Investigative Report on Fukushima Cityand Koriyama City
Fact-finding mission conducted on November 26 and 27, 2011

Human Rights Now
December 2011
Human Rights Now (HRN) is an international human rights NGO based inTokyo with over 700 members of lawyers and academics. HRN dedicates toprotection and promotion of human rights of people worldwide.
info@hrn.or.jp
http://www.hrn.or.jp
Human Rights Now
Tokyo, Headquarter
3F Marukou Building, 1-20-6 Higashi Ueno,
Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0015 JAPAN
Tel：+81-3-3835-2110	
  Fax：+81-3-3834-2406

Introduction
After the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster, a great amount ofradioactive materials was released, and the right to the highest attainable standard ofhealth (right to health) of people, especially children who are vulnerable to the harm ofradiation, is now on the verge of a crisis.
On November 26 and 27 of 2011, Human Rights Now (HRN), a Tokyo-based
international human rights non-governmental organization (NGO), sent a fact-finding
mission to Fukushima City and Koriyama City. Fukushima City is the capital city ofFukushima Prefecture, where a serious radioactive contamination has been reported.
Koriyama City is a densely-inhabited district and economic center of Fukushima
Prefecture. HRN conducted field surveys and heard claims from the residents in thecities.
During the mission, HRN conducted interviews with 23 residents of the area
and received further information and claims from the residents on the completion of themission. Although the number of interviewees is relatively small, considering thenumber of residents living in Fukushima City and Koriyama City, HRN found many
similarities in their claims and believes that the result of the interviews represents acommon concern shared by the majority of residents in the area. Based on the resident’s
claims, HRN made an inquiry to Fukushima Prefecture and received answers. This
report is composed of findings from the field research and a series of investigations thatshow the actual conditions of residents living near the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear
Power Plant after the Great East Japan Earthquake.
HRN would like to express appreciation for all people who helped ouractivities during the mission.
Schedule of the fact-finding mission

November 26 (Saturday) in Fukushima City 	  	 Startingtime

Closing
time

10:00

13:00

Activities
Visit to Watari District・Interviews with four residents1

13:00

15:00

Interviews with Fukushima Network for Saving Children
from Radiation

15:20

17:30

Interviews with two staff members of children’s institution

17:30

19:00

Meeting with five female residents

19:00

Meeting with on-site support NGOs

November 27 (Sunday) in Koriyama City
Startingtime

Closing
time

11:00

13:00

Interviews with five residents (mothers)

13:30

14:30

Interviews with teachers of Fukushima Prefectures

15:00

17:30

Interview with four Koriyama residents and one teacher

Activities

1. Overview
Fukushima City is the capital city of Fukushima Prefecture with a populationof 287,211. The number of households living in the city is 112,662 (as of December 1,2011). Even though the city is located about 60 kilometers from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Nuclear Power Plant, according to the map published by Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), the city includes a large part of areas where
the level of cesium-137 is 100-300 kilobecquerel per square meter (kBq/㎡)1.
Koriyama City is an economic center of Fukushima Prefecture with apopulation of 331,919. The number of households living in the city is 131,185 (as ofDecember 1, 2011). Even though the city is located about 60 kilometers from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, according to the map published by MEXT,
1

See the distribution map of radiation published by MEXT, at
http://ramap.jaea.go.jp/map/mapdf/pdf/air/v01/cs137/5640-A.pdf,
http://ramap.jaea.go.jp/map/mapdf/pdf/air/v01/cs137/5640-C.pdf.

2

the city includes a few large areas where the level of cesium-136 is 100-300 kBq/㎡2.
The government has not declared any areas of these two cities as an evacuation area3.

2. Current condition of radioactive contamination
At the time of the fact-finding mission, the government has not determined
any part of Fukushima City and Koriyama City as areas where the radiation dose is
expected to exceed 20 millisivert (mSv) per year (excluding background radiation).
Thus, there are neither “Planned Evacuation Areas” nor “Designated Evacuation
Encouraged Areas” in both cities. Despite such decisions of the government, residents
in the cities show clear concern over the high level of radiation.
Since the government has not conducted any precise investigation on the levelof radioactive contamination, residents themselves are measuring the radiation doses. It
has been reported that the radiation dose measured by the residents is higher compared
to data published by the government. It is reported that measurement conducted in someareas shows air contamination level that might exceed 20 mSv per year.
HRN received claims that “the government does not measure radiation inareas where residents found a high level of radiation but only measures areas that aredesignated by the government itself and show low radiation levels.” Also, residents
reported that “the levels of radiation tend to be higher closer to the ground level, andalthough parents are concerned with the effect of soil contamination and of radiation
close to the ground on children, the government maintains a standard of measuring
radiation one meter from the ground level.”(1) Watari District, Fukushima City
Watari District in Fukushima City drew public attention when its residents,
concerned with high concentration of radiation, requested Fukushima City and the2

See the distribution map of radiation published by MEXT, at
http://ramap.jaea.go.jp/map/mapdf/pdf/air/v01/cs137/5640-B.pdf.
3
Current evacuation area at the time includes Minami Soma City, Hirono Town, NarahaTown,
TomiokaTown, Kawauchi Village, Ookuma Town, Futaba Town, Namie Town, Katsurao
Village, Iitate Village, and a part of Iwaki City, Tamura City, Date City and Kawamata Town.

3

government to order evacuation in the surrounding areas4. However, the district was not
categorized as an evacuation area because the government determined that the estimatedradiation level in the district was lower than 20 mSv per year. 20 mSv is the official
criteria for designated evacuation area.
Contrary to the government’s decision, HRN received claims from residents
that they had found areas where radiation levels exceeded 20 mSv per year despite thegovernment’s measurement.
Parents in Watari District founded a private organization called “Save Watari
Kids” and have been conducting radiation measurements in places where children often
use, such as route to and from school. Results of the measurement published in
September 15, 2011 are as shown in Annex 2. A distribution chart of radiation levelmeasured at one centimeter from the ground level can be found in the Annex 3. The
chart shows that more than a few areas have the radiation level of 5 to 10 microsievert
per hour (µSv /h). Simple mathematics shows us that (24 hours×365 days×1/1000)
5µSv/h amounts to about 50 mSv per year, and 10µSv/h amounts to 100 mSv per year5.
Resident A (Watari District, Fukushima City, member of Save Watari Kids. Her
explanation is based on data shown in Annex 2 and 3).
“In Watari District, there are spots inside some houses where the radiation level is 1
to 1.5µSv[/h]. Once you step outside, there are spots with a level of 10 and 60µSv[/h].
Children have to take such routes. When I called the city to talk about the situation,
their only comments tend to be: ‘try to make children take other routes.’ It sounds likethey are neglecting the situation.”
Resident B (Watari District, Fukushima City, a woman with disability)“Near my workplace, there are spots where the radiation level is high. There arestonewalls where we plant flowers. When I measured the shutter of a warehouse in
the property in mid-October, the meter went off the scale, exceeding the scale of 10[µSv/h]. The warehouse is located near popular roads. A parking space on the other4

See “A statement about Designated Evacuation Encouraged Area in the Watari District andcompensation – To protect children in Watari”, at
http://www.foejapan.org/energy/news/pdf/111028_5.pdf.
5
At the request of the interviewees, anonymity has been preserved. Background information has
been provided as much as possible in the introductory phases.

4

side of the warehouse showed radiation level of 8 [µSv/h]. A main street near theparking space was 4 [µSv/h], and a side ditch on the other side was 6 [µSv/h].”“There is a wide side ditch next to my house where all the water from surrounding
areas flows in. I heard from a person who measured the ditch in early October that theradiation level was 30 to 40µSv[/h].”The HRN fact-finding mission measured the radiation level of a side ditchnear a non-profit organization called IL Center Fukushima6, where HRN conductedinterviews. A Geiger counter was used (Ukrainian-made, ECOTECT TERRA MKS-05,
to ensure accuracy, the same model was used every time) and found that radiation levels
got higher as HRN set the counter at a lower place, and the bottom of the side ditch
showed the radiation level of over 100µSv/h.
Professor Tomoya Yamauchi at the Kobe University measured soil
contamination on June 26 and September 14, 2011 and found a high level of cesium
contamination on the both occasions. (For example, on September 14, the cesium levelof a side ditch under Hukusenji7 was 239,700 Bq/kg, soil of Hachiman Shrine was157,274 Bq/kg, and soil taken from a ditch in Yakushi Town was 307,565 Bq/kg8).
Thus, the claims of the residents seem to be consistent with these results.

(2) Other areas in Fukushima CityIn Fukushima city, HRN received a number of claims of high radiation levels
in areas other than Watari District.
1)	
  The periphery of Mt. Shinobu
Staff member at a children’s institution (Female, Fukushima City)“I live at the foot of Mt. Shinobu where the radiation level is high. In Nakagawahara,
Oyama District near my house, there is a spot where the radiation level is 80µSv(/h).

6The address of the organization is 1-1 Kunugimachi, Watari, Fukushima City.
The address of the temple is 5 Oguradera Inariyama, Fukushima City.
8
See “Report of the research on radiation contamination levels in Fukushima City- regional
concentration of cesium,” at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23151586/110705_fukushima_dojoosen_yamauchi_report.pdf,“Report of the research on radiation contamination levels – the limitation of decontamination in
Watari District, ” at http://www.foejapan.org/energy/news/pdf/110921_2.pdf, and “Report of
the research on radiation contamination levels of soil contamination in Watari District, at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23151586/111005_watari_soil_report.pdf.
75

There are spots with 18 or 20µSv/h but such areas with high radiation levels are notannounced to the public.” “Irie Town, where a music hall and the Japan Red Cross
Hospital are located, shows an annual radiation level of 18.4 mSv. I heard that it is 9.1
mSv in Kasuga Town.” “There are areas with high radiation levels other than Watari
District and I think they should be monitored.”2) Ho-rai Town
Resident D (Fukushima City, mother of two children)“In a housing complex where we live in, the radiation level of our building was once 6
to 7µSv/ h. However, a month later the radiation level of our building declined andother building recorded a high radiation level, suggesting that radiation level is notconstant.”(3) Koriyama City
HRN received claims of high radiation levels in Koriyama City as well.
Resident I (Koriyama City, mother of a child)“Our backyard recorded 1.8µSv/h. City officials came to measure radiation. They said
the value was high and left. They did decontamination activities but the figure has notchanged. There are many cases like this.”

3. Decontamination
In order to remove radioactive materials, decontamination is now becoming aserious issue. The Act on Special Measures Concerning Radioactive Contamination(The Act), which obliges the government to conduct decontamination activities in anarea with a radiation level of 0.23µSv/h or over, was passed in 2011 and came into force
on January 1, 2012. Following The Act, the government determined “DesignatedDecontamination Areas” for which it has a direct responsibility for decontamination.
However, the Designated Decontamination Areas include only “Restricted Area” (andall area of Nahara Town) and “Planned Evacuation Areas”, and decontamination inother areas is left to municipalities. Decontamination activities are often encouraged inlieu of evacuations. In such a situation, decontamination activities are left to local

6municipalities and residents in districts other than the Restricted Area and Planned
Evacuation Areas. In Fukushima City, the government, contrary to its public statements,
barely conducts decontamination activities, while it has been reported that
decontamination by private entities had not have much effect. On the other hand, inKoriyama City, residents are forced to take part in dangerous decontamination
activities.

(1) Fukushima City
Although Fukushima City designed a “Furusato (hometown) Decontamination
Plan”, which set a goal of reducing the radiation level to 1µSv/h in two years, it stillleaves residents to live with the radiation level higher than that of Radiation Controlled
Area after two years. Considering this, the plan is not a prompt measure against healthdamage9.
Meanwhile, decontamination has been slow in Fukushima City, and at thetime of HRN’s investigation, decontamination in Onami District has just began and in
Watari District, no organized decontamination has been carried out10.
Although voluntary decontamination was started by residents in some areas, it
has become apparent that decontamination is ineffective when carried out in the absenceof expert planning and advice.
The followings are the outcome of interviews the HRN fact-finding team had withresidents about decontamination.
Resident A (Watari District, Fukushima City)“Even though it has been nine months after the incident, very few decontamination
activities have been carried out. They [Fukushima Municipal Office] aredecontaminating Onami District but they finished only six houses so far. Although they
say they will conduct decontamination promptly in Watari District, I am doubtful about
9

See athttp://shinsai.city.fukushima.fukushima.jp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/49e6e99384de9eb2f577
d512e6a9c80a.pdf.
10
It is reported that on January 20, 2012, Fukushima city held a briefing session for 30
presidents of each neighborhood association in Watari District and announced to the public thatthe city will decontaminate a total of 727 houses, with giving priority to households withchildren, by the end of March, and requested their cooperation. See at
http://mainichi.jp/area/fukushima/news/20120111ddlk07040129000c.html.

7

it and I think it won’t happen within this year [2011].”“They conducted decontamination once in Watari District but it was very simple. They
lifted the gratings of a road in front of Watari elementary school and took some of thesoil and that’s it. They did not even use a high-pressure water sprayer. Then, they left
bags with the soil for two to three days, so the air contamination rose during that time.
Although they used a high-pressure sprayer for the road behind the elementary school, it
is well-known that while the sprayer may rinse off radioactive materials, it cannot
eliminate them and they just remain somewhere else. Radiation levels in other places
get higher and the decontaminated areas might record lower levels but there is no net
difference in radiation levels for the whole area. As time passes, radiation levels in
Watari District sometimes go back to the levels before decontamination. Thesesituations made me realize the difficulty of decontamination work.”
Resident B (Watari District, Fukushima City)“The current decontamination work is almost meaningless. I live at the bottom of a hill
and there are many houses and apple fields on the hill. There are many side ditches aswell. It [water] comes down to side ditches near my house. I was told by residents wholive on the top of the hill that ‘We used a high-pressure sprayer to decontaminate anddamped the water into side ditches. We feel sorry but we had no other choice.’ I heard
from a person who measured the radiation level of the ditch in early October that it was
30 to 40µSv/h. If we run the contaminated water down to rice paddies at the bottom
would be affected as well. Eventually, the water gets to Abukuma River then to the sea.
It might be no problem for people in highlands but it is troublesome for people living inlowlands. Decontamination in one place is not effective, it has to be done in all of the
district.”
Staff F (Staff member at a children’s institution, Fukushima City)“You have to decontaminate your house by yourself. Since lawn contamination is high,we decontaminated them ourselves. After just one hour of the work, I could notcontinue because my nose felt on fire. It felt so hot. My nose felt like it was burning allnight. I am worried that we will be exposed to radiations like this from now on.”(2) Koriyama City

8

The Koriyama Municipal Office released a manual for radioactive
decontamination11 on October 1, 2011, and is actively encouraging decontamination by
local residents (in neighborhood association) under the name of “The Koriyama City
Support Project for Reducing Radiation.” As a result, residents are called in, almost
mandatorily, to take part in decontamination work.
The Municipal Office encourages neighborhood associations to conductdecontamination by offering a subsidy of a half million yen to each association.
Although participation of residents in the activities of neighborhood association should
be voluntary, some neighborhood associations make it almost mandatory. Thus, inmany cases women, sometimes even expecting women are forced to participate. (SeeAnnex 6).
Interviews about decontamination work by Parent and Teacher Association (PTA)
Resident A [Koriyama City, mother of two children (one in fifth grade and one infourth grade of an elementary school), and a member of PTA]
“As a member of PTA, I feel obliged to take part in decontamination. The protective
gears are inadequate but I feel that I cannot say no considering that decontamination isnecessary for children. I work hard to decontaminate polluted soil and can’t avoid
inhaling the air stirred up without adequate protection.” “We removed a layer of soil ofa school ground, but the soil has been left between school buildings. The Municipal
Office does not take the soil away, and places to put the soil are not determined. A
while ago, they secretly took out contaminated soil, took it to an incinerator and burnt it.
There were some people who burn their fields, but nowadays they started to bury
contaminated soil in a park.”
Resident I (Koriyama City)“If we conduct decontamination work we can get a subsidy. So members of PTA
decided to get a high-pressure sprayer with the subsidy and decontaminate schoolroutes, even it is a token effort. We divided parents into groups according to theirchildren’s grade, and each group take turns and decontaminates the routes for two hours
in the morning and afternoon on Saturdays and Sundays.”11

See “Koriyama City Decontamination Manual,” at
http://www.city.koriyama.fukushima.jp/upload/1/3471_zyosenmanyal.pdf.

9

Resident K (Koriyama City)“Places where we decontaminate do not have side ditches so the water is just left on theroads. To tell the truth I do not want to do it. I once asked ‘what does it happen to thewater?’ and was told that ‘the water will be collected in a nearby high school. There will
be a high concentration there so we should leave it to experts and let’s decontaminate
here.’ It was not mandatory, and parents were divided into groups according to theirchildren’s grade and assigned schedule. I asked what we would do if it rains, then I wastold that rain makes the work easier because it prevents droplets from spreading. I could
not go but I heard that participants worked, shivering in cold. It is only a young
generation like us who think it is wrong that we are decontaminating by ourselves,
risking our health. More elderly people think it is better to get a subsidy.”
HRN also found that finding temporary storage places for contaminated soil isposing a number of problems. “Koriyama City Decontamination Manual” and otherpublications stipulate that public spaces (such as parks and athletic fields) within school
districts will be used for temporary sheds for storing contaminated soil and the location
should be determined with the consent of the neighborhood association. It is also
stipulated that such temporary sheds should be fenced and labeled so as to keep people
away from the contaminated soil. However, contrary to the rules, temporary sheds areneither labeled nor made public. This suggests that residents living near a temporary
shed do not recognize that there is a pile of contaminated soil in their living area.	
 Residents, especially children, have no choice but to live being exposed to the danger ofradiation. (See Annex 5.)
Resident I (Koriyama City)“There are many parks in Koriyama City. When we decontaminated parks we had todeal with contaminated soil, but since the Municipal Office does not have authority to
decide the location to put away the soil, the decision was left to our neighborhood
association. The majority of its members are elderly people, who then decided bythemselves to bury the soil in municipal parks or sports fields. They put thecontaminated soil in bags and bury them in public spaces. As a result, we later foundout that playgrounds for children now became hot-spots (places with high radiation10

levels.) Majority of residents do not know where they buried the contaminated soil.
There are not even Keep Out signs.”

HRN received claims that such situations regarding temporary sheds have not changed
even in January of 2012.

4. Effects on Health- Health examination and examination ofinternal exposure
The interviews with residents revealed that although the radiation level was
the highest immediately after the incident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant a number of people stayed outside and became exposed to high doses of radiation
without warnings from the government about the danger of radiation.

(1) Situation concerning radiation exposure immediately after theincident
Immediately after the incident when the radiation level was the highest, due tothe suspension of the water supply in Fukushima City and Koriyama City, a number ofresidents with children waited outside in lines for a long time or went out to get water.
Some residents stayed outside for two to three hours and others were exposed to the rain.
There were also residents who drank or used contaminated water without knowing
about the contamination. Many residents claimed that such long duration of radiation
exposure was a cause of their deteriorating health.
1) Fukushima City
Staff F (Staff member at a children’s institution, Fukushima City)“Since water was suspended until around March 11 to 18 and there was no gas either,everyone went outside to get water with children even though radiation levels were thehighest during that time. We waited for two to three hours. Also, to get water to flush
toilets, we went to a nearby creek or a pool of an elementary school to get water. There11

was no single resident who had known that the radiation level was high in the city andthat residents should stay inside.”Staff G (Staff member at a children’s institution, Fukushima City)“Water was not the only thing we did not have. Supermarkets contained only few
things, so I had to go to the other supermarket (to get necessary items) by bicycle. I
realized later that I was exposed to a high amount of radiation during that time. I think it
was like that from 12 to 17 of March. We could not take a bath for a week. TV
programs told you to gargle, wash your hands, and wash all the clothes when you comeback from outside, but water was not running, and there was no provision of water.”2) Koriyama City
Resident H (Female, Koriyama City)“After the explosion at the nuclear power plant, everybody was exhausted and felt
various physical disorders. In my case, when the water was not running, I went toHayama to get water. Although Hayama was one of the places with the highest
radiations level there was a long line of people waiting for water for two to three hours.
Of course residents were evacuated by buses in districts near the nuclear plant but there
were no evacuation orders in Central Region (Naka dori) so we waited outside for along time. Then on March 16, the waterworks department in Hayama announced
suddenly that we should not drink tap water in the area. Isn’t it absurd? Everybody had
been using the water for drinking, washing vegetables and cooking.”“Everybody was struggling. All members of families took turns getting water, andbringing it home by car. Then it started to rain. It was almost a mixture of snow andrain. We continued like this for six days. The line did not get any shorter, and we werestill not given any information (about the contamination). It was not surprising thatmany children had nosebleeds after that. Even adults like myself felt ill. Despite thissituation, our complaints and worries were denied and we were told that there is no
immediate effect on health. I had a very bad headache and diarrhea until mid-July…”
Immediately after the incident, Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters
became dysfunctional and monitoring systems and System for Prediction ofEnvironmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) were not used effectively. It
was not until March 16 that the government provided a division of roles among relevant
12organizations, with MEXT taking a role of publishing all of the monitoring data12. Thissuggests that by then, quite a few people had been exposed to radiation without being
informed about the level of contamination.

(2) Situation concerning examination of internal exposure
As explained above, there is great concern of radiation exposure of residents
immediately after the incident in Fukushima City and Koriyama City. However, thegovernment has neither established an adequate system for testing of internal exposure
nor provided free health examinations for residents. Residents in Fukushima andKoriyama City have not received any official examinations including examinations ofinternal exposure, urine, blood, and thyroid checks.
In May of 2011, the Fukushima Prefectural Government set up a researchcommittee for residents’ health examination survey, and decided to conduct“Fukushima Health Management Survey 13 ” to check the effects of radiation andentrusted the survey to Fukushima Medical University (FMU)14. The survey includes abasic survey using a medical interview sheet, health examination, and examination of
the thyroid gland (conducted only for people under the age of 18). The results will becompiled into a database for a longtime administration. However, contrary to the plan,
the university has sent questionnaires to all people living in Fukushima City andKoriyama City. The questionnaires (see Annex 4) merely ask details of what residents
did after March and do not ask about their health conditions at all. The majority ofresidents have lost track of their behaviors following the incident and such questions
drew their strong resentment. Thus, it seems like quite a lot of residents have notresponded to the questionnaires. Moreover, during the fact-finding mission, HRN did
not receive any reports that residents received free health examinations or other testing
after responding to the questionnaires.
Examinations of internal exposure were conducted only for residents living incertain areas around the nuclear plant. There is no prospect of offering free examinationof internal exposure for all residents in the city. Since Fukushima Prefectural
12

See “Residents’ Health Administration Survey,” at
http://www.pref.fukushima.jp/imu/kenkoukanri/chousagaiyou.pdf.
13
Ibid.
14
See “Residents’ Health Administration Survey, at
http://www.fmu.ac.jp/univ/chiiki/health_survey/index.html.

13

Government neither publishes nor accepts applications for examination of internal
exposure, residents are left without access to such examinations.
In such situation, private organizations for examinations, such as the“Citizen’s Radioactivity Measuring Station” in Fukushima City, have been established.
Residents have, however, complained that the place is so crowded that they cannot
make reservations any time soon. Although Dokkyo Medical University established asub-office of research laboratory on international epidemiology on November 10 toprovide health examination for residents in Nihonmatsu City, Fukushima Prefecture,
there are long waiting lists for the service as well.
Moreover, the health survey itself has raised residents’ suspicions considering
the fact that Professor Shunichi Yamashita, a vice president of FMU and a chairman of
the research committee for “Fukushima Health Management Survey,” has been stating
publicly that radiation levels under 100µSv/h has no effect on health15. Some residents
who HRN had interviews with said that they do not want to respond to thequestionnaires because of their feeling of distrust towards Professor Yamashita, or
because they do not want to be used as guinea pigs.
Details of claims HRN received from the residents are as follow.
1) Fukushima City
Examination of internal exposure for residents
Q: Has there been any official testing or health examination, including an
examination of internal exposure?
A:
Resident C (Mother of a high school student): “No, not at all. Urine testing has been
conducted only in areas where radiation levels are expected to be high, such as Futaba,
Namie and other evacuation areas. To tell the truth, I wish there were examinations of
all children, including high school students, throughout Fukushima Prefecture.
However, when I made an inquiry to the Municipal Office, a staff responded that it has
no plan of conducting a urine testing.”
Q: So does it mean that in spite of the news that the Prefecture will conduct health15

After the statement, some websites put an apology and correction that he meant to state“radiation levels under 10µSv/h has no effect on health.”14

examinations and surveys for 30 years from now on, with Professor Yamauchi
playing a central role, the city has not conducted such examinations?
A:
Resident C: “Yes. It has not conducted any examinations. Although I received aquestionnaire, it just asks to write one’s behaviors [after the nuclear incident]. For
example, one writes ‘I waited five hours to get water on this day.’ It is not even a survey
on health conditions. Not many people remember what they did, thus some people do
not even answer such questions.”
Q: Are those questionnaires sent to residents not medical interview sheets? Are
there any responses after they send back the questionnaires? Do they receive
health examination afterwards?
A:
Mr. Nakate (Watari District): “A questionnaire sent by the Fukushima Prefecture
does not include questions about health or health conditions at all. I heard that local
government would estimate the amount of radiation each resident had received based on
the survey, create a group of residents with high radiation exposure, and conduct healthexaminations only for the high-risk group.”
Resident C (Fukushima City): “I believe that health examination should be conducted
for all of the residents as they all had been exposed to radiation.”
Examination of internal exposure for preschoolers
Q: Has a health examination, including examinations of radiation exposure andinternal exposure, urine and thyroid testing for preschoolers started?
A:
Staff F (Staff member at a children’s institution, Fukushima City): “A healthexamination of preschoolers is a regular medical check which does not examine effectsof radiation. There is a waiting list for examination of internal exposure. Althoughinternal exposure examination has just started in places like Iitate, Iino, and Kawamata
it will take several more months until the city will conduct such an examination. It costtens of thousands yen to take internal exposure examination individually. I called FMU

15

to ask for an examination using a whole-body counter. My request was rejected on the
ground that whole-body counters at the university is used only in a case when those whowork at a nuclear accident are exposed to a high amount of radiation. Thus, we do not
use the counter for general public. I cannot accept such an explanation.
Staff G (Staff member at a children’s institution, a co-worker of Staff F): I was
asked to answer what I did on a certain day, but the days were so hectic, and thesituation so bad that it was impossible to record or even recall everything we did in eachday. Recalling these things in detail is also hard because everyone was in panic. Thus, I
think it is disadvantageous for the residents if the survey is used as a qualification forcompensation or to determine evacuation areas.” “I have a feeling that no matter what
happens [to our health] in the future, the government will use the results of the survey as
the basis for denying a causal connection [between health and radiation exposure].”2) Koriyama City
Examination of internal exposure for residents
Q: Are there any official examination such as an examination of internal exposureand urine and blood testing?
A:
Resident G (Koriyama City, mother of two eight year-old and one nine year-old
children): “No. I am worried about internal exposure of children to radiation, especiallybecause they are more sensitive. Since there is neither official examination of internal
exposure nor health examination, people flood into the Citizen’s Radioactivity
Measuring Station16. The station is so crowded that it can’t take any more reservations
at the moment. Some of my friends took examination at the Station in October using awhole-body counter. As they started to get results, I heard that some children werediagnosed as being at a ‘warning level’. Such information makes me even more worried
about my children.”Resident H (Koriyama City, mother of two children): (HRN asked her whether she
16

At the initiative of organizations such as Fukushima Network for Saving Children from
Radiation (FNSCR) and with the support from Days Japan, a private radiation measuring center
equipped with a whole-body counter and radiation counter for food was established.

16

has received any health examination as she was complaining about her sickness. The
following is her answer to the question.) “Adults are not being given healthexaminations. There is a waiting list and children are given priority. Although I want to
get my blood tested, I heard that there are not many doctors who are supportive of those
who ask about radiation. I heard that when people bring issues related to radiation at a
hospital, doctors dodge questions. Since we face difficulties in Koriyama, we plan totake a trip to Tokyo and take examinations at a hospital during the stay next year.”
Situation concerning examination of internal exposure
Resident A (Koriyama City): “Hirata Central Hospital is offering a free healthexamination of internal exposure with a whole-body counter. However, the results aresent to FMU before they are announced to the examinees. I do not take the examination
because I do not want my result to be used by the university staffs such as Professor
Yamauchi. Although I thought about taking my children to a hospital outside the
Fukushima Prefecture I abandoned the plan when I was told it costs 30,000 yen perperson. Also, I heard that thyroid testing might be rejected since the use of
echocardiography in the testing has become difficult outside of Fukushima Prefecture. I
am not sure if that is because of the policies in other prefectures.”
Resident H (Koriyama City): “My children took an examination with a whole-bodycounter at Hirata (Central Hospital). The result for both of my sons was 70 Bq per one
kilogram (Bq/kg). The doctor said 70 Bq/kg is fine since decontamination of body is
only necessary when the value exceeds 1000. However, I heard that contamination levelof over 50 Bq/kg is considered as an internal exposure in Belarus. My children are
actively participating in club activities outside the house. I do not know how to prevent
their radiation exposure.”(3) Responses from the Fukushima Prefectural Government
Regarding these problems, the Fukushima Prefectural Government responded asshown in Annex 5. An overview of the responses is as follows17.
17

According to news on January 12, 2012, Fukushima Prefectural Government decided to
conduct radiation examination breast milk for mothers with newborns in the prefecture at theirrequest. http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20120113k0000m040067000c.html

17

【Examination of Internal Exposure】
Currently, the Fukushima Prefectural Government has neither set up a service counternor published a schedule for examination, since they are concerned that it will not beable to take prompt action regarding inquiries about examinations due to the very
limited number of whole-body counters [there are two counters in Fukushima
Prefecture, and four in Ibaraki Prefecture. Fukushima will increase it to seven in March
2012.] Given the circumstances it is conducting examinations and giving priority to
Futaba county, which is designated as Restricted Areas. The Prefectural Government is
responding to the residents’ needs by offering examinations in Fukushima Prefecture
and at a Research and Development Organization in Ibaraki Prefecture and offering
shuttle services for examinees. From now on, the Prefectural Government will buy five
more counters, and the Fukushima Municipal Office plans to ask local municipalities
that have bought whole-body counters to respond to the need.
【Thyroid and Urine Testing】
A plan for thyroid testing has been set and published. Regarding urine testing, the city
plans to conduct examinations in two ways as described below.
1. Urine testing will be offered as a second examination for residents who were
determined that they need an extra examination in a thyroid testing.
Regarding thyroid testing, in order to verify the actual condition, the Prefectural
Government has been conducting the first round of thyroid ultrasound for residents ofFukushima Prefecture who were under the age of 18 at the time of the incident(including residents who evacuated to other prefectures). In 2011, the thyroid
examination was carried out in several municipalities, including evacuation areas. With
regard to2012, the city plans to conduct the examination in other municipalities by theend of 2013. After 2014, the city plans to conduct the thyroid examination twice a year
for residents under the age of 20, and once in five years for residents who are 20 orolder. 2. Conduct testing of urine occult blood in addition to a regular medical
examination for residents in areas including evacuation areas.

5. School lunch and food safety standards.

18

Since the government has not ordered evacuation, despite of the residents’concerns over their health, residents are demanding at least for the protection againstinternal exposure and for the safety of food products. However, even the safety of foodis in a great danger.

(1) Safety of school lunches
It is necessary to ensure a high standard of food safety for school lunch whichchildren, who are vulnerable to the effect of radiation, have to eat everyday. However,safety inspections of food products used in school lunch are inadequate and the use offood produced in Fukushima prefecture is encouraged in the name of the “local
production for local consumption” policy.
In Fukushima City, schools started to use a rice brand “Koshihikari” grown in2011 in Aizu, Fukushima Prefecture since the winter of 201118 and other local products.
Also, in Koriyama City, a local rice brand “Asakamai” harvested in 2011 has been used
for school lunches since November of 201119. Although both cities published on theirwebsites that they had confirmed the safety of the rice brands, the safety is notcompletely ensured since they did not conduct inspections of all products. Also, milk
used in school lunch is produced in Fukushima Prefecture as well.
Most schools in Fukushima City and Koriyama City, with some exceptions,allow children whose parents are concerned about the safety of school lunch to bringrice and milk from their home. However, many schools do not announce the option toparents unless they ask for such option. Also, if they have a choice, children who bringfood from their home are still in the minority. Children often worry about being isolated
from their peers by standing out, and this makes them hesitate to choose to bring foodfrom home. Moreover, since the availability of the option solely depends on conditions,such as parents’ awareness of the food safety and their financial situation, it is notavailable to all children. In addition, HRN received claims that although parents called aschool lunch center, they were not told the origin of food products, and they end up

18

See “Results of radiation inspection of rice used for school lunch,” at
http://shinsai.city.fukushima.fukushima.jp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hotaikekka.-kome.pdf.
19
See “Results of radiation inspection of rice used for school lunch,” at
http://www.city.koriyama.fukushima.jp/pcp_portal/PortalServlet?DISPLAY_ID=DIRECT&NE
XT_DISPLAY_ID=U000004&CONTENTS_ID=25179.

19

letting their children eat school lunches even though they are worried about the safety ofschool food.
1) Situation in Fukushima City
Resident D (Fukushima City)“Food for school lunch is based on a “local production for local consumption” policy.
We are told that centers provide school lunch with safety inspection. Newsletters from aschool lunch center explain about the safety they are not in detail. I think children canbring lunch from home if they do not want school lunch, but I haven’t seen children who
do that.”2) Situation in Koriyama City
Concerning the use of “Asakamai” and its safety
Resident A (Koriyama City)“It was first announced that rice produced outside of Fukushima Prefecture would be
used for school lunches. However, beginning in November, schools started to use“Asakamai” produced in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture. I felt a strong need to take anaction otherwise nothing would change. So I talked to the school principal and he
explained the reason of using Asakamai as follows. ‘First, Fukushima Prefectural
Government has been trying to convince the media the rice is safe by conducting a
two-stage inspection. Also, the Koriyama Municipal Office and the association of PTA
agreed on using Asakamai for school food. In addition, rice produced in Fukushima(Asakamai) is being shipped out to other prefectures. So I think it is not acceptable not
to use Asakamai.’But, I strongly believe that a declaration of safety by the governor itself is so
dangerous, and I am very concerned about the current situation of the school food, which
does not take children’s health into consideration. Approaches [to food safety] varydepending on each school. In other schools, children brought lunch from their home butwere not allowed to eat it.”Concerning publishing origins of foodResident C (Koriyama City, mother of a boy in the fourth grade, a six-year old boy,and three-year old girl)20

“My kids’ schools provide lunch prepared by a (private) school lunch center. I
personally called the center, but I couldn’t get information about producers. Evenkindergarten does not tell us. I am letting my children eat school lunch although I am
worried about its safety. Other kindergartens that make their own lunch publish
information about producers. We give up [demanding for the disclosure] since it is hard
to makes a request in a group because we might be perceived as ‘monster parents’.
Fewer people make such requests, and people like those who do that have alreadyevacuated.”
Resident B (Koriyama City, mother of a boy in the fourth grade and a five-year oldgirl)“My husband says that we can’t stop giving rice and milk produced in the prefecture to
our kids when kids in other schools are given local rice and milk. I am against that but I
cannot get a divorce solely for the purpose of denying his opinion and evacuating. I letchildren eat rice and milk that their schools provide.”
Resident D [Koriyama City, mother of three girls (senior in high school, fifth gradeand first grade)]“Although we have an option to bring rice and milk, there are few people who use theoption.”Resident E (Koriyama City, mother of a boy in the sixth grade and a girl in thesecond grade)“In my kid’s class, three students out of 21 do not drink milk and seven students do not
eat rice provided in school lunch.”
Resident I (Koriyama City)“I think it is better if parents could choose whether their children eat school lunches ornot, but schools do not propose such an option. We have to tell them first. It is the samefor milk as well. If parents make children bring food from home, they complain that
nobody else is bringing food.”21

[Although resident A, C, D, E, and I let their children bring rice and milk from homethey are minority in Fukushima City and Koriyama City.]
In response to an inquiry by HRN about safety inspections of “Asakamai”, the School
Administration Division, School Education Department of Koriyama City stated that JA(ZEN-NOH) Koriyama is charged with conducting a two-stage inspection of the rice. At
the first stage, inspectors check husked (brown) rice by taking one kilogram as a sample
from a bag of 30 kilogram. At the second stage, they check polished rice by dividing alot (about 1000 to 4000kg of polished rice) into three clusters and taking some fromeach cluster to make a sample of 1kg. The machine they are using for the inspections
cannot detect radiation doses under 10 Bq2021.
Regarding the inspection, HRN received claims from residents as the following.
Resident H (Koriyama City)“Inspectors are taking a small amount of rice from each 30kg bag to make one kilogramof a sample and run it through a machine to check the safety of food product. However,it means they check only 1/900 kilogram and they are using a machine that does notdetect radiation levels under 10 Bq. I feel like the accuracy of the inspection is reduced.
3) Opinions of teachers
There are voices from teachers concerning the safety of school lunch. However, they do
not constitute majority.
Teacher J (Koriyama City, Male)“What I am most concerned about is which food products we are providing for children.
Regarding internal exposure, in Koriyama, it was decided to use Asakamai for school
lunches in November 8, and a week after children started to eat it at school. Personally,
it is unbearable, and I’d really like to stop children to eat it at school.” “However, to tell
the truth, my colleagues and other teachers are thinking that I am weird. There are 290

20

It means that if radiation doses contained in food are below 10Bq, the machine cannot detect
them and the record shows “Non Detective (ND)”. This is problematic in that the machine canoverlook contaminated food.
21
In addition, among nine municipalities in Koriyama City, food products produced in the area
where a 20 to 30 Bq level of radiation was detected in the pre-examination were suspended forthe school lunch and only food produced in the area where the radiation level is under 10 Bq
was used. Also, they conduct an inspection without notice on the rice used in a bakery charged
with preparing school lunch once a week. (January 12, 2012)22

teachers in my school but only five to six people share my views. It has become taboo totalk about it. Even our principal told teachers ‘how come local public employees cannot
eat food produced by local farmers.’ Students at a neighboring elementary school
performed a play that sends messages such as ‘Asakamai is safe’ and ‘let’s eat Asakamai
together’ in collaboration with local farmers as part of study of local cultures. The playis performed every year as part of study of local cultures, but the school is teaching
things that are contrary to the actual situation.”
Mr. Toshiki Kokubu (Teachers’ Union of Fukushima Prefecture)“Residents’ reaction to radiation varies significantly in each area even within the
Fukushima Prefecture. For example, In Aizu, it has been discussed whether they make adeclaration of safety after radiation level of 0.2µSv/h was found in the area.

In

Kitakata, although a declaration of safety was issued this autumn, when nutritionists ofschool lunch requested to use food products produced outside the prefecture, they werecalled in and directed to use local food because it is safe. When they request foodproduced outside the prefecture, producers put pressures on school and principle direct
the nutrition educators.” “There is an issue of ND [Not Detective] radiation thatradiation levels under 30 Bq cannot be detected in a short-time measurement. Therefore,
radiation doses less than 30 Bq tend to be overlooked and recorded as the zero radiationlevel. The Municipality Board of Education is often doing this.”“Although school nutritionists understand parents’ concern, they are giving up tacklingthe issues on food safety these days. Moreover, they are getting tired as they becamebusier responding to inquiries from parents. Though we discussed the safety of
Asakamai with the Prefectural Government, they did not take our concerns seriously.
Inspection of rice by the prefecture was done by taking rice from two spots out of a 15
ha rice paddy. Inspection of school lunch in Koriyama is not checking cooked food.
Some parents were demanding for the safety of school lunch with others who had been
active regarding the issue. However, those active people have evacuated.”“Freedom of teachers is protected, but in Koriyama, teachers received a direction fromthe board of education that teachers should maintain neutrality in this matter. Suchpressure has started to arise. There is pressure not only from the government but also
from producers.”

23

On the other hand, school nutritionists have no choice but keep serving food
although they are uncertain about the safety of school lunch. Results of a questionnaire
for school nutritionists conducted by the Teachers’ Union shows the fact that they are
worried about the safety of school lunch (See Annex 7).
The followings are some of the comments from the school nutritionists. “We
do not know the actual radiation level [of food that we serve] because our school does
not have a radiation counter”, “specifically, the safety of vegetables is uncertain”(Iwase).
“We cannot be sure whether delivered food is safe or not”(Ishikawa). “I cannot be surethat we should write that school lunch is safe in newsletter” (Fukushima). “I can’t agreewith the logic ‘food is safe because it is provided at school’ used in promotion of thesafety of food. There should be other ways” (Fukushima). “I am worried about thesafety of food because of the pinpoint inspection” (Touhaku). “Food products on themarketplace may be safe but without all-products inspection, we cannot judge whether
official data is true” (Koriyama).
There are a number of responses indicating the use of food produced outside
the prefecture. However, it seems that school nutritionists at schools where local
products are used in school lunch have a lot of concerns.
4) Measures for the safety of school lunch
In both cities, the safety of school lunch is ensured on the grounds that it uses
only food products that have passed inspections in Fukushima Prefecture.
However, the argument that school lunch is safe because food products are inspected inadvance lacks credibility, for the following reasons: 1) the safety inspection isconducted by taking samples and does not cover all products; 2) the inspection system,as described below, is a very rough sample inspection and far from accurate; and 3) the
inspection machine can detect only radiations doses more than 20 or 30 Bq, leaving out
contamination under that level as “Not Detected (ND)”.
The Fukushima Municipal Office purchased four Belarus-made radiation
counters for food, and conducts inspections at Fukushima City School Lunch Centerand 26 schools that prepare school lunch. The inspection checks the amount of iodine
131 and cesium 134 and 137 in food products with high usage. The frequency of theinspection is once a week at the school lunch center and twice a month at the24independent schools. Moreover, inspection machines cannot detect radiation doses lessthan 20 Bq/kg. In Koriyama, such an inspection system has not been established.
5) Response of the Fukushima Prefectural Government and the Fukushima Municipal
OfficeIn response to an inquiry from HRN regarding the food inspection system, theprefecture stated that the Prefectural Government is not conducting food inspections in
all municipalities, and does not grasp the introduction of radiation counter for school
lunch in Fukushima Prefecture. Regarding future measures, the city responded that the
government allocated 100 million yen for radiation inspections of school lunch in 17
prefectures in the government’s third supplementary budget, and each prefecture is
expected to buy five inspection machines with this budget.
Also, MEXT announced to the public on November 30, 2011 that the
government would subsidize about half of the cost in the case of a prefecture purchasesa radiation counter for school lunch. However, the budget for the subsidies is only 100
million yen for the entire country, which is far from enough to install a counter in allelementary and junior-high schools in Fukushima Prefecture alone22.
Although it is necessary to make available a radiation counter at each school,
and conduct inspections of all food products in order to protect the safety of school
lunch in Fukushima City and Koriyama City and other areas where the radiation level isover 1 mSv per year (excluding background radiation), no such measures have beentaken.

(2) Safety of Food
The HRN fact-finding team heard a number of concerns, not only about foodinspections for school lunch but also about the current food inspection system ingeneral.
The Fukushima Prefectural Government conducted a pre-examination on rice
before the 2011 harvest season in order to assess patterns of contamination levels, andthen a main examination after the harvest to determine whether a restriction on
shipments was needed. It was reported that they did not find any places that exceeded22

See “MEXT response to the concern over school lunch, a subsidy for a half of the cost forradiation counter,” at http://www.asahi.com/edu/news/TKY201109210796.html.

25

the current restrictions. However, by November 11, 2011, an amount of radiation thatexceeds the current restriction (500 Bq/kg) was found in husked (brown) rice grown inFukushima City (Kyu-koguni Village) and Date City (Kyu-koguni Village andKyu-tukidate Town). Neither of which had been through the sample inspection in themain examination. Following the incident, the Nuclear Emergency Response
Headquarters ordered Fukushima Prefecture to restrict shipments of rice grown in theabove-mentioned area during 201123. The incident has fuelled general public distrust in
the sample inspections conducted by the prefecture.
On the other hand, a Koriyama resident (Resident E) told HRN that somepeople use information on radioactive contamination levels in production areas
published in prefectural newspapers, such as Fukushima Min-yu, to decide which foodproducts to buy on any given day.
Given these concerns, HRN conducted an inquiry to the Fukushima
Prefectural Government in order to grasp the actual situation more accurately. The
responses are shown in Annex 5.
For example, in the area of Fukushima City (Kyu-koguni Village and Onami
District), which was under an emergency examination following the incident, thePrefectural Government conducted inspections of all bags of rice at rice farms by taking
samples from each 30kg bag. In “Specific Spots Recommended for Evacuation”, which
includes three cities and 21 former municipalities, one sample per house is taken as
standard, but for other areas, there is no clear rule. Regarding vegetables, local
government staffs go to farms and investigate by sampling 600g to 1kg of vegetables.
However, there are no specific standards for the selection of samples. In the case of
artificially cultivated mushrooms, a random 500g sample is taken, regardless of total
production. For mountain vegetables, staffs take samples by randomly picking up 300 to
500 g from a cluster. There is no standard regarding the selection of samples. For fish,
they check about 100 samples in one week, and for river fish the inspection isconducted once a month for each river with big rivers being investigated only when it isdeemed necessary. These rough inspections are far from effective in ensuring the foodsafety, and cause distress for both consumers and producers.

23

See “Mid-term Report of the Exploratory and Investigation Committee on the incident at
TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Station”(p. 320.)26

As an example, there was an incident in which shipments of rice grown in
Onami District were suspended due to cesium contamination. However, a cultivator of
the concerned paddy said that he had demanded the inspection of his rice, but thePrefectural Government did not conduct inspections. Moreover, according to interviews
with a resident, a high amount of contamination was found in the rice that he had put
aside for personal consumption, because of possible contamination when he voluntarily
took it for inspection24.
On the other hand, after the investigation HRN received a complaint from aresident that people are still not buying his rice, even though the rice had been throughinspections not only by the prefecture but also by producers. HRN believes thatrecovering public trust in food safety by establishing an accurate and comprehensive
inspection system is crucial, in order to protect local producers from harmful rumors.
Koriyama resident stated:“I actually want a measuring a center and a radiation counter. Everyone
wants to know whether the food they are consuming is safe or not. I want tohave a counter because I think that even I have to stay in the city, there is no
problem if I can avoid internal exposure. However, a counter is costly. Also,
some people even say that we should not use it half-heartedly. I also heard
someone say that using a radiation counter will destroy farmers’ business.”
As such, the right to health, one of the most important rights of individuals, is
not protected because the residents’ right to know to the contamination of their bodies
and the food they consume everyday is not guaranteed. In sum, the interviews withresidents have shown that a drastic improvement of the food inspection system isneeded.

6. Penetration of “Safety Campaign” and the isolation ofresidents concerned with radiation effects

24

See “Order to stop shipment of rice produced in Onami District, Fukushima City,” (November
17, 2011, Asahi shimbun,) at
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1117/TKY201111170422.html.

27

The Fukushima Prefectural Government has been actively conducting
campaigns for residents around the nuclear plant to disseminate the idea that radiation
exposure is not a problem. For example, the Nuclear Emergency Response
Headquarters in Fukushima published “Radiation and Health Q&A” on June 30, 2011,
and the prefecture organized a “Seminar by health risk management advisors onradiation at Fukushima Prefecture.” These activities are designed to emphasize thegovernment’s view that there are negligible effects of low doses of radiation on health.
This approach is characterizes the “Report of the working group on risk management of
low dose exposure” published by the government on December 22, 2011.
Despite the lack of proof that low dose exposure does not present health risks,
the prefecture and cities are taking a stance which emphasizes the safety of low dose
exposure. Such an attitude has not only caused distrust of official information amongresidents, but also created an environment where residents who cast doubt on the
campaigns become isolated from those who take them in, out of weariness at the current
situation.

(1) Emphasizing “safety” while denying “concerns”
The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) established a group to answer
questions about radiation and held a seminar in Fukushima Prefecture25. However, thecontent of the seminar was intended to emphasize the safety of radiation exposure anddeny residents’ concerns over their bodies and their kids.
Staff F (Fukushima City, Staff at a children’s institution)“Since they say they would accept any questions and worries about radiation, I asked
them questions. But then I was told ‘there is no problem at all.’

It was as though they

were saying that ‘thyroid cancer will never happen to any of the children. The level ofradiation leaked by the incident at the Fukushima power plan is much lower than thatof Chernobyl. If children get cancer, that is due to mother’s stress.’ Although children
actually have often had physical disorders after the incident, such as nosebleeds anddiarrhea, we were told that it is just a matter of our mother’s stress.”

25

See “Notice on a meeting to answer question about radiation (July 12,2011,)” at
http://www.jaea.go.jp/02/press2011/p11071201/index.html.

28

Staff G (Fukushima City, Staff member at a children’s institution)“They laughed through their nose when I told them that the effect of radiation should
be as low as zero since people with a high sensitivity have a higher probability ofcontracting cancer.”
Although JAEA argues that radiation levels are safe, Staff members F and G
told HRN that a JAEA staff explained that the seminars would be held only three times,
because JAEA is worried that frequent visits to Fukushima would increase radiation
exposure, and that JAEA must measure radiation before and after the seminar. Thissuggests that JAEA itself is worried about radiation exposure despite its assurances ofthe safety of low dose radiation.
Moreover, seminars conducted by the government and schools claim thissafety as well. HRN received the following comments. “I attended a seminar in whichpeople from the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry or MEXT gave a talk. I asked themwhether the water is really safe and they told me ‘the water is surely safe’ and ‘it is not
a problem because cesium is heavy so it settles at the bottom.’” (Staff G at a children’s
institution in Fukushima City.) People even asked an elementary school to select a
lecturer who could properly explain the danger of radiation for a seminar; the school
rejected the request because “it will increase fear of the risks.” Thus, lectures organizedby elementary schools tend to emphasize safety. (Fukushima resident A and C) A
mother (Resident A) who attended a seminar said she was offended when a doctor said“getting cancer in the future is like winning a lottery. People do not so often win alottery. So it is safe.” This remark ignores the fact that although the risk may be low,some people still have the significant possibility of developing cancer.
Since residents’ doubts about the safety of radiation keep being denied, they
began to feel resignation, fatigue, and despair. Surrounded by people who believe in or
promote the safety of radiation, those concerned about the effects of radiation feel more
and more isolated.
Resident A (Fukushima City)“I think there are many people who are escaping from reality because they are so tired
about the situation. Actually, nothing is happening. So those people feel like ‘Just keep
it quiet and do not raise a question anymore because we are leading a normal life.”
29

Staff F (Fukushima City, Staff member at a children’s institution)“There is a huge gap between information circulating in Fukushima and information
outside the prefecture. In Fukushima, it is all about the Safety Campaign in which theprefecture as well as the government say it is safe for now so you can stay where youare, and decontamination will be done so that you do not have to evacuate. As long as
they are from the city or the prefecture, they all say it is safe.”(2) Inability to raise concerns
A leaflet distributed by the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters forparents suggests that children’s physical disorders are often caused by their stress, thus
it is important that parents maintain both their physical and mental health26. Thisapproach is preventing parents from raising concerns about radiation effects on health.
For example, if parents raise a question about radiation at a seminar, lecturers deny theirconcern not by citing scientific evidence, but by telling them, “being concerned about it
is causing your stress.” If parents inquire at schools about school lunch ordecontamination, they will be perceived as “monster parents”, and many parents give up
inquiring because of that. (Koriyama resident D) In a situation where the government
and prefecture publicly promote the safety of radiation, people who are concerned about
radiation end up feeling that they are being too sensitive to the issue and become unable
to talk about their concerns to others.
The situation is the same regarding food safety. When a mother made acomment about internal exposure and school lunch in a Fukushima meeting, the farmers
responded by saying “the incident of course did damage to farmers. But right now weare troubled by rumors (about the contamination of food products). So we traced backthe cause of the rumors, and found that enemies are right in front of us...the cause of therumors is actually local people who do not eat food produced in Fukushima.” A
participant at the same meeting said “I went to the Fukushima meeting expecting tohave a discussion to find solutions to the current problems. But when the farmers said
we are their enemies, I thought we [consumers] are not enemies. Consumers have aright to choose. Such arguments will further divide people in Fukushima. (Koriyama
26

See “Protect Children’s Physical and Mental Health, ” athttp://www.pref.fukushima.jp/j/04_web.pdf.

30

resident K) This shows the difficulty of preventing a division between producers andconsumers when they should be cooperating to improve the current situation.
Furthermore, the situation is serious among family members. Since everyone
has different views on radiation even within a family, people with concerns about
radiation cannot find opportunities to let out their anxiety. If both a husband and a wife
share similar feelings about the risks of radiation, they may have already evacuated; orif they both feel they should stay in Fukushima, there might be no conflict either.
However, in a case where one side (mostly man) thinks it is safe and the other (mostly
women) is worried, there is no one to talk to about the concerns (Staff F and G, andKoriyama resident B). A resident told HRN: “Even people who I have known for awhile have different views on radiation. When a person who I thought spoke the samelanguage told me she thinks it has become safe, I got confused, and I do not know what
to do” (Koriyama resident A, and other residents made similar comments).
Most of the residents who HRN interviewed preferred to talk in a closed room
because they were worried about attention from others and could not talk in open places.
The interviews revealed that people are becoming isolated and distressed, unable tovoice their honest feelings about radiation among family members and friends.

(3) Isolation from people outside Fukushima Prefecture
Reproach from people outside Fukushima has hurt the feelings of Fukushimaresidents. Some people criticize parents who do not evacuate, without understandingthat residents are having difficulties with evacuation for various reasons, such as
children or a lack of money and places to go. Moreover, some relatives told a highschool girl not to have a baby for ten years (Staff F, G and others).
Although a majority of people in Fukushima want to evacuate if thecircumstances allow, there is a lack of understanding from people in other prefectures
about the actual situation and hardships they are facing. That is to say, in Fukushima
Prefecture, through a series of safety campaigns residents are forced into believing
evacuation is wrong; meanwhile people outside Fukushima criticize them for notevacuating children. In such circumstances, residents are isolated from all sides.

31

7. Situation of Children(1) Radiation Protection
Although there were efforts immediately after the incident to make children
wear masks or avoid playing outside, under the safety campaign the majority of children
do not wear a mask on route to and from school.
Teacher J (Koriyama City)“Our school, including kids from elementary to high school, has about 300 students intotal. Students who wear a mask to school are only six and they are all in my grade.
Most of the students do not wear a mask. Parents themselves do not understand theactual situation. Since they are dependent on TV reports, if they hear that it is safe mostof them just believe that.”
Resident C (Koriyama City)“I make my children wear a mask when they go to school, but most children do notwear it on the way home. Fewer people care about it now. I think they got tired. I stillcare about it but I feel isolated. The number of children with atopic dermatitis or otherskin problems has increased by wearing a mask for a long time. Adults do not have aproblem but I feel bad for children.” “I saw children playing outside both in and out ofschool hours, so I asked their parents and they said ‘I let them play because the kids
say they want to.’ My children say “although I want to play now, I will be patient andavoid it considering the risk to future health.”
Resident E (Koriyama City)“Many children stopped wearing a mask and a jacket. Wearing them in hot weather
caused them to have sore skin around their mouth. A small number of children stillwear a mask.”
It took a long time after the incident for children to receive radiation counters,
although the timing varied in each area. In Koriyama, mothers complained, “it was sorecently that I doubted if they (the local government) are really concerned aboutchildren’s health at all” (Koriyama resident G and K). HRN found that although most32preschoolers are wearing it around their necks, children in school are not taught how to
use it and it has become a mere façade for them. For example HRN heard a number ofcomments similar to the following one: “When they distributed radiation counters there
was no seminar, they just distributed a paper and they did not even hold a seminar toteach kids how to use it. The paper does not explain what to do in case radiation is highso I do not know. My younger daughter keeps it in her bag, but my older son leaves it
home. It is not effective. We submit (the counter) to school once a month and receive a
notice with numbers. But I do not know how to read those numbers”(Fukushimaresident D).

(2) Outdoor activities and after-school activities
According to an interview taken in a district in Fukushima City, club activities
and PE classes have started and parents can choose whether they let their children
participate in the activities or not (Resident D).

Also, according to interviews in a

district in Koriyama City, PE class outside is still prohibited, but students canparticipate in club activities for three hours at maximum with the consent of theirparents. Other outdoor activities are allowed to the extent that parents agree (Resident A
and B). However, the majority of kids in school choose to “play outside, participate inclub activities and eat school lunch”, and children who choose to do otherwise have afear of being isolated. Given that, many parents have no choice but let their children
play outside or participate in club activities despite their concerns about their health.
Resident D (Fukushima)“It was difficult for parents to control junior-high-school kids. Participation in an
outdoor class like PE was at parents’ discretion. I told my son not to participate, but amajority of parents think they should let boys do club activities outside. There are only
two to three parents who avoided outdoor activities, so my son asked me many times tolet him play outside.”
The situation of preschoolers is also the same:
Staff G (Staff member at a children’s institution)“I saw a change in parents’ opinions. Even mothers, who told us never to let children
stay outside immediately after the incident, started to let them outside because

33everybody is saying it is safe. At first every mother was making sure we keep
windows closed, but eventually, many started to say things like ‘I want them to playoutside after all’ and ‘I think it is okay because everybody says it is safe.’”
Staff F (Staff member at a children’s institution)“People who are really worried have already gone. Those who are left in the cityeither have some issues [that make them unable to evacuate] or think it is safe.”
Children participate in outdoor activities believing that radiation levels arevery low and it is safe to stay outside. Therefore, if parents ask children not to go toclub activities, it is the children who suffer the consequences. For example, a mothertold HRN about her son in the second grade of junior-high school and how temporary
evacuation to another prefecture during a summer vacation caused him isolation, which
eventually led him to quit his club activities.
Resident I (Koriyama City)“When my son had to be absent from his club activities for a while because wetemporarily evacuated to another prefecture during a summer vacation, a teacher fromthe club, who did not understand the need for evacuation, told other students in the
club that they should ‘think over their relationship with him’. After that, my son was
isolated from other members and could not continue his club activities by the end ofsummer vacation. It was not until November, in a parent-teacher-student meeting, that
I realized this. When I told the teacher about the reason for my son’s absences at a
meeting during the summer vacation, he did not show concern for the fact that he had
to be absent because of evacuation. I was told by my son that ‘all the things you aredoing have not a positive impact but only a negative one for me.’ I asked other parents
to evacuate during the summer with us but some families could not evacuate becauseof their kids’ club activities.”
As shown in the interview, the student who chose to evacuate ended up
forfeiting his club activities, which were one of his most important experiences forbuilding relationships in school and for his personal development. Moreover, the caseshows the difficulty of helping children understand the necessity and validity of34

evacuation while schools are allowing outdoor activities on the basis that the current
radiation level is safe. Furthermore, such an attitude from schools makes it very difficult
for mothers to evacuate with their children because of the foreseeable consequences on
their school life. A mother explained the situation as “my kids are hostages” (Koriyama
resident I).

(3) Situation of high school students
HRN found that measures regarding radiation protection for high school
students are especially inadequate. While decontamination at school and distribution ofradiation counters for students were actively discussed in elementary and junior-highschool, there were no special measures regarding radiation in high schools. A resident
with a high school kid told HRN that when she called the prefecture about plans toremove surface soil from schoolyards, they told her that they had no plan. It was only
during a summer vacation that they removed surface soil from some schoolyards inareas where radiation was over a certain level (Fukushima resident C).
Moreover, schools resumed club activities at an early stage and continued outdoor
activities.
Resident A (Fukushima City)“Students at a high school in Watari were even running and playing soccer and baseballbefore the surface soil of the schoolyard was decontaminated. I was very surprised.”
Resident C (Fukushima City)
In my kid’s high school, a new semester started on April 8, and outdoor club activities
began, such as baseball and soccer, although only for a short period of time like one totwo hours. After the holidays, my kid came home at a regular time: around six or half
past six. Although the school required a parent’s permission, it is difficult to recommend
suspension of club activities, especially sports for boys such as baseball. I am worried
about my kid who is in Japanese archery club, but my kid goes to practice saying that ‘I
cannot be absent when everybody else is going.’ It is the same for PE class, although I
was relieved to hear that swimming lessons had been suspended.”

35

The mother expressed her concern about the “National High School
Festival27” held in Fukushima in the summer of 2011. She feels that the festival, in
which high school students around the country were invited to come to Fukushima, wasused as propaganda for the “Fukushima Safety Campaign”. She explained that when she
called the person in charge of the event to ask about safety concerns, he told her that“there is no problem because we can live normally”. Also, a prefectural music hall, avenue for the school festival, was located in Irie Town where high radiation levels were
found. So she made an inquiry about decontamination, only to find that
decontamination has not been done in the area at all (Fukushima resident C).
It is not easy for parents to change children’s behaviors according to their will,
especially for high school students who engage in a wide range of activities. Therefore,
it is necessary that high schools offer classes that provide enough information about therisk of radiation so that students can make their own judgment about their activities.
However, it is hard to say that high schools students are getting adequate education onradiation protection at this point.

8. Evacuation Measures(1) Evacuation Order
Many residents, mainly in Fukushima City, recognize the probability thatradiation levels are higher than the standard set by the government, based on their daily
measurement. Some residents have taken actions calling on the government to designate
the areas as “Specific Spots Recommended for Evacuation”, and have been following
the responses of the prefecture. However, their attempts resulted in disappointing
results.
At a meeting organized by Fukushima City and the Nuclear Emergency
Response Headquarters on October 8, 2011, the Fukushima Municipal Officeannounced a government decision to forgo the designation of Specific Spots
Recommended for Evacuation for Watari and Oguradera District. The residents pointed
out that the investigation conducted by the government covered only a part of the27

See “Fukushima 35th National High School Festival,” at
http://www.fukushimasoubun.gr.fks.ed.jp/kaizyo/01sougoukaikaishiki/index.htm.

36

district and that many hot-spots had been found in areas not under the investigation at
the time. Although they demanded the government redo the investigation, their request
has not been fulfilled (Resident A and B).
“While there is a standard in Minami Soma that orders expecting mothers andchildren to evacuate when 2µSv was detected at 50 centimeter from the ground level,
there is no such rule in Fukushima City. The city just promises to do decontamination
work. I once asked the Municipal Office whether they think children in Fukushima andSoma (Minami Soma) are any different. I told them that it is discrimination that children
in Minami Soma can evacuate but not in Watari. However, the city answered that it is
not discrimination at all” (Fukushima resident A). Also, there are concerns about thefact that the radiation levels in the area are actually high enough to be designated as anevacuation area (considering the radiation levels of evacuation areas in other cities).
(Staffs of children’s institution in Fukushima and others)
In Koriyama City, a provisional disposition calling for a group evacuation
was proposed, on which many residents were placing their hope (Resident A~D).
However, the proposal was turned down on December 16, 201128.

(2) Voluntary evacuations prevented by safety campaigns
Even though quite a few people living in areas in Fukushima City andKoriyama City where air radiation levels are relatively high have already evacuated on a
voluntary basis, there are still many residents who cannot evacuate despite their fear ofradiation exposure. As described below, one of the reasons that residents cannot
evacuate is financial, due to the lack of governmental support for voluntary evacuations.
However, residents’ feelings about the issue of evacuation are far more complex.
Resident A (Fukushima City)“There is a wide range of feelings about radiations among residents. People who reallyfeel the dangers of radiation have already evacuated at their own will. I assume that
28

Parents of Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture made an allegation against the city for aprovisional disposition to suspend education in areas with high radiations and order groupevacuations. However, Fukushima Koriyama District court (chief judge Hibiki Shimizu) turned
down the allegation. In the summary of decision, the District court stated that “there seems to be
no danger so immediate that schools have to suspend educational activities without taking otherchildren’s opinions into consideration.” See at
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20111216-OYT1T01121.htm.

37

many people are just escaping from reality because they are fed up with the situation.
There are quite a few people who feel like ‘Please keep it quiet and do not speak up. We
do not care about evacuation because we are living our life as usual.’”Staff G (Fukushima City, Staff member at a children’s institution)“I feel I have to stick to it and stay here when I am asked, ‘what happens to the economy
of Fukushima after everybody has evacuated?' or ‘don’t you think about people left in
Fukushima?’ However, if I did not feel such pressure, I would not want to stay here forany longer.”
The main factor reinforcing residents’ decision to stay is the “Safety
Campaign” of Fukushima Prefecture, which sends information and messages thatreassure residents that it is safe to stay in Fukushima, and if there is a dangerous area,
the prefecture will carry out decontamination. In the midst of the Safety Campaign,
residents’ motivation to make a decision to evacuate and the legitimacy of their decision
have been undermined.
For example, HRN received complaints such as the following. “When we areasked why we evacuate when it is safe to stay here, we cannot answer that we evacuate
because it is dangerous, so we answer that it is because we are worried; but that is alsodenied by comments such as ‘that’s because you think too much’ or ‘you are being too
sensitive.’ I have never heard a statement that ‘it is dangerous here so it is up to you
whether to evacuate or not’ in the Safety Campaign.”
Staff F (Fukushima City, Staff member at a children’s institution)“If we were told that it is dangerous in the area and it is okay to evacuate, I think I will
evacuate with my children immediately. However, when we are constantly told that it
is safe, evacuation becomes a difficult decision.” “If it is not safe, they should say so,recognize radiation is harmful to children, and provide compensation and support. Ifthey take such a stance, I think everybody will start thinking about more options
available to extend the support, such as evacuating children. However, at the moment
we are told not to think about those options.” “I think many people will feel relieved ifthey are told clearly that it is okay to evacuate because the radiation level is over 1
mSv. Due to pressure and various circumstances, people can neither speak out nor
38

leave their homes. Although financial issues are a concern, I think it would make a big
difference if the government publicly stated that people in the area should evacuate,
because that can prevent those who choose to evacuate from being talked about behind
their backs. The safety campaigns make it difficult to evacuate because people,
believing it is safe, say that those who evacuate are being nervous or that stress ofparents will affect their children.”(3) Obstacles to evacuation
People face various obstacles that prevent evacuation, such as responsibility attheir work and their loans. Even if they do not have loans, life at an evacuation center isstill full of problems. For example, a mother explained that evacuation is a last resort
because it means giving up everything. “We have loans, and if we have to quit our jobs,
we might be penniless. Also, children might get bullied in other schools (because they
are from Fukushima). I will have to protect the life of my children while looking for a
job and without any possessions (Staff F at a children’s institution). Also, HRN heard
from a mother who said: “Deep inside I know (that it is not safe), but I could notevacuate because I could not be sure what is the best decision for my family,
considering that evacuation will change everything such as my husband’s job andchildren’s school environment” (Resident G). Others said that kids in junior-high school
choose not to evacuate because they want to stay with their friends, while in the case ofhigh school students, it is parents who cannot decide to evacuate due to concern about
their children’s entrance examinations. On the other hand, parents with younger kids areworried that their kids might get bullied at a new school for the reason that they arefrom Fukushima (Fukushima resident C and others).
Furthermore, a decision to evacuate becomes even more difficult for people
with disabilities, regardless of their ages. For example, a mother of a child with Down’sSyndrome explained: “I am worried about what happens to my daughter at a new school.
When I talked with a parent of one of her classmates and asked her if she is thinking
about evacuation, I was told that evacuation is more challenging. Children withadjustment disorders or autism have just adjusted to their current school. They will not
be accepted if they transfer to a new school.”39

A woman with a disability (Fukushima resident B) explained as follows. “Ihave a home helper now but I can neither evacuate by myself nor take the helper withme. I am worried how life would be in a totally different environment. I have no choice
but to stay here. It seems that many people have given up evacuation, telling themselvesthat they are too old anyway.”(4) Lack of refuge places and information
Unlike people in designated evacuation areas, voluntary evacuees cannot
receive adequate support, such as provision of housing and financial compensation.
HRN met a mother who made a decision to evacuate with her children before the third
term of school, leaving her husband in Fukushima. She said that although she searchedfor places of refuge for voluntary evacuees on the Internet, she found that the number ofmunicipalities accepting them is declining (Koriyama resident D). This suggests thatfinding refuge is difficult for voluntary evacuees, especially those who are not familiar
with the Internet or computers.
In addition, an expecting mother with two preschoolers in Watari District said
that she had been living in an area with radiation level of 0.8µSv/h for eight months
after the nuclear accident. Her doctor had not mentioned radiation, although her
midwife told her that she should evacuate. Even when she asked the city and akindergarten about evacuation, they only said that “support is available at various
places”, which was not very helpful. She thus asked Fukushima Network for Saving
Children from Radiation (FNSCR) with the help of Save Watari Kids and found a place ofrefuge. She said that her friend, who had just had a baby, was still living in a house
where the radiation level was 0.7µSv/h (Fukushima resident A).
As such, one can assume that voices for evacuations remain unheard, andmany mothers with children cannot find places of refuge.

(5) Demands of residents
Residents expressed their demands as follows. “I think it is difficult toevacuate everyone, but there should at least be a right to choose for residents. Somepeople could evacuate had the government provided support; some people would be
able to get out (of Fukushima) and evacuate” (Fukushima resident A).

40

“I think it would be better if I have some kind of rights. People in designatedevacuation areas can receive a lump-sum payment, an apartment at no cost, andcompensation of ten thousand yen and what not. On the other hand, there is no support
in our area. I wish would do something about it” (Staff G).
Mr. Seiichi Nakate, a FNSCR representative, said that “one cannot say thatpeople’s rights to choose are truly protected when people have to give up the option ofevacuation on the grounds that they will experience more hardship in places of refugethan they did in their hometown. In order to protect the right to evacuate, authorities
have to give support so that evacuees can have the same environment after theyevacuate; especially people with disabilities, who should be provided with special
support and places of refuge.”(6) Government Measures
On December 6, 2011, the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear
Damage Compensation (the Committee) made a decision on a revision of the mid-term
policy (related to compensations for voluntary evacuations29).
【Voluntary Evacuation Area】
The government explicitly announced Fukushima City, Nihonmatsu City,
Date City, Hon-miya City, Kori Town, Kunimi Town, Kawamata Town, Otama Town,
Koriyama City, Sukagawa City, Tamura City, Kagamiishi Town, Furudono Town,
Miharu Town, Ono Town, Soma City, Shinti Town, Iwaki district, and Iwaki City
(excluding areas already designated as evacuation areas) as Voluntary Evacuation
Areas.
【Standard for compensation】
The government decided the amount of compensation for residents who lived
in the voluntary evacuation area at the time of the accident as follows: 400,000 yen forchildren and expecting mothers for damage caused from the day of the incident to theend of December 2011; and 80,000 yen for other residents for damages caused during
29

See athttp://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/science/anzenkakuho/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldf
ile/2011/12/06/1309711_2_1.pdf.

41

the early stage of the accident. However, the amount of compensation is far lower than
the actual costs needed for evacuation, and is thus insufficient to support voluntaryevacuees.
Furthermore, according to news on December 2 and 3, 2011, Fukushima
Prefecture requested each municipality to stop accepting new applicants for private
housing leased for evacuees fleeing from the Great East Japan Earthquake and theaccident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant3031. Fukushima Prefecture has not been
making such a request ever since; however it still takes a negative stance toward
voluntary evacuation, rather than supporting it due to its concern about population
outflow.
Nor are municipalities being supportive of voluntary evacuation. For example,
according to Koriyama residents, a “Regional Admission System32” for children who
evacuated from Fukushima to Niigata City (a system that admits children in Niigata
City who cannot receive childcare into nursery schools in other municipalities, andchildren in other municipalities into nursery schools in Niigata City) is not madeavailable to children in Koriyama City. Although Niigata city intends to accept infants
from Koriyama City at its request, Koriyama City denies its applicability despite
legislation which shows the city falls under the system (See Annex 6).

9. Recommendations
In a statement published on August 17, 2011, HRN has made a series ofrecommendations to the government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)

30

Under this measure, which is based on flexible operation of the Disaster Relief
Act, prefectures lease private housings for evacuees fleeing from the affected areas,and claim compensation for the cost from Fukushima Prefecture. The nationaltreasury pays a large part of the cost in the end.
31
See “Presidential statement on a system of leasing private housings for evacuees based on the
Disaster Relief Act”, at
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/activity/document/statement/year/2011/111209_2.html.
32
See Child Welfare Act, Article 56-6(1), English translation can be acquired at,
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?vm=&id=11.

42

regarding various measures necessary to protect people’s rights to health. The outline of
the recommendations is as follows33.
・ Provide compensation for residents living in areas with radiation levels of over
1mSv per year (excluding background radiation), and provide evacuees who losttheir living basics with comprehensive support so that they can put their lives backin order.
・ Protect people in areas with radiation levels of over 1 mSv per year (excluding
background radiation) with measures such as: establishment of a radiation
monitoring system; disclosure of data to residents; immediate decontamination andrestoration of a clean environment; radiation protection; provision of food,healthcare and a long-term health effect assessment, including examinations ofinternal exposure.
・ Reconsider evacuations areas based on the actual levels of contamination.
However, actual measures taken in Fukushima City and Koriyama City are a longway from protecting people’s rights to health. HRN is particularly concerned about thefact that the government is not taking initiatives regarding support for evacuation anddecontamination residents are suffering from a number of problems. First of all, people,
especially children, who have been exposed to high doses of radiation, cannot even findout about the effects of radiation on their bodies due to the lack of health examinations.
Moreover, food products are being distributed as safe in spite of the insufficientmonitoring system, and children have to eat school lunch prepared without adequate
safety inspections. Under such circumstances, people’s health has been threatened.
HRN makes recommendations based on the findings during the investigation as follows.

I. To the Japanese Government

33

See “Opinion on the Measures to be Taken by Japan and Tokyo Electric Power Company toAddress the Destruction of Health, Environment and Life Caused by the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant Disaster”, Human Rights Now (2011), at
http://hrn.or.jp/eng/activity/20110912_ikensho.pdf.

43

1. Taking citizens’ demands into consideration, carry out fair, precise and exhaustive
measurement of radiological dosage, and choose areas with high doses of radiation
as measuring points.
2. Reconsider the evacuation area based on the results of those measurements.
3. Take the following measures in municipalities with areas where an estimatedexternal dose (excluding background radiation) exceeds 1mSv per year, putting
maximum priority on “Voluntary Evacuation Areas” designated by the Committee.
(1) Carry out free examinations of internal exposure and thyroid glands for all
residents within six months. Purchase and distribute medical equipment
necessary for the examination, such as whole body counters.
(2) Provide citizens with a precise and periodic medical examination at no charge,
and establish a health monitoring system in order to prevent development ofdiseases caused by radiation exposure. Legislate free medical expenses for all
diseases that bear a causal relationship to radiation exposure.
(3) Using government expenditure, purchase and distribute radiation counters forfood to all meal supply centers and kitchens of elementary and middle schools,
in order to conduct inspections of all food products and secure the safety ofschool lunch.
(4) Using government expenditure, purchase and distribute the latest radiation
counters for food to establish a system of inspection for all food products.
(5) Take initiatives to conduct effective decontamination in areas outside“Designated Decontamination Areas”.
(6) Recognize residents’ right to evacuate and support evacuation by providing
evacuees with housing and financial support to meet the exact costs ofevacuation, separately from compensation from the Dispute Reconciliation
Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation.
(7) Based on flexible operation of the Disaster Relief Act, support residents’evacuation by developing administrative services to provide detailed
information about municipalities that are accepting so-called “voluntaryevacuees.”(8) Establish a system of temporary evacuation and recuperation during longvacations such as summer vacation for citizens, especially children under theage of 18.
44

In addition to the implementation of the aforementioned measures in therecommendations to the government, HRN makes recommendations to Fukushima
Prefectural Government and Fukushima and Koriyama City Municipal Office asfollows.

II. To Fukushima Prefectural Government
1. “Fukushima Health Management Survey”(1) Reorganize the research committee for the “Fukushima Health Management
Survey” in such a way that it is composed of experts who have knowledge andexperience of the dangers of low-level radiation, and who take a stand onrecognizing the gravity of the health risk rather than promoting a “Safety
Campaign.”(2) Ensure complete and transparent disclosure of results from the survey andexplain about the risks of radiation in order to restore citizens’ trust in data
distributed by the Prefectural Government.
2. Provision of information and education about radiation protection
Reconsider the means of providing information on low-level radiation to citizens bycalling on experts who take a stand on recognizing the gravity of the health risk
from radiation.
3.Acceptance of evacuees in other prefectures
Publicly withdraw the request to stop each municipality from accepting new
applicants for private housings leased for evacuees, and make sure the prefecture
will never make such a request.

III. To Fukushima and Koriyama Municipal Office
1. Do not enforce resident’ participation in dangerous decontamination activities
against their will.
2. Ensure that decisions on the installation of temporary sheds are made in an open
and transparent process with the participation of citizens. Put warning signs on thesheds, and declare the area as off-limits.
3. Announce the origin of all food products used in school lunch to students and theirparents. Periodically hold a meeting with parents for the purpose of exchanging
45

opinions to ensure the safety of school lunch.
4. Take appropriate measures, including the “Regional Admission System”, to help
voluntary evacuees and their children to live in comfort at their places of refuge .

III. To other Prefectures
Based on flexible operation of the Disaster Relief Act, support voluntaryevacuations by actively accepting new voluntary evacuees and providing themlong-term support.

IV. To International and domestic donors and private sectors
Considering the urgent need of protecting Fukushima residents and children who
forge the future of the Fukushima, provide support focusing especially on thefollowing two points and proper resource distribution:(1) Support to provide citizens’ groups and municipalities with radiation
counters for measuring food contamination and internal exposure.
(2) Support to consolidate a system of accepting voluntary evacuees.

46