The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 9 | Issue 37 | Number 3 | Article ID 3599 | Sep 21, 2011

1

Understanding the Ongoing Nuclear Disaster in Fukushima: A“Two-Headed Dragon” Descends into the Earth’s Biosphere•Japanese original text is available　　福島で進行中の核の大惨事をどう見るか　−−「双頭の天龍」を地球生命圏に降下させた危険を見据えよう

Fujioka Atsushi

Understanding the Ongoing NuclearDisaster in Fukushima: A “Two-Headed Dragon” Descends into theEarth’s Biosphere

The Japanese original text is available(https://apjjf.org/data/doc.pdf)

Fujioka Atsushi

Translated by Michael K. Bourdaghs

The author assesses the Fukushima nucleardisaster in light of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,Hanford, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and thenexus between nuclear weapons and nuclearpower.

This summer, I participated for the seventeenthtime in the “Pilgrimage for Peace,” traveling toHiroshima and Nagasaki with a group thatincluded seventeen American students led byProfessor Peter Kuznick of AmericanUniversity, seven international students fromacross Asia, and sixteen students from Japan. During our eleven days together, we had manydiscussions on the topic of “How to Understandthe Relation between the Fukushima NuclearDisaster and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.” OurCanadian coordinator and interpreterNorimatsu Satoko and two students fromFukushima introduced by Gotō Nobuyo made aspecial contribution to these discussions.

In the midst of this, I was struck by the

prescience of something the late TakagiJinzaburō (Citizens’ Nuclear InformationCenter) once pointed out. The Chernobylnuclear disaster broke out on April 23, 1986,and shortly after that Takagi wrote thefollowing:

Nuc lear techno logy i s theequivalent of acquiring on eartht h e t e c h n o l o g y o f t h eheavens….The deployment here onearth of nuclear reactions, aphenomenon occurring naturallyonly in heavenly bodies andcompletely unknown to the naturalworld here on the earth’s surface,is…a matter of deep significance. For all forms of life, radiation is athreat against which they possessno defense; it is an alien intruderdisrupting the principles of life onearth. Our world on the surface ofthis planet, including life, iscomposed most basical ly ofchemicals…and its cycles takeplace as processes of combinationand dissolution of chemicalsubstances….Nuclear civilizationalways harbors in its womb amoment of destruction, like aticking time bomb. The danger itpresents…is of a kind completelyunlike those we have faced before. And now isn’t it the case that the

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

2

ticking of its timer is growinglouder and louder in our ears?1

Despite Takagi’s words of warning 25 yearsago, despite the painful experience of theatomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,we failed to cultivate the ability to hear theticking of the timer throughout the nation. Itwas against this background, sadly, that March11, 2011 arrived. Here, I would like to explorethe tasks that the present catastrophe presentsfor social science research.

Breaking Away from the “Celestial Fire” ofthe Cosmos: The Formation of the Earth’sBiosphere

As Takagi emphasized, nuclear reactions takingplace inside the nucleus of atoms (nuclearfusion and fission) are the “celestial fire,” theoriginal energy source of the cosmos. Whilechemical reactions (reactions that produceunions of atoms, i.e., molecules, throughexchanges of electrons between atoms) werenot entirely unknown in interstellar space,nuclear reactions remained the primary energysource, and the cosmos took form as a worldswirling with ionizing radiation that theyproduced.

Some 3.6 billion years ago, on the ocean floorhere on planet earth, the conditions necessaryto produce a world of more complex, organicchemical reactions appeared, and the firstprimitive forms of life were born. In otherwords, the conditions for forming a realm inwhich life could be transmitted (the biosphere)were born on the ocean floor.

The primitive atmosphere that covered thesurface of the earth at the time consistedalmost entirely of carbon dioxide and watervapor. It was a harsh world, with hightemperatures and harmful ultraviolet rays andionizing radiation pouring in relentlessly fromthe sun. Ultraviolet rays damage cells on thebody surface of living organisms, while ionizing

radiation causes DNA scission in the cells ofany living body it passes through. This waswhy primitive life could only survive at thebottom of deep oceans, where it was beyondthe reach of those harmful forms of radiation.

Thanks to the photosynthesis of plants in theocean, the carbon dioxide absorbed into oceanwater was split into carbon and oxygen; thecarbon sank to the ocean floor in the form ofcalcium carbonate, while the oxygen wasreleased into the earth’s atmosphere. As theoxygen content of the atmosphere increased, apart of the oxygen entered into an ionicreaction with ultraviolet rays to produce ozone(03), and gradually an ozone layer formedbetween twenty and fifty kilometers above theearth’s surface. It shut out the ultraviolet raysand x-rays emitted with energy from thecosmos’ nuclear reactions and became a crucialmechanism for protecting the earth’sbiosphere. In this way, an environmenthospitable to life on land took form. Asphotosynthesis by plants on land increased, theconcentration of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere further decreased. Eventually, theconcentration of carbon dioxide declined to0.04%, while the concentration of oxygenreached 21%—an optimal environment forliving organisms.

These conditions led to the formation of ouratmosphere, capable of blocking nearly all ofthe ionizing radiation released by the sun. Infact, astronauts living in the international spacestation orbiting in the upper atmosphere about400 kilometers above the earth’s surface areexposed to roughly one millisievert per day, apotentially lethal dose of ionizing radiation, butonly 1/750th of this radiation reaches theplanet surface. Nearly all of the radiationcoming from space is filtered out by theatmosphere before it can reach the earth’ssurface.

As I noted above, energy from nuclearreactions is the driving force behind the

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

3

formation of heavenly bodies. Even now, withinthe earth’s core and mantle, nuclear reactionsare occurring, generating geothermal energy.But a thick soil layer formed, blocking emissionof radiation from the world of nuclear reactionsat the earth’s core, creating a mechanism thatprotects the earth’s biosphere from nuclearreactions taking place in the netherworld farbelow. It is true that in the granite strataformed by hardened magma found in theKerala region of India and on the southeastcoast of Brazil, there are exposed geologicallayers that include radioactive isotopes. Anyoneliving in these places would be exposed toabout ten millisieverts of natural radiation peryear: like outer space, these regions should beoff-limits to human habitation. The lower theamount of ionizing radiation, which causesDNA scission in cells, the healthier it is forliving organisms.

In this way the biosphere formed on the earth’ssurface. The earth’s biosphere extends only toabout fifteen kilometers above the ground andto about ten kilometers below the oceansurface. Combining both its upper and lowerlimits, it consists of a layer that is at best only25 kilometers wide. In comparative terms, it isthinner and more fragile than the skin on anapple. The earth’s biosphere is the preciousproduct of more than three billion years of jointactivities by the earth’s living creatures.Protecting this world of life and passing it on tofuture generations is surely the single mostmeaningful task assigned to humanity.

“Nuclear Civilization”: Moving Backwardin Cosmic History

During World War Two a massive militaryresearch project was launched to collectradioactive uranium (the physical remnant onthe earth’s surface of nuclear reaction energyfrom outer space) and to condense it usingelectricity generated by the Tennessee ValleyAuthority, thereby anachronistically setting offnuclear reactions within the earth’s biosphere.

This was the famous Manhattan Project, begunwith an investment in then-current values ofmore than two billion dollars.

Started as a plan by the military-industrialcomplex to steal the “celestial fire,” theManhattan Project might best be called amodern-day Prometheus. In terms of thehistory of the cosmos, it represented a turningback against the principles of life, a reactionaryproject that aimed to turn the earth’s clockback some 3.6 billion years.

A reactor for producing plutonium wasestablished at Hanford in the northwesternUnited States. The greatest waste productgenerated by this reactor was an enormousquantity of heat. Hanford discharged this heatinto the Columbia River, and it was AdmiralHyman Rickover, the “Father of the NuclearNavy,” and the Electric Boat Company who firstrealized that this heat could be used as asource of engine propulsion power forsubmarines.

Hanford reactors along the ColumbiaRiver, 1960

Next, the American energy industry came intothe picture: by moving onto land the reactorsbuilt for nuclear submarines and using them togenerate electricity for the American economy,

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

4

it could reduce the cost of nuclear submarinereactors through mass production and assurecontrol over energy resources by the “FreeWorld.” The construction of the FukushimaDaiichi Nuclear Plant was part of this effort. The No. 1 reactor at Fukushima was a Mark Imodel reactor manufactured by GeneralElectric, and the No. 2 and subsequent reactorswere similar models.

This descent of the “celestial dragon” into thee a r t h ’ s b i o s p h e r e l e d t o a d o u b l emetamorphosis. First , there was theappearance of what we might call the “ragingdragon”: nuclear weapons. Second was theappearance of what we might call the“sorcerous dragon”: nuclear power. The“nuclear dragon” stole the secret of the"celestial dragon," which formerly presidedover "celestial fire," and descended to theearth’s biosphere, morphing into a “nuclearmonster,” a beast with two heads that thencoiled itself on the earth.

How much of our tax money has this “nuclearmonster” devoured, and how fat has it grown? For the U.S., the nuclear arms race cost sixtrillion dollars and space development onetrillion dollars, producing some 50,000 nuclearweapons and warheads. Another 600 billiontax dollars were spent developing nuclearpower; 104 nuclear reactors were builtdomestically, while still others were exportedto allied nations. The Eastern bloc, led by theSoviet Union, pursued the development ofnuclear power just as enthusiastically, withmost of the socialist powers mistakenly seeingit as a progressive undertaking that wouldincrease productive power. Eventually, some434 reactors were built across the globe.

It was against this backdrop that the March 11Tōhoku earthquake struck. What happened inFukushima on March 11 and after? Let usbegin by confirming the objective facts.

From Meltdown to Melt-Through

The Tōhoku earthquake made a direct hit onthe Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. At3:00 p.m. on the following day, March 12, ahydrogen explosion took place in the No. 1reactor, followed by similar explosions in theNo. 3 reactor on March 14 and in the No. 2 andNo. 4 reactors on March 15. On March 21,there was another mysterious explosion in theNo. 3 reactor.

The explosion that took place in the No. 3reactor on March 14 was accompanied by aviolent thundering sound and emitted amushroom cloud several hundred meters high.This horrifying spectacle was widely reportedabroad, including video footage. It was thusforeigners who were first made aware and fullyinformed that in “the country of Hiroshima” acatastrophe on a par with Chernobyl wastaking place. Norimatsu Satoko brought thisvideo to my attention, and when I watched it, Iwas stunned. Takahashi Tetsuya, who wasborn and raised in Fukushima, wrote that withthe plutonium and uranium mixed fuel used inthe No. 3 reactor, “Some people wondered ifthe uncontrolled reactions had reached a stateof criticality and set off a miniature nuclearblast. When you watch the video, you clearlysee black smoke pouring out and forming intothe shape of a mushroom cloud. Viewing thisrepeatedly on YouTube, I couldn’t help butrecall Hiroshima.”2

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

5

Fukushima explosion

But NHK, Japan’s public broadcaster, wouldnot permit the airing of this video or others likeit. The other major mass media outlets alsoconsistently played down the scope of theongoing nuclear catastrophe, minimizing thethreat it posed. A news blackout was imposedthat resembled the days of the Pacific War,when only official bulletins could be reported.

In the first stages of the crisis, its true naturewas not fully reported even to the rulers of theU.S. At an early stage, “From data collected byan unmanned Global Hawk spy plane, the U.S.realized that temperatures in the reactors wereextraordinarily high. It reached the conclusionthat ‘the nuclear fuel had already melted down’and pressed its Japanese counterparts foraccurate information.” In the early morning ofMarch 16, with this information still beingwithheld from the public, the U.S. issued athreat: “We’ll issue an emergence evacuationorder for all 90,000 Americans in Tokyo toleave Japan. Do you really want to plungeTokyo into panic?” In response, the Japanesegovernment finally yielded to a secondAmerican Occupation: it permitted the dispatchof a large number of U.S. specialists to crisisheadquarters.3

The tight restrictions over information reportedto the Japanese public continued even afterthat. It was not until June 6, three months afterthe incident, that the Japanese governmentfinally acknowledged that the No. 1 reactor hadmelted down just f ive hours after theearthquake, or that several days later the otherthree reactors had also reached meltdown (thestage at which nuclear fuel rods melt into apool on the reactor floor) and then melt-through (the stage at which the molten fuelmelts through the reactor floor to reach theoutside).

March 15: The Largest Release ofRadiation

How much radioactive material—in otherwords, radioactivity—was released into theatmosphere through these explosions and theprocess of “venting” (the intentional release ofradiation from the reactors)? The No.1 reactorexploded on March 12, one day after theearthquake and tsunami, and the No. 3 reactoron March 14. At this stage, the amount ofradiation released was still relatively small, andbecause winds were blowing toward the oceanthe extent of onshore ground contaminationwas limited.

But on the evening of March 14, the core of theNo. 2 reactor was fully exposed, and radiationlevels around the plant began to rise.

“The greatest danger arrived onMarch 15. At around 6:00 a.m.,the pressure suppression chamberof the No. 2 reactor was damagedby a hydrogen explosion. A secondexplosion occurred at the sametime in the No. 4 reactor, whichwas in shutdown mode for aregularly scheduled inspection. The cooling pool for spent fuel rodsin the No. 4 reactor contained themaximum possible number of fuelassembl ies , and there i s apossibility that a considerablenumber of fuel rods were damagedo r m e l t e d d o w n , a n d t h a tradioactive materials were emittedinto the atmosphere.”4

As a result, around 9:00 a.m. on March 15 aradioactive plume formed. The plume firstmoved in a southerly and then southwesterlydirection, spreading radioactivity across acrossthe Nakadōri region of Fukushima Prefecture.

From evening to nighttime of the same day, an“evil wind” struck the village of Iitate andFukushima City, located northwest of thenuclear plant. Hayakawa Yuki of Gunma

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

6

University, a specialist in volcanology,described the resulting situation:

The radioactive material rode thewinds a few dozen meters abovethe ground, brushing against theground as it moved. This is why itsdistribution responded to thepattern of such geological featuresas basins and hillsides….Thevillage of Iitate was exposed tosevere contamination around 6:00p.m. on March 15. That evening,the wind blowing at the Fukushimaplant changed from the southeast. For Fukushima prefecture, thiswas the moment it became an evilwind. A highly radioactive plumereached Fukushima City around7:00 p.m. and Kōriyama Cityaround 8:00 p.m…. It then crossedover the old Shirakawa barrier andmoved into Tochigi prefecture,reaching Nasu and Nikkō.5

“It was raining at this time in the northernparts of Gunma and Tochigi prefectures,causing hot spots with high accumulations ofradioactive material to form.” This is becausethe particles of radioactive cesium are so smallthat gravity alone will not make them fall: theytypically will descend to the ground only if itrains.6

March 21: A Second Massive Release ofRadiation

On the morning of March 21 the wind wasblowing from the north. In areas downwindfrom the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant(including the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Plantand the cities of Kita Ibaraki, Takahagi andMito), levels of airborne radiation suddenlyspiked. What caused this abnormal jump? According to Tanabe Fumiya, an expert innuclear power, at this same time the airpressure inside the pressure container of theNo. 3 reactor, the one that used MOX (a mixedoxide fuel containing both plutonium anduranium), suddenly soared to 110 times thenormal level. Because of this extremely highpressure, it was no longer possible to addcooling water from outside; as a result, thedamaged fuel rods in the reactor once againwent into meltdown, and the resulting build upof steam led to an explosion. The moltenremnants of the fuel rods then breached thepressure container and leaked to the floor of

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

7

the containment vessel. Tanabe concludes thatthe blast caused some of the radiation toescape the reactor, leading to contamination ofthe downwind region, an area extending fromthe interior of Fukushima prefecture to KitaIbaraki.7

On March 23, a new plume formed, movingsouthwest from the coastal areas of Ibarakithrough Chiba prefecture. During this period,most of the Kantō region saw several days ofrain, resulting in accumulations of radioactivematerials on the ground across the region.8

The Formation of Contaminated “HotSpots”

In April, the Japanese Ministry of Education,Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology(MEXT) and the U.S. Department of Energyjointly conducted an extensive survey,measuring levels of soil radiation fromelevations of 150-700 meters above theground. They released a detailed map showingthe d is t r ibut ion o f contaminat ion . Accumulations of cesium 137 (thirty year half-life) exceeding 600,000 becquerels per squaremeter indicate a level of contaminationequivalent to that of areas subjected tomandatory evacuation during the Chernobylaccident; the April survey revealed that thearea reaching this level of contaminationcovered some 800 square kilometers, mainly inFukushima prefecture. (In Japan, however,these reports were underplayed out of fearsthey would lead to mass evacuations ofresidents). This is an area equivalent to 40% ofthe Tokyo metropolitan area—or 1.2 times thesize of Lake Biwa, the largest freshwater lakein Japan; it was roughly 10% of the size of themandatory evacuation zone put into effect afterthe Chernobyl accident.9

On August 19, MEXT released the results of itscalculations of the expected annual radiationdoses for fifty locations within the restrictedarea located with twenty kilometers of the

Daiichi plant. According to them, at 35 of the50 locations the estimated annual radiationdose exceeded twenty millisieverts. Thisestimated annual dose of twenty millisievertswas the standard used in designating regionsthat would be “planned evacuation zones.”

In the town of Ōkuma, home to the Daiichiplant, all twelve locations exceeded twentymillisieverts, with seven of them exceeding 100millisieverts. The highest recorded level, 508millisieverts, was recorded in the Koirinodistrict of Ōkuma, about three kilometerssouthwest of the plant. This level representsthe equivalent of a 500-year dose at theestimated maximum tolerable annual radiationexposure for the general population of onemillisievert.10 In contaminated regions, placesshowing critically high levels of radioactivityare called “hot spots”; these results made itclear that almost the entire area within twentykilometers of the plants consisted of hot spots.

In late June, Yamauchi Tomoya of the Faculty ofMaritime Sciences at Kobe University carriedout a survey of radiation contamination in soilfrom four locations in Fukushima City, findinglevels ranging from 16,000 to 46,000becquerels per kilogram. It became clear thatnumerous hot spots had formed in FukushimaCity, an urban center with a population of

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

8

290,000 located 62 kilometers from the nuclearplant.

Hot spots were discovered in many parts of thecapital city, too, with its population of thirtymillion. Kashiwa in Chiba Prefecture is asuburban bedtown of Tokyo. The city is locatedsome 200 kilometers from the Fukushimanuclear plant, but a soil sample taken from aroads ide in an upsca le res iden t i a lneighborhood a two-minute walk from the JRKashiwa commuter train station gave aradiation reading of 53,000 becquerels,exceeding the results found in Fukushima City. In the Chernobyl accident, this figure wouldhave resulted in the location being declared amandatory evacuation zone.11

On June 10, in the largest tea-growing region ofShizuoka prefecture, some 370 kilometers fromthe nuclear plant, harvested tea leaves werefound to be contaminated with radiation, andshipments of Shizuoka tea were halted. Pastures in Ichinoseki in Iwate prefecture, 170kilometers from the plant, were found to havecesium levels more than three times theprovisional limit. In July, widespreadcontamination of hay being fed to beef cattlewas confirmed, and on July 25 radioactivecesium was detected in wheat and rapeseedfrom Fukushima.12 Concern mounted about thepossibility of contamination spreading to therice crop.

The leaked radiation quickly crossedinternational boundaries and drifted across theglobe. Radioactive material emitted from theplant March 12-16 was captured in theascending air currents that accompanied thelow pressure system and rode the jet streamsto the east at a speed of 3,000 kilometers aday. They reached the U.S. on March 18, andtraces of lethal plutonium were detected acrossthe West Coast.13 Fukushima’s nuclear disasterwas now a global nuclear disaster.

The Amount of Radiation Released from

Fukushima Daiichi

Since the explosions that breached theirhousing structures, the reactors have beenexposed to the open air, and they continue toleak radiation. On March 15, the highest levelof emission was recorded: 200 tb/hour(tb=terabecquerel; one terabecquerel = onetrillion becquerels). After the initial crisis,levels began to decline on March 21, and theaverage emission level for May dropped to0.0002 tb/hour (two billion becquerels) and forJune to 0.001 tb (one billion becquerels). ByJune, the level dropped to 1/200,000th of whatit had been on March 15.14

Of course, the danger remains that a largeaftershock could further compromise thealready badly damaged reactors, and anydamage to plant pipelines or undergroundcontainment structures could also lead to asudden increase in emissions. The eastern partof Fukushima prefecture was hit withaftershocks of magnitude 6.4 on July 1 and 6.0on August 12. At roughly the same times, therewere incidents of radioactive steam escapingfrom cracks in the ground inside the plantcompound. Professor Robert Jacobs ofHiroshima City University pointed out that thedanger was not that the reactors coulddisintegrate, but that the molten cores mightescape the buildings and let off significantradiation.

How much radiation in total has been releasedinto the atmosphere by the Fukushima DaiichiNuclear Plant since March 11? As of April,Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) and the governmentestimated total emissions at 370,000 tb, but ata June 6 press conference they revised thisfigure substantially upward to 770,000 tb.

How much radiation was released into water(including cooling water in the plant,underground water, and the ocean)? As of July20, the amount of contaminated wateraccumulated in the four reactor buildings andturbine structures totaled approximately

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

9

96,000 tons. If we add to this the 22,000 tonstransferred from the reactor structures tocentral waste processing facilities at the plant,the total amount of contaminated water nowaccumulated inside the plant is 117,000 tons.15 TEPCO estimates the total radiation in thiscontaminated water at about 800,000 tb; if thisfigure is close to being correct, it means thatthe amount of radiation in this on-site water isroughly equal to the total amount released intothe atmosphere—a massive contamination ofwater.

Radioactive Water and Contamination inthe Oceans

While both are radiation leaks, there is asignificant difference in environmental impactbetween leaks into the atmosphere and thosecontained within the plant‘s cooling water. The770,000 tb released into the atmosphereimmediately spread beyond the plant tocontaminate the environment outside the plant.

The situation is different with the 800,000 tbemitted into plant cooling water. From thetotal of 117,000 tons of contaminated water, ithas been reported that 520 tons weredischarged into the ocean outside the plant,producing a radiation leak of 4720 tb. If thisinformation is accurate, this means that 99.6%of the contaminated water, including 99.4% ofthe total radiation that has been emitted intowater, remains inside the plant facility and isnot believed to present an immediate threat tothe environment outside the plant.16

But we would be mistaken to conclude fromthis date that the contamination of the ocean isnot a major concern. First, we need to notethat compared to normal environmentalstandards, 4720 tb of radiat ion is anextraordinarily high figure. The maximumannual limit for radiation emissions into theocean for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plantwas 0.24 tb. Despite this, contaminated watercontaining radiation at 20,000 times this limitwas discharged into the ocean over a period of

four months.

Moreover, the estimated figures give noinformation about what will happen withradioactivity released into the atmosphere orground. Eventually, nearly all of the radiationreleased into the atmosphere will fall to thesurface to be absorbed into the ground orocean. Radiation that settles on the ground inJapan will be washed away by rain into riversthat ultimately flow into the ocean. Clearly, inthe long term most of the radiation releasedinto the atmosphere will end up being absorbedinto the ocean. It seems inevitable thatthrough these multiple routes, radiation levelsin the ocean will rise, accelerating thebiological concentration of radiation, which willin turn gradually move up the food chain toconcentrate in the bodies of larger fish and,finally, human beings.17

Comparison with Hiroshima

If we combine the 775,000 tb total radiationreleased outside the facility from the fourreactors and fuel storage pools at theFukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant with the800,000 tb contained in the contaminatedwater accumulated inside the facility, the totalemission of radiation amounts to roughly1,570,000 tb. How does this figure compare tothose for previous nuclear weapon blasts andnuclear accidents?

To begin with the uranium-based nuclear bombdropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, infact only about 10-15% of the uranium 235contained in that device achieved fission, withthe remainder dispersing. As a result, the totalrelease of radioactivity was limited to 13,000tb. With the plutonium-based implosion-typeweapon dropped on Nagasaki, 15-25% of theplutonium fuel underwent a fission reaction,producing a total radioactivity of about 20,000tb. In today’s nuclear weapons, a hollow spaceat the center of the fissionable material is filledwith a fusion material (tritium or similarmaterials) called a “booster,” allowing a blast

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

10

that achieves a 100% fission rate. This hasmade possible the creation of smaller and moreefficient weapons. Compared to these, thedevice used at Hiroshima now seems almostlike a toy.

To put this all in comparison, a typical million-kilowatt class nuclear reactor will produce in asingle day of operation as much “deadly ash”(spent nuclear fuel) as three explosions of aHiroshima-class bomb. This means that in ayear of operation, a typical reactor produces asmuch “deadly ash” as a thousand Hiroshima-class detonations. Each day, today’s nuclearreactors use as much energy as it would havetaken to detonate three Hiroshima-class bombsto heat large amounts of water and driveenormous electricity generators.

The amount of radioactivity emitted to theoutside world by the Fukushima DaiichiNuclear Plant is said to be 775,000 tb. Thisamounts to a radiation leak equivalent to thedetonation of sixty Hiroshima-class, or 39Nagasaki-class, nuclear bombs.

Cesium is a particularly worrisome radioactivematerial: with a half-life of thirty years, itproduces particularly severe and long-lastingcontamination of foodstuffs and soil. If we useonly cesium 137 as our comparison point,preliminary figures released by the governmentindicate that 15,000 tb were emitted fromFukushima; this amount corresponds to theequivalent of 168 Hiroshima nuclear blasts.18

Professor Kodama Tatsuhiko, a specialist innuclear issues at the Isotope Center of theUniversity of Tokyo Research Center forAdvanced Science and Technology, testifiedbefore the Japanese House of Representatives’Committee on Welfare and Labor on July 27,2011.

“ B a s e d o n o u r s c i e n t i f i cknowledge…at the Isotope Center,we calculated the quantity of heat

that has escaped [ from thereactors at the Fukushima Daiichiplant] as being equivalent to 29.6H i r o s h i m a - l e v e l n u c l e a rblasts….Even more troubling is[the enormous difference between]the size of the residual effect fromradiation due to an atomic bomband that due to radiation that hasleaked from the nuclear reactors. While the residual effect willdecrease to a level of 1/1000thafter one year for an atomic bombblast, the radioactive material fromthe reactors will decrease only to1/10th in the same period. In sum,the current t roub le a t theFukushima plant is similar toChernobyl in that they both involvethe re lease o f rad iat ion inquantities equivalent to those fromdozens of atomic bombs, leaving amuch higher residual effect thanwas the case for contamination byatomic bombing.”

Not only has Fukushima seen the release ofradioactivity equivalent to dozens of Hiroshima-class atomic bombs, but the rate at which thatradioactivity will decrease is one hundred timesslower, Professor Kodama testified.

Why will it take so much longer for theradiation in Fukushima to decrease than it didfor Hiroshima? This is because the radioactivematerial used in the reactors includes materialwith a long half-life. A long half-life meansthat, while it is unlikely to cause acuteradiation sickness because the amount ofradiation per unit of time is relatively low, itwill cause long-term exposure to low-levelradiation. In particular, people who ingestradiation from the nuclear plants by breathingor eating will experience chronic internalexposure to low-level radiation. The result is adeterminate increased risk of incidence of

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

11

cancer and other health problems within aslittle as five years, or as many as ten to thirtyyears.

In Hiroshima, by contrast, most of theradioactive material used had a short half-life. In addition, on September 17, soon after thebombing, a typhoon struck the city, leading tofloods about a meter deep across the entireblast area; as a result, much of the radioactivematerial was washed away into the InlandSea.19 Within a half year of the bombing,residual radiation levels in the city haddecreased to levels enabling safe habitation.

Comparison with Three Mile Island andAtmospheric Nuclear Tests

How does the current disaster compare withthe March 28, 1979 nuclear accident at theThree Mile Island Nuclear Plant in suburbanHarrisburg, Pennsylvania? At Three MileIsland, the total radiation leak amounted to91,000 tb. By contrast, already in Fukushima17.3 times as much radiation has leaked out ofthe reactors, and 8.6 times as much radiationhas been emitted outside the plant facility, asat Three Mile Island.

In the 35 years between 1945 and 1980, theU.S., USSR, France and China carried outatmospheric nuclear tests that also releasedradioactivity. How do these compare toFukushima? These atmospheric nuclear testsrepresent the greatest instances of radiationrelease in human history. The period from1950 to 1963, in particular, saw a competitionbetween America and the Soviet Union toproduce ever larger hydrogen bomb teste x p l o s i o n s o n t h e B i k i n i A t o l l a n dSemipalatinsk sites. The after-effects ofradioactive contamination from these lingertoday. In the 543 atmospheric tests carriedout, 3,000,000,000 tb of radiation werereleased—a total 580 times that released in theChernobyl accident.20 This is equivalent to1900 times the total radiation leak from thereactors in Fukushima. In recent years, global

rates for the incidence of cancer have risensharply, and it seems likely that these pastatmospheric tests are one cause. We may stillbe suffering from the after-effects of the historyof atmospheric testing.

Comparison with Chernobyl

In the April 26, 1986 nuclear disaster atChernobyl, only one reactor (the No. 4 reactor)went into meltdown. A considerable portion ofthe two hundred tons of radioactive uraniumand graphite contained in the reactor wasdischarged in the explosion, leading to theemission of 5,200,000 tb of radiation into theatmosphere. (The contamination of coolingwater, however, remained relatively smallscale). An enormous radioactive plume formedand drifted across Ukraine, Belarus and Russiabefore moving into the countries of northernEurope.

Looking only at total radiation leaked into theatmosphere, Chernobyl was 6.7 times largerthan Fukushima. If we include contaminationof water, it was 3.3 t imes larger thanFukushima. In other words, when we use thecombined total radiation leaks into theatmosphere and water as point of comparison,total radiation emissions in Fukushima havealready reached a level of one-third the size ofthe Chernobyl accident.

In Chernobyl, more than 400,000 people wereevacuated, with over 2,000 villages becomingghost towns in the process. Even today, 25years later, the exclusion zone continues toexpand and the area remains in a state ofparalysis in terms of economic activity.

What was the cost of the Chernobyl disaster interms of the health of local residents? AlexeyYablokov, an adviser to the Soviet governmentat the time of the accident, edited Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for Peopleand the Environment (2007; English translation2009) a groundbreaking work that surveyedmore than 5,000 studies published in Russian

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

12

and other languages. I will draw here onSakuma Tomoko’s useful summary of itsconclusions. Concerning the number of deathscaused directly or indirectly by the nuclearaccident,

“As of 2004 the total has reached985,000. This figure is hundredsof times greater than estimatesproduced by the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency….InBelarus, 90% of children were ingood health in the year before theaccident, but in 2000 this ratedecline drastically to less than20%, and from 1986 to 1994 theinfant mortality rate climbed to9.5%. According to a 1993 surveyof two regions exposed to highlevels of cesium 137, only 9.5% ofchildren who had been aged 0-4 atthe time of the accident were ingood health.”

Accord ing to Sakuma, the leve l s o fcontamination for those two regions were onpar with those found up to fifty kilometersnorthwest of the Fukushima power plant.21

A significant health cost was also visited on thepeople of Ukraine. The photographerHirokawa Ryūichi visited Ukraine in February,2011, 25 years after the accident, and met withAnatoly Romanenko, Ukrainian Minister ofHealth at the time of the accident. In hisinterview with Hirokawa, Romanenko says

“The 53,000 square kilometer areaof Ukraine that was contaminatedremains unchanged today. 2.55million people were evacuated,500,000 of them children….Theresults of a study involving morethan two mil l ion Ukrainiancitizens….showed that even among

those who were not exposed tohigh levels of radiation, many hadbecome ill….Among the subjects ofthe study, 68% were in good healthbefore the accident. But amongthe people from that category, only6% are in good health today. Inparticular, there has been anincrease in the incidence of tumorsand related conditions.”22

The Amount of Radiation Lying Dormant inFukushima Daiichi

What is the total volume of radioactive material(nuclear fuel) accumulated at the FukushimaDaiichi Plant? In the case of Chernobyl, theaccident involved only the No. 4 reactor, whichcontained 200 tons of nuclear fuel. Incomparison, at Fukushima the six affectedreactors and cooling pools for spent fuel rodscontain 2,000 tons, or roughly ten times theamount of nuclear fuel that was involved inChernobyl.23

How does this compare in terms of radiationlevels? The 2,000 tons of nuclear fuel at theFukushima Daiichi Plant is estimated to containabout 20,000,000 tb of radiation. This meansthat the Fukushima p lants ho lds anaccumulated total radiation equivalent to 138times the amount that leaked from theChernobyl plant, or 24% of the total radiationreleased during the history of atmosphericnuclear tests.

At present, only 0.2% of the total radioactivityof the plant’s nuclear fuel has leaked into theatmosphere or plant cooling water, but even atthis limited level, the radiation leak has alreadyreached one-third the scale of the Chernobyldisaster. Additional aftershocks, deliberateattacks on the plants (including the possibilityof terrorism), or human error could furtherdamage the Fukushima reactors. If only 1% ofthe accumulated radiation were to escape insuch an incident, it would amount to a leak of

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

13

7,200,000 tb, making it the worst nuclearaccident in history, exceeding even Chernobyl(5,200,000 tb).24

The Fate of 2000 Tons of Damaged NuclearFuel

On the floors of the Fukushima Daiichireactors, the “enchanting dragon”—some 2,000tons of half-melted nuclear fuel—coils itself upand waits. To prevent this enchanting dragonfrom discharging its toxicity, it will benecessary to continue dumping large amountsof cooling water on it for decades to come.

A “recycled water cooling” system has been setup to avoid having to use large quantities offresh water. If the system functions asplanned, radioactive cooling water will bedecontaminated and then recycled to cool thereactors. The system uses equipment fromFrance’s Areva and the U.S.’s Kurioncompanies, and on August 16 this wassupplemented with a “Sally” adsorption filterfor radioactive cesium produced by Toshiba. But between June 1, when the system was putinto operation, and August 9, it was only able tooperate at a cumulative 66% of projectedcapacity. The total volume of contaminatedwater treated as of August 9 was a mere 42,000tons, with an additional 120,000 tons sittinguntreated underground beneath the turbinehousing structures and elsewhere.25

Effective decontamination of radioactive waterinvolves an operation in which chemicals arefirst added to cause it to sediment, after whichthe remaining radioactive material is removedby adsorbent agents. The radiation level of thecontaminated sediment produced through thisprocess is more than 100 times higher thanthat of highly contaminated cooling water—asubstance so dangerous it can only be handledby remote control.26

Let’s assume the most favorable possibleoutcome: no massive aftershocks or armedattacks, and the successful production of a

reliable cooling water recycling system that isable to fully re-circulate decontaminated waterback into the plant. This would mean an end tothe nightmarish prospect of unlimitedgeneration of more and more contaminatedwater. But the decontamination process willalso produce a large quantity of highlyradioactive sediment day after day. Forexample, the Toshiba “Sally” operates byrunning radioactive water through a towerfilled with zeolite, which decontaminates waterby adsorbing the radioactivity of the cesium init.27 But this will result in the daily productionof large amounts of dangerously radioactivezeolite.

The total rubble left behind by the earthquakeand tsunami in the three most affectedprefectures is estimated at 22,630,000 tons. Much of this is radioactive, and high levels ofradiation have also been detected in incineratorresidue from household waste and sewage. Wesomehow need not only to separate out andsecure this radioactive waste, but also to storesafely the large amounts of contaminatedzeolite that are now going to be produced atthe plant.

That is not all: we also face the enormous taskof figuring out how to reduce and finallyextinguish the 2,000 ton enchanting dragonthat still occupies the plant. It seems the onlyway to do this is to keep pouring in vastquantities of water, as if to wash away thedragon’s scales one thin layer at a time,dissolving the radioactive materials into thewater and then adsorbing it into zeolite. If thisin fact turns out to be the case, how muchr a d i o a c t i v e w a t e r w i l l n e e d t o b edecontaminated until the dragon finallydisappears? How much contaminated zeoliteand other highly radioactive materials will begenerated in the process? How much time andmoney will be needed to store and secure thesecontaminated byproducts? Today nobody cananswer these questions with any degree ofcertainty.

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

14

Prospects for Resident Health in Five Yearsand Beyond

According to data released by the Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications on July27, as of October, 2010—that is, before thedisaster—Fukushima prefecture had apopulation of 2.3 million. After the nuclearaccident, earthquake and tsunami, 46,000persons evacuated to locations outside theprefecture.2 8 If we included those whoevacuated to areas within the prefecture thisfigure would of course be larger, but for thepresent it represents about 10% of the numberevacuated after Chernobyl. Fukushima willlikely follow not the path of Hiroshima, butrather of Chernobyl: ongoing contamination ofground and seas over the long term, withchronic low-level exposure to internalradiation.

ECCR scientific secretary Christopher Busby,whom I have already cited several times,included the following two clauses in theconclusion to “The Health Outcome of theFukushima Catastrophe,” a paper he publishedthree weeks after the accident:

1. The ECRR risk model has beenapplied to the 3 million peopleliving in the 100km radius of theFukushima catastrophe. Assumingthese people remain living therefor one year the number of excesscancers predicted by the method isapproximately 200,000 in the next50 years with 100,000 beingdiagnosed in the next 10 years. Ifthey are evacuated immediately,the number will fall by a significantamount. For those 7 million livingbetween 100km and 200km fromthe site, the predicted number ofcancers is slightly greater with220,000 extra cancers in the next50 years and about 100,000 beingexpressed in the next ten years.

These predictions are based on theECRR risk model and also thefindings of cancer risk on Swedenafter the Chernobyl accident.

5 . I t i s recommended tha tpopulations living within the100km zone to the North West ofthe site are immediately evacuatedand the zone is made an exclusionzone.29

Sasaki Sadako was two years old at the time ofHiroshima; she did not develop leukemia until1954, nine years after the atomic blast. Following Chernobyl, too, it was not until fiveyears had passed that rates of thyroid canceramong children suddenly spiked. The worldwaits to see what health problems the people ofFukushima, especially the children, will face infive years and beyond.

In Place of a Conclusion

Through the collective efforts of primitive lifeforms starting some 3.6 billion years ago, theozone layer and atmosphere took shape, andhospitable lands and oceans capable ofsustaining the earth’s biosphere slowlyemerged. By contrast, in this “Nuclear Age,”the “celestial dragon” bearing the “celestialfire” has suddenly descended to the earth’sbiosphere, transforming into a monster withtwo heads: the raging dragon (nuclearweapons) and the enchanting dragon (nuclearpower),

I once had the opportunity to visit in Americathe artist Mayumi Oda, known for usinggoddess imagery in her depictions of motherearth. I would like to conclude by thinkingabout a painting of hers that portrays a two-headed dragon. Promoters of nuclear energylooked only at the heads of the dragon anddeclared that we could distinguish between“atoms for war” and “atoms for peace” andkeep them separate. But under the harsh

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

15

realities of capitalism, it is nearly impossible toseparate cleanly the two heads of the dragon. The French oceanographer Jacques Cousteau,addressing the United Nations GeneralAssembly in May, 1975, correctly warned that“We are far too nationalistic in spirit to succeedin holding peaceful atoms and war-like atomsapart for long; we have not conquered ourfierce aggressiveness. We are unable toembrace atoms for peace while rejecting atomsfor war. If we want to preserve human life, wemust learn to abandon both.”

The danger of building nuclear plants inregions susceptible to earthquakes isfrequently pointed out, but we should also havepaid closer attention to and sounded alarmbells about the danger of building nuclearplants in areas susceptible to outbreaks of war. Nuclear power was trumpeted as the model forthe “peaceful use of nuclear energy,” but inreality this was the “delusion of peaceful use.” Under the U.S. Japan Mutual Security Pact(AMPO), all of Japan was turned into a U.S.military base, the “unsinkable aircraft carrier”at the heart of America’s new strategic plan forwarfare on an unprecedented scale. At thesame time, based on the foolishly optimisticand baseless “assumption” that war wouldnever break out, we eagerly pursued theconstruction of nuclear plants on the cheap.30 Why? Because keeping up this “delusion ofpeaceful use” allowed the production cost ofelectricity to drop, leading to increased profits,which in turn underwrote the bribes knowneuphemistically as “political contributions.”

What would happen if the Korean War, pausednow under the terms of a still temporaryceasefire, were to erupt back into opencombat? “Nuclear plants cannot be defendedmilitarily from armed attack. Accordingly, thenuclear plants spread along Japan’s coastlineare in effect nuclear weapons in the hands of ahypothetical enemy….Once its nuclear plantscome under armed attack, the land of Japanwill become permanently uninhabitable,”

declared retired nuclear engineer Ogura Shirō,who concludes, “The presence of nuclear plantsrender it impossible for us to defend ourselvesin case of war.”31 This is a crucial fact: if theKorean War were to explode into open combatagain, the utterly vulnerable Fukushima DaiichiPlant would inevitably present an ideal target;this state of utter vulnerability will continue fordecades into the future.

If we can muster the political will, there is onetask that we can readily accomplish: bring theKorean War to a permanent conclusion andtransform East Asia into a completely war-freezone. This is clearly the most important taskfacing Japanese diplomacy post-March 11, andif it can be achieved, AMPO will start to lose itsseemingly supernatural powers.

Takahashi Tetsuya, a native of Fukushima, putsthe problem in the following terms: “If it istrue that emperor-system militarism was thecore of Japan’s wartime political order, thenisn’t it just as true that the doctrines of AMPOand nuclear power have formed the core ofJapan’s postwar political order?”32 This is avery sharp observation. AMPO and the nuclearplant network of public works that supports it: this system permits electric utilities to pushonto the market relatively high electricityprices that cover their costs and provide a fixedprofit, and it is also the basis of politicalfundraising for both the Liberal DemocraticParty and the Democratic Party of Japan.

The present crisis surrounding Japan’s nuclearplants has made it clear that the key toguaranteeing peace lies not with AMPO, butwith concluding a peace treaty to end theKorean War and the establishment of a war-free region. Moreover, if we can root out thepolitics-by-bribery of the electricity utilities,sustained by their nuclear plants, there is apossibility we could dismantle the hideboundstructure of politics in Japan. If we cansimultaneously free ourselves from AMPO andthe nuclear plants, the pillars of the whole

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

16

corrupt postwar Japanese establishment willcrumble.

Fukushima continues even now to be visited byfrequent, ominous aftershocks. The 2,000-tonenchanting dragon, with its 720,000,000 tb ofradiation, writhes and coils in the land ofFukushima. As we keep a watchful eye on thisenchanting dragon descended from theheavens, trying to keep it from discharging itspoison, how can we drive it out from the earth’sbiosphere and back into the heavens (or intothe netherworld at the earth’s core)? We willbe wrestling with this problem for decades tocome.

In the Old Testament, the following passageappears: “Then the Lord answered Job out ofthe whirlwind, and said, Who is this thatdarkeneth counsel by words withoutknowledge?.... Hast thou commanded themorning since thy days; and caused thedayspring to know his place?”33 In the comingyears, this question will be our own cross tobear, as we seek to find a new way of life.

Fujioka Atsushi, the author, is Professor ofEconomics, Ritsumeikan University andPlanning Director, Kyoto Museum for WorldPeace. He is a specialist on the US nucleareconomy, space and intelligence strategy, andeconomic conversion from military to civilian-oriented industry.

Michael Bourdaghs, the translator, is AssociateProfessor of Modern Japanese Literature,University of Chicago. He is the author of TheDawn That Never Comes: Shimazaki Tōson andJapanese Nationalism, and editor of TheLinguistic Turn in Contemporary JapaneseLiterary Studies: Textuality, Language, Politics.

Recommended citation: Fujioka Atsushi,'Understanding the Ongoing Nuclear Disasterin Fukushima: A “Two-Headed Dragon”Descends into the Earth’s Biosphere,' The Asia-

Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 37 No 3, September12, 2011.

Articles on related subjects

• Winifred A. Bird and Elizabeth Grossman,Chemical Contamination, Cleanup andLongterm Consequences of Japan’sEarthquakea n d T s u n a m i(https://apjjf .org/-Winifred-Bird/3588)

• Kodama Tatsuhiko, Radiation Effects onHealth: Protect the Children of Fukushima(https://apjjf.org/-Kodama-Tatsuhiko/3587)

• David McNeill and Jake Adelstein, Whath a p p e n e d a t F u k u s h i m a ?(https://apjjf .org/-Jake-Adelstein/3585)

• Koide Hiroaki, The Truth About NuclearPower: Japanese Nuclear Engineer Calls forAbolition (https://apjjf.org/-Koide-Hiroaki/3582)

• Chris Busby, Norimatsu Satoko andNarusawa Muneo, Fukushima is Worse thanChernobyl – on Global Contamination(https://apjjf.org/site_manage/details/japanfocus.org/-Chris-Busby/3563)

• Yuki Tanaka and Peter Kuznick, Japan, theAtomic Bomb, and the "Peaceful Uses ofN u c l e a r P o w e r "(https://apjjf .org/-Yuki-TANAKA/3521)

• Paul Jobin, Dying for TEPCO? Fukushima’sN u c l e a r C o n t r a c t W o r k e r s(https://apjjf .org/-Paul-Jobin/3523)

• Say-Peace Project and Norimatsu Satoko,Protecting Children Against Radiation:Japanese Citizens Take Radiation Protectioni n t o T h e i r O w n H a n d s(https://apjjf.org/-Say_Peace-Project/3549)

See other articles on Fukushima in the What'sHot (https://apjjf.org/events) section on Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

A n d a c o m p l e t e l i s t

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

17

(https://apjjf.org/Japans-3.11-Earthquake-Tsunami-Atomic-Meltdown) of articles on 3.11Earthquake, Tsunami and Atomic Meltdown.

Notes

1 Takagi Jinzaburō, Cherunobuiru genpatsu jikoshinsōban (Tokyo: Nanatsu Mori Shokan,1986).

2 Ko Sanmyon and Takahashi Tetsuya, “Nihonno ariyō ga towarete iru,” Sekai (August, 2011),p. 112.

3 Yomiuri Shinbun (August 17, 2011).

4 Asahi Shinbun (July 10, 2011).

5 Hayakawa Yuki, “Hōshanōgumo wa kono yō nizujō wo tsūka shita!,” Shūkan Kinyōbi (July 8,2011), p. 22.

6 Nihon Keizai Shinbun (July 25, 2011).

7 Asahi Shinbun (August 8, 2011).

8 Asahi Shinbun (August 8, 2011).

9 Asahi Shinbun (May 11, 2011).

10 Asahi Shinbun, evening edition (August 20,2011).

11 Shūkan Gendai (August 6, 2011), pp. 64-65. See also the interview published in the July 30issue of the same magazine with the Universityof Ulster’s Christopher Busby, scientificsecretary of the European Committee onRadiation Risks (ECRR).

12 Mainichi Shinbun (July 26, 2011).

13 “Beikoku made hirogatta purutoniumu,”Norimatsu Satoko’s interview with ChristopherBusby, Shūkan Kinyōbi (July 8, 2011), pp.24-25.

14 Asahi Shinbun (July 29, 2011).

15 Asahi Shinbun (July 21, 2011).

16 Asahi Shinbun (July 10, 2011).

17 Nakachi Shigeharu, “Suisan no osendo woyomitoku,” Shūkan Kinyōbi (July 29, 2011), p.18.

18 Nihon Keizai Shinbun (August 27, 2011).

19 Yagasaki Katsuma, “Naibu hibaku kakushi hahōshasen giseisha kakushi,” Nihon noKagakusha, Vol. 46, No. 8 (August 2011), p. 6.

20 Kakuheiki Kakujikken Monitaa, Vol. 373, No.4 (April 15, 2011).

21 “Sakuma Tomoko Shabekurihōdai,” Oruta,No. 429 (August 2011), p. 38.

22 Hirokawa Ryūichi, “Cherunobuiru no nazo noame,” DAYS JAPAN (July 2011), p. 43.

23 This estimate comes from the ECCR’sChristopher Busby. See Shūkan Kinyōbi (July8, 2011), p. 25.

24 Ashahi Shinbun (June 11, 2011).

APJ | JF 9 | 37 | 3

18

25 Nihon Keizai Shinbun (August 17, 2011).

26 Asahi Shinbun (June 10, 2011).

27 Akahata (August 24, 2011).

28 DAYS JAPAN (September 2011), p. 18.

2 9 C h r i s t o p h e r B u s b y(http://www.bsrrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/fukusima-health-ECRR.pdf), “The HealthOutcome of the Fukushima Catastrophe.” AJapanese translation is also available(https://apjjf.org/admin/site_manage/details/(http:/peacephilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/07/japa

nese-translation-of-ecrr-chris.html).

30 Tanaka Toshiyuki, “‘Genshiryoku heiwa riyō’to Hiroshima: Senden kōsaku no tāgetto nisareta hibakushatachi,” Sekai (August, 2011).

31 Ogura Shirō, “Genpatsu wo narabete jieisensō wa dekinai,” Kikan Ribureiza, No. 3(Summer 2007).

32 Mainichi Shinbun (June 17, 2011).

33 King James Version, Job 38:1-2, 12, and thesource of the title for Pearl S. Buck, Commandthe Morning (1959).