Continued Discussion with Avery

(NOTE: I will not be allowing any comments except for Avery's to avoid potential distraction from our discussion.)

Avery,

Sorry to suddenly jump out of the comment section, but this post grew too large. Hope you are already enjoying your weekend. Looking forward to continuing this discussion.

Regarding your opening arguments (P1, P2), I completely understand. When you first start an online discussion with someone, you do not know how much time and care they will spend on trying to understand your message, so you try to present the strongest conclusions possible based on a set of unexplained assumptions. This is very common practice when addressing an unknown audience in a persuasive style. Consequently, when both sides to an argument do this, the difference between the sides seems greater because each differing assumption leads to an even more differing conclusion. However, now that we have established some precedence of the amount of care we will be using in order to try to understand each point, we can focus more energy on our differing underlying assumptions (which should be less different than our differing conclusions based on those assumptions). Again, I want to thank you for participating in this open debate, because I do not think this quality of a debate is possible in an anonymous forum.

Anyway, I think I would like to focus on point P4 next, as I think it represents a significant difference in our views. Accordingly, I think this post will get lengthy . . . but it is critical to our debate to delve into this point deeply.

P4) External exposure models can explain internal exposure risks

P4_S1) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515.html

P4_S1_P1) Summary of the experiment. Establish that it is measuring external exposure and that its results are being applied to situations of internal exposure:

The paper describing this experiment states the following methods:

•    Flood phantoms were filled with Iodine 125 in order to consistently expose mice with gamma radiation.
•    The mice were exposed for 5  weeks.
•    Techniques were used to test for DNA damage.

The description of the methodology indicates that the mice were only exposed externally to gamma radiation and were not exposed to radioactive contamination in a way that they could be exposed internally.

The results are then used to support statements by the researchers that many residents may have been needlessly evacuated from around the Fukushima power plant (Supported by P4_S1).

P4_S1_P2) Why was an experiment that better matched the situation around Fukushima not performed instead?

A more realistic scenario would expose the mice to radioactive contamination of a mix of gamma, beta, and alpha emitting particles that would result in internal exposure. Why was the experiment performed so differently? Let us explore the possibilities:

•    Lack of funding? The timely importance of research in this area would imply otherwise.
•    Poor experimentation planning? As you pointed out, MIT is a very prestigious institution, and I think this would be a difficult argument to support.
•    Biased methodology? Bias is extremely hard to prove and disprove. And, again, we are dealing with a first class institution, let's give them the benefit of doubt.
•    Technological limitation? This is 2012. We are practically in the time of flying cars . . . But how WOULD they have tested the mice more realistically? They used flood phantoms to expose the mice because this method is supposed to be very uniform and consistent (I believe the method is used for gamma photography). To have a meaningful experiment, they have to minimize the factors they are testing because each factor adds significant complexity and risk to the quality of the experiment. So they have a uniform exposure source, they have the distance to the source, and they have the length of time. Gamma radiation happily goes through the mice uniformly, as well. No worries about half cooked mice (just kidding, they turned out not so cooked after all, but all died anyway. Sad story.) All this works out great to come to some very clear conclusions using some really simple math.

How many factors would an experiment analogous to the Fukushima accident require? Let's think of some:

•    Radioactive particle mix: Do we know the ratios of all the different radioactive materials released by the Fukushima plant? Well, kind of. The estimates keep on changing, but maybe we can create an accurate model. After all, we do understand how all of these materials decay. Alright, how about how they were dispersed? Well, maybe we do know this, because we have had helicopters map out the gamma emitting contamination (goes down the East coast and curves inland like a tentacle right where my house in Japan is). But what about the alpha and beta emitters? Do we assume they were dispersed the same as the gamma emitters? Maybe not, because we are actually talking about elements with very different atomic weights, so the physics in how the wind might carry them would probably be quite different. Furthermore, just because these particles are radioactive does not mean they are not chemically active. So now our model needs to take into account the dispersion of the various different forms of molecules that might form out of this mess. Some will even be water soluble. . . And you know what, there probably is a range of mixes all over the area. Like radioactive snowflakes, no two areas will have the same mix of radioactive materials. Alright, so we can try to model the most common mixes (or mixes in the highest population densities) and then we will test a range of these mixes. So the radioactive particle mix is really complicated to experiment with, which is unfortunate because this was just our first factor.
•   Internal exposure vectors: OK, so we have used some really complicated modeling, but we have come up with a magic set of mixes to test. How should we test? Unfortunately, mice are no longer a very good proxy since we are getting into human behavioral science (can we coax the mice to slide down very small slides while screaming "Weee!"?), but that is not going to stop us. For each mix, we can create a separate weighting of vectors that corresponds to a different demographic segment. So you have different respiration rates for segments with different levels of physical activity. You have different food exposure rates for segments with different eating habits (taking into account food easier to screen vs foods harder to screen). Then you have the 3 year old and under segment that basically puts every foreign object into their mouths (perhaps the mice do not have to be specially trained to represent this segment).
•   Bio-concentration: So now we have our experiments running and we have internal exposure occurring. How do we image what area is getting what dosage? Well that is easy. Gamma radiation will just fly through the body and we can detect that with our internal radiation detectors. What about alpha and beta? Not so easy . . . which kind of is a problem because those are the most damaging forms of radiation internally. And this is a really critical factor because it determines which types of tissue will be exposed to what kind of dosage (different tissues have different risks). Without this, we do still know some bio-concentration tendencies (cesium to muscles, strontium to bones, iodine to thyroid glands), but certainly there remains a lot of unknowns or, at least as pointed out above, we cannot just contaminate a mouse and take a picture to easily show where everything ends up in every case (i.e. alpha and beta). Perhaps we can methodically expose different mice to different alpha and beta emitters, remove each organ, and search for trace elements (let's hope the spectroscopy guys have not been goofing off and this is currently within our reach). Tedious, but possible. However, how accurate will this mouse model be for humans? And we are not just dealing with pure elements/isotopes but molecular variants. Those are a lot of variations to test where in the body they will end up.
•   Time: 5 weeks is a long time, but you cannot just "turn off" internal exposure like you can external exposure. Even if the radioactive material gets expelled by the body, it isn't necessarily contained and could likely enter another body at some point, or even the same body (an appetizing thought . . .). So what is the time limit? Probably more than 5 weeks, but no more than 10 half lives of the radioactive particle with the longest half life. That can be quite a range . . .
•   Tissue propensity for carcinogenesis: Tissues that regenerate more quickly will be higher at risk of DNA damage since mitosis is when the worse damage can occur. However, the extent of DNA damage to a single cell does not necessarily have a positive correlation to carcinogenesis. It has to be the right type of damage, so we have to be sure to include that in our model, as well. Additionally, certain tissues may have a higher propensity to different types of radiation.
•  Biological half-life: Of course, another critical factor to specific tissue dosage amount is time. This is determined by how the body interacts with the various forms of radioactive elements/isotopes (including various molecular forms), which depends a lot on bio-concentration (is bone tissue pulling it in or muscle tissue?).

And though I have probably left a lot of factors out (again, finance guy here. . . no one is going to give me a lab coat anytime soon . . .), just going through the above really gave me a sense of why the MIT experiment was done the way it was, and, in fact, why exposure risk models focus on external exposure measurements. We, as a species, are just not capable of doing any better at this point of time. The MIT experiment represents our state of the art. They did what was feasible with our current techniques.

Agreement Proposal: "The reason that internal exposure experiments are not performed is that the technology currently does not exist to do so accurately and in a way that will provide meaningful results."

So back to: P4) External exposure models can explain internal exposure risks

So fine . . . it is REALLY hard to create an internal exposure risk model because of the crazy number of different variables and the inability to detect the most damaging forms of radiation within the body. We are just human, so let's just do the best we can do with current technology. Well, the problem is that the same level of contamination that results in low doses when external also results in extremely high doses to extremely small parts of tissue when internal. Why is this? Because the distance to the exposure source is a critical factor to dosage. When you go from meters to micrometers, the dosage to the effected tissue skyrockets, especially when talking about alpha and beta emitters which release much higher energy over short distances than gamma emitters. OK, but we are talking very small tissue sizes, right? Maybe hundreds of cells at a time? What is the big deal? Well, it only takes one cell's DNA damaged just the right way to cause cancer. Alpha and Beta radiation does the most internal damage, but our current models and experiments cannot even take those forms of radiation into account. Sure, external exposure models deal with radiation, so it is kind of on the right track. But when trying to explain internal exposure, I get the feeling it is closer to phrenology than MRI imaging.

Agreement Proposal: "External exposure models cannot explain internal exposure risks, but they are the closest thing we've got so that is why we use them."

Again, looking forward to your comments. Please let me know which points you can agree with and which need more discussion.

Welcome to those who think the Fukushima accident is harmless. Please introduce yourself!

I interviewed with the Japan Times, who then published the following article: 'Flyjin' feel vindicated, worry for those left in Japan

The other day I noticed a spike in traffic to this site from the following page:
Japan Times Interviews 2 “Flyjin” / Ignorance, Fear, and Paranoia Abound

Seeing what appeared to be misrepresentations of my views, I contacted the author and the following emails were exchanged:

Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM
From: Ivan Stout ivan.stout@gmail.com
To: japanprobe@gmail.com

Dear James (Editor-in-Chief),

I need to inform you that your recent post regarding my interview with the Japan Times seems to contain "mischaracterizations" of both myself and the other interviewee. I understand your policy for not giving "equal value" to the arguments of "Idiots, bigots, fearmongers, and liars," but surely you have a "due process" before passing such judgement. Accordingly, I would like the opportunity to discuss some of the points you bring up in your post.

My only condition is that we discuss this on level ground. You know my identity. Let me know yours so that we can have a discussion where both sides have some level of accountability (Different ways to do this . . . Perhaps we can connect through Linkedin). If the comments under your post are any indication, a little bit of anonymity goes a long way into degrading the quality of public discourse . . .
Let us have a meaningful discussion on this so that we can mutually better understand each other's views.

Respectfully,
Ivan Stout

Date:  Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM
From: JapanProbe japanprobe@gmail.com
To: Ivan Stout ivan.stout@gmail.com

Ivan:

You reached out to the media and made yourself a public figure,
opening yourself up to criticism from blogs.

I won't give you my personal details, sorry.  I've received enough
death threats from anti-nuclear people to know that such a thing would
be a huge mistake.   Bloggers have a right to be anonymous.

If you want discussion, do so in the comments section of the blog
post. (Or via your wife's blog)

Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:41 PM
From: Ivan Stout ivan.stout@gmail.com
To: JapanProbe <japanprobe@gmail.com>

James,

I have no objection against public criticism. However, I do believe anonymity lacks credibility and leads to frivolous dialogue that only increases the noise to signal ratio on a given topic. I also believe this issue is important enough to have meaningful discussion, which is why I have chosen against anonymity for myself. This is also why I would like to debate with others who can take full responsibility for their own comments (something not possible under a state of anonymity).

Again, I am not arguing against your right to stay anonymous. I am just saying it is hard to take the arguments from someone looking through a peep-hole seriously. If the best you can do is to criticize from a dark room, then I will have to go somewhere else for a more meaningful debate. You cannot offer me any meaningful insight because I have no context to measure your comments against.

Just a word of advice . . . I hope you do not regret at some point never having a discussion of substance because you were always too afraid to truly stand up for what you believed in. I may be subject to the savage treatment of the anonymous mob but the mere fact that I make my comments under my own name lends my views more credibility than all the Anons and generic "James"'s on the Internet put together. If you also had the same level of conviction in your own views, I would assume establishing that level of credibility would be equally important to you. The alternative is to assume your post is merely another frivolous rant in search of ad traffic at the expense of meaningful debate on a truly important topic. If this is the case, then you are doing both sides of the debate a disservice. Please do your own moral conscience a favor and keep your frivolous comments to the frivolous topics.

Have a nice anonymous life. . .
Sincerely,
Ivan Stout

Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:00 AM
From: JapanProbe japanprobe@gmail.com
To: Ivan Stout <ivan.stout@gmail.com>

Ivan:

As I eat some vegetables from Tohoku, I remember what Jake Adelstein wrote to me this morning, "In general it's always bad to give out any private information. It's the message not messenger at issue."

Stop with the bullshit about me being the one that is "afraid."  Stand
up and address your critics in public.

-James

And with that last response, my frustrations towards those who try to minimize the impact of this ongoing accident is pretty well covered. Namely:

1. They never want to have a fair debate on an equal playing field where both parties are accountable for their statements (i.e. their identities are BOTH known). 
2. Despite their views, they show no indication of trying to capitalize on the situation in any significant way (other than cheap vegetables . . .).   

The second item really frustrates me. I have spent a significant portion of my life studying about free markets and have acquired a special appreciation for the beauty in how they work. Free markets THRIVE on opposing views. You simply  would not have any transactions without difference of opinion. If everyone thought the price of an asset was going to decrease in the future, who in their right mind would buy that asset? Yet this is exactly what economically is happening in the areas around Fukushima. Real estate assets that were going for over a 20% premium before the accident have been unable to sell a year later at a 20% discount. Such a broken market indicates a vacuum of opposing views on the future value.

So why are those folks that are so smarter than everyone else not gobbling up land at the great discounts caused by "irrational paranoia?" Where are the JREITs exclusively investing in "contaminated" areas? Where is the "smart money" going after the irrational 40% discounted to pre-accident value assets? Despite the government's assurances and the online anonymous ranting, there is very little economic evidence supporting the view that the contamination is harmless when looking at asset values. Consequently, it is hard for me to accept at face value those who play down the situation because the market does not appear to reflect consistent risk taking by such a segment. I could make assumptions about why this disconnect might exist, but I would much rather discuss this directly than add to the flood of presumptuous guesses on the Internet on what someone might be thinking.

"Stand up and address your critics in public." Fair enough, we have made this challenge on this blog in the past without any takers. Please, ANYONE (unfortunately anonymous "James" is not feeling up to it . . .), introduce yourself so that we can have a worthwhile public discussion on this matter, rather than yelling out insults from behind the apron strings of anonymity. This is an important enough issue that deserves credible public debate, not the rants of an anonymous mob. . .

Spreading radioactive rubble around Japan

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The federal Japanese government is trying to convince prefectures and cities all around Japan to accept radioactive rubble for either incineration or disposal in landfills. They are using the loaded word "Kizuna"(meaning "bond" in English) to invoke nationalistic sentiment and are saying that Northeastern Japan alone cannot handle the rubble from the disaster, so other prefectures and cities should accept their share to support Japan's recovery from the disaster. Due to the lack of specialized equipment at these facilities for handling radioactive contaminated materials, this will undoubtedly result in spreading radioactive contamination well beyond the areas already contaminated by the accident.

Here is the status of prefectures/cities accepting radioactive rubble from the 3.11 earthquake.
http://one-world.happy-net.jp/ukeire/

It is hard to piece together the thinking behind such madness, but there is a consistent picture being painted. The Japanese federal government has stated numerous times that the accident will have no direct impact to health (this will be Edano's legacy to the Japanese people). However, people do have their own brains and the result of individuals voting against the government's stance with their wallets has resulted in severe economic impact to the area. The government cannot deny the impact, but they can put their own label on it, so they call the cause "baseless rumors." With that established, what better way to reduce the baseless rumors than by creating the same condition throughout Japan? Since the government does not have the capability to reduce the absolute radioactive contamination of Fukushima, they will reduce the relative radioactive contamination instead. If this were really about processing rubble, they would concentrate disposal in a single area that had adequate investment in appropriate infrastructure that could safely incinerate the radioactive rubble. No, this is about being "right" to the bitter end, facts be damned.

And while the Japanese government and mainstream media dance to the same tune of "everything is safe, nothing to see here, folks," there are more than 1500 spent fuel rods in the crippled No.4's fuel pool. If something goes wrong at that apocalyptic looking building, the whole of Eastern Japan could become too contaminated by radiation for even the Japanese government to pretend everything is safe anymore. However, for the most part, the government and media have been successful in creating this mass delusion of normalcy. It is a lie, but one that has been made plausible through mass belief.  At the same time, people who do not believe what the government is saying and who are being cautious or questioning the safety of the situation do so at the risk of ostracization or being deemed insane by their own family. 

I must say that it is a very sad thing to see, after all of these years, for the Japanese government to resort to the same cheap tricks and propaganda that was used during World War II. There was a special word used for "outsider" ("Hikokumin") and those who question the governments current actions today face similar style of labeling. 

However, I believe that though this disaster has brought out the worst of the Japanese government, likewise, it will bring out the best of the Japanese people. People are starting to stand up and express their concerns. Many more will have to rise up for change to actually occur, but in Japan prime ministers come and go while lasting change comes from the bottom up.

Numayu's blog has moved!

Numayu's blog has moved to:
http://numayu.blogspot.jp/2012/03/blog-post.html#comment-form

According to her, her blog posts were being censored by "Yahoo Japan" which she was using to host her blog before. She said "I cannot tell what is really going on in Fukushima. There is no freedom of speech."

It is very disturbing to think that Japan is censoring information about Fukushima . . .

To Noda Prime Minister and Edano Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry

For those people who can use your Japanese address, please sign and support us!! We got to ACT now!!


日本全国の皆さま、

今日、現在稼働している最後の原子炉の運転が停止され、日本は先進国で世界初の「原発ゼロ」社会となります。新しい時代の幕開けであり、祝福すべき大きな勝利です。しかし、私たちは再稼働への可能性を含めた全ての門戸をここで一度閉ざすべきです。
1年前、この日が来るとは誰も考えることができませんでした。 国全体が深いショックと悲しみを経験した後、唯一確信を持って言えたことは、この悲劇を二度と繰り返さないという決意でした。そして、私たちはやり遂げました。しかし戦いが終わった訳ではありません。政府は原発再稼働の可能性をあきらめてはいません。原子力なしではやっていけないと不当に主張する、強力なエネルギー会社の言いなりになっているのです。
しかし、専門家は、日本は原子力なしでも十分に経済を切り盛りする能力があり、私たちに必要なのは決意なのだと言います。ある環境省幹部は国民の意思のみが全ての原発を止めることができるとした上で、「その気になれば、日本はできる」と断言しました。我々の指導者に、私たちが求める完全なる未来の脱原発社会実現を呼びかけることで、完全停止を祝いましょう。野田首相と枝野大臣宛ての大切な嘆願書へのご署名お願いします。彼らに将来の完全なる原子力放棄を含む新しい日本のエネルギー計画への誓いを呼びかけましょう。 

http://www.avaaz.org/jp/japan_its_our_time_to_shine/?vl


温室効果ガスを削減する野心的な目標から再生可能エネルギーの利用を高める取り組まで、日本の最新のエネルギー計画は好調なスタートを切りました。しかし、決定的な問いへの答えがありません。日本が原子力を永久に放棄するのかという問いです。原子力に反対する世論と、危険な原子力で国の電力を賄うべきだと主張する巨大企業の狭間で、政府は明確な態度を示すことができず、曖昧な対応をしています。日本は原子力の無い社会を目指すのだという確固たる指針を示さずにいることで、政府は間接的に危険な方法の電力供給を続けるというエネルギー産業界の方針を支持していることになります。
私たちはエネルギー選択の岐路にあります。今後2，3ヶ月は大変重要です。大手エネルギー会社と彼らを支援する役人たちが、あの手この手を使って原子力の無い日本を目指し闘う私たちの決意を打ち砕こうとするでしょう。彼らは、日本の人々が無茶な要求をしているのだと言います。しかし福島原子力災害によって、ドイツは原子力の無い社会への取り組みを始めました。私たちが決して屈することなく進んでいけば、原子力の無い社会を目指す他国の取り組みに参加するだけでなく、その取り組みを主導していくことができるのです。
今日の喜ばしい日を、野田首相と枝野大臣に原子力の放棄を求め、説明責任を要求する絶好の機会としましょう。日本の新しいエネルギー計画に原子力の無い未来への誓いを盛り込むよう要請する、野田首相と枝野大臣宛ての大切な嘆願書にご署名お願いします。日本が永久に原子力を放棄することをどれだけ私たちが待ち望んでいるか、その熱意を伝えましょう：

http://www.avaaz.org/jp/japan_its_our_time_to_shine/?vl


環境、そして子々孫々まで続く未来にとって安全な、新しい日本の道を切り開く生涯に一度のチャンスが与えられました。今、以前にも増して共に力を合わせ、私たちそして子供たちのために安全なエネルギー社会を築いていきましょう。


希望と決意を込めて
ジェイミー、路、キア、エミリー、ミシェル、リッケン、Joo-yea 　Avaazチーム一同


詳細情報：


北海道新聞　「全原発の停止　安全な未来への出発点に」　
http://www.hokkaido-np.co.jp/news/editorial/369804.html 


河北新報　「あす全原発停止　東北電力、再稼働見通せず」
http://www.kahoku.co.jp/news/2012/05/20120504t75003.htm


毎日新聞　「泊原発３号機　５日に停止で国内稼働ゼロに　42年ぶり」
http://mainichi.jp/select/news/20120504k0000m010097000c.html 


東京新聞　「泊停止・原発ゼロへ　私たちの変わる日」 http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/column/editorial/CK2012050402000102.html 

A comforting message from an old friend.

"Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship." - Buddha

I sent an e-mail wishing happy birthday to a good friend of ours. My husband and I were roommates with him back in our college days. Currently, he is living in Osaka, Japan, traveling quite often, but his wife and kids are living in Tokyo. We saw him and his family after we evacuated to Osaka a year ago.

I found out that he and his family will be living overseas from this coming October this month due to his job assignment. I was happy to hear that and also his e-mail response relieved me. His reply was as follows:

でも、○○達が罪悪感を感じる必要はまったくないよ。
人は与えられた人生の中で、それぞれ価値観に基づいて、その時その時に最善の選択をして、幸せを求めるだけ。
それがその人にどんな人生を開くかは、誰にも分からないし、誰の責任でもないよ。

There is no need for you guys to feel guilty.

People have to pursue their happiness and decide at each point of time 
what is best for themselves based on what they value in their life. 

What life has in store, no one knows, and it is no one's responsibility.

We recently have been receiving similar e-mails from several of our good friends. I have started to realize that I cannot be responsible for all of our friends' lives and their happiness. It is too grandiose to even think that way.

All our friends in Japan, they are doing what they can within their control. I respect all of our friends' decisions like they respect our's.

To all my friends in Japan, I just want you to know that we will do whatever it takes to support you, and you guys have an option whenever you decide to do so. We are more than happy to return to our happier poor college student days when we had many roommates, if it means we all can be safe, once again. 

From Asahi Shinbun (newspaper) Digital: Madarame is resigning end of March

"Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.” -Mahatma Gandhi

This is a translation of news from Asahi Shinbun (newspaper) Digital posted on 3/12/2012 where Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission states he has the intention of resigning his position at the end of March.

内閣府の原子力安全委員会の班目（まだらめ）春樹委員長は１２日、「精神的にも少しやや限界かなと思っている。どこかで区切りをつけたい」と述べ、４月１日に予定される原子力規制庁の発足が遅れた場合でも、３月末で退任する意向を明らかにした。

Chairman of the Nuclear safety Comission, Haruki Madarame stated on the 12th that "I think I am reaching my mental limit. I would like to put things to an end at some point,"  he said, even if the launching of the planned Atomic Energy Regulation Agency on the April 1st is delayed, he clarified that he was intending to resign at the end of March.

　野田政権は、３月末に原子力安全委を廃止して、原発の安全規制を担う「原子力規制庁」を環境省内に新設することをめざしている。しかし、年度内の法案成立は難しい状況で、４月以降も原子力安全委が存続する可能性が高い。

The Noda administration is aiming to abolish the Nuclear safety Commission at the end of March and newly establish the Atomic Energy Regulation Agency within the Ministry of Environment. However, the passing of this law within this fiscal year will be very difficult, and there is a very high possibility that the Nuclear safety Commission will continue to exist after April.

　班目氏は１２日の会見で、原発の耐震指針などの見直しの作業が３月末で終わる点も挙げて退任する考えを説明。一方で、「委員の人事は国会の同意が必要で重いもの」として、今後、ほかの委員らと相談したうえで決めるという。

At the interview on the 12th, Madarame explained his resignation by pointing out  that the review of the nuclear power plant guidelines for resistance to earthquakes will be finished at the end of March. On the one hand, "Committee members' human resource changes require congress's approval and are serious," and I will decide after I discuss with other committee members.

According to Wikipedia, Madarame became an assistant professor of the atomic energy engineering research institution from August of 1989. I assume he has been involved with the nuclear industry as a staunch nuclear power supporter since then. It has been only a year since the accident. It must be very convenient for him, after over 20 years of helping Japan get into this situation (and benefiting monetarily in the process), to simply be able to say that he would, "like to put things to an end at some point." There are many, many of us who would like to say the same thing but cannot. Everyday we continue to have to deal with the mess he helped create, and watch with dread at the leaning reactor building four, knowing that we are on the edge of things getting much, much worse.

There are people in Fukushima who have lost everything due to this accident. They are still in the middle of this tragedy and will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future with minimal government support. I have a difficult time imagining how Madarame's "mental limit" could come anywhere close to their's. All the years he tricked rural towns to accept nuclear plants with empty promises of safe, cheap energy and all the jobs that would follow . . . in the end, his risk when something went wrong was nothing compared to the risk faced by those he tricked.

It reminds me from a line from a pop-culture film, "with great power comes great responsibility." People from the nuclear industry like Madarame have not risen up to assume the great responsibility that came with nuclear power. That industry failed the Japanese people. His leaving now just adds on to that failure to assume a responsibility equal to the power they received over all those years. However, perhaps such a power is too much for any one person (or group of people) to bear, and Japan should have understood that before trusting charlatans like Madarame.

If you would like to read the original Japanese news article, here is the URL:
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0312/TKY201203120543.html

Numayu Blog is back

Numayu's blog appears to be back now. However, I will not feel fully relieved until I see her on another documentary or news footage.

The address is the same as before:
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kmasa924/4029007.html

Sign the Fukushima Declaration

For those people who can use your Japanese address, please sign and support us!! We got to ACT now!!


親愛なる日本の友人たちへ 

福島県知事は原子力に頼らず再生可能エネルギーを推進することを誓う、歴史的な「ふくしま宣言」を発信しました。私たちは迅速に行動を起こし、その他すべての都道府県もこのすばらしい先例に倣うよう働きかけることができます。 

史上最悪の災害に打ちひしがれた日本を、原子力に頼らず再生可能なエネルギーで発電するクリーンエネルギー社会へと導き、他国の模範とするチャンスがあります。各都道府県の脱原発社会を支持する声がどれだけ強いものか示すことにより、それぞれの知事に「ふくしま宣言」と同じ公約を誓い、原子力に脅かされることのない国にしていくよう働きかけていくことができます。 

力を合わせれば、世論は聞き届けられます。「ふくしま宣言」への支持を表明する個人的な誓いにご署名お願いします。さらに同じ都道府県に住むお知り合いの方々にも転送してください！私たちの地図をご覧いただければ、各都道府県から何名の方が署名したかわかります。多くの方からのご署名を頂きましたら私たちはメディアにも大々的に取り上げるよう働きかけ、残る４６都道府県の知事にも未来の社会にとって極めて重要な福島県知事の立場を公言するよう訴えてまいります： 

http://www.avaaz.org/jp/fukushima_declaration_pledge_mf/?tta

世論によると、日本人の大多数が脱原発社会を支持しています。しかしこれまでのところ、断固たる行動で世論にこたえ公約を宣言したのは佐藤知事だけです。この危機的状況の中、日本は新の指導力を発揮できるリーダーを必要としていますが、それを実現できるのは世論の圧力のみです。個人的な誓いに署名し、佐藤知事のような勇気ある知事への支持を表明し、未だに判断をしぶる他の知事に圧力をかけましょう。 

どれだけ多くの人々が原発再稼働を中止するよう野田首相に訴えたでしょう。しかし首相は聞く耳を持たず、強力な原子力ロビー側についたのです。私たちが始めたこの取り組みを終わらせましょう。すべての都道府県において、どれだけ多くの人々が脱原発社会を支持しているのかはっきりと示すことができれば、各知事たちに「ふくしま宣言」に続くよう働きかけることができます。そしてついには野田首相が原子力の大害から私たちを解き放ち、再生可能なエネルギー革命に弾みをつけることができるのです。 

今すぐ個人的な誓いにご署名をお願いします。そして日本全国で私たちの訴えが耳をつんざかんばかりになるまで、メールやツイッター、その他ソーシャルネットワークも利用し広めてください： 

http://www.avaaz.org/jp/fukushima_declaration_pledge_mf/?tta

日本における市民の力は日に日に強さを増しています。私たちの訴えに応じるすべての知事やリーダーたちと共に、この国の新たな道を切り開いていくのです。希望を捨てず断固たる態度で、私たちと子孫のため、安全なエネルギー社会への転換、そして新たな民主主義の推進に臨みましょう。 

希望と決意を胸に 

ジェイミ、キア、アレックス、モーガン、ダリア、Avaazチーム一同 

-----------------------------------

詳細情報：


中國新聞「ふくしま宣言、全世界へ　知事「再生エネ推進」」：
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Sp201203120062.html 

信濃毎日新聞 「ふくしま宣言　誓いを全力で支えよう」：
http://www.shinmai.co.jp/news/20120313/KT120312ETI090004000.html 

ウォールストリートジャーナル日本版「震災から1年：経産省を占拠せよ」：
http://jp.wsj.com/Japan/node_406615 

朝日新聞 「将来的に「脱原発」賛成７４％　朝日新聞世論調査」:
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0613/TKY201106130401.html

AVAAZについて

Avaaz.orgは世界の人々の声や価値観が政策決定に反映されるよう世界規模でキャンペーンを行う非営利団体です（Avaazは様々な言語で「声」を意味します）。Avaazは政府や企業から一切資金援助を受けず、ロンドン、リオデジャネイロ、ニューヨーク、パリ、ワシントンDC、そしてジュネーブを拠点とするスタッフにより運営されています。 +1 888 922 8229 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English:


Dear Friends Across Japan, 

Fukushima’s governor has just announced a historic declaration vowing to power his prefecture with renewables rather than nuclear power. If we act fast we can press all of our governors to follow this inspiring lead. 

From the ashes of one the world’s worst disasters, we have a chance to usher in a clean energy era for Japan and set an example for other countries. By showing how much support there is for a nuclear-free future in every prefecture, we can push other governors, one by one, to make the same public pledge, ridding our country of the nuclear menace. 

Together we can make public opinion count. Sign the personal pledge supporting the Fukushima Declaration, then send to others where you live! Our map will show how many people have signed from each prefecture, and once enough of us have pledged, we will create a media storm to push the remaining 46 governors to take this vital stand: 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/fukushima_declaration_pledge_mf/?tta

Public opinion polls show that the majority of Japanese support a nuclear-free future -- but so far only governor Sato has taken a public pledge to respond with decisive action. During this time of crisis Japan needs real leadership, but only public pressure can make this happen. Let’s support courageous governors like Governor Sato by signing a personal pledge, and use it to pressure those who are dragging their feet. 

So many of us have appealed to PM Noda to call off the nuclear restart, but he’s simply refusing to listen, instead siding with the powerful nuclear lobby. Let’s finish what we’ve started -- if we can clearly show how much support for a nuclear-free future there is in every prefecture, we can get our governors to follow -- and finally force Noda’s hand to free us of the nuclear curse and kick start a renewable energy revolution. 

Sign this personal pledge now -- and spread it through email, twitter and other social networks until our call becomes deafening across the whole country: 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/fukushima_declaration_pledge_mf/?tta

Citizen power in Japan is getting stronger by the week. With every leader who responds to our call, we are forging a new path for our country. Let’s remain firm in our hope and resolve and craft both a safe energy future and a renewed democracy for ourselves and our children. 

With hope and determination, 

Jamie, Kya, Alex, Morgan, Dalia and the whole Avaaz team 

The evacuation continues . . . slowly

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Sir John Dalberg-Acton

One of my friends in Japan decided to move to the Southwest part of Japan with her child. However, her husband will have to remain at their place (Kanto area) where they bought their condo a couple of years ago. Like us, they also have to pay double the living expenses because they cannot sell their old, contaminated place. She said it took a year for them to decide. I do not blame them. While the government and mainstream media have been trying very hard to downplay the whole Fukushima issue for a year now, the citizens have had to decide what is best for them and their families even with limited information. They do this without any support from the government or TEPCO.

It is very frustrating that innocent, regular people are the ones ending up suffering the most and end up having to  make such difficult decisions, while those with direct conflicts of interests continue to stay in power, continue to lie, and continue to push an industry that has done more harm than good for Japan.

If we do not raise our voices, those people in power will continue to make decisions that prioritize their wallets over the safety of the public.

I am tired of the health of myself and my family being put in danger by those charged with ensuring its safety, and I am tired of being lied to. My ability to change things may be limited, but with everyone else's support, I know we can make our world a better place. However, to do so we must stop the money that is putting these type of criminals in power. That is why we must stop nuclear power. Without nuclear power, there are no more corrupt nuclear regulators and no more nuclear industry bought politicians. Certainly this will not fix the overall system, but it will lower the stakes of living with a broken one.

What Happened to Numayu'?

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde


I was not able to view "Numayu's Blog" the other night which I have been sharing the posts of by translating her messages into English. An error message showed up as, "The blog you are searching for cannot be found. The blog has been deleted or the URL might be incorrect." The URL for Numayu's blog is below (although the error message will show up in Japanese):

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kmasa924

And then, today, I received the following message through a Facebook message:

はじめまして。
ぬまゆさんのブログですが、最後のメッセージは

＞追 悼 ・・・。 わたくしは、明日の朝早く、 南相馬市の 海へ行きます。 お花を手向けに ・・・。 みなさま、 これまで、ありがとうございました。 みなさまの ご健康を お祈りし...

以上の文章を何とか見つけることができました。

ブログは削除されたのでしょうね、残念ですが。
とりあえず、ご連絡いたします。

Nice to meet you.

Regarding Numayu's Blog, the last message was:

>Remembrance・・・Early tomorrow morning, I am going to the ocean in Minamisoma. To take flowers・・・Thank you very much for everything. I wish you all good health・・・

I was somehow able to find that message above.

I think the blog was closed down, unfortunately.

Just to let you know. 

At least in Japanese, that sounds ambiguous, at the least. It could be taken as if she was planning to commit suicide by throwing herself into the ocean. Consequently, there is a lot of concern for her well being right now.

Among the Japanese internet community, there is a very large range in people's opinions of Numayu, Emiko Numauchi.

Some people say that, 

• "Numayu is insane and just is wanting to get as much attention as possible." 
• "If she thinks her symptoms are from radiation then why doesn't she go to see a doctor to get checked? I think she is just faking it." 
• "She is lying, because I live in her neighborhood, but no one else is getting such symptoms."etc.

There are also people that support her and encourage her. They want her to keep doing what she was doing.

However, all of these comments were made anonymously. It is impossible to verify where they really are coming from or whether they contain any truth. I really cannot think of a reason to weight anonymous comments over the comments where the owner's identity is known. Surely if someone really wanted to vouch their area was perfectly safe, they could come out and let us know who they were in a similar manner that Numayu did (and without the personal risk that Numayu faced with her coming out . . .).

It sounded like she was getting very nasty comments on her blog day after day. It is probably safe to say that she had made many enemies and had exposed herself to being ostracized by her neighbors by revealing her identity, which makes her disappearance from the web even more concerning.  

I will continue to try to gather information on the situation and will post any updates here.

Here is another blog (Fukushima diary) that has posted about Numayu's blog being shut down:
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/numayus-blog-shut-down/

Someone has actually put up a mirror of her site using the RSS feed:
http://numayu.blog.fc2.com/

Then they fight you . . .

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi


After this blog url was released by KVUE Austin in connection to an interview they did with us, a pro-nuke comment was made on my "A reflection of purpose" post. I find such a comment made on that particular post to be insensitive and disrespectful to those currently struggling back in Japan, like my friend I spoke about in that post. 

Accordingly, I am deleting that comment from its current location and responding to the full comment (presented in its entirety, but broken out for easy response) in this post.

Here is my response:


First off let me say I am impressed with how most Japanese citizens overcome disaster both by nature and man.
We are most able to overcome those disasters from nature, and most bitter of the  cruel disasters caused by man (e.g. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and now Fukushima . . .). Furthermore, I find your comment inappropriate here as it is far too soon to even mention overcoming the ongoing Fukushima crisis. People are currently suffering from this disaster as I type this post.

In the US there're no deaths directly related to nuclear power plant radiation. 
Can you please supply the research done to support this statement? That seems like a very strong statement. For instance, I was unaware that we knew every cause for every occurrence of cancer in the U.S. and, which would be required in order to be able to state that no deaths have ever been caused by nuclear power related activities in the U.S. It is astounding if we are that technologically advanced to prove this statement you are making. Please provide evidence that your statement has, indeed, been proven.

In Japan two people died in the Tokaimura accident and no one died from radiation at Fukushi.
It is spelled  "Fukushima" (you might as well at least learn the proper name of the place you are about to misrepresent) and, again, to have a meaningful discussion, you need to provide actual sources supporting your statements or be more concise on exactly what you are trying to state. The current limitation on our ability to actually assess the impact of radioactive contamination does not mean no such impact exists. There was a time when the impacts of tobacco and asbestos were also not fully understood. That does not mean, even back then, that tobacco and asbestos were not hurting and killing people.

At Chernobyl the IAEA and WHO attributed 56 direct deaths and estimated that there may be 4,000 more cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 highly exposed people. 
Implying that a WHO report about the impact of radiation is some how separate from the IAEA is misleading. Since 1959, the IAEA has been given authority over everything the WHO publishes about radiation health impacts. No other health related reports from the WHO require such oversight from a separate body. The IAEA was formed to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution  of atomic energy." There are studies that put the death toll at closer to a million, by a group of people whose mission happens NOT to be "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy." Guess which one I tend to trust more?

Japan did a wonderful job of rebuilding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are two very robust cities today. 
That is an interesting statement . . . I have a very close friend from Hiroshima. Let me ask her if she is thankful for the bombing so that Japan could rebuild it into a very robust city. And I suppose all that suffering that all those people went through was negligible because the overall city did not cease to exist. Those Japanese should just shut-up and take Fukushima like they did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right? Furthermore, why not compare apples with apples? How robust do you consider the city of Prypiat to be these days?

Candles kill more than nuclear power plant radiation.
Again, this is my site, so I think I can set the standards for scientific fact. Proof please . . . Frivolous, unsupported statements will be treated as such here. "The sky is purple." See, anyone can make such statement, but it does little to advance public discourse on the matter, now does it?

Nuclear power has a very strong safety record, 
Really, I have yet had to evacuate due to any other power sources yet. Perhaps you could provide some credible supporting evidence that includes the ongoing Fukushima accident? And what a place to champion the safety of
nuclear power (especially considering where you had originally posted your comment). . . Do you champion the safety of air travel at the funerals of plane crash victims, as well? Do you think anyone in Japan believes such a statement when over 10% of their reactors have had catastrophic failure and now risk the very existence of its largest city?

what power source would you use to replace it? 
Hmm . . . after losing my home and livelihood, little over a year ago, I would have to say ANYTHING. Especially in earthquake prone areas like Japan. In fact, I have heard people impacted by Fukushima say that they would have been better off completely without electricity than with nuclear power. How is that for the "power source of the future" for you? And don't pretend nuclear power needs much replacing at a mere 13% world share. Yes, 60 years of effort and BILLIONS  invested in this technology, and most of the power it generates could be negated by just a little smarter use of electricity. If Japan (an already very power efficient nation) can go from over 30% to less than 1% nuclear in less than a year, I really think the rest of the world will have little issue.

Should the automobile be condemned because more than 40K are killed by them each year?
Hmm . . . how is an automobile different from a nuclear reactor . . .

• No one is claiming the automobile is completely safe (and in inappropriate forums).
• Individuals, themselves, do have some degree of control over automobile safety.
• Individuals have the choice whether or not to use an automobile.
• Automobiles do not blow-up when the power goes out.
• Automobiles do not cause large areas of land to become uninhabitable for thousands of years.
• Automobiles are usually not operated for 60 years at a time.
• Automobiles do not leave behind waste that must be safely stored for thousands of years.
• Automobiles do not require government subsidies to build (unless you are GM).
• Automobiles require liability insurance so that if you cause damages to someone else, that individual will be compensated.
• The automobile industry is extremely competitive which results in higher industry transparency and less regulator capture.

You know, I probably could think of a million more reasons why cars are different than nuclear reactors, which probably just means your analogy is not very good. Why don't we just leave it at that.

Green energy doesn’t fair well at all when compared to nuclear
Again, either provide support for your statement or limit its scope. What do you mean by "fair well?" If you are in Texas with extended droughts, I would think solar would fair much better than a water hogging nuclear plant. How cheap is nuclear power when you have to pay for the water? Oh, if you are about to say "base loading," nuclear is a horrible base loading technology for renewable sources (like wind, which Texas gets more of its electricity from than nuclear), which require sources capable of a wide range of electrical output (like natural gas, another thing Texas is more abundant in than water). 

In conclusion, just because you think nuclear is superior compared to everything else and in all situations, does not make it so. In fact, NO technology is 100% appropriate EVERYWHERE, so your underlying argument seems more like theology than something that can actually be debated. 

However, I am all for open debate, so I do invite you to respond. However, there are going to be some ground rules.

First, please provide us an introduction of yourself. From the blog, you already know a lot about me, my husband, and son. You know our real names, what we look like, what city we live in, etc. . . I know nothing about you. That is not a very level playing field for a debate, now is it? If you want to continue with this discussion, please first provide relatively the same amount of information we have already provided you. Please include your reason for being interested in this matter and specifically why you are interested in the ongoing disaster in Fukushima.

You chose this very personal forum to start this debate and began it in a very inappropriate post (Exactly one year after 311: A reflection of purpose). Now is the time for you to unveil yourself so that we can discuss this fairly and openly. I hope you do have the courage to finish what you have started.

In fact, I invite the entire pro-nuke industry to come here to debate with me, on the condition that you do so openly and let us know the same level of information we have already let you know. I have nothing to hide. I care about this issue dearly because I have people I care very strongly for that are currently living in a perilous situation. I want to help them, and I think the nuclear industry is creating an economic incentive for the Japanese government to minimize the issue and not provide those people the level of protection they deserve.

Local Television Interview

We were interviewed by KVUE Austin, and shared our story about evacuating from our house in Japan. Here is the URL of the broadcast and associated online article:

http://www.kvue.com/home/A-UT-couple-living-in-Japan-a-year-ago-relives-the-difficult-decision-to-leave-142264355.html

We really do appreciate KVUE taking the time to help get our story out.

Exactly one year after 311: A reflection of purpose

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -Julius Robert Oppenheimer  

When the winds shifted South, following Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant's 3rd reactor's violent explosion, we left our home in Japan with nothing but ourselves and broken dreams. It has been almost a year since then. Without ever going back to our precious community and home of friends and family.

I recently had the chance to chat with my friend in Japan in the middle of the night U.S. time. I really wanted to chat with her, but at the same time, I hesitated to send her a message at first. Inside me, I had feelings of guilt for evacuating Japan and leaving everyone behind. I often dreamt about family, friends, and neighbors in Japan blaming us for leaving them and excommunicating us.

In the back of my mind I was thinking, "what if my friend had feelings of betrayal and anger towards me?" I was scared, but I took the plunge and sent her a message.

It started with a regular conversation, but before very long, she sent me something like the following this, "Anyway, everything has changed since then. Last time you sent me an e-mail, I had something I wanted to tell you, but it's a little touchy issue, so I am sorry if you do not want to hear it right now." It was startling to read at first, and I assumed that this was my nightmares of rejection playing out into reality. It took a moment for me to think straight, but I decided that I would listen and accept whatever she wanted to tell me, even if it was that I had betrayed her.

She then told me that after the nuclear power plant accident, she became very nervous about nuclear power and radiation. She was confused what she should do, what she wanted to do, and really suffered both psychologically and physically, even to the point of becoming ill.

And, she had been reading my blog . . .

She continued, "You guys evacuated, but you did not finish there. You guys are still caring about Japan and the people living here. I am grateful for your strong hearts and feel like you guys saved me."

I could not help crying. She is the one currently living in a situation we fled from. I felt that her words had made all our sacrifices worth it. The house, my husband's Tokyo job, our entire life there . . . her words made it alright to lose that. Those were casualties in a war we were fighting, fighting for people like her. We had not left them behind. We had left to gather reinforcements. As long as she understood this, any hardship would be bearable. She was the one going through the greater hardship, and she knew we were doing what we could to help her. She knew that we had not abandoned her.

After receiving such a message from her, my resolve to do as much as it would take to decrease usage of worldwide nuclear power became stronger than ever. Her words would carry me through any challenges I would face. If closing down just one reactor made her suffering less in vain or reduced the Japanese government's incentive to minimize the ongoing disaster by just one less lie, I would use whatever energy left I had on that. I would raise awareness on the ongoing nightmare from Fukushima any way I could. I would be the nail that stuck out the most and would not fear the hammer.

When I was living in Japan, I always was worried about how other people thought of me. In part of me, there always was a feeling of wanting to be accepted and not being disliked by others. So, I was trying to meet people's expectation, not showing who I really was, and not saying what I really wanted to say. All my energy went into "fitting in."

However, after the Fukushima accident, my perspective on life changed drastically. It was a wake up call for me. I realized how precious normal, ordinary life was and that you could not assume you could have that life without fighting for it.

I started thinking that I did not want to live a life that I would regret later when I died. I wanted to show and share with others the things I felt or cared strongly about, and I wanted others to do the same thing for me. Quietly living your life and hoping not to be noticed would no longer be an option. To try to live quietly was to give the power to take all you cared about away to those wicked and power lustful enough to do so or risk doing so for their own selfish gain.

Accordingly, when it comes to nuclear energy, I strongly believe that we should discontinue using it until we know how to clean up radioactive contamination and actually deal with the waste (instead of trying to hide it away for longer than our civilization will probably last). No one should feel forced to live with radioactive contamination. I have a duty to spread the word to the people in the world so that no one will have to learn it the hard way like we did. I have the duty to speak out . . . with the strength of the voices of all those who want to speak out but are not in a position to. The silent thousand, millions . . . your voices will also be heard.

Thank you, my friend in Japan. I am glad we had the courage to talk to one another about the things that not many Japanese people can talk about to one another. I feel your suffering and will not let it go unavenged. And please, no matter what happens, do not give up hope. At times we find ourselves lost in a void we feel is too great to ever be found. But, just as our words filled a silence that at one time felt too expansive to fill, so will the void give way to hope.

Words can be powerful. My words saved you . . . your words saved me . . .