Measuring, discussing and living together— What we learned from four years
in Suetsugi

Ethos in Fukushima
Ryoko ANDO
20 th Oct. 2015
ICRP 20151

30km zone
× Fukushima Daiichi NPP
20km zone

Fukushima prefecture2Three lines dividing people’s lives
after the disaster1)
2)

3)Line by geographical distance:
the zone within 30 km or the outerLine by decontamination requirement:
Air dose rate 0.23 μSv/hour= annual dose 1 mSv/yearLine by food contamination:Less than detection limit: N.D. or not31)-A Line by distance:
the zone within 30 km or the outer• 11 Mar 2011 14:46
The earthquake• 12 Mar: 20 km radiusevacuation order by theGovernment• 13 Mar: Iwaki city northernarea (within 20-30 kmradius) voluntaryevacuation request by
Iwaki city mayor• 15 Mar: 20-30 km radiusindoor sheltering order

一部避難 Partial evacuation
全住民避難 All population evacuation

Iwaki city

Reference: http://www.city.iwaki.fukushima.jp/dbps_data/_material_/localhost/01_gyosei/0130/syogentokiroku/059_075.pdf

41)-B What the line by distance
had brought?
• As once entry
restricted, people had
doubts about safety of
the area “Dangerouszone”• At the time of lifting
restriction, people
required a proof of“Safety”

PlannedEvacuation
Zone

Emergency
Evacuation
Preparation Zone

Area NOT included in EEPZ
within 30 km radius

52)-A Air dose rate and annual dose
0.23 μSv/h = 1 mSv/year• August 2011: “The Act on Special
Measures concerning the Handling ofRadioactive Pollution” was enacted
Ministry of the Environment concept
As “long-term goal”, reduce “additional exposuredose” to “1 mSv/year”
To specify decontamination area, this value havebeen converted to air dose rate 0.23 μSv/h62)-B MoE Criterion 0.23 μSv/h1mSv/year =ICSA: Intensive Contamination Survey Area
72)-C How people received thiscriterion?
• Places exceed 0.23 μSv/h are DANGEROUS:
e.g. “I don’t return to my house until it gets lower
than 0.23.” “Hills exceed 0.23, so I won’t enter.”• If getting more than 1 mSv/year it affects toFUTURE HEALTH:e.g. “Even it is OK now, we will get cancer infuture, won’t we?”82)-D Our life space changed drastically• Suddenly dangerous zones creep into dailylife•

People started limiting their actions andlifestyles by themselves•

Strong mistrust and complaints to authorities
which leave them idly93) -A Line by N.D. – foodstuff limitvalue –17 Mar 2011: Tentative limit value(based on annual limit 5 mSv)
1 Apr 2012: New limit value(based on annual limit 1 mSv)

(1)
(2)

Category
Drinking water
Milk and Dairy products

Category
Drinking water
MilkVegetables
GrainsGeneral foods

Meat, Eggs, Fish, etc.

Unit: Bq/kg
Infant foods

103)-B Mistrust for standards itself“The limit was tightened in such a short time.
The first standard must have been wrong; they
were labeling something dangerous as safe.”
The mistrust originally existed was strengthenedby this change“Any standards set by the government cannot betrusted.”
People tried to find safety in "N.D.” whatever itmeant
11

What the mistrust for standards hadbrought?
• Can’t trust any standards: “The lower, thesafer”• In every action in daily life it is needed tomake a decision: “Dangerous or Safe”
Everywhere we had usually visited,
everything we had usually eaten… are they
really safe?

12Practices in Suetsugi district13

Where is Suetsugi district?
How many people are there?
100 plus households,
about 400 people(April 2014)27-28 km away from the NPP
12 March – 22 April 2011
Designated as indoor shelteringzone;
residents were requested toevacuate,
almost all residents had been
evacuated
14

15

16

17

18

19

Air dose rate / soil quality measured maps
compiled by volunteers in Suetsugi
district, Autumn 2011 – March 201220

Grasping external exposure as whole
district community
Daily accumulated dose (μSv)

additional exposure dose 1mSv/ynatural background dose

Graph made by Dr Makoto Miyazaki, Fukushima Medical University

Grasp exposure in each one’s life space
and in community-level
21

Distribution of external exposure as
district community
additional exposure dose 1mSv/ypersonｍSv/yGraph made by Dr Makoto Miyazaki, Fukushima Medical University
22

Foodstuff measurement day
at the community center

Measurement day on 3 March 201523

Confirm one’s diet andfoodstuff measurement
Community-wide whole body countermeasurement
1st June 2013

124 person
2nd Oct 201334
3rd July 201439
4th June 20154124

Survey result at WBC measurement
Have you been eating local foodstuff since the accident?

Blank

Yes

Blank
No
Yes

No
Knowing diet and measurement result of thecommunity strongly helped to understand one’s
own diet and measurement result
25

26

27

28

Summary of practices in Suetsugi (1)
1)

2)

3)

Dose rate / soil quality actually measured
map enabled to rethink the line “within 30
km radius = dangerous”
Individual external exposure measurement
enabled to rethink the line “life cohabiting
with any point exceeds 0.23 μSv/h isdangerous”
Internal exposure measurement andfoodstuff monitoring enabled to rethink theline "anything not 'ND' is dangerous"29Summary of practices in Suetsugi (2)• Measure one’s own everyday things and discuss
the results – “Measure and Discuss”• This is the starting point to find a grip on the"lines" that have been imprinted onto our lives• By contemplating the meaning of “lines”, people
can restore confidence in standards - trust for oursociety

30Measurements redefine the meaningof lines
How much does this “line” or “standard” mean
to my life?
Through data sharing – discussion

How much does it mean to our life, in otherwords, to our society?
31Some “lines” can not be resolvedby the “measure and discuss” approach• When lines, as administrative boundary, are used
to determine administrative action, such ascompensation amount, voluntary measurement
activities or the results do not have power tochange the consequence of the administrative
action or resulting disparity (if any)
• Labels that outsiders fixed are hard to change;
Groundless prejudices such as "That is a 'highrisk' area, let's avoid anything to do with it” arehard to overcome, especially over time32

Lessons learned (1)• As every single “line” is drawn, it has huge impact
on each person’s life
A "line" has the power to tear apart someone’slife or the fabric of community• However, the government believes that it is its
mission to draw "lines”- Often the government does not consider the full
extent of the social impact and the effect on
individual lives
33

Lessons learned (2)What is a line which is “appropriate” and“necessary” for society?
How to draw a line that will minimize people’s pain?

34

Conclusion"Lines" have significant impact/consequences
across the society, not limited to science/RP
community, nor only during the emergency stage.
Any measures against future NP
accidents/radiation emergency should fully
consider said impact/consequences.
Lessons learned from Fukushima regarding the"lines" should be reflected in any
thinking/planning of future responses.

35