Japan’s dangerous nuclear waste on the cutting board? Towards a renewables future — Andrew DeWit, The Asia-Pacific Journal

” Japan’s Abe Shinzo government is commonly held to be in thrall to nuclear power, not least because it came into office in December 2012 committed to nuclear restarts and other policies promoted by the nuclear village. Yet clearly much has changed over the past three years. The Abe government’s repositioning on energy is evident in an accelerating shift away from support for the nuclear village, in spite of a few restarts, and towards an increasingly impressive commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy. The evidence is striking: On top of proposing massive increases in its fiscal 2016 expenditures on energy efficiency and renewables, which we reviewed in October,¹ the cabinet is about to undertake an administrative review targeting billions of yen in controversial nuclear-related expenditures.

Specifically, from November 11 to 13, 2015 Japan will undergo an administrative review of YEN 13.6 trillion worth of expenditure requests in the over YEN 102 trillion proposed budget for fiscal 2016. This “Fall Review” (Aki no rebyuu) will be open to the public and broadcast online, as was the case with previous administrative review processes.² But among the many unusual aspects of this year’s initiative is that the review will be overseen by the resolutely antinuclear Liberal Democratic Party cabinet minister (since October 7, 2015) Kono Taro. Kono’s team of outside advisors will also include such explicitly antinuclear experts as the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation’s (JREF) Director Ohbayashi Mika³ and JREF Senior Research Fellow, Fujitsu Research Institute Research Fellow and Tsuru University Professor Takahashi Hiroshi.⁴ Kono and his colleagues in the LDP have been working hard in advance of the review to draw attention to its focus on nuclear-related expenditures, resulting in significant and steadily increasing press coverage. In addition, Kono has taken the apparently unprecedented step of producing a 1-hour video, released on November 9, to explain the process and its focus on nuclear-related expenditures. He prefaces his detailed arguments about the content of the review with (at the 5:50 mark) an unambiguous declaration that he not only cleared the substance of the review with Prime Minister Abe, but also received the latter’s encouragement.⁵

The Administrative Review

These “Fall Review” procedures were initiated by the Democratic Party of Japan Government, in 2010. They also matter, as is evident from the fact that the Fall Review of 2014 (for the FY 2015 budget) resulted in over YEN 360 billion in cuts and repayments to public funds.⁶ The previous year had seen even deeper cuts, amounting to roughly YEN 500 billion in expenditure reductions.⁷

Of the Japanese central government’s over 5000 spending programs, 55 have been chosen for this year’s review. While that number may seem small, as noted earlier these programs total over YEN 13.6 trillion and thus represent over 10% of the proposed YEN 102 trillion fiscal appropriations for the 2016 budget. Given that Japan’s public debt load of 226% of GDP is unprecedented in the history of the OECD,⁸ the pressure for cuts is likely to be stronger than in previous years. Particularly significant is the fact that the items slated for review are heavily oriented towards energy. Indeed, fully 24 of the 55 items are energy- and environment-related, and the vast majority of those are devoted to nuclear facilities as well as to measures related to achieving the recycling of nuclear waste in breeder reactors.⁹

One target that is ripe for scrutiny is the Kaieimaru, a nuclear fuel ship built in 2006 and used four times to transport a total of 16 tonnes of spent fuel to the Tokai Mura facility¹⁰ in Ibaragi Prefecture. Since the vessel has not been used to transport fuel since its most recent trip in 2009, Kono has included it in the review. Between 2010 and 2014, the cost of its upkeep totalled just under YEN 5.8 billion, and its projected costs to 2031 would see an additional YEN 18.1 billion spent on it. The ship has been featured in recent television broadcasts, including a TBS broadcast on November 9, and has featured in the Japanese Wall Street Journal,¹¹ the Tokyo Shimbun,¹² and other national and local press. Kono has skillfully chosen a striking symbol of extravagance for review.

An additional nuclear-related facility targeted by Kono’s review is the “Recycle Equipment Test Facility (RETF).” This is yet another costly and risky element of Japan’s very controversial accumulation of infrastructures and programs to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The RETF’s construction began in January 1995, and has received tens of billions of yen worth of investment even though it has not been used. Precisely 20 years ago, Shaun Burnie, Senior nuclear campaigner with Greenpeace Germany, warned that the true importance of the RETF, and the great risk that it poses: “is that it and the facilities that will follow will give Japan access to plutonium that is even purer than weapons-grade. The reason for this is that the plutonium produced in the uranium blanket of FBRs (ed. “fast breeder reactors”) and reprocessed by the operators is what is called supergrade. With a large-scale deployment of FBRs in Japan, and the reprocessing facilities to support the reactors, large quantities of weapons grade material will be available for non-peaceful use.”¹³

In their 2010 book In Defence of Japan: From the Market to the Military and Space Policy, Saadia M. Pekkanen (Professor, University of Washington) and Paul Kallender-Umezu (PhD Candidate, Keio University) cite Burnie, showing that his concern remains quite relevant. Indeed, they add to the warning by emphasizing that “the point about supergrade plutonium is that very little is required to produce nuclear warheads (possibly 800 to 900 grams); it is thus especially suitable for miniaturized nuclear warheads like MRIV-type ICBMs.¹⁴

The above examples are especially noteworthy, but are only two of the nuclear–related items up for consideration in this administrative review. Others include subsidies for securing uranium from overseas projects, storing the uranium, locating and constructing nuclear facilities, as well as funds for PR supporting nuclear power in the Japanese public debate.¹⁵

What is almost as impressive as the focus on nuclear is the complete absence of any targeting of expenditure programs for efficiency and renewables. Japan’s FY 2016 budget allocations for these items show dramatic increases over the current fiscal year. So one would hardly be surprised to see at least a couple of renewable-related programs put on the table, if only to placate the presumably outraged nuclear interests. But the only clearly non-nuclear energy programs included in the review relate to carbon-capture and storage (CCS). And if putting CCS on the block indicates that Japan is backing away from coal, that is another reason for applause.

Let us conclude with a note on Kono Tarohimself. He is a major figure in the Liberal Democratic Party, first elected in 1996. Like many LDP members, he comes from a family of politicians. But unlike most LDP politicians, he is resolutely antinuclear and is a strong internationalist. His website comes with Korean and Chinese versions as well as an English version.

In the wake of March 11, 2011 (3-11) natural and nuclear disasters, centered on the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Kono became well-known among international observers as a strong opponent of the domestic nuclear village and its plans to increase Japan’s dependence on nuclear to over 50% of power by 2030 as well as recycle waste in breeder reactors.

In addition to numerous public appearances, books, and interviews in which he was critical of the nuclear village and its dominance of the Japanese power industry, he maintained a blog with regular contributions critical of the Fukushima incident and its aftermath. He also criticized the Abe government’s efforts to restart nuclear reactors.

But when Abe undertook his October 7, 2015 cabinet revision, Kono surprised many by entering the cabinet as Minister in charge of Administrative Reform as well as Civil Service Reform, Consumer Affairs and Food Safety, Regulatory Reform and Disaster Management (the latter three portfolios being Minister of State positions).¹⁶

Upon entering the cabinet, Kono’s blog posts became inaccessible. Not a few observers interpreted Kono’s simultaneous entry into the cabinet and suspension of his heavily antinuclear blog as an indication that he had been effectively silenced as an exponent of abandoning nuclear and ending Japan’s dangerous and expensive effort to create a plutonium-based nuclear economy.

However, this interpretation ignored Kono’s argument that he could be more effective in achieving his objectives from within the cabinet than from without.

The proof of the pudding is, as they say, in the eating. It would appear that Kono is setting up a feast this week. And it certainly merits attention from those interested in Japan’s fiscal sustainability, its energy policy on the eve of climate talks in Paris, its plutonium problem, and the ongoing transformation of the LDP.

Andrew DeWit is Professor in Rikkyo University’s School of Policy Studies and an editor of The Asia-Pacific Journal. His recent publications include “Climate Change and the Military Role in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response,” in Paul Bacon and Christopher Hobson (eds) Human Security and Japan’s Triple Disaster (Routledge, 2014), “Japan’s renewable power prospects,” in Jeff Kingston (ed) Critical Issues in Contemporary Japan (Routledge 2013), and (with Kaneko Masaru and Iida Tetsunari) “Fukushima and the Political Economy of Power Policy in Japan” in Jeff Kingston (ed) Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan: Response and Recovery after Japan’s 3/11 (Routledge, 2012). He is lead researcher for a five-year (2010-2015) Japanese-Government funded project on the political economy of the Feed-in Tariff. ”

source with photos, internal citations and related articles

Vox Populi: Anti-nuke crusade symbolizes paradigm shift in cooperation — The Asahi Shimbun

” Takamori Saigo (1828-1877), one of the primary players in the Meiji Restoration, taught his followers that moral principles must be the driving force of civilization. Saigo maintained that grand palaces and fancy clothing did not represent civilization.

Former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa, co-founder of the Japan Assembly for Nuclear Free Renewable Energy, which was officially inaugurated on May 7, said he fully agrees with Saigo, and stressed that nuclear power generation is an issue that will determine the future of civilization in Japan.

Hosokawa has teamed up with another former prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, a vocal opponent of nuclear energy. Cynics dismiss them both as has-beens, but I believe they still have the power to influence public opinion.

At the organization’s inauguration ceremony, the two men said they will stay out of future elections and focus instead on collaborating with anti-nuclear power citizens groups.

They are being wise. Hosokawa’s candidacy in the Tokyo gubernatorial election in February split the anti-nuke camp and cost it the election. Having obviously learned their lesson, they are now giving top priority to consolidating as broad a support base as possible for the common goal of ending nuclear power generation.

In fact, signs of such a development were already in evidence at a panel discussion, held on the sidelines of the May 7 inauguration ceremony. Panelists included psychiatrist Rika Kayama and economist Masaru Kaneko, both of whom were harsh critics of Koizumi’s policies while he was in office. But now, they are working together with him toward one shared goal. Inscrutable indeed are the ways people are brought together.

Kaneko noted that the new organization “symbolizes changes in the paradigm of our era.” This means that our era demands partnerships that transcend traditional political differences between conservative and liberal or right and left, and that such partnerships are actually being born now. Our civilization has been impacted by the sheer magnitude of the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

“We will work together where cooperation is possible, but will otherwise work separately,” Koizumi said of the new partnership.

Not only with the nuclear energy issue, but also with any issue, it is important to have the maturity to accept other arguments and join forces when necessary.

–The Asahi Shimbun, May 9

* * *

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a popular daily column that takes up a wide range of topics, including culture, arts and social trends and developments. Written by veteran Asahi Shimbun writers, the column provides useful perspectives on and insights into contemporary Japan and its culture. ”

source

Concerns over measurement of Fukushima fallout — The New York Times

” TOKYO — In the chaotic, fearful weeks after the Fukushima nuclear crisis began, in March 2011, researchers struggled to measure the radioactive fallout unleashed on the public. Michio Aoyama’s initial findings were more startling than most. As a senior scientist at the Japanese government’s Meteorological Research Institute, he said levels of radioactive cesium 137 in the surface water of the Pacific Ocean could be 10,000 times as high as contamination after Chernobyl, the world’s worst nuclear accident.

Two months later, as Mr. Aoyama prepared to publish his findings in a short, nonpeer-reviewed article for Nature, the director general of the institute called with an unusual demand — that Mr. Aoyama remove his own name from the paper.

“He said there were points he didn’t understand, or want to understand,” the researcher recalled. “I was later told that he did not want to say that Fukushima radioactivity was worse than Chernobyl.” The head of the institute, who has since retired, declined to comment for this article. Mr. Aoyama asked for his name to be removed, he said, and the article was not published.

The pressure he felt is not unusual — only his decision to speak about it. Off the record, university researchers in Japan say that even now, three years after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, they feel under pressure to play down the impact of the disaster. Some say they cannot get funds or university support for their work. In several cases, the professors say, they have been obstructed or told to steer clear of data that might cause public “concern.”

“Getting involved in this sort of research is dangerous politically,” said Joji Otaki, a biologist at Japan’s Ryukyu University who has written papers suggesting that radioactivity at Fukushima has triggered inherited deformities in a species of butterfly. His research is paid for through private donations, including crowdfunding, a sign, he said, that the public supports his work. “It’s an exceptional situation,” he said.

The precise health impact of the Fukushima disaster is disputed. The government has defined mandatory evacuation zones around the Daiichi plant as areas where cumulative dose levels might reach 20 millisieverts per year, the typical worldwide limit for nuclear-power-plant workers. The limit recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection is one millisievert per year for the public, though some scientists argue that below 100 millisieverts the threat of increased cancers is negligible.

In an effort to lower radiation and persuade about 155,000 people to return home, the government is trying to decontaminate a large area by scraping away millions of tons of radioactive dirt and storing it in temporary dumps. Experts at Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology put the cost of this project at $50 billion — widely considered an underestimate.

The chance to study in this real-life laboratory has drawn a small number of researchers from around the world. Timothy A. Mousseau, a professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina who has written widely on Chernobyl, studies the impact of radiation on bird and insect life. He has published papers suggesting abnormalities and defects in some Fukushima species. But he said his three research excursions to Japan had been difficult. … ”

continue reading

Policy recommendations — Helen Caldicott

As promised in the last post, here are the policy recommendations formulated by Helen Caldicott from the symposium held Sunday, July 7, 2013, at the International House of Japan in Roppongi, Tokyo. These recommendations followed Caldicott’s presentation, “The Medical Implications of Fukushima” (contained in the previous post).

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Japan must make public health and safety its highest priority above any economic or business interests
2. There must be regularly updated and communication emergency response plans for any radioactive emissions, and immediate public release of information related to any disaster
3. An absolute imperative that Japan and the international community co-operate immediately to prevent as much as possible more radioactive releases from Fukushima
4. That all schools and populations in proximity to nuclear facilities in Japan be provided with potassium iodide tablets with directions about their use in the event of another nuclear emergency
5. Urgent consideration should be given to evacuate populations, particularly children and women of childbearing age living in radiation zones greater than 1 milliseivert/year
6. Currently about 1,800 square km, including substantial areas of the cities of Fukushima and Koriyama, are so contaminated that over 600,000 people will and are being exposed to 5 milliseiverts per year, and people are actively being encouraged by the government to return to areas emitting 20 milliseiverts per year. This is medically extremely irresponsible.
7. Parts of Tokyo, Tochigi, Miyagi, Gunma, Chiba, Nagano, Yamagata and Niigata prefectures have also been contaminated but government programs responding to the nuclear disaster are artificially confined only to the Fukushima prefecture
8. That expenses for relocation and accommodation be provided by the Japanese government
9. That a population register must be established for all people that have been exposed to radiation, and they must be monitored for the rest of their lives for all types of cancer, particularly thyroid cancer and leukemia, congenital abnormalities, birth outcomes, diabetes and other diseases related to radiation
10. Comprehensive detailed mapping of estimated total radiation exposures (Both external and internal – by whole body monitors) for all people living in affected areas. This has not yet been done by the government.
11. All food grown in affected areas plus fish and seaweed must be continually tested for specific isotopes and labeled accordingly. Radioactively contaminated food must not be sold or eaten.
12. Children must not be fed any radioactive food
13. The government plan for Fukushima farmers to start growing food must be immediately ceased
14. Comprehensive long term health screening for all diseases related to radiation exposure for everyone living in radiation areas emitting more than I milliseivert per year and mental health services be provided for all evacuees and residents
15. Health monitoring plans and results must be independently monitored and peer reviewed and published as quickly as possible in Japanese and English
16. That all people within the exposed population must be informed of their health information, particularly mothers who are desperately in need of  information about what radiation exposure could do to their children and what symptoms to look for
17. A cancer registry must be initiated in all Japanese prefectures – in 2012 only 10 of Japan’s 47 prefectures had cancer registries
18. Treatment for all radiation related diseases must be provided free of charge by the government
19. All educational material issued by the nuclear industry to schools must be removed immediately and students must be taught the true facts about the medical consequences of nuclear power and radiation exposure and internal emitters, including cancer, congenital abnormalities and genetic diseases
20.  Already at least 24,000 workers have participated in the Fukushima disaster remediation, and it is expected that tens of thousands more will be needed over the coming decades. These people have not been adequately monitored or followed up medically. They urgently require adequate radiation protection and monitoring, and ongoing health care for the rest of their lives.
21. A national registry for all nuclear workers must be established as it is in other countries which must include utility employees and subcontractors, and workers must have ready access to all their results. There have been cover-ups related to worker exposure and this must not be allowed to occur. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-in/9084151/How-the-Yakuza-went-nuclear.html
22. That, beginning with the oldest first, all nuclear reactors, including reprocessing facilities and fast reactors be permanently shut down, as most have been for the last two years.

 

End

These recommendations, formulated by Helen Caldicott, have been derived from the following sources:

From a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Fukushima, Rapporteur Anand Grover, on Fukushima: The report by UN special rapporteur Anand Grover

and from the Statement by the International Physicians Board of Directors on the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan related to the Report by the UN Special Rapporteur: Statement by IPPNW Board of Directors

Fukushima nuclear disaster is far from over

Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health to the UN Human Rights Council