Okuma: Ready or Not?

I am reporting on the recently lifted evacuation order for parts of Okuma, a town that co-hosts the notorious Fukushima plant and whose previous residents have been under order of evacuation since the plant's meltdown in 2011. The western areas of the town have been deemed safe as radiation levels have "dropped significantly." Before this order, the town had been marked as a "difficult-to-return-to" zone, where entry from previous residents and others was forbidden. Beforehand, the town had been home to 11,500. The local government has high hopes for the return of residents, with various town improvement projects being conducted. The article mentioned that the government has a strong desire to emphasize that this is not the same was the Chernobyl disaster, where residents were never able to return to neighboring communities, yet many former residents of Okuma are now residing in urban areas, and as more time passes are increasingly less likely to return.

 I found the context of this news regarding the lifted evacuation order, frankly, concerning.  Digging deeper into this issue, I learned that "two months after the accident the Japanese government raised the allowable exposure [to radiation] from 1 mSv annually, an international benchmark, to 20 mSv." (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residents-return-despite-radiation/)  Many believe that this was to attempt to return the area to normalcy, even if the numbers did not agree. Now the government claims the levels are safe (around 1-1.5 mSv), but some young citizens do not trust these readings and have even done their own measurements, claiming to have found higher numbers of ~15 mSv. Further complicating the matter of metrics - the level of "background radiation" in Fukushima is often cited, which would be a wavelength measure of atmospheric radiation. In Fukushima, though, radiation primarily takes on the form of radio-nucleotides - particulate matter, due to the collapse of the plant. These particles are dangerous (and specifically why certain dusty buildings are off-limits) because they can be inhaled / ingested / and can stick to clothes etc, also settling in the soil or in gutters and creating radioactive "hot spots," which would not always be detected or reflected in a general atmospheric reading (https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/the-truth-about-radiation-in-fukushima/). There's been a big program to clean up radioactive materials in Fukushima - dirt, primarily - by collecting and removing the contaminated matter, which has been bagged and is still in the area (concern has been raised over the bags themselves breaking, likely due to wear and age). This uncertainty regarding safety reminded me of Dark Tourist, on Netflix. In the show, travelers visit Fukushima, equipped with Geiger counters, on a tour. The cameras keep rolling as the van enters a  difficult-to-return-to zone, and that's when the geiger counters start going off - some reporting radiation levels 50x than what has been deemed safe, and higher than was reported by the government in that area. Actions in this episode are being investigated by the Japanese government. (https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/travellers-stories/fukushima-government-considers-action-over-dark-tourist-episode/news-story/a94ac5b405b8607aa11490c7fed0a2f3).

Reading this article and from my subsequent research, it is clear that the government is ready to move on from Fukushima, an action which the numbers may or may not support. There seems to be a big push for everything to return "to normal," but what is presented as a welcome opportunity for residents to go home may be partially-mandated normalcy. Many elderly residents (the primary age group returning to areas surrounding Fukushima) of the area are returning because they they greatly miss their lives and communities - and/or because their rent-free housing in other areas, provided to them after the evacuation, has recently been terminated (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residents-return-despite-radiation/) . 

Before the crisis, Japan was on track to generate 40% of its power from nuclear reactors. This was greatly decreased after 2011, but in 2014 and 2015 nuclear power was emphasized as a "key base-load resource" (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx). Japan needs nuclear power (http://theconversation.com/six-years-after-fukushima-much-of-japan-has-lost-faith-in-nuclear-power-73042); not only to remain on track to meet energy goals outlined by the Paris Climate agreement, but to reduce energy costs and support energy demands. After 2011, more than 80% of the Japanese public wanted to phase out and/or reduce reliance on nuclear power - and around two thirds of the public still wants to see nuclear power abolished, which is a problem for current energy plans. One would think that a lively and residential Okuma would garner public support for a new era of nuclear (https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/nhknewsline/backstories/nuclearpowerindustry/), but to cast nuclear in a more positive light the effects of Fukushima cannot be erased (harkening back to last week's discussion), and downplaying them could harm many.