PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I'm Paul Jay.
One year ago, the Fukushima nuclear reactor
melted down after an earthquake and a tsunami.
Now, one year later, many people are saying
this was a disaster that could have been avoided--lack
of government regulation, lack of proper preparation
by the company that operated the reactor.
And many questions are being raised whether
the full facts and truth of the situation
are even now being relayed to the people of
Japan, people of the world.
Now joining us to discuss all of this is Masaki
Oshikawa.
He's a theoretical physicist and a physics
professor at the University of Tokyo.
He's now engaged in a local Japanese community
movement to tackle the nuclear contamination
problem.
Thanks very much for joining us, Masaki.
MASAKI OSHIKAWA: Thanks for calling.
JAY: Let's begin with this question of do
the people of Japan now know and are they
getting an honest picture of how much contamination
there was and what to do about it.
For example, there's a report that came out
recently, and it says the following:
There are over 110,00 people who has been
evacuated.
Most of these will be unable to return to
their homes for decades, and possibly never.
Eight percent of Japan has been contaminated
by radioactive fallout, and 3 percent of Japan
is now uninhabitable.
In addition, there are many people who remain
in areas where radiation levels are dangerously
high, particularly for children and pregnant
women.
So, first of all, what do you make of those
numbers?
Do they seem reasonable to you?
OSHIKAWA: Yeah, roughly sounds reasonable,
although, of course, which area is inhabitable
and for how long time is, you know, subject
of debate.
But I think the program, current program in
Japan is that the government is trying to
play down the situation and trying to declare
actually dangerous area as habitable.
And they are trying to, you know, make people
return to their hometown.
JAY: What are some examples of what you're
talking about?
OSHIKAWA: So one prime example is Iitate village,
about 40 kilometers, 25 miles from the plant.
And that area is heavily contaminated.
Once government issued evacuation order [snip]
government allowed people to work there.
So people could not live there, but still
government permitted operation of companies
and so on.
Then government assigned lot of money for
cleanup of that village so that people can
return in short period of time.
But I don't think it's very realistic to clean
up that area in short period of time.
JAY: And why did you think that?
I mean, what's the science of this?
OSHIKAWA: One point is, of course, the level
of contamination is very high, even compared
to situation after Chernobyl.
And the second point is that those villages
in Fukushima are surrounded by mountains.
So even if you clean up the village itself,
contamination will come from mountains and
trees and so on.
So unless you cut down all the trees in the
mountains and dig huge amount of soils, you
know, you cannot really remove contamination.
JAY: One of the things in this report--it
says the following:
After Fukushima the government legislated
that up to 20 millisievert per year was now
acceptable.
This is despite clear evidence that exposure
to these levels over time will significantly
increase cancer rates.
Even using the very conservative figures from
the American National Academy of Sciences'
Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation report,
exposure of children to 20 millisievert per
year for five years is estimated to result
in 1 in 30 getting cancer.
So, according to this report, what the government
is saying is acceptable levels leads to 1
in 30 getting cancer.
What do we know about this?
OSHIKAWA: Basically there is a gray zone between
safe and unsafe.
And in my understanding, as you quoted, for
example, as discussed by this BEIR committee
and the National Academy of Sciences in the
United States, the most reasonable assumption
scientifically is that there is a linear relation
between radiation and extra cases of cancer.
That is, however low the radiation level is,
there is cancer induced by radiation in proportion
to the amount of radiation you receive.
So in case of children, maybe 1 and 30 children
gets cancer if they receive 20 millisievert
of radiation every year.
So it's, you know, rather dangerous level,
I would say.
JAY: Most of Japan's nuclear reactors are
now shut down.
There are plans to open them up again.
Is there such a thing, do you think, as safe
nuclear energy?
OSHIKAWA: I don't think at least the current
nuclear technology can be safe, especially
in Japan.
Maybe it can be safe in United States or France,
where, you know, you have very few earthquakes.
JAY: Well, one of the things being said in
the United States and some of the other countries
you mentioned, but particularly the United
States where there are some reactors near
earthquake-prone areas, that they're saying
that there is such a thing as a nuclear reactor
that can withstand earthquakes.
What's your view on that?
OSHIKAWA: In Japan, you know, those experts
told us that the Japanese nuclear reactors
are safe even under earthquake or tsunami
or whatever, but they were completely wrong.
JAY: So your point here is that when they
say it's safe, it's really computer modeling,
and you never know whether computer modeling
is realistic or not.
And then when it turns out it's not to be,
it's not, then it's--the consequences are
far too serious.
OSHIKAWA: Yeah, basically they make some assumptions
to derive some conclusion.
It shows that these probability estimates
by the experts were completely wrong, because
they were based on wrong assumptions.
JAY: You're involved, I understand, in community
activism now.
What is that?
And what demands are people making?
OSHIKAWA: Some people are concerned about
radioactive contamination, and especially
its effect on children.
So, for example, you know, schoolyards and
parks are also contaminated.
First we demanded our local city government
to clean up schoolyards, for example.
But initially they were very cold, and even
the measurement of radioactive level on schoolyards
were refused.
But after some movement and negotiations and
so on in my city, the city changed the attitude
completely, and they are now very serious
in, you know, tackling the problem.
And, for example, my city decided to clean
up all the schoolyards in all the schools
in the city by removing the topsoil.
Already in a few schools the city experimented
with this cleanup effort, and that was very
effective.
And especially in the center of schoolyard,
the radiation level went back to the normal
level, that is, radiation level before the
accident.
So it's very effective, I think.
But, of course, we need to watch the level
continuously, because it's possible that the
contamination come from other area, for example,
by wind.
Then it's possible that these schoolyards
can be contaminated again.
JAY: Alright.
Thanks very much for joining us.
OSHIKAWA: Thanks.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network.
