​​​​​​Many village residents resigned themselves to stay indoors, with a vague hope of outside assistance. But some individuals chose to seek information and advice, knowing that this was the only way to regain control over their everyday lives, and one day perhaps, to return to a “normal” life.

​​A REVISITED APPROACH TO RADIATION PROTECTION

Age 34 at the time of the accident, Ryoko Ando is among those who decided to take action immediately. Residing close to Iwaki, a city on the edge of the exclusion zone, and unable to assess the risk associated with staying in her village, she began to do research on the internet and Twitter to find information that could help her better understand the radiological situation. Using social networks, Ms. Ando got in contact with individuals in the prefecture and all of Japan who were concerned about the situation in Fukushima and ready to help.

Through her research on the internet, she discovered a report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection - Publication 111 of the ICRP - which led her indirectly to the Belarusian and Norwegian experiences after the Chernobyl accident, the experiences that inspired the publication. Maybe, she thought, there are things we could learn from the experience of these people who faced the consequences of a major nuclear accident generating massive radioactive releases?

She immediately recognized the significance of this innovative approach for the population of Fukushima and the interest of presenting it to a wider public. Among other points, the Publication 111 of the ICRP emphasizes the key role of measurement to assess radiological risks associated with all aspects of daily life and discussion of results with other citizen “measurers.” This was a crucial step towards the empowerment of the people and, in time, improvement of the situation.

Ryoko Ando, Ethos in Fukushima (non-profit association), village of Suetsugi :

After the nuclear accident, everyone was talking about Fukushima, forgetting the people living there. Each person had something to say, without the slightest consideration for what we were thinking and feeling. I couldn’t accept it. I even felt angry about it. I created Ethos in Fukushima because I was convinced that it was up to us to write our history. In the midst of this turmoil, the Publication 111 of the ICRP was our only moral support.

 ​

FROM ETHOS IN BELARUS TO ETHOS IN FUKUSHIMA

The ETHOS pilot projet, funded by the European Commission at the end of the 1990s, aimed to promote a global approach to improvement of living conditions in contaminated areas of Belarus after the Chernobyl accident.

One thing particularly grabbed Ms. Ando's attention in Ethos: the high level of involvement of the residents in the rehabilitation process, aiming to create conditions favorable to the restoration of the quality of their everyday life, in all aspects affected - or more aptly put, threatened - by the contamination. Given the confusion prevailing in the contaminated areas of Fukushima, she imagined the impact this approach could have for the communities of the prefecture.

This gave her the idea to launch a collaborative project: a blog called ‘ETHOS in Fukushima’. This blog was to become a key reference for those seeking information to better understand the situation in the contaminated areas. Over time, the blog content expanded to cover all local initiatives and conclusions shared during each meeting of the Fukushima Dialogue Initiative, in which ETHOS in Fukushima faithfully participated starting with the second meeting. It also relayed visits in Belarus and Norway, to share the experience of local farmers and reindeer herders met during one of these meetings. Today, it contains a set of written and audiovisual sources providing an unmatched information database on living conditions in Fukushima after the nuclear power plant accident.

Ryoko Ando summarizes the spirit of the blog on its homepage: “This is about life in Fukushima after the nuclear disaster. But beyond that, it’s about our ability to pass on a better future, as living here is a wonderful thing. By measuring, learning, thinking for ourselves, by finding a common language, we are making progress in Iwaki, step by step.”

​​To learn more: Lessons from Chernobyl, Feedback from the experience of Belarus and Norway​​​​

THE INTERNET, AN UNMATCHED TOOL FOR CONTACTING EACH OTHER AND COMING TOGETHER

The speed with which contacts were made between Fukushima's residents and Japanese experts in nuclear physics and radiation protection is one of the highly positive aspects of new communication technologies. Social networks such as Twitter also played a major role in simplifying communication between individuals, regardless of where they live.

Ryugo Hayano, a world-renowned physicist specializing in antimatter, shares his time between acting as chair at the University of Tokyo and research at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), in Switzerland. Deeply aware of Fukushima residents’ concerns and anxiety regarding their exposure to ionizing radiation, Professor Hayano used his Twitter account to summarize and disseminate information about the radiological situation in the prefecture of Fukushima. His number of followers shot up from 2,500 to 150,000 within just a few days, and remained at about 130,000 in 2015.

Among these residents was Makoto Miyazaki, radiologist at Fukushima Medical University, involved in the deployment of whole-body counters in the prefecture. Simultaneously, through discussions with mothers worried about their children's health, Professor Hayano saw that the lack of a whole-body counter adapted to the measurement of infants was a source of concern for them, even if of little use from a health point of view. He thus decided to develop a specially designed device. His participation in the 5th Fukushima Dialogue Initiative also led him to work with high schoolers from Fukushima on the measurement and acquisition of knowledge concerning ionizing radiation and radiation protection.

The internet proved to be a useful tool for the creation of a network of individuals in Japan and abroad. Thanks to the Web, the volume of daily discussions quickly grew between members of a new virtual community rallied around a common goal: to actively contribute to the improvement of living conditions after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.

​​The aftermath of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is a prime example of authorities overwhelmed by the complexity and multitude of challenges generated by the disaster.​

For a Japanese citizen, used to faultless products and impeccable service, such shortcomings and the inability to handle the emergency evolved into a feeling of general suspicion and deep distrust of the public authorities and their experts. Citizens’ resentment towards those who were supposed to provide assistance and advice but failed was aggravated by people's feeling of helplessness. They were woefully unprepared to face the totally new situation they had found themselves in from one day to the next: having to protect themselves from radioactivity.

In such a context, any attempt at discussion between the authorities, experts, and citizens had no chance of being productive.

As a radiation protection expert who moved to Fukushima to volunteer his time and experience, Junichiro Tada was especially worried by the growing gap and tensions between the stakeholders.

A mixture of unexpressed fears, doubts, distrust, suspicion, and despair poisoned relations between people, impeding the action of those willing to help. In the fall of 2011, Tada shared his concerns with Ohtsura Niwa, a Japanese member of the ICRP, and Jacques Lochard, its vice-chairman. Lochard had acquired a great deal of experience in dialogue between stakeholders in Belarus as part of the ETHOS project, in which he participated. He thus recommended a proven method: sitting all of the parties involved around a table to listen to each other until the unspoken is exposed, releasing tension and facilitating mutual understanding.​ 

Junichiro Tada, director of the Radiation Safety Forum association, city of Fukushima

I don't think that the doses absorbed by the population of the prefecture are liable to have an impact on health. I do however think that excess worrying about radioactivity could. For example, we see people depressed because they cannot go home, or children with psychological issues due to excessively strict discipline by mothers worried about the effects of radioactivity on health.

Ohtsura Niwa, honorary professor of Fukushima Medical University, Radiation Medical Science Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey

I went to Belarus 25 years after the Chernobyl accident. I went to Bragin, a small city in the south of the country, near the exclusion zone. When I arrived, I saw young people, many school-aged, then people spoke to me of the increase in prices of land and construction resulting from the arrival of a young generation. I found it very reassuring. I thought, maybe Fukushima will also be OK in 25 years.

Jacques Lochard, vice chairman of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

In July 1990, I found myself in a village near the zone within 30 km of Chernobyl. The mayor of this half-abandoned village told me he almost missed the time of the accident because being mayor at that time had meaning. He was helping people leave the village, organizing evacuation, etc. Four years later, he felt useless. No more children, an empty infirmary, no more agriculture, nothing but elderly people. In an instant, I understood the human dimension of this sort of catastrophe, whereas until then I just thought of it as a nuclear safety issue.

​When the ice breaks

A few weeks after this conversation, the first meeting of the Dialogue on the Rehabilitation of living conditions after the Fukushima accident was held in Fukushima.

Its theme: “Lessons from Chernobyl and ICRP recommendations”. It was organized under the auspices of the ICRP, with the support of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD-NEA), the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), the French Institute for nuclear safety and radiation protection (IRSN), and the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (DSA, formerly NRPA). Experts from these bodies actively participated in the first seminar, then the following eleven, spread over the period from November 2011 to September 2015.

The atmosphere of the first meeting was tense and heavy. Discussions often erupted into anger and tears in the room where the Dialogue was held on November 26 and 27, 2011. Finally, the anxiety and frustration of the previous eight months could be released.

This exercise turned out to be particularly difficult for the experts, who were being asked to do more than simply dispense knowledge by virtue of their positions.

Slowly but surely, with each Dialogue meeting, they learned to listen to the distressed people and did their best to use their knowledge and experience to answer participants’ questions. The usual process had been completely reversed. Jean-Christophe Gariel, Deputy Director General of IRSN, later described this radical change as a “change of glasses,” when he participated in the 5th meeting of the Fukushima Dialogue Initiative, held in March 2013 in the city of Date.

Jean-Christophe Gariel, Deputy Director General in charge of Health and Environnement, IRSN (France)

Beyong purely radiological issues, numerous social and economic problems must be taken into account in the management of post-accident situations. My participation in the Dialogues as an expert raised my awareness of the interest of a global approach.

Over time, an atmosphere of mutual understanding was created, with each person at the table feeling empowered to express themselves and share their experience, and open to contributions from other participants. The table was no longer surrounded by the experts on one side and laymen on the other; participants had equal footing and were motivated by a shared desire to contribute to the improvement of living conditions of Fukushima's residents and to restore the tarnished image of their beloved region. 

​The Fukushima Dialogue Initiative

Six principles​​

1. Invited participants

2. Local and international observers (the audience)

3. Members of the ICRP acting as facilitators

4. Use of common language

5. Use of communication techniques:

6. All meetings of the Fukushima Dialogue Initiative are open to the media.

12 meetings, 12 topics​​​

​​​Dialogue 1 - November 2011 in Fukushima

Lessons from Chernobyl and ICRP recommendations

Dialogue 2 - February 2012 in Date​​​​

The situation in the city of Date

Dialogue 3 - July 2012 in Date​​

Improving the quality of food products

Dialogue 4 - November 2012 in Date​​

Education of children and youths

Dialogue 5 - February 2013 in Date​​​

To return or not to return? To stay or to go?

Dialogue 6 - July 2013 in Fukushima​​​

The situation in the village of Iitate

Dialogue 7 - November 2013 in Iwaki​​​

Protecting oneself in Iwaki and Hamadori

Dialogue 8 - May 2014 in Minamisoma​​

The situation and challenges in the city of Minamisoma

Dialogue 9 - August 2014 in Date​​​

Raising children in Fukushima

Dialogue 10 - December 2014 in Date​​

The value of tradition and culture in Fukushima

Dialogue 11 - May 2015 in Fukushima​​

The role of measurement

Dialogue 12 - September 2015 in Date​​

Experience gained together