         ―A Report from Tochigi Prefecture*―*Tochigi Prefecture is a western-neighbor of Fukushima Prefecture.
June 22, 2016
Faculty of International Studies,Utsunomiya University (Japan)
Dr. Nanako SHIMIZU
nshimizu@cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp

Presenter’s Main Activities
on this issue• A member of the Project Supporting Preschoolers and Pregnant
Women of Fukushima(2011-2015), which was reorganized as theResearch Forum on Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2015-present) inCenter of Multicultural Public Sphere in the Faculty of InternationalStudies, Utsunomiya University.
*Main Activities of the Project/Forum+Supporting the Evacuees from Fukushima, especially the families
with preschoolers and pregnant women.
Conducting Interviews with the Evacuees from Fukushima to Tochigi.
!Conducting Interviews and Questionnaire Surveys on the Parents ofthe preschoolers living the Tochigi’s radiation “hot spots.”"Publicizing the results of the Surveys#Submitting the petitions on the needs of the victims to theMunicipalities, Ministers of Reconstruction and the Environment.

1-1 Wide-spread Contamination beyond
Fukushima Prefecture• The radioactive materials
released from theFukushima Power Plants
have spread well beyondthe Fukushima Prefecture.
• There are number ofneighboring prefecturessuffering from the samelevel of contamination as
Fukushima, including
Tochigi Prefecture.

Air Radiation Dose of 1 m from theground, November 7, 2014 .

1-2 Designated Areas for Focused
Research on the Level of Contamination• The Ministry of the Environment designated thefollowing 8 prefectures as the Areas for Focused
Research on the Level of Contamination.
Iwate '3 cities, towns and villages(%Miyagi'9(%
Fukushima'41(%Ibaragi'20(%Tochigi'8(%Gunma'12(%Saitama'2(%Chiba'9(Total 104 cities, towns and villages in 2012→ Total 99 cities, towns and villages in 2016

1-3 Definition of the Areas forFocused Research• Definition provided by the press release of theMinistry of the Environment,February 24, 2012.
The average air radiation dose of the Designated
Areas is over the 0.23μSv/h . The Ministry willconduct the focused research on thecontamination of the environment caused by theNuclear Power Plant accident…
→ Excluding any possibilities of internal radiation

1-4 Disparities of National Support
Contamination in Tochigi Prefecture• 8 cities and towns in Tochigi has
been designated as the special
areas by the Ministry of theEnvironment.
Sano (delisted in 2016), Kanuma, Nikko,Otawara, Yaita, Nasushiobara, Shioya,Nasu.

%In these areas, there are many
radiation “hot spots” over 0.23μ/h
although 5years have passed since
the disaster.

Map of Total of Cs134, 137 Fallouts
on the ground 'Dec. 28, 2012(

1-5 Uneven Radiation Contamination
and Delay of Protection Measures
Serious Contamination in theNorthern Part of Tochigi
As the radiation contamination was mainly observed
only in the northern part of Tochigi, the Prefectural
government located in the center part of Tochigi
could not recognize the seriousness of the problem
immediately after the accident. Consequently, thenecessary protection measures were not provided
when they were most necessary.
Utsunomiya City0.07μSv/h'where the Prefectural Government Office is located (Nasushiobara City'Park in the Houkigawa Area (Before decontamination )2013.5.23 0.67 μSv/h
After decontamination) 2013.12.26 0.45 μSv/h

Map of Radiation Air Dose of Tochigi inJuly 2011.

1-6 Hasty Protection of the agriculture and tourism
industries by the Prefectural Government• “Declaration of Safety of Tourism in Tochigi” by theGovernor in April 5, 2011.
“There are almost no direct damages caused by theGreat East Japan Earthquake and by the Accident of theFukushima Power Plant in Tochigi’s famous sightseeing
spots. We are providing “safe and secured” air, waterand food…
The Prefectural Government makes this declarationin order to eradicate completely the false rumors on theTochigi’s sightseeing spots.”

1-7 Delayed Decontamination
Decontamination around the Monitoring Posts
Only the radiation levels around the monitoring posts are low.
There still remains many high level radiation near the posts.
→As the radiation levels of the monitoring posts are low and they are
publicized as the official records, it may make people believe that theradiation levels of all the area have become lower. As a consequence, thenecessary measures will not be provided.

Limited measures of decontamination financed by theGovernment. The most effective decontamination measure, theremoval of topsoil, which is widely utilized in Fukushima, is notfinancially supported by the Government in Tochigi. The Governor
and mayors of Tochigi submitted petitions to the Ministers ofReconstruction and the Environment in July 2013, asking for thefinancial support equal to Fukushima

1-8 The Lack of the Health Monitoring• The health monitoring financed by the national
budget of the affected residents in Tochigi has notbeen realized.
• The Final Recommendation by the Meeting of theSpecialists on the Health Effect of the Radiation
organized by the Tochigi Prefectural Government.
This report makes an evaluation based on the scientific datathat the situation in Tochigi is free from the fear of future healthrisk. The report also makes it clear that any health monitoring
including laboratory testing is not necessary..July 2012)

1-9 The Statute on Protection and Support for the Children andother Victims of Tokyo Electric Power Company Nuclear Power
Plant Disaster (Victims Protection Law)

The Victims Protection Law has been passed in June2012 with unanimity at the National Diet.
••••①Admitting the uncertainty of the future health risk of radiation in today’s
science.
②Focusing on the prevention of health hazards with special attention tochildren (including fetuses) and pregnant women.
③Helping the realization of the rights to avoid radiation by officially
supporting the evacuees from the voluntary evacuation zones.
④Realizing the official support to the radiation “hot spots” outside ofFukushima by providing effective decontamination, health monitoring,health services.

1-10 Lobbying Activities demanding thevoices of the victims to be heard• More than 180 local authorities and citizens’ groups
submitted petitions demanding the early enforcementof the Victims Support Law.
• The Law should ①support all the areas above the m/yr. ②support the voluntary evacuees.③reflect
the voices of the victims by holding public hearings.

1-11 Submission of the Petition to theReconstruction Agency.
• The presenter and theproject members havesubmitted several
petitions reflecting theneeds of the victims
based on the result ofthe surveys to theReconstruction Agency
in March and April,2013.

1-12 Basic Policy decided without
reflecting the victims’ voices• On August 30, 2013, the Reconstruction Agency suddenly
announced on its homepage the publication of a draft Basic Policyof the Victims Protection Law and invited the public to submit
comments on the draft only within 2 weeks. As the Agency received
many criticism on this announcement, it was decided to prolong thedeadline of the submission 10 more days, and two briefing sessions
were hastily held, but there was no open public hearing.
→In October, the Basic Policy was officially decided by the Cabinet
without reflecting the needs of the victims, such as the support to thevoluntary evacuees, more flexible offers of the municipally subsidized
rental housing, filling the gaps made by support disparities, providing
effective decontamination and health monitoring in the radiation “hotspots" outside of Fukushima.

1-13 Victims Support Law and Tochigi• Although many petitions were submitted by theresidents of Northern Tochigi and local
governments, Tochigi was not included in theTarget Areas of Support by the Basic Policy.
Instead, Tochigi was categorized as Secondary
Target Areas of Support which has no legal basis
in the Victims Support Law.
• A petition to the Minister of Reconstruction fromGovernor(September 13, 2013)• A petition from the City Council (September 13, 2013
• A petition from the Prefectural Assembly (September 17, 2013 

1-14 Loosened standards andthe debates over the new 20mSv/y cutoff line
20mSv/y standard for reopening of schools set by theMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology→Widely criticized, nationally as well as internationally.
Annual dose limit of the general public 1mSv/yHowever, the 20mSv/y standard has been applied since
the accident in Japan.

2-1 Current Situation of the Victims inTochigi Prefecture• Invisible Victims
The contamination and its damages of Northern Tochigi
are not recognized nationally as well as in other parts ofTochigi (center or south).
• “We cannot talk freely about our anxiety over radiation.”
It is difficult for the residents to talk freely about their fear ofradiation as they fear to be criticized as inciting “harmful rumors”
damaging local industries or to call forth other peoples anxiety.

2-2 Voluntary Protection Activities
by the local residents• In the face of the lack of official
protection measures, some of theresidents started voluntary activities
to protect themselves from radiation• Forming study groups.
• Regular measuring of radiation level
and its public release.
• Making original radiation maps.
• Measuring of foods and consultation• Submitting petitions to the local andnational authorities.

2-3 Anxieties of
the Parents of preschoolers• Receiving the requests from several residents inNorthern Tochigi, the presenter conducted anonymousquestionnaire surveys targeting the parents of thepreschoolers in 2012 and 2013.
• Preparatory survey 'August 2012( with
1 kindergarten and 1 nursery school in Nasushiobara City.
245 answers were collected(response rate : 53% (94& of the parents answered “I have anxiety aboutchild rearing after the earthquake.”2-4 A survey in 2013 with 38kindergartens and nursery schools*Period of Survey +August 22, 2013- October 9, 2013
*Questionnaire creator and executant+
the Project Supporting Preschoolers and Pregnant
Women of Fukushima, Center of Multicultural Public
Sphere in the Faculty of International Studies,
Utsunomiya University.
*In Cooperation with +Nasushiobara City / Nasu Town

2-5 Targets and the Response Rate
*Targets+ 3.241 Parents of the children in 38
kindergartens and nursery schools in Northern Tochigi
Nasushiobara City14(all the ) public kindergartens and nursery schools
15 private kindergartens
Nasu Town
8 (all the ) public nursery schools
1 private kindergarten*Response Rate+
2,202 responses 'rate: 68&(

2-6 Do you feel anxious now about the health risk ofexternal radiation to your children?
Almost noanxiety
3.1%
Little 13.2%

Not
specified
0.1%
Very much
31.9%
To someextent51.7%

2-7 Does the level of your anxiety on external radiationof your child change
after 3 years from the accident?
4 I.

0 IL G,D2%

D I
8D

2-8 Do you feel anxious now about the healthrisk of internal radiation to your children?
BI D 8DM IN

4 I%

2 IIB%6 GN

5MI DI,2-9 Does the level of your anxiety on internalradiation of your child change
after 3 years from the accident?
4 I.

D2,0 II D L G%

D I
8D

2-10 Did you behave differently at the time of theaccident only if you had the knowledge andinformation now you have?
D I
9 8G DIBN

4 I,
7%

38N9
D I%% %

38N9 N2-11 I worry about the future of thechildren in Tochigi.
1D8G

4 I
BI,%
11IIDI
8 I
9 ID ID L%BI BB%

2-12 Voices of the women and mothers are notmuch reflected in the policies
responding the accident
No
16.9%
Maybe No
19.3%

Not specified
2.5%

Yes
25.7&

Maybe yes
35.6%
28

2-13 Do you know the Victims Support Law?
4 I
188G
I% ,1
1 8
DG8G

88D

8G
AD L I
DI DII2-14 Have you observed any of the following symptoms whichwere not found before the accident in the last one year?
(multiple choices allowed)
138

NOSEBLEEDING
130

COUGHING86

ITCHING55

INSOMNIACATCHING COLD

48

HEADACHE46

GET TIRED EASILY

45

BELLY ACHE/ STOMACH ACHE37

VOMITING/ DIARRHEA

34

SORE THROAT

32FEVER

30
21

ANOREXIA

145

OTHERS
020

40

60

80

100120

140

160
30

2-15 Strong needs for the official
health check-up
Questionnaire Survey on the Examinees of the private
funds’ thyroid ultrasound tests in Tochigi
Collecting 165 answers'about 85% response rate(99% needs official health check-up
81% needs official health check-up at schools
82% needs a check-up once a year
74% wants the check-up will continue more than 10 yrs
85% wants tests other than thyroid tests

3-1 The evacuees fromthe contaminated areas in Fukushima• Evacuees form Fukushima Prefecture (as of May 2016)
Living in non-designated areas of Fukushima 50,662
Living outside of Fukushima 41,532
These numbers include the “voluntary evacuees” fromnon- designated evacuation areas.

• 2,809 evacuees are living in Tochigi Prefecture(as of May 2016)

3-2 Interviews with the Evacuees in Tochigi
Conducted from April 2012 to the present$My home is in the Designated Evacuation Area. My wife andI was living with my son’s family, and they are saying that they
do not want to go back even the decontamination has beencompleted.
$Perceptions of the health effects of radiation have been
sharply different between my husband and myself, so that wemay end up divorcing.
$My eldest daughter was 12 years old in 2011. She hasstrong anxieties over the health risk of radiation and do notwant to go back.

3-3 The Residents living in the contaminated areasin Fukushima Prefecture$Interviews conducted from December 2013 to the present.

At Fukushima City
The decontamination of my housing area finally started in 2013.
However, the removed soil with high level radioactive materials
has been left, only being covered with the plastic sheets.
At Nihonmatsu City
The highly radiated Yamakiya-district is very close to my house.
In order to avoid any mental stress, I try not to think about theradiation in our daily lives.

3-4 The returnees living in Fukushima
Interviews conducted inNihonmatsu City in May
2016.
Getting tired with living
surrounded by the bags filledwith radiated soil. Trying not to
eat vegetables andmushrooms growing in themountains. Always worryingabout the health conditions ofthe children.

3-5 Questionnaire surveys on Evacuees
living outside of Fukushima (2015)
Survey conducted by Fukushima Prefecture collecting 16.417 answers(32.9% response rate)• Future Prospects
35.6% No answer
22.3% I want to live in the place now living(outside of Fukushima)
20.6% I have not decided
15.4% I want to go back to my home town
2.6% I want to live outside of Fukushima, but not in
the place I am living now.
2.1% I want to live in Fukushima, but not in my home town.
1.3% Other answers

4-1 Necessary Measures 1
Accordingly, victims’ rights to health and human security arethreatened seriously.
First of all, it is necessary to challenge the difficulties of talking
freely about the anxiety of radiation.
The long-term policies for addressing the anxieties of theresidents: Effective decontamination, Regular measuring of theradiation of the air, soil and foods, health monitoring.

4-2 Necessary Measures 2• Encouraging measures with reliable consultations forthe residents to utilize rental dosimeters, foodmeasuring programs, subsidies for health surveys, etc.
• Ex). Fukushima City introduced non-destructive foodmeasuring system, which can check the radiation levelin 5 minutes with consultation service.
• Ex) In Belarus, all the elementary schools have foodmeasuring devices and the students are learning how
to measure in their classes.

4-3 Necessary Measures 3• Providing support for the agricultural and tourism industries heavily
damages by the accident and radiation by exchanging information
between Fukushima and other affected areas.
• Recording and publication of the unheard voices of the victims togetting recognition in much wider public.
• Demanding the realization of the Victims Support Law in its originalspirit.
• Importance of raising awareness of the violations of the right tohealth of the victims continuously for there are many victims who
do not realize that their human rights are not protected.
• Challenging the difficulties of talking freely about the anxiety ofradiation.

For your reference:
Nanako Shimizu (2015) “Human Insecurity Caused by theDysfunction of the State:New Security Issues in PostFukushima Japan,” in Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, Volume
3, No.2, (November 2015) pp. 165-187
http://tongil.snu.ac.kr/ajp_pdf/201512/02_Nanako%20Shimi
zu.pdf