Fukushima Now (30) – Part 1: Absurdities That Have Become Apparent These 15 Years
By Yamaguchi Yukio
They say it is human to forget, but the results of a public opinion poll on whether or not to restart Japan’s nuclear power plants (NPPs) are nonetheless surprising. In June 2013, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported “58% against, 28% in favor,” but by December 2025 it this sentiment had reversed to “21% opposed, 48% in favor” according to the Mainichi newspaper. There would be some degree of difference from one survey to another, but the trend is undeniable. Is this the result of forgetfulness?
Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which caused the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (below, “Fukushima disaster”), is finding smooth sailing with the current “nuclear renaissance.” Thus it has made a move to start up Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 in Niigata Prefecture, which had been idled for 14 years.
Governor Hanazumi of Niigata Prefecture, who repeatedly said he would “put the question to the prefecture’s citizens,” bent to strong pressure from TEPCO and Japan’s government and gave the go ahead for its restart. TEPCO chose January 20, 2026 as the big day, but kept having problems with control rods or getting the work underway, and shut the reactor down again on the 23rd.
The reactor was started up again on February 9, but defective neutron detection equipment inside the reactor caused it to be shut down again. On February 14, they managed to start it up. They aim to resume commercial operations on March 18.
We were taught that the powers comprising the mechanism of modern governance are separated into the three branches of judiciary, legislative and executive. The form that separation takes, or how well defined it is, however, changes with time and depends on the conditions in the society. As NPPs are privately operated under national public policies, the responsibility for the Fukushima disaster lies with both Japan’s government and TEPCO. Japan’s judiciary branch, however, has never recognized the government’s responsibility at all.
Judgements were rendered on January 22, 2026 in nine class-action lawsuits filed by residents who had been forced to evacuate due to the Fukushima disaster, seeking compensation from Japan’s government and TEPCO. The petty bench of Japan’s supreme court ordered compensation be paid by TEPCO, but denied that the government bore any responsibility.
In the sixth session of the trial seeking an injunction against the release of ALPS treated water (on January 26, 2026), the plaintiffs’ lawyers pointed to results of a simulation by researchers on how radioactive substances released during the Fukushima disaster had dispersed across the seas around Japan and globally. They showed that the contaminants had spread not only along the coast on the Pacific side of the Japanese Archipelago, but also the Japan Sea side as well. That should demolish the assertion by the defendant, Japan’s government, that none of the 366 plaintiffs has any competence or qualifications.
The concept of “criteria” is essential in decision-making, though it can lead to facile arguments, such as appealing to “the science,” for shutting out dissenting views.
In Fukushima Prefecture, there are many children, numbering at least 415, suffering from thyroid cancer (see article by Sakiyama Hisako in this issue of NIT). The rate of occurrence there is several tens of times the normal rate, but there are scientific experts who still do not recognize this. Neither Japan’s government nor TEPCO recognizes radiation exposure as a cause of these cancers. Instead, they claim it could be the result of better screening or overdiagnosis.
Sakiyama and her colleagues deny that. They think that the UNSCEAR exposure dose estimations for 2020-2021 are underestimates, and that exposure doses are correlated with development of thyroid cancer, indicating radiation exposure as a cause.
This is reminiscent of the warning from Dr. Alice Stewart, who had been evaluating the figures in the UK, that “pinpoint radiation must be avoided as well.” If a ray reaches a cell’s nucleus, it can cause mutations, ultimately impacting human health.
Currently, the validity of the “linear no-threshold (LNT)” model, which holds that the risk from radiation is proportional to the dose and there is no safe amount of radiation, has been confirmed. It is common to encounter disagreements over what is most important from the respective points of view of governments and “experts” keen on promoting nuclear power on the one hand, and the citizens being harmed by it on the other. Electricity is convenient, but it should be used in moderation. Most of all, we hope for a society in which people who value life, health and the ability to continue living in the communities they know and love are taken into consideration.
