Health / Energy
The Fukushima Disaster and the Future of Japan Questions for Discussion
Part 1 – Energy Issues
1. What did you learn about alternative energy sources in the last class?
2. Some people say we should continue to use nuclear power because it creates jobs. Do companies still make typewriters? Why not? What
happened to those jobs? What will happen to nuclear workers who lose their jobs?
3. Every summer sine 3.11.11 a surplus (余分にあった) of electricity was created. What would you say to someone who claims we need nuclear power because we need electricity?
4. Many people say nuclear power is cheap. Government uses billions of yen in tax money for subsidies (補助金) to build power plants, to build roads,
gymnasiums, and other infrastructure in towns that have plants. Tax money is also used store (keep) old nuclear fuel and to take old power plants apart.
If there is an accident, tax money is used to help people who are affected and to help with cleanup. Is nuclear power really that cheap? For whom?
(see attached flyer)
5. Why will alternative energy sources become cheaper in the near future?
6. How would solar or other forms of energy help companies to save money?
Part 2 – Media Issues
1. What is the role of the media in giving the public accurate information when a disaster happens?
2. How has the media reported on the ongoing Fukushima disaster recently?
3. What was your reaction to the information in the homework video?
4. How did TEPCO (東電) respond to the reporters’ questions?
5. What other opinions were not shown in the documentary?
6. Fukui has many nuclear reactors. Shizuoka has the Hamamatsu Nuclear Power Plant. Nagoya is between these two locations. If an accident occurred at either location, Nagoya could be affected within hours. What has the media reported on the government’s plans to evacuate (避難) people if necessary? (See 美浜原発からの風船、120km南東まで到達――市民団体調査at
http://www.alterna.co.jp/8495)
Part 3 – Safety Issues
1. What is your reaction to the statement given by the farmers in Fukushima?
2. 28 years ago, the areas within 10 kilometers of Chernobyl became off-limits (no one can enter) because the radiation levels were too high. Today, there are places in Japan with similarly high readings of radiation, but people are still living there (see map below and Days Japan June 2014 cover). What should be done for those people?
3. Professor Hiroaki Koide is a professor at Kyoto University. He specializes in nuclear power generation. At first, he thought that nuclear power was clean safe energy. Then he realized that if nuclear power plants were safe, why were they built so far from cities? This requires long electrical wires and other equipment to carry the energy to the cities. The more research he did, the less he was convinced this was a good energy source for Japan. How would you answer this question (underlined above)?
4. Volcanoes (
火山
)emit gas and ash. If there is enough ash, people will not be able to enter the area near a nuclear power plant. If the ash gets into the cooling system, there will be no way to cool the reactors, and other meltdowns may occur. How does this relate to public safety in Japan?
Radiation levels in Fukushima Prefecture. Source: SAFECAST.org
FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS
This article was in the news in November of 2014:
COMMENTARY: Birth defects never increased in Fukushima Prefecture
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/column/AJ201411050012
By AKIKO OKAZAKI/ Staff Writer
The rate of birth defects in babies born in Fukushima Prefecture remains no different from the national average even after the nuclear disaster there, says a report recently worked out by a study group of the health ministry.
Three surveys have targeted expectant and nursing mothers in Fukushima Prefecture following the 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The first, on which the latest health ministry study group report is based, was conducted by the Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;
the second is the prefectural government’s health survey of all residents in the prefecture; and the third was carried out by Fukushima Medical University. … Those who were pregnant at the time of the disaster and gave birth outside Fukushima Prefecture are also eligible for the survey, which has found, like the health ministry report, that the birth defect rate was no different from the national average. … [birth defect=
先天性疾患
]However, the article does NOT give the following information:
According to Marco Kaltofen, environmental engineer, “Birth defects, especially inheritable ones, are a comparatively rare effect of radiation exposure. Cancer incidence is a far more sensitive indicator of population exposure to radiation.
While I’m happy to hear that birth defects may not have increased in incidence, the real health damages are much more likely to be seen as pediatric cancers. Fetal and embryonic humans are far more susceptible to radiation induced cancer than they are to radiation induced birth defects.
The exposures required to elicit those defects could also be capable of inducing a miscarriage（ 流 産 ）. This would reduce the number of live-birth defects counted.”
Marco Kaltofen, MS, PE (Civil, MA), C. NSE Boston Chemical Data Corp.
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, MA
Q: Discuss this in terms of 1) media coverage and 2) health issues
