Japan’s economic growth. Such voices are gaining
momentum.
Should we let such sentiments go unchallenged? In 2012, The Nippon
Sei Ko Kai (NSKK) published a statement entitled “For a World Without
Nuclear Power Plants –The Anglican/Episcopal Church in Japan Opposed
to Nuclear Power Generation.” The statement clarified many of theissues involved in nuclear power. The church took no particular politicalstance, but firmly stood on its vital mission which was to protect “lives”
created and given by God. This statement, however, has yet to be fullycommunicated to the church’s clergy and laity.

It is only natural to have a wide array of opinions on the same issue within
the church. Some individuals might not be opposed to nuclear power.
Regardless, further discussion is necessary for us to consider among
ourselves what the Christian Gospel says about this matter which affects
so many people. From this perspective, the statement is of importance to
the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (NSKK).
The Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation, NSKK, has prepared thissecond edition of its Q&A booklet, which is a collection of common
questions concerning nuclear power generation. We hope this Q&A will
initiate constructive discussions on the issue among readers.
Rev. Akira Iwaki, Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation, NSKKIn this Q&A, we will address the following questions and issues
1.

Why does the church take up nuclear power as an issue?

1

2.

What was happening at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi on March 11th, 2011?

2

3.

Does nuclear energy alleviate global warming?

44.

What is the essence of nuclear power generation? (“The Peaceful use of 		

5

nuclear energy” – is it possible?)
Diagram of a nuclear power plant (boiling water reactor)

8

Diagram of a nuclear power plant (pressurized water reactor)

85.

Where do nuclear fuels come from? What is happening there?

96.

What happens to all the nuclear waste?

107.

Are nuclear power plants safe, unless they are hit by an earthquake or 		

12

tsunami?
8.

Is nuclear power really cheaper in comparison?

14

Comparison of power generation costs (pro forma calculation by Professor

16

Oshima).
If a power company runs into the red, will we have a power rate hike?

17

10. Do nuclear power plants create jobs and revitalize depopulated 			18

9.

communities?
11. Voices from the contaminated areas – Internal exposure to radiation and the20

future of children
12. Radiation for medical use and radiation from nuclear plants – How do they24

differ from each other?
13. How is TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi today?

25

14. What problems are there with decommissioning TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi?

27

15. What are the realities of nuclear power plant workers?

29

16. Will Japan restart its nuclear power plants?

31

Where the plants are in Japan (map)33

17. What about power shortages and alternative energy sources?

34

18. So, what should Japan do, after it becomes free of nuclear power?

35

19. What about other nuclear power plants in Asia?

37

20. Is Germany going free of nuclear power?

39

21. Our repentance and efforts40[1] Why does the church take up nuclear power as an issue?
Many say that nuclear power is an issue related to science, technology, andeconomy. No doubt a church cannot make any decisive, expert statement
about an issue like this. Still, if it affects the lives of people as well as all
the creatures of this created world, we Christians have to fight against
whatever is a threat to “lives,” since we believe God has created lives and isgiving life to them all. One of our baptismal vows goes, “Do you renounce
the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures ofGod?” and we respond, “I renounce them.” This vow is not limited to someinner issues of the soul but actually covers the whole physical world aswell. The whole world is God’s creations.
The statement adopted by the General Synod of the Japanese Anglican
Province points out some grave problems in nuclear power:
1. threatens God-given life
2. destroys nature created by God, and3. destroys God-given livelihood.
Thus, the statement calls for a major transformation of energy policies,
which affect our own lifestyles, in search of a world free from nuclear
power.
< Anglicans’ mission >Some lay people of the Anglican Communion are engaged in the nuclear
industry. Their work involves a degree of danger on a daily basis toensure everything runs smoothly --- distressing situations and occasional
exposure to radiation. Their hard work must be respected. Even if weabolish nuclear power plants, we are in need of these nuclear engineers
and workers for years to come to take care of what remains after theabolishment. Well aware of these facts, the church should still call for-1-abolishment of nuclear power and head toward a world free of such a
dangerous energy source, for the sake of the life of whole creation, bothpresent and future.
In consensus, the Anglican Communion from all over the world has thefollowing five objectives as their mission:
1) To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
2) To teach, baptize and nurture new believers3) To respond to human need by loving service4) To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violenceof every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation
5) To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, sustenance, and renewalof life on earth
In accordance to these aims, Christians need to seriously consider issues
about nuclear energy and radiation, and heed God’s messages.

[2] What was happening at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi on
March 11th, 2011?
What destroyed TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP)?
While the Japanese government and TEPCO’s Accident Investigation
Commissions claim the tsunami did it, the National Diet’s Accident
Investigation Commission says part of the destruction is ascribable tothe earthquake. Since this is an issue that greatly affects the future safetymeasures of NPPs, as well as accountability of the national government
and TEPCO, the Nuclear Regulation Authority and TEPCO are carrying on
their own investigations, respectively.

-2-

Around 3:30pm, March 11th, 2011, at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP, allof the four units (reactors) at work lost their external AC power supply.
Without an external supply of power, a reactor goes out of control, with its
cooling water no longer running. The cooling water’s temperature keeps
rising and turning into steam which increases the internal pressure of thereactor. The fuel rods, no longer covered by cooling water, break down
one by one. In this way, from March 11th through the 13th, a reactor core
meltdown began and worsened in the NPP’s Units 1, 2, and 3, one by one.
In addition, the metal covering up the fuel rods worked as a catalyst,
electrically decomposing the water (steam) in the reactors into hydrogenand oxygen. This resulted in explosions which destroyed both the reactors
and their external buildings. This naturally resulted in the emission ofradioactive substances, which contaminated much of the JapaneseArchipelago, especially eastern Japan.
It is assumed that the greatest emission of radioactive substances took
place following those hydrogen explosions. The information spreadby the Japanese government concerning this emission, however, wasinappropriate. Also inappropriate were comments many experts made in
the mass media. If such information was manipulated, the manipulators
were guilty of a grave sin. Unit 4 was not in operation at that time, yetsimilar hydrogen explosions hit Unit 4 on March 15th, destroying its
external building. The cause of those explosions has yet to be identified,though the government says that hydrogen from Unit 3 might havecaused the explosions in Unit 4.
Another issue that remains to be clarified is whether or not thecountermeasures taken at the NPP were adequate. NPPs can, by their very-3-

nature, run out of control. They are dangerous. Their working mechanism
relies on chain reactions of nuclear fission, which means they rely on an
atomic bomb explosion slowed down. In addition, human errors canaggravate the situation. Today, the situation of Fukushima Daiichi is quite
serious and its future is in the dark.

[3] Does nuclear energy alleviate global warming?
Prior to the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown, caused by the great earthquakeof March 2011, some arguments were widespread that nuclear power
was the key to the alleviation of global warming—for instance, in the TVcommercials of power companies. Today, once again, some are spreading
the propaganda that nuclear power is a “necessary evil” to alleviate
global warming. True, nuclear power stations do not generate CO2 while
generating power. The facts presented below, however, make it obviousthat nuclear power plants (NPPs) do not alleviate global warming.
First, a NPP has to turn cooling water (primary cooling water) into steam.
This water cools down the reactor, which generates high heat, which turns
the water into steam. This steam, in turn, works the power generating
turbine. In this process, only around 1/3 of the total heat generated
produces electricity. The remaining 2/3 of the heat is transferred to thesecondary cooling water by a mechanism called a steam condenser.
This heated secondary cooling water is simply disposed into the sea. A
1-million kW reactor needs some 70 metric tons (some 154,355 lbs.) of
cooling water every single second. If all of the 54 reactors in Japan today
were fully working, they would heat up some 100 billion metric tons
(220 billion lbs.) of the sea water around them by 7 degrees C (12.6 F), on
average. This gigantic volume of water is equivalent to 25% of the annual-4-flow volume combined of all the rivers of Japan. Rather than alleviating
global warming, NPPs are gigantic sea water warmers.
Also, the NPP’s fuel is made from uranium ores which contain only 0.3 to
0.7% of natural uranium. This tiny portion of natural uranium contains
only 0.7% of “fissile” (usable as NPP fuel) uranium 235. Thus, they need to
extract natural uranium out of uranium ores and process it into powder
called “yellow cake.” Then they use centrifugal separators to increase theU235 concentration to 5% . This concentration is further processed ata reconversion plant into uranium dioxide powder. This powder is baked
into “pellets,” cylinders 1cm (0.4”) in diameter and 1cm in length. Thesepellets are assembled together to form a fuel assembly. Needless to say,each and every process described above consumes immense quantities ofenergy (electricity). Though there currently is no accurate data available
on how much electricity these processes consume, one thing certain isthat such electricity comes from thermal power stations.
The two considerations above clearly show that nuclear power generation
is not the way to alleviate global warming. Power companies are sayingthat a NPP emits no CO2 “while it is in operation.” That much is true.
Yet when you look at the whole nuclear energy system, it is emitting a
tremendous volume of the gas.

[4] What is the essence of nuclear power generation? (“ThePeaceful use of nuclear energy” – is it possible?)
A nuclear power plant uses energy from nuclear fission to produce
steam, which activates the power generator to generate electricity. A
reactor consists mainly of three components: the fuel—uranium 235-5-

(concentrated to a density of 3 to 5% , in the shape of a rod)—the control
rods that control the neutrons within the reactor (inserted among the fuelrods to absorb neutrons to control the fission), and the coolant (water).
In a boiling water reactor, like Fukushima Daiichi, the water that cools
down the reactor core moves directly to the power generator to activate
its turbine. Thus, contaminated steam travels outside the containment.
A pressurized water reactor, meanwhile, consists of the primary coolingwater system, which rotates inside the reactor. Its heat is transferred by aheat exchanger to the secondary cooling water, which then travels outside
the reactor. The cooling water generates steam to rotate the power
generator to produce electricity.
With fossil fuels running out, nuclear power generation has enchanted
people who are concerned over the remaining amounts of fossil fuels.
However, we have yet to find a way to process radioactive waste. A single
major accident, therefore, can lead to a catastrophe, like the one thatbegan on March 11th, 2015, one which will impact countless people bothin the present and in the future. This is something we have witnessed.
In an earthquake-prone country like Japan, multiple safety mechanisms
can break down, for instance, an earthquake can damage multiple joints
among various machines simultaneously. This is a danger any lay person
can understand.
Nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants both use uranium and/or
plutonium as the fuel. The uranium enrichment process, which is a mustin preparing fuels for NPPs, can, if it goes on beyond the NPP fuel grade,
produce weapon-grade fuel, which contain more than 90% of fissile
uranium. In short, slow down the fission and you have a NPP; let the-6-fission occur at once and you have an atomic bomb. Thus, if you have thetechnology to run a NPP, you are also capable of producing atomic bombs.
One can believe that the Japanese government possesses the technology
necessary to produce atomic bombs, though it has yet to produce sucha bomb. Yet can the government’s policy maintain the nation’s security?
Nuclear energy has already sacrificed the lives of countless victims. We,
the church of Christ, must seek for genuine peace. Japan, a country thathas experienced nuclear holocausts, must be a leader in setting the world
free from the dangers of nuclear power, voluntarily abandoning any ability
to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

-7-

-- A boiling water reactor’s mechanism ---- A pressurized water reactor’s mechanism ---8-[5] Where do nuclear fuels come from? What is happening
there?
Nuclear power plants uses fuel that comes mainly from uranium ores.
Major producers of this raw material include Canada, Australia, andKazakhstan; Japan utilizes imports from Australia, Canada, Namibia,
and Niger to power its nuclear plants. As a result, many people in thesecountries are suffering from severe exposure to radiation. Most isotopes
in uranium ores have a half-life of some 4.5 billion years, nearly equal
to the age of our planet. Ores are mined where natives of the land havelong been living with the blessings of Mother Nature. Prior to the digging
process, the natives are first ousted from their land. Many are then hired
as mining workers to dig for uranium. In most instances, no masks or
gloves are provided to those workers, to say nothing of protective suits.
Therefore, their exposure to radiation often has deadly effects to personal
wellbeing.
Furthermore, such deadly effects are not only limited to humans but
also to nature’s surroundings. The heaps of slag and disposed soil areabandoned around the mine over countless acres of land thus creating agigantic pool of radioactive rain water and contaminating undergroundwater. Hence, internal exposure by local residents to α -, β -, and γ rays is inevitable, exposed to gamma rays, ingesting uranium isotopes into
their bodies through contaminated food and water, and inhaling radon
scattered in the atmosphere. Radiation exposure via these three routes isunavoidable in any uranium mine. These ores are refined into flakes called“yellow cake,” and further processed and enriched into nuclear fuels.

-9-< The heavy price of uranium mining >Radioactive contamination is widespread and damage on theenvironment is irreversible. There are various reported cases of mortality,
including lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems,congenital abnormalities, infertility, and deformities, among the residents
including the natives and others. These facts show that the entire processof uranium mining and processing has a structure that exposes countless
people to radiation. In other words, nuclear power cannot exist, without
sacrificing impoverished people in and around mining sites.
We, as Christians, consider what is done to “the least people” are doneto Christ himself (Gospel of Matthew 26:40). Nuclear power generation
stands only at the sacrifice of impoverished people. This is an indisputable
fact.

[6] What happens to all the nuclear waste?
The main fuel of a nuclear power plant (NPP), uranium, is mined as ore,
which is then refined, converted, enriched, and re-converted. In theend, the uranium is molded into cylindrical pellets, around 1cm (0.4”)
in diameter and in length. These pellets are sealed inside a tube of azirconium alloy, known as “fuel rods.” A single reactor typically has about
20,000 to 60,000 fuel rods at any one time.
The huge amount of used nuclear fuel produced by NPPs has the deadliest
toxicity among all the substances existent on earth. Such waste mustbe isolated from the environment over some 100,000 years. First, such
fuel waste needs to be cooled down for several years in storage pools
within the reactor’s external building so that the heat, remaining in the- 10 -

fuel as it decays, does not melt them down. After this cooling process,the used fuel is taken out of the pools and carried into a reprocessing
plant. Here, they extract uranium and plutonium (which are usable in the
production of nuclear weapons). The remaining liquid waste from the fuelis melted at a high temperature with glass and then poured into stainlesssteel containers (canisters). Each canister is 134cm (52.8”) in height and43cm (17”) in diameter. Such waste is known as “high-level radioactive
waste” and it emits powerful radiation which can kill a person nearby in a
moment. High level radioactive waste also radiates considerable heat as it
continues to decay.
Those canisters are temporarily stored at a storage facility for 30 to 50
years. Then, they are to be buried within rock some 300m (333 yard)
below the surface of the ground until their radioactivity comes down
sufficiently—for some waste this will be several dozens of millennia. Suchunderground repositories are the plan currently proposed for nuclear
waste. Still, the final disposal technology has yet to be developed. Manyexperts doubt that Japan has any geological environment suitable forsuch a repository. Unlike Europe, the Japanese Archipelago is prone toearthquakes and the consequent eruption of underground material
happens throughout Japan. In an environment like this, there can be
no underground repository for high-level nuclear waste. Furthermore,claiming to be able to keep such waste safe for 100,000 years to come,which is way beyond the time scale of human history, is a sign ofarrogance.
To be treated as “low-level radioactive waste” are those fuel rod tubes,
control rods, waste from the piping, liquid waste, filters, protective suits,
and other low-level radioactive substances that nevertheless can affect- 11 -

humans. They are contained within drums and sealed in cement. Then,the sealed waste is buried in holes of reinforced concrete built 4m below
the surface of the ground or deeper. Such waste is to be stored for threecenturies.
Also, uranium ore must go through many processing steps to be madeinto nuclear fuel. As Japan imports already-enriched uranium fuel, thenation has no refinement or conversion plants. It is wholly dependent on
outside processors for the treatment of radioactive wastes resulting fromuranium processing.
The late Prof. Satoshi Kurata summarized these practices and plans as“throwing nuclear waste into a box called ‘the future.’” Moreover, theprocess of extracting and enriching uranium 235 leaves behind massive
amounts of waste containing non-fissile uranium 238, which U.S. forces
use to produce depleted uranium ammunition. Such depleted uranium (U238) was used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, causing leukemia andbirth defects in numerous people, including children.

[7] Are nuclear power plants safe, unless they are hit by anearthquake or tsunami?
The Fukushima meltdown has proven that nuclear plants can cause
tremendous hazards and damage when hit by an earthquake ortsunami, and in the case of March 11, both. Even now, some pro-nukes
claim that: “That disaster was beyond any expectation. With sufficientcountermeasures for earthquakes, nuclear power plants (NPPs) can bemade safe.” The plain fact, however, is that a NPP is utterly dangerous andcan stand only upon the sacrifices of the socially weak, even without an- 12 -

earthquake or tsunami.
Reactors have to go offline every 13 months to undergo a 3-month routine
inspection. The process requires workers to enter the reactor’s containment
vessel, where they are exposed to very high doses of radiation. A single
routine inspection requires more than 3,000 workers. Thus, even without
an accident, those workers (especially, those working for subcontractors
and day workers) experience exposure to deadly doses of radiation.
Though the relevant regulations have exposure limits for nuclear plant1

workers—not to be higher than 50mSv a year and 100mSv over a periodof five years—such limits are often simply ignored at work sites. Workers
first enter the containment vessel with a dosimeter and, when the meter
alarm rings, they remove it, finding the noise a nuisance. The result is that
we see more cancer patients among these workers than in the generalpublic. With all things considered, these plants cannot operate without
the sacrifice of the workers.
Those laborers working within a NPP are clad in a work suit and shoes
which become contaminated as they work. The water with which those
items are washed is also contaminated. Such water, however, is simply
disposed of into the sea. After every routine checkup, several tons ofcontaminated water run into the sea every single minute. And we havewitnesses to the fact that no adequate processing of waste water is done.
Furthermore, tritium, a radioactive substance, is among the major issues at
Fukushima Daiichi today. Humans have no way to process this substance.
And outside the Fukushima disaster, Japan’s NPPs are throwing out some
20 trillion Becquerel of this hazardous substance each year in the waste
water coming from the plants. Also, the high-rising exhaust towers of NPPs
emit rare radioactive gases like xenon and krypton every day. The industry
has yet to develop technologies to contain all the radioactive substances
within a NPP.

- 13 -

High-level radioactive waste from consuming nuclear fuels at a NPP isdeadly. If a person gets close to it, he/she will die within 20 seconds.
And it takes some 100,000 years for the waste to reach a safe level ofradioactivity. Until 1969, barrels of radioactive waste were thrown into the
Pacific off the coast of Chiba Prefecture (east of Tokyo). In 1972, however,the United Nations adopted the London Convention, which prohibited
such disposal. The Convention was ratified by Japan in 1980. For thisreason, the nation does not throw drums of radioactive waste into the sea
anymore.
Today, much of such radioactive waste is brought to the Rokkasho
Reprocessing Plant instead, to be buried in containments underground2(underground repository) later on. However, the Science Council of Japan
has argued against such methods, deeming them unsuitable for Japan’searthquake-prone geology.
In addition, dismantling a NPP whose lifetime is over generates hugevolumes of radioactive waste. Can such waste be buried too? As long as
NPPs keep working, we will have more and more deadly radioactive waste
which has nowhere to go.
1. Sievert (sV) is a unit of measurement indicating how much effect radiation has
on a human body exposed to it.
2. Designed to bury such waste deep under the ground[8] Is nuclear power really cheaper in comparison?
The costs of power generation, as announced by the Japanese
government in March 2011, is 5 to 6 yen per kW-hour for nuclear power, 7
to 8 for liquefied natural gas, and 8 to 13 for hydropower. However, many
experts point out that these values are estimated based on model plants
and are far from the actual costs.
- 14 -

Professor Ken’ichi Ohshima (College of International Relations,
Ritsumeikan University), has calculated the “actual” power generation
costs over the time period of 1970 through 2010, arguing that the actual
costs borne by the public are what we should watch out for. In short, if
we include: (1) costs directly incurred by power generation operations(i.e., depreciation, fuel, maintenance, etc.) and (2) policy-related costs(i.e., the costs of technology development, the costs to win the approvalof the municipality hosting the plant), the “actual” cost would be 10.25
yen for nuclear power, 9.91 for thermal power, and 7.19 for hydropower.
Regardless, these values do not factor in expenses for accidents or theprocessing and disposal of used nuclear fuel. The professor adds thatthe costs should also include environmental costs, measures to prevent
climate change, accident damages and compensation, the cost ofcontrolling accidents, decommissioning reactors, recovery from accident
damages, administrative fees, and etc.
Although Japanese consumers are not informed, the amount billed to be
paid monthly covers:• Power generation and transmission expenditures;• A levy for the Renewable Energy Fund (added in 2012);• A consumption tax and power resources development tax used tomaintain and promote nuclear power plants.
The Japanese government’s fiscal 2011 budget for nuclear power was
433 billion yen. Some 40% of the funds were spent on measures to build
power plants, while another 40% was utilized by the Japan Atomic Energy
Agency, for the Monju Power Plant, Japan’s fast breeder reactor thatclaims to establish nuclear fuel recycling. So far, it has not yet operated
commercially, while consuming some 60 million yen of taxpayers’ money
daily. In the current electricity billing system, a power company is allowed- 15 -

to charge consumers the total cost + profit, set to a certain ratio to thecost. Therefore, they have no need to try reducing their costs.
In this post-Fukushima era, while aware of the sufferings of many victims
of nuclear power, we have not yet reached a general consensus about
handling used nuclear fuel and about the aftermath of the Fukushimadisaster. We have simply left these deadly issues to our descendants. We
cannot remain ignorant of the government’s efforts to restart nuclear
plants in Japan. Everyone needs to be aware of both the financial andhuman costs of nuclear power, as well as the many other issues related to
power generation.

Comparison of power generation costs, shown in charts (pro forma
calculation by Professor Oshima)

Costs calculated by the Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry(yen/kW-hr, 2004)- 16 -

Costs calculated by Professor Ken’ichi Oshima(yen/kW-hr, average over 1970 through 2007)

[9] If a power company runs into the red, will we have a powerrate hike?
Japan’s electric power companies are protected by the Act onCompensation for Nuclear Damage of 1961. This Act has been reviewed
every decade and the 2009 revision limits the compensation to be paidby a power company to 120 billion yen. The Act sets forth that, “in caseof an extraordinary natural disaster or a social turmoil, the electric powercompany operating the nuclear power plant in question shall be held
exempt from legal responsibilities.”
The compensation scheme for the Fukushima disaster, officiallydetermined on May 13th, 2011, held that the Nuclear Damage
Compensation Facilitation Corporation (“the Corporation” hereafter)
should be founded, if Tokyo Electric Power Company (“TEPCO”) is tosurvive. Under the lead of the Corporation, the other power companies
and the government should help TEPCO finance its compensation. The Act
also contains a clause saying, “In case there is a factor affecting the stablesupply of power, the national government can pay the compensations inplace of TEPCO.”
According to TEPCO’s financial statements for 2012, the Corporation,
which was established by the Act on the Nuclear Damage Compensation
Facilitation Corporation (August 10th, 2011), owned some 55% of TEPCO’s stock. The Corporation should provide financial help of some 3 trillion
yen to TEPCO to pay the compensation due. This is a separate accountfrom that of the 120 billion yen needed to comply with the Act onCompensation for Nuclear Damage. The 3 trillion is authorized by the“Corporation Act,” which states that financial help should be granted- 17 -

to a power company applying for it. In reality, TEPCO is exempted from
responsibility for the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, while all the citizens ofJapan are forced to pay for the compensation in the form of a hike in theirelectricity bills and taxation.
Furthermore, a power company is protected from going bankrupt.
A power company’s “full cost” is the sum of all business expenses(depreciation, operation costs, taxes, etc.) and the profit (business profits).
The rates for power are determined to guarantee a return of the “full cost”
to the power company. The profit is obtained by multiplying the “ratebase” by the “profit rate.” This “rate base” refers to the “assets” owned by
the power company. And an Act concerning power companies allows “apower company to add some % of its assets to its profit.” Such “assets”
include, among other items, “specific investments,” which covers nuclear
reactors. A single reactor usually costs more than 500 billion yen tobuild, and nuclear fuel storage, research and development, etc., also takegigantic costs. Thus, the more nuclear power plants a power company
owns and runs, the more its rate base expands resulting in greater profits,
at the cost of consumers who are paying for it.

[10] Do nuclear power plants create jobs and revitalize
depopulated communities?
Historically, nuclear power generation originated from a militarytechnology: atomic bombs. Some people had introduced it to Japan.
During the years of Kakuei Tanaka’s tenure (1972 to 1974), the Act on theDevelopment of Areas Adjacent to Electric Power Generating Facilities wasenacted to promote nuclear energy. In 1974, Japan established the “grantsystem (to municipalities hosting a nuclear plant)”, in compliance with the- 18 -

“three Power Development Acts”:
・Act on Promotion of Power Resources Development Tax
・Act on Special Accounts for Electric Power Development Acceleration
Measures・Act on the Development of Areas Adjacent to Electric Power Generating
Facilities
To finance this grant system, every household in Japan pays an additional
110 yen monthly, as part of its electricity bill. 51 % of this tax money
collected, some 330 billion yen annually goes to the affiliated organizationsof the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority(formerly called the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization), etc., which
welcome many retired national government officials. The remaining 49%
are spent to “promote the economy” of municipalities hosting nuclear
plants. This system tramples on those engaged in most dangerous jobs--- those who dig for uranium ores, replaces reactor fuel rods, work on
regular plant inspections, engaged in the processing of radioactive waste,
and so on. This is evidence that nuclear power generation stands upon thesacrifice of those who are the poorest and most oppressed in society. At
the top of this hierarchy, economic giants are the ones making money outof it.
< Nuclear power as regional discrimination >Because of space constrains in suburbs and major cities, nuclear plants
are mostly located in depopulated regions where lands are in abundance.
Among other similarities, such areas are where local economies do
not prosper, leaving the municipalities poorer, compared to their city
counterparts. Notably, Fukui Prefecture is located some 100km awayfrom Osaka, having 15 nuclear reactors altogether, leaving it host of the- 19 -

largest number of nuclear stations in all of Japan. The reactors are mostly
concentrated in the south, suggesting a possible dispute between thenorthern and southern regions within the prefecture. To make mattersworse, its contingency plans are deplorable --- if a major incident hits anyof those reactors, the residents in its vicinities have no designated escaperoutes in such emergencies.
In addition, the Fukushima I meltdown has leaked so much radiation,
endangering many lives and countless local communities are broken
down in the process. It is eminent that nuclear plants actually exhaust anddestroy the regions hosting them. Clearly, many poverty-stricken areas are
hosting nuclear plants under the nuclear industry’s pretense of “regional
economy development”.

[11] Voices from the contaminated areas -- Internal exposure
to radiation and the future of children
Internal exposure takes place when radioactive substances enter yourbody, whether by atomic bombs, nuclear tests, nuclear plant accidents, oreven though breathing, drinking, eating, and open wounds on your body.
A body’s exposure to radiation results in subtle cell defects, which combinewith other factors to develop into complex illnesses like cancer or genetic
problems. Children are the ones most at risk because while growing up,
their cells are going through more frequent divisions, compared to adults.
Therefore, they are more susceptible to radiation hazards.
As of December, 2013, the Citizen’s Healthcare Committee issued a reportabout the residents’ thyroid examination results. According to the report,out of 269,354 residents below 18 years of age who were inspected, 33- 20 -

were diagnosed to have thyroid cancer, with 41 other cases suspected.
Prior to the Chernobyl disaster, it was common knowledge that theincidence rate of thyroid cancer among children was several cases out of amillion. This simple comparison shows that Fukushima is experiencing anabnormal ratio. As more surveys and inspections develop in the coming
years, we need to take its results seriously. Fukushima Medical University,
who jointly conducted the abovementioned survey with the Fukushima
Prefectural Government, says those thyroid cancer cases detected were“not ascribable to the effects from the meltdown,” leaving most parents
anxious over their children’s future. In the coming years, all 360,000
residents should be screened for the likehood of thyroid cancer.
< Hazards on the table — >Risks of internal exposure are higher if you consume food contaminatedwith radioactive cesium. Presently, foodstuffs from Fukushima Prefecture
have passed the government’s radioactivity inspection. Even so, countlessparents are looking out for every piece of information available about theamount of radiation in food in order to protect their children. Following
the meltdown, kids are seldom seen playing outdoors in Fukushima.
Needless to say, decontamination work is mostly done at public areas likeparks and school yards. Some places are reportedly contaminated again
only several months after their decontamination work was completed.
Such places need to be decontaminated over and over again.
Fukushima City’s government has been carrying out internal exposure
examinations using WBCs since November 2012. This examination isprovided upon request, for different age groups and areas. The Whole
Body Counter (WBC) is a machine that measures radioactivity within thehuman body. As radioactive cesium naturally decays into barium, it also

- 21 -

emits some γ - rays. Financed by the reconstruction budget, free medical
services are provided to children below 18 years of age, since October
2012. Nonetheless, such provisions are expected to end in six years’ time.
So, what should we do with the children after that? Parent’s worries overtheir children’s welfare are endless. The national and local governments,
as well as TEPCO have to bear the responsibility to enable continuousradiation monitoring and communicate correct information to parents.

- 22 -

****“Refresh (Retreat)” programs
Organized by the Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation

*
*
*
*

Many children in Fukushima cannot play outdoors due to radiation. The
Project, therefore, runs retreat programs for them. Every month, children go on
a day trip where they have a great time playing under the sun, unafraid of thedirt and the wind.

At Showa Forest, Inawashiro Town
(Photo: children of St. Paul’s Kindergarten,
October 2013)
With more Fukushima children becoming
obese, the Project considers some new forms
of indoor exercises.
(Photo: Wakamatsu Seiai Kindergarten,
September 2013)

During the summer vacation period, the Project holds camps and travel opportune
ities for Fukushima families.
(Photo: vacation in Takashima Island, Nagasaki Prefecture in southern Japan, July 2013)- 23 -

[12] Radiation for medical use and radiation from nuclear
plants -- How do they differ from each other?
How does exposure to medical-use radiation differ from radiation from
nuclear power plants? A radial ray (radioactivity) refers to a particle beam
or electromagnetic ray emitted from decay of a radioactive element.
Commonly, it refers to ionized radiation. If such rays hit atoms or moleculesof a substance, it ionizes them in the process. Thus, it does atomic-scale
harm to genes of not just humans but to any creatures as well. Still, there
have been some medical uses of radiation, since their benefits outweightheir harms. For instance, x-ray used in radiography is an electromagnetic
ray of a short wave length, used to see what is inside the body. Radioactive
rays are also utilized in chemotherapies, concentrated on cancerous
cells to destroy it. Though it has adverse effects upon the human body,radioactivity in such medical treatments is lower compared to thoseemitted by nuclear power stations and the aftereffects aren’t long lasting.
On the other hand, thermal energy generated by chain reactions of
nuclear fission is used to produce electrical power. Nuclear fission of 1g
of uranium-235 creates thermal energy equivalent to some 2,000 liter(12.6 barrels) of fossil fuel. The Fukushima I meltdown is leaking out
plenty of radioactive substances into the atmosphere, whose radiation isaffecting everyday life. Unlike medical-use radiation, nuclear power plants
continuously emit radiation that affects lives indiscriminately.
< Precise damages yet to be confirmed >What happens when you are exposed to different levels of radiation?
Though experts are divided over this question, acute disorders usuallyrefer to those that emerge within a short period of time after accumulated- 24 -

exposure to 100mSv or higher in a short time period. Though the body has
the ability to restore itself, exposure to 100mSv or more in a short periodof time has permanent effect beyond its self-healing capacity, experts
say. If the exposure level exceeds 250mSv, the white blood cell countdeclines temporarily, according to experts. Exposure to less than 100mSv
during a short period of time, on the other hand, raises concerns overlong-term damages. In such cases, the actual results differ, dependingon the radiation dose you receive. It is believed that the smaller the dose,the lesser the radiation effects. The annual dose permitted to the generalpublic by Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is 1mSv. The dose
received in a group radiograph inspection of the chest is 0.05mSv, and in achest CT scan you are exposed to 6mSv. Both are temporary exposures. In
normal conditions, a radiation worker’s annual permitted dose is 50mSv.
While in hospitals and university labs, there are some “radiation controlledareas.” These are areas with the risk of exposure to 5mSv and above, hence
off-limits to the general public. After the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe,such places are classified as an immediate evacuation zone. Following
the Fukushima I meltdown, the threshold for evacuation is 20mSv a year.
In this respect, it should be distinguished from medical uses of radiation.
As for the effects of long-term continuous effects of low-level radiation,
experts do not have sufficient case studies or data and there is no precise
findings thus far.

[13] How is TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi today?
In the bid to host the 2020 Olympiad, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe claimed
that “the contaminated water (from Fukushima Daiichi) is under complete
control.” Now, what evidence did he have, for this claim?

- 25 -

At the nuclear power plant (NPP), on March 11th, 2011, the earthquake
and tsunami destroyed the external power supply to the NPP, disabling
the reactors’ containment vessel cooling systems. This led to themeltdown of the nuclear fuel, which in turn resulted in explosions inreactor buildings. A tremendous amount of radioactive substances werereleased, contaminating much of the atmosphere, soil, and sea aroundthe NPP. Now, radioactive substances are being detected in rice andother cereals, beans, seafood, meat, milk, drinking water, and other foods.
Such substances are being detected in many places outside Fukushima
Prefecture as well.
Since then, the Japanese government has been attempting todecontaminate the affected areas. How can humans, however,decontaminate mountains and an ocean? The workers removed thesurface soil from the contaminated ground, yet they have found nopermanent storage for the soil, and no one knows what to do with it.
Another deadly issue is the leakage of contaminated water from the NPP,
which still continues three years after the meltdown began. (Translator’s note: as of 2014. In January 2016, the leakage still continues.) To cool
down the nuclear fuels inside the containments, they have to keep
pouring in some 370 metric tons (815,876 lbs.) of cooling water every day.
To store contaminated cooling water collected from the reactors, TEPCO
has built hundreds of water storage tanks, each having a capacity of 1,000
metric tons. Yet in August 2013, some 300 tons of highly contaminatedwater leaked out of a storage tank installed on the ground. As of 2014,
TEPCO has yet to identify where this leakage took place. Some trenches
around the reactors are carrying highly contaminated water, some 20
million times above the national standard, and tritium, cesium, and- 26 -

other radioactive substances are running into the Pacific. Though thegovernment is trying to surround the whole NPP premises with concrete
walls to stop this leakage, this attempt to contain contamination has yet
to prove successful.
The workers involved in counter-contamination efforts are also in adangerous situation. Japan’s Industrial Safety and Health Act sets theupper limit of a NPP worker’s exposure dosage to 50mSv a year, and 100
mSv over a time period of five years. In reality, however, countless workers
are experiencing exposure well beyond these limits. Naturally, the worksite is losing more and more experienced workers, which impedes thecounter-contamination work.
Many mountains and much of the sea are contaminated. The
decontamination efforts are sluggish. The counter-contamination
work is progressing poorly. Numerous residents of Fukushima and thesurrounding area are still exposed to radiation daily. Many of thoseresidents’ families are living separately, out of their hometowns. Many
serious problems remain, and there is no clue in sight as to how to solve
any of them. In spite of all this, some in the Japanese government andbusiness world are trying to restart NPPs and export NPPs to Turkey andother countries. Their sins are grave. Also, if we remain silent about theseacts, we should be held accountable as well.

[14] What problems are there with decommissioning TEPCO’s
Fukushima Daiichi?
A decision was made in April 2013 to decommission Units 1 thorough 4of TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). The remaining- 27 -

two reactors, Units 5 and 6, which were under a routine checkup when
the tsunami hit them in March 2011, are also to be decommissioned, as
determined on January 31st, 2014. Thus, all six units of the NPP are to
be decommissioned. Now, safely decommissioning a NPP that caused amajor disaster is much harder than decommissioning one that has safely
run out its life. The meltdown has not, and shows no sign of, “settling
down.” One problem after another is still besetting the NPP. The workof decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi can begin only after all the usednuclear fuel that is kept in the storage pools, as well as fuel that melted
down, has been collected. Many think three to four decades will benecessary to complete this decommissioning.
On November 18th, 2013, TEPCO began removal of the fuel rods (202
unused rods) stored in the used fuel storage pools. One major concern
with this work is that the container holding such fuel can collapse. The
pools are on the 5th floors of the buildings, which means such a collapse
could damage the fuel within the container. In case the container breaks
down, the fuel inside can emit an abundance of radioactive substances
into the atmosphere, which would be a deadly incident. In a “normal”
reactor, a fuel carrying crane automatically moves to the position rightabove the fuel to remove it. At Fukushima Daiichi, however, workers haveto determine the crane’s position visually. Moreover, all the workers wear
a full-head mask which limits their sight. Thus, the workers have to work in
an unusual situation which can lead to human error.
Furthermore, problems remain with maintaining workers’ health, theircompensation, and in securing enough workers. Some 3,000 people
work every day, clad in a protective suit and a full-head mask, within anenvironment containing extraordinarily high doses of radiation—a no-- 28 -

go zone for any unauthorized person—and almost a half of these workers
are Fukushima citizens. Thus, the decommissioning of TEPCO’s Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is a highly dangerous project, and it must be
done with strict safety measures in place.
Yet another issue is the contaminated water, the volume of which keeps
expanding and expanding. At Fukushima Daiichi, they have poured atremendous volume of water into Units 1 through 3 to cool the fuelmelted down inside them. Such water, now deadly contaminated, is
contained under the reactor buildings. Some of it, however, seems tohave run into trenches on the seashore side of the plant. Since thesetrenches were damaged by the earthquake of March 2011, some of thecontaminated water underground is believed to have found its way into
the ocean. Though they are processing contaminated water with ALPS
(Advanced Liquid Processing System, which removes multiple nuclides outof liquid), even this system is incapable of removing tritium. Thus, letting
processed water into the ocean can lead to serious problems beyond
our imagination. The meltdown has a long winding way to go before it“settles down” and the decommissioning will continue to face numerous
difficulties.

[15] What are the realities of nuclear power plant workers?
There have been some publications documenting the lives of the workers
of subcontractors serving in nuclear power plants (NPPs). Still, themajority of common people are unaware of the hardships these workers
experience. Since the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, the hardships faced by
the workers have gradually been made known to the general public.
In an interview in the February 2014 edition of DAYS JAPAN, a certain- 29 -

worker serving Fukushima Daiichi said, “My work site (the NPP) is a total
mess. I’m often overwhelmed by hopelessness, knowing that I have tokeep working like this for the rest of my life…. All the workers around me
wear a full-head mask (Note 1). Highly experienced workers diminish in
number, day by day (Note 2) …. The tools are outdated, and the machines
are breaking down…. Before the meltdown, the (radiation exposure) limit
was 120 cpm (Note 3), but the national government drastically changed
it to 100,000 cpm after the meltdown. Should I not have any offspring...?
(Suppose I ask a woman to marry me, and) she says no (because of mywork), then where is my human right? Even today, (since the radiationlevel at the work site is so high,) we often work to a time limit, for instance
2 minutes (per worker).”Japan has 54 NPP reactors, and they are currently decommissioning
only four of them. Furthermore, NPP workers are in serious shortage,in part thanks to the demand for construction workers for building theinfrastructure required to host the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The shortageof workers for decommissioning a NPP will aggravate current working
conditions further, trampling on the workers’ human rights even more.
Restarting a NPP will require even more workers, for instance, for routine
checkups. Should we allow any restarts?

Note 1: This full-head mask is used in the most radioactive zones within thecontrolled area contaminated with radioactivity.
Note 2: Since the relevant laws set a limit to the cumulative dose of radiation
exposure for NPP workers, long-time workers eventually reach this limit
and are banned from working there.
Note 3: cpm – counts per minute. This refers to the times a radioactive ray
detector has counted such a ray, in a minute. What the detected rays
actually do to the human body is not considered.

- 30 -

[16] Will Japan restart its nuclear power plants?
We have yet to confirm what exactly the March 2011 earthquake andtsunami did to Fukushima Daiichi whose meltdown shows no signof “settling down” yet. Also, many experts predict that another major
earthquake will hit Japan someday. Surrounded by these facts, it is utterly
absurd and unreasonable to restart any nuclear power station (NPP) in
this archipelago. Also, the current reality proves that we have no power
shortage in spite of the fact that NPPs are currently not operating.
Then, why are Japan’s government, power companies, economic leaders,and some scholars claiming that we should restart NPPs? They claim: (1)that the nation is incapable of revolutionizing its energy system without
NPPs; (2) that dependence on thermal power generation results in power
cost hikes which, in turn, could drive more businesses out of Japan,
causing a reduction in Japan-based industries; (3) that without NPPs,
Japan’s economy as well as its people’s livelihood will be ruined; and (4)that fossil fuels are insecure and aggravate global warming.
Also, some argue that, as a part of its defense capabilities, Japan needs tohave the capacity to build nuclear weapons any time it wants to. In spiteof all those pro-nuke arguments, we have no way to safely process theradioactive waste from the NPPs operated so far, and we have yet to figureout what to do with the contamination and waste from the meltdown ofFukushima Daiichi.
At the end of 2013, a Japanese TV station called NHK BS1 aired a world
documentary titled “Genshiryoku Hatsuden no Ima” (Nuclear Power
Generation Now). It described how, while Germany and Switzerland
abandoned nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster, France- 31 -

determined to maintain its nuclear power generation. 75% of its electricity
comes from nuclear power plants, and the nation had been conducting
research on nuclear power as a national policy. And France does notexperience many earthquakes. Thus, the nation determined that it was
unable to give up its NPPs.
However, once France began decommissioning its outdated reactors, it
faced serious difficulties. Those old reactors were heavily contaminated,right down to tiny bolts, and the workers engaged in the decommissioning
were exposed to radiation. Thus, the decommissioning work lagged
behind. The nation’s NPP decommissioning budget, originally 2.8 billion
yen, had reached 63 billion yen.
The U.S. is also withdrawing from nuclear power, considering the immense
cost of decommissioning. Considering those issues, it is utterly absurd,
both scientifically and economically, to restart a NPP in an earthquakeprone country like Japan. The top priority we have to keep in mind is that
we must not leave any more negative aspects of nuclear power generation
behind for our descendants.

- 32 -

Where the plants are in Japan (map)- 33 -

[17] What about power shortages and alternative energy
sources?
In modern societies, human lifestyles cannot be sustained without
electricity. Therefore, a contradiction presents itself: nuclear power hassustained our life, while jeopardizing it at the same time. In the light of thenuclear incident, many are turning to renewable energy sources, learningthat they cannot depend on nuclear energy any more. We are hoping for
further developments of renewable energy solutions such as:
・ Energy from rivers (medium- to-small hydro power stations, rather thangigantic dams)
・ Wind energy (offshore and other locations to prevent low-frequency
vibration hazards)
・ Ocean energy (waves, tidal, sea currents, temperature differences in thesea water)・Solar energy (water heating, solar panels)・Geothermal energy (power generation at hot springs)
・Biomass (firewood, corn, methane gas from excrements of livestock)< To protect the planet >Though there still are some uncertainties about their capacity to satisfy
gigantic demand from a single source, these renewable sources canrebuild Japan’s energy supply system into a more distributed one, inwhich regions and small-to-medium businesses meet their own need.
Japan’s energy system so far has been a centralized Gulliver, tramplingon many victims (like those municipalities hosting a nuclear plant, etc.) A
new, distributed system can help local communities develop and revitalize
their own economy. Research is in progress on how to produce liquefied
natural gas from methane hydrates, which exist in abundance in the ocean- 34 -

areas surrounding Japan. Elsewhere, Mr. Takashi Hirose, an energy issues
expert, is proposing combined cycle thermal power -- a gas turbine togenerate power, whose exhaust heat from the exhaust gas is fed back into
the turbine for higher efficiency -- as a new source of power to replace
nuclear. Some say we will have sufficient power from thermal power
plants, at least for the time being. Obviously, we should cut down ourwaste of electricity and strive to create a world without nuclear energy.
Anyone will agree that we, humans, must not destroy this planet, createdby God as something good. So, what should we do, and what should we
not do? I hope to find them out by following the examples of Lord Jesus,
who worked bravely on issues directly involved in life.

[18] So, what should Japan do, after it becomes free of nuclear
power?
Here, we would like to introduce to you a Japanese book titled “Datsugenpatsu no Grand Design” (Grand Design for Going Free of Nuclear
Power). In this book, Professor Masaru Kaneko of Keio University’s Facultyof Economics says that energy technologies are making great steps
forward. For instance, today we have co-generation technology which
generates power and, at the same time, uses the waste heat produced. Yetanother example is combined cycle technology, which boasts very highenergy efficiency. Even coal-powered power generation is gaining muchbetter efficiency. By deregulating the electricity market and separating
power generation from distribution, Professor Kaneko says that much
power from self-generation technologies could be made available in themarket.

- 35 -

The professor also notes that power companies have to keep cooling their
nuclear power plants (NPPs), even while they are not operating. They
cannot easily transfer NPP workers to other sites. And they have tax issues
to consider. Besides, they cannot afford to make investments in safety.
They, therefore, hope to restart their NPPs as they currently are.
Facing this situation, Professor Kaneko proposes that a principle, similar
to the one employed in processing bad loans that haunted many financial
institutions in Japan back in the 1990s, should be applied to the nation’s
NPPs as well. He proposes that we invest public money and separate theexisting power companies, which presently control both generation anddistribution, into separate generation and distribution businesses. The
existing NPPs should be owned by the national government and placed
under the authority of the Japan Atomic Power Company. Nationalized
NPPs should then be reviewed by experts critical of nuclear power froman economic perspective. Other than plants that can be safely operated,following investment in safety measures, the remaining NPPs should be
decommissioned. Based on fair rules, as with bad loans, dangerous power
plants must be decommissioned—beginning with the most dangerous
ones.
Also, in this book, Mr. Tetsunari Iida of the Institute for Sustainable Energy
Policies says that what we really need is to reshape our industrial structure.
Japan’s electricity market should transform into one consisting of manysmaller regional suppliers. Jobs must be created for future generations.
In the development of renewable energies, a stable and efficient networkneeds to be built up by means of information and communication
technologies. (The country which achieves this should be the future world
leader in this field.) NPPs are an obstacle to the development of safe andeconomical energies.
- 36 -

The book also proposes, as a positive means of saying farewell to nuclear
power, energy businesses invested in by, built on the consensus of, andowned by local communities. Many would doubt whether such businesses
will be successful. Still, says Professor Jusen Asuka of Tohoku University’s
Center for Northeast Asian Studies in the book’s conclusion, “The heart ofthe issue is whether we feel responsible, as humans, for nuclear energy
issues, or not.” Thus, we cannot afford to only consider if such businesses
can be successful or not. We, as humans, have to take steps to set
ourselves free from nuclear power. Following this direction, many nongovernmental and non-profit organizations (more than 55 organizations,as of October 2014), and many individuals, have joined together in a groupcalled “e-Shift” (Society to Fulfill Denuclearization and New Energy Policy).

[19] What about other nuclear power plants in Asia?
Frighteningly, numerous nuclear power plants (NPPs) exist in Asian
countries other than Japan. China has 48 reactors at 15 sites, including
those decommissioned and those being built. Some of them are very old,with some standing on earthquake-prone ground. Many are concernedover accidents that can occur at such NPPs. Still, the Project on Nuclear
Power and Radiation has yet to connect with any anti-nuclear movements
In China.
South Korea has 32 reactors in all at its four NPPs—Hanul, Wolseong, Kori,
and Hanbit. The nation is planning to build new major NPPs, such as New
Wolseong, New Hanul, etc. Every one of them faces massive protests,
following the Fukushima meltdown. In October 2013, many activists,
including some Christians, from many of the municipalities hosting a NPP,
visited Japan to see Fukushima as well as some other NPPs, like Genkai,- 37 -

Ikata, Kaminoseki, and those in Fukui Prefecture. The South Koreans madefriends with the residents of Japanese municipalities hosting a NPP andexchanged information.
In Taiwan, six reactors in three NPPs are currently in operation. A fourth
one is currently under construction in Gongliao, Xinbei City. This one is a
joint export by Hitachi, Toshiba, and Mitsubishi, and therefore, is called“Hinomaru Genpatsu” (NPP carrying the Japanese flag). Many citizens
have long steadily protested against it, with support from a Presbyterian
denomination. Thanks to their protests, no one today knows when, if
ever, the NPP will be completed—30 years have passed since its planningbegan. According to a report, some Japanese who visited the NPP’s
construction site were asked by residents there to work against Japanesecompanies who export NPPs to get them to stop.
India has 25 reactors at its six NPPs, including those under construction. In
India, some businesses—not just those in the NPP industry, but in others
as well—do not pay due attention to the lives of residents living in theirneighborhoods, as shown by the Bhopal disaster of 1984. Many residents
around the NPPs are, therefore, seriously worried over possible accidents.
Four reactors are currently planned in Vietnam, and three in Turkey. Japan’s NPP
exporters are trying to win orders from them. Kazakhstan, Iran, Pakistan,and some other countries in Asia are also building NPPs.
Considering how hazardous a NPP accident can be, and considering that
there is no way to safely process used nuclear fuel, and in the light ofmany other serious issues, we know that a NPP is a “lemon” product. What
does that say about the ethics of Japan, the U.S., and other “advanced- 38 -

economies” when they try to sell their NPPs to the countries of the world?
The people of the world, especially in Asia, should work together to stopthe export of NPPs.

[20] Is Germany going free of nuclear power?
In June 2011, the German government adopted, in a Cabinet meeting,legislation to stop the operation of its 17 reactors, one by one, and to“decommission all the nuclear power plants” by 2022. This decision did
not come out of nowhere. German citizens had already been discussing
nuclear power for decades, and the coalition government before Merkel
decided to abolish nuclear power by 2022 or so. Then, Merkel took power
and at once changed the nation’s direction to extend the operation of its
nuclear power plants (NPPs). Then came the Fukushima disaster.
Soon after the Fukushima meltdown began, Chancellor Merkel establishedthe “Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply.” Its 17 members,
including some religious leaders, submitted a report in May 2011. In brief,
the report stated: “Even a highly safe NPP can be hit by an accident. Oncean accident takes place, nuclear energy is more hazardous than any otherkind of energy. Also, it is ethically impermissible to leave the processingof waste and other serious issues to future generations. We have energy
sources safer than nuclear. By expanding renewable energies andpromoting energy efficiency, we can gradually eliminate nuclear power.
This can create great opportunities for future economic development as
well.” Responding to this, Chancellor Merkel said, “We have to set out on
a new way. We need to reshape our energy system radically, and we arecapable of doing so. What we want is energy that is safe, reliable, andeconomically feasible.”- 39 -

Needless to say, Germany has to overcome many difficulties before it
achieves this goal. For instance, the question of where and how to bury
high-level radioactive waste has to be answered; questions about thepower grid have to be answered; questions about buying power from
France, and many other questions, have to be answered. The nation is
struggling with these questions. While the world watches, Germany has
to prove itself as it seeks to set itself free from nuclear power in the years
to come. Citizens of the world have much to learn from our German
counterparts who supported the Ethics Commission’s conclusion that“humans are not allowed to do anything they want to, even when it istechnically feasible.” When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God
questioned them saying, “Where are you?” (Genesis 2:9) and “What haveyou done!” (Genesis 2:13). We too have to keep these questions firmly inmind.

[21] Our repentance and efforts
Since the late 1970s, the National Christian Council in Japan’s Nuclear
Committee has been busy spreading words of warning on nuclear energy,
across all different denominations. Even back then, the Committee waspointing to workers’ exposure to radiation at uranium mining sites andin nuclear power plants. In addition to the hazardous nuclear waste, NCC
had also warned us that nuclear energy can only stand upon sacrifices ofthe poor and oppressed. Thus, they have been consistently appealing that
Christians cannot tolerate nuclear power.
Nevertheless, this outcry of warning has been ignored not just by theJapanese government and the nation’s industry leaders but by many of its
churches as well. Understandably, Nippon Sei Ko Kai (NSKK, the Anglican-- 40 -

Episcopal Church of Japan) was no exception. Perhaps, we uncriticallyadopted the false logic that “Nuclear power generation, unlike nuclear
weapons, is a peaceful use of nuclear energy, which is indispensable in the
coming age.” That myth of “cheap and safe power from nuclear energy,”
made up by the nuclear industry has had many of us fooled.
< NSKK’s own repentance >Back in the 1950s, when the Episcopal Church in the United States ofAmerica proposed to provide a laboratory-sized nuclear reactor to St. Paul’s
University (a university in Tokyo run by NSKK), we welcomed the offer. At
the reactor’s opening ceremony, the “prayer for dedication of a nuclear
reactor,” written by then Primate of the US Episcopal Church was read
aloud and we proceeded with the “peaceful use of nuclear energy.”
Now, we have to face up to those regrettable facts in our own history. We
made a vow to “renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt anddestroy the creatures of God” yet we were ignorant of how nuclear power
was precisely part of such “evil powers.” We need to repent. Some might
say that it was five decades ago, making it difficult to realize the problems
involved in nuclear power plants and the ways they were built up. Evenso, it is obviously our task to critically analyze we did back then. We haveto own up to our mistakes head on and repent. It is only then we are able
to make a fresh new start. Otherwise, we might stray into the wrong path
once again.
Three years have passed since the March 2011 earthquake in eastern Japanlaunched a meltdown at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant(NPP). (Translator’s note: The original Japanese was written in 2014.) Over
these three years, the perception of many is that the rebuilding of hardhit areas has made little progress. Especially serious is how things stand- 41 -

in Fukushima Prefecture. A joint opinion poll conducted by two Japanesenewspapers, the Asahi Shimbun and Fukushima Minpo, discovered that
77% of Fukushima residents surveyed thought that the general public ofJapan was losing interest in those affected by the Fukushima meltdown.
Also, on the question as to whether the path to rebuilding was in sightor not, 82% of the respondents said either “Not clear” or “Not evident atall.” Also, in the three hard-hit prefectures, Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima,
3,021 people died of causes related to the 2011 earthquake, such as stress,
fatigue or sickness after the earthquake, according to statistics compiled
by NHK on May 6th, 2014. Among the three, Fukushima, from which morethan 130,000 residents escaped, had the greatest number of such deaths,
at 1,691, more than the lives killed directly by the earthquake or tsunami,
which were 1,607 in number. This shows how serious the hardships arethat the lingering nuclear disaster has brought to people.
In spite of all this, Japan’s government is trying to bring refugees back totheir hometowns in Fukushima, claiming that “Fukushima Daiichi is now
completely under control.” Also, due to the gigantic budget and resources
being spent on the 2020 Olympics, efforts to rebuild the areas hit hardby the earthquake and to save lives from the Fukushima meltdown arebeing compromised. If we are determined to protect lives, given to us byGod, if we are determined to live up to the teaching of Jesus—“Love eachother”—we have to see what is really happening, raise our voices, andtake specific actions to help the victims.

- 42 -

§ Appendix §-“For a World Without Nuclear Power Plants - The Anglican/
Episcopal Church in Japan Opposed to Nuclear Power
Generation -”-- (a resolution of the 59th General Synod of Nippon Sei Ko
Kai [The Anglican Episcopal Church in Japan] --Books and sources consulted as we prepared this Q&A

“For a World Without Nuclear Power Plants - The Anglican/Episcopal
Church in Japan Opposed to Nuclear Power Generation -”The accident brought about in 2011 by the East Japan Great Earthquake andTsunami at Tokyo Electric Power’s 1st Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant has poseda threat to people’s lives by disseminating radioactive substances not only in theimmediate vicinity but in a much wider area, thus revealing that nuclear power
generation is extremely dangerous in itself. It is not too much to say this is awarning from God to each of us who, having suffered from nuclear bombings,
have failed to acquire sufficient knowledge about nuclear power and exposure
to radiation.
There is no denying that, even without accidents, nuclear power is a real
threat to people’s lives in that it imposes sacrifices on socially weakened
people throughout the process, from the mining of uranium to the disposalof radioactive waste. It also runs counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ as it
cannot be sustained without people’s sacrifices.
Nevertheless, as the House of Bishops stated in its message on March 11, 2012:“We have enjoyed materially comfortable life by allowing nuclear power plants
to be built in various parts of the country to make it possible to consume more
electricity. The Great Earthquake has shattered the safety myth of nuclear
power under the guise of peaceful utilization of nuclear energy. We call for theconversion of Japan’s energy policy, which currently depends on nuclear energy.
We also strongly call on all of us to change our own lifestyle.”
On the basis of our own sincere reflection, the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Anglican
Church in Japan) considers that the nuclear power generation is fraught with thefollowing serious problems.
Nuclear Power Endangers the Life Created by God

The nuclear crisis in Fukushima threatens the life of all creatures. It endangers
the physical condition of future generations through the exposure of children toradiation. A large quantity of radioactive waste, without any appropriate disposal
technology, will continue to endanger people’s lives for a long period of time.
Besides, no one can deny that the existence of nuclear power plants in a country
like Japan, which is subject to frequent earthquakes, is very likely to be the cause
of serious crises in the future.
In addition, indigenous peoples are exposed to radiation in the process of themining and enrichment of uranium abroad, while the lives of workers engaged
in the maintenance of nuclear power plants at home are also threatened.
Moreover, the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy is inseparable from militaryaims, in the sense that a large amount of plutonium created in the plants can be
immediately converted into material for nuclear weapons. The nuclear power
plants are also vulnerable to possible attack in case of a war or a conflict.
Nuclear Power Destroys the Nature Created by God
God created the universe and finally man, to whom He committed thesafeguarding of the integrity of creation (Genesis 1). Nuclear power destroys
nature beyond the limits determined by God. The technology of nuclear power
tries to mine radioactive substances which have been stabilized over a long
period of time and to enrich uranium 235, which is rare in nature, in order tobring about nuclear fission, thus causing serious consequences capable ofdestroying whole ecosystems.
It has been said that nuclear power is a clean source of energy. In fact, however,it also uses a large quantity of fossil fuels in the enrichment of uranium and themaintenance of power plants, thus emitting abundant carbon dioxide and alarge quantity of heat in the environment through heated secondary coolingwater.
Besides, an abundance of radioactive waste will be bequeathed as is to futuregenerations, as such waste cannot be disposed of nor stored safely. We areresponsible for such nuclear waste.
Each one of us must turn back to God, who saw that all He created was good.
Nuclear Power Deprives People of the Peaceful Life Given by God
Nuclear power plants have been imposed on impoverished areas in Japan under
the pretext of their being “absolutely safe.” Though the plants have been said
to create jobs and bring about prosperity, actually, they have further increased
regional disparities. The nuclear crisis has caused people affected areas to lose
their homes and jobs. In the absence of other major industries—such as farming
and fishing—upon which to base their livelihood, they cannot afford to help
their children evacuate the polluted hometown. More people are compelled
to live an unstable life due to the threat of radioactive contamination and, withincreased mental stress, some families are faced with disruption and collapse.
We must take seriously the situation of such people.
For a World Without Nuclear Power Plants
Based on this reflection, we Anglicans in Japan believe that, first and foremost,
we must pray for those people threatened by the nuclear accident as well as thewhole of life on earth. And, as Christians following Jesus Christ, we must speak
publicly against nuclear power.
First of all, we demand that the Japanese government be responsible for, andput an end to, the devastating consequences of this nuclear accident and we
also share the responsibility. As Jesus taught us, “Whatever you want men to do
to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). It is not permissible for us to impose
the danger and exposure to radiation on sparsely populated areas as well as tocreate new dangers in foreign countries to which Japan is planning to export
nuclear power plants.

In solidarity with other denominations and faiths, we call for an immediate
abolition of nuclear power plants and a conversion of Japan’s energy policy
toward the development of alternative sources of energy. We are determined
to change our own lifestyle from the old one in which we have pursued only
convenience and comfort. We will share pains and difficulties with those who
suffer and pray for a world where we learn from, love and support one another.
May God bless this land and restore peace on earth!
May 23, 2012
The 59th General Synod of NSKK (Anglican Church in Japan)

Books and sources consulted as we prepared this Q&A
We consulted many publications, websites, and other sources as we preparedthis Q&A.
All of them are available in Japanese. In case you are interested, please readthe original Japanese bibliography list of this Q&A, at http://nskk.org/province/
genpatsugroup/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/QA.pdf

『NO-NUKE Q&A』
First impression, first edition, published on March 11th, 2014, 8,000 copies
Second impression, first edition, published on July 1st, 2014, 2,000 copies
Third impression, second edition, published on November 1st, 2014, 2,000 copies
Publisher: The Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation, Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Anglican
Episcopal Church in Japan)
Executive Committee: Revd. Makito Aizawa, Revd. Akira Iwaki, Revd. Kenzo Koshiyama,
Revd. Tazuru Sasamori, Ms. Hiroko Miyawaki, Associate: Revd. Shin’ichi Yahagi, Provincial
SecretaryPrepared by: The Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation, Nippon Sei Ko Kai
Research & Publicity Team: Revd. Akira Iwaki, Revd. Makito Aizawa, Revd. Yuji Kanzaki,
Revd.Satoshi Kobayashi, Ms. Yasuko Sasaki, Ms. Mieko Nishimagi, Ms. Hiroko Miyawaki
Office of the Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation
Secretary: Kay Ikezumi
St. Paul’s Hall, Sts. Peter & Paul Church Koriyama,
9-23, Hayama 2-chome, Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture 963-8876 Japan
Phone: +81-24-953-5987 Fax: +81-50-3411-7085
Postal saving account : From inside Japan, send your donations to
Account holder : Nippon Sei Ko Kai Account No.: 00120-0-78536
Please write “To Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation.”
Wire Transfer : From overseas, send your donations to
Account holder : NIPPON SEI KO KAI
Address : 65 Yarai-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-0805 JAPANAccount Number : 4515547
Bank Name : The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, LTD.
Branch Name : Iidabashi
Bank Address : 3-7 Kagurazaka, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-0825 JAPANSwift Code : BOTKJPJ
Please write “To Project on Nuclear Power and Radiation.”

100 yen a copy