I would like first to introduce myself. I am Fuseya Yumiko from the Shinjuku Yoyogi Citizen Monitoring Center. It has now been 35 years since I became involved in citizens\u2019 activities to measure radioactivity in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.<\/p>\n
In December 2022, the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) announced that it would transport the so-called \u201cremoved soil\u201d stored at Fukushima Prefecture\u2019s Intermediate Storage Facility into Shinjuku Gyoen Gardens and construct flower beds in a \u201cdemonstration project\u201d to investigate the effects of radioactivity. Since that time, I have become deeply involved in the issue of the \u201crecycling of removed soil.\u201d<\/p>\n
The term \u201cremoved soil\u201d does not mean soil from which radioactivity has been removed. According to the document \u201cBriefing on the Demonstration Project to be Conducted by the Ministry of the Environment at Shinjuku Gyoen Gardens,\u201d[1] distributed at a residents\u2019 briefing,\u00a0 \u201cThe removed soil is topsoil removed and retrieved from gardens and farmland by decontamination work.\u201d There is no mention of even the \u201cr\u201d of radioactivity in the explanation, but doesn\u2019t this refer to dangerous soil contaminated with radioactivity? What will they demonstrate with the radioactively contaminated soil? According to the above handout, they will \u201cconfirm the safety of the recycling (of the removed soil).\u201d Wasn\u2019t this done by stripping the soil away from where citizens live because it was dangerous?<\/p>\n
In the various explanations, it was said that it would be safe because the contaminated soil would be covered with uncontaminated soil and because it would not reach 1mSv (millisievert) per year, but in the end, neither the residents of Shinjuku Ward nor the citizens of Tokorozawa, another candidate site for the demonstration project, were convinced and continued to protest. These demonstration projects have therefore not been implemented yet.<\/p>\n
Currently, MoE has put these demonstration projects on hold and is in the final stages of a move toward serious implementation (recycling of the removed soil in public works projects nationwide) from 2025. On September 10, the IAEA released its \u201cFinal Report\u201d[2] (described below), and immediately after that, the Strategic Study Group on the Development of Technology for Volume Reduction and Recycling of Removed Soil from Intermediate Storage and four working groups under this Strategic Study Group all began to move in unison to compile a wide range of measures and guidelines that they had been considering for some time. It is expected that a draft ministerial ordinance will be prepared by the end of this fiscal year, and that a cabinet decision will be made after public comments have been solicited. Preparations for the recycling of removed soil (soil contaminated by radioactivity) have been steadily progressing, but what is the problem? The difficult problem faced is the question of whether a dialogue can be established between those of us who are opposed to the recycling of removed soil and MoE.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The problem of double standards<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the problems with the recycling of removed soil is that it is a double standard. (I will explain everything below in terms of radioactive cesium concentration.)\u3000<\/p>\n Despite the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Act[3] stating that only waste of 100 Bq\/kg (becquerels\/kilogram) or less can be recycled, \u201cremoved soil\u201d of up to 8,000 Bq\/kg can be recycled, and this is a double standard.<\/p>\n So, how does MoE explain this double standard? I will need to explain about \u201cwaste.\u201d MoE refers to soil contaminated with radiation as a \u201cvaluable resource,\u201d not as waste. The document \u201cDifferences Between the 100 Bq\/kg and 8,000 Bq\/kg Standards,\u201d[4] issued by the MoE\u2019s Waste and Recycling Division explains that \u201cBriefly, 100 Bq\/kg is the standard for safe recycling<\/u><\/strong> of waste, while 8,000 Bq\/kg is the standard for safe disposal<\/u><\/strong> of waste.\u201d If you read it further, it goes on to say that \u201cthe standard for wastes of 8,000 Bq\/kg or less assumes general processing methods (sorting, incineration, or landfill disposal) and is a standard for safe disposal.\u201d It then gives detailed explanations of how these wastes can be disposed of \u201cmore safely by incineration, landfill disposal, etc. using conventional methods employed thus far.\u201d If you read this explanation, who would think that \u201crecycling\u201d is included in \u201csafe disposal\u201d? This is one of the \u201cdeceitful techniques\u201d that MoE uses. Furthermore, MoE does not mention recycling in this document, but on its website it lists the achievements thus far of recycling of waste from \u201cContaminated Waste Countermeasure Areas (areas that were designated as evacuation zones)\u201d without revealing data on the concentration of radioactivity.[5]<\/p>\n Is there an explanation that will resolve this contradiction? The Association Against the Spread of Radioactivity sent a letter to MoE asking the question. \u201cDo the general processing methods (sorting, incineration, landfill disposal, etc.) for waste up to 8,000 Bq\/kg include reuse or recycling? If so, why are these not specified?\u201d MoE\u2019s response was as follows.<\/p>\n “The explanation referred to in your question was written with incineration and landfill disposal in mind, but it does not exclude the processing of waste for recycling.”<\/em><\/p>\n While on the one hand they say the wastes can be safely reused and on the other that they can be safely disposed of, as if it were not a double standard, but do not say that \u201cthe recycling of wastes of 8,000 Bq\/kg or less are not excluded (or are even promoted)\u201d unless asked. However, if recycling is not excluded, the wastes will be reused or recycled whether it is 100 or 8,000, making no difference, which is clearly a double standard. This technique is deliberately used to avoid answering the question \u201cWhy is recycling not specified?\u201d<\/p>\n Contaminated soil mound in the intermediate storage facility in the process of leveling in December 2022 (right foreground)<\/p><\/div>\n This deceitful technique can be found everywhere. For example, to the question, \u201cCould you explain why the IAEA meeting of experts is closed to the public?\u201d The answer was, \u201cA summary report is available on the MoE website.\u201d Some might think, \u201cOh, I see. You can see it on the website.\u201d However, we should note here that they ignore the question, \u201cWhy is it closed?\u201d Doesn\u2019t doing things in this way make it impossible to build a relationship of trust that is the premise for dialogue<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The Problem of Interpretation of the Law<\/strong><\/p>\n Another problem that has been raised about the \u201crecycling of removed soil\u201d is the interpretation of the wording of the law. Specifically, MoE claims that \u201cdisposal\u201d includes \u201crecycling\u201d even though Article 41 [6] of the Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Materials Contaminated by Radiation includes \u201cdisposal\u201d but not \u201crecycling.\u201d Since the term \u201cdisposal\u201d has not included \u201crecycling\u201d in any law up until now,[7] how come it is suddenly \u201cinterpreted to include recycling\u201d? MoE\u2019s response to the question \u201cIsn\u2019t this inconsistent with the current legal framework?\u201d is as follows.<\/p>\n “Recycling of removed soil under the Act on Special Measures falls under \u201cdisposal,\u201d as prescribed in Article 41, Paragraph 1 of the Act, and the Basic Policy[8] approved by the Cabinet on November 11, 2023 also mentions recycling of removed soil.”<\/em><\/p>\n In answer to the question \u201cHow is it we say that A includes B?\u201d the response says nothing more than B is included in A.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the abovementioned Basic Policy approved by the Cabinet only states that \u201crecycling, etc. needs to be considered,\u201d but does not say that \u201crecycling\u201d is included in \u201cdisposal.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Exposure Risk Deception<\/strong><\/p>\n There are two additional problems.<\/p>\n One is the difficulty of understanding the radiation risks, and the second is whether or not this contributes to the reconstruction of Fukushima. The difficulty of understanding radiation risks has a very complicated background that is completely different from other chemical substances. The terminology, such as Bq, Sv, air dose, and effective dose, is hard to understand. Some of these terms have been created unilaterally by experts who wish to promote nuclear power, while others have different definitions and interpretations even among experts. The fact that radiation is invisible, tasteless, and that its effects cannot be immediately ascertained unless the exposure is very serious also makes this a difficult problem to grasp.<\/p>\n The explanation that exposure to 1 mSv per year is safe is often presented conspicuously here and there, but if we say that food with up to 1mSv, air with up to 1mSv, and soil with up to 1mSv of contamination is safe, is that alright? In the first place, 1mSv is a standard established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which states that five out of 100,000 people will die of cancer after a single exposure.[9] This is a far cry from Japan\u2019s standard for chemical substances in tap water, which states that 1 out of 100,000 people will have a health risk (not death) if they consume the water over their lifetime. 1 mSv is not a safe standard.<\/p>\n In the case of the \u201crecycling of removed soil,\u201d even if the explanation that \u201cif 50 cm of uncontaminated soil is placed over contaminated soil, the radiation shielding rate is 99.8%,\u201d and that \u201cthe standard of 1mSv per year is met,\u201d does not convince the public, it would be difficult for citizens to come up with grounds for denying it.<\/p>\n The standard for \u201crecycling of removed soil\u201d is 8,000Bq\/kg or less, which is the same as the waste disposal standard. Despite the explanation that \u201cit is safe because the contaminated soil is covered over,\u201d the actual way this is handled is quite sloppy. Surprisingly, at a MoE joint meeting held on September 17, it was revealed that the additional radiation exposure for restoration workers would be less than 1mSv per year even if the covering soil is blown away and contaminated soil is exposed due to a disaster (Figure 1)[10]. On the page describing the calculation results, even though there is a shielding factor, there is no premise stating that the work is carried out in the same way as if it were on an iron plate. Why is the restoration work on disaster-damaged soil the same as that carried out on an iron plate?<\/p>\n Also, shouldn\u2019t internal exposure to cesium balls[11], recently taken up as an important research issue, be taken into account? Furthermore, workers who handle contaminated soil at close range are treated as if they were the general public[12], so is assumed that protective measures such as masks are not taken? Even though this project, with its many unknowns is about to get underway, isn\u2019t there too little consideration for or use of the precautionary principle to protect workers from exposure risk? In addition to the difficulty of understanding the risks posed by radiation, if calculation methods are deliberately concealed, as in this case, it is inevitable that citizens will be confused and kept in the dark, and one cannot help but think that this is what the government and MoE seem to be aiming at. This is a problem that exists before dialogue can begin.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Does this really contribute to the reconstruction of Fukushima?<\/strong><\/p>\n Another problem is the logic that reducing the amount of contaminated soil in intermediate storage facilities contributes to the reconstruction of Fukushima.<\/p>\n At the explanatory meeting for residents, which I mentioned earlier, the first thing that happened was that the video \u201cFukushima, 10 years passed; Fukushima, to the next stage\u201d[13] was shown. In the video, the question was asked. \u201c(Regarding the issue of removed soil) is this just a problem of Fukushima alone?\u201d and then the audience was called upon to \u201cPlease think together from now on.\u201d It makes it sound as if recycling removed soil is an issue for the entire Japanese nation. But how many people in Fukushima really wish to see removed soil used nationwide? Do they think it will lead to reconstruction? I have never heard anyone say this.<\/p>\n In addition, the government and MoE are using overwhelming amounts of material and financial resources that cannot be compared with what citizens can do to promote the acceptance of the recycling of removed soil, using corporations and others for \u201cnational public awareness activities.\u201d The working group is also considering that from now on targeting particularly high school and university students will be effective.[14] But what we should be thinking about is not how to use radioactive soil but what kind of reconstruction will truly benefit Fukushima, and ultimately Japan.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n IAEA Final Report<\/strong><\/p>\n Finally, I should mention the Final Report issued by the IAEA on September 10.<\/p>\n This report summarizes the outcomes of three expert meetings which MoE requested the IAEA hold on \u201cthe volume reduction and recycling of removed soil.\u201d In the press release, it was announced that Japan\u2019s currently planned efforts are consistent with IAEA safety standards. However, looking at the Executive Summary[15] translated by MoE, there is no specific content that explains in what respect the safety standards are consistent. The only specific point given is that the additional effective dose of 1mSv\/year is an approach consistent with IAEA safety standards, but this is nothing more than simply stating that the standards are consistent.<\/p>\n Instead, there are many abstract and vague expressions such as \u201cIf this can be realized safely, the volume of wastes can be reduced,\u201d and \u201cThe demonstration project\u2026 indicates the potential for safe and advantageous use,\u201d and, in their conclusion, \u201cWe encourage and commend the Ministry of the Environment\u2019s continued efforts,\u201d and \u201cJapan continues to make significant progress towards long-term management of removed soil and waste.\u201d It seems that the IAEA wrote this report with little understanding of the actual methods intended to be used to recycle waste. (Did they hear about things like work being done by laying down an iron plate?)<\/p>\n Unfortunately, I have to say that dialogue with MoE will be quite difficult, but we have the right to refuse exposure to artificial and unnecessary radiation. Further, if we don\u2019t shift the rudder in the direction of ending the spread of radioactive waste into the global environment, we will feel very sorry to the next generation for what we have done.<\/p>\n With so many problems that need to be dealt with, such as the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, and the lack of standards for radioactive materials in the Basic Environment Act, how can we overcome the current situation where dialogue between ministries and citizens is so difficult and relations of trust cannot be built? This is the biggest problem.<\/p>\n I believe that the only way to solve this problem is for conscientious experts and citizens to continue to work together by pooling their wisdom and strengths.<\/p>\n Notes<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cnic.jp\/english\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Fuseya-san-Pic.jpg\")
<\/a><\/a>Here, too, is another deceitful technique. The restoration workers are, would you believe, treated in the same way as if they were working on an iron plate that has been placed on the ground, and the radiation effects are calculated using a shielding factor of 0.6.<\/p>\n
\n\n