Monday, March 19, 2012

Asahi: Japan objected to IAEA defining contamination zone for food

(2012年3月22日: 日本人読者の皆様、記事をざっと日本語訳したものを日本語ブログに出しました。よろしければどうぞ。英語も平明なので分かりやすいと思いますが。I translated the article into Japanese, if you want to send it to your Japanese friends. Go to my Japanese blog, here.)


Asahi Shinbun's English web-based news Asia Japan Watch has an article that says Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Nuclear Safety Commission said no to IAEA's proposal in 2005 to designate the area within the 300-kilometer radius from a nuclear plant as "an area where shipment bans on farm products and other measures would be implemented to regulate the intake of radioactive contaminated food".

The 300-kilometer radius just about covers Shizuoka Prefecture, where radioactive cesium was detected in teas that exceeded the provisional safety limit.
From Asahi's AJW (3/17/2012; emphasis is mine):

Japan objected to IAEA defining contamination zone for food

By YURI OIWA / Staff Writer

When the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005 proposed defining a zone where food intake regulations were to be enacted in the event of a nuclear emergency, Tokyo objected.

And the Vienna-based international nuclear watchdog never did define such a zone, leaving it up to the health ministry to hastily introduce regulations six years later following the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Official documents disclosed at the request of The Asahi Shimbun said that the Japanese government filed an objection when the IAEA proposed to designate, ahead of a potential nuclear disaster, an area where shipment bans on farm products and other measures would be implemented to regulate the intake of radioactive contaminated food.

The IAEA in February 2005 drew up a draft safety standard, which said that food intake regulations should be prepared within a 300-kilometer radius of a 1-gigawatt class nuclear power plant in case of a major accident.

According to the documents, members of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan and the science and technology ministry in May 2005 discussed the proposal.

Participants decided to request, in the name of the Japanese government, that the concrete distance figure for the proposed zone be deleted.

The attendees cited the need to "consider negative publicity and other factors before defining a food regulation zone." They also said it was necessary to "consider whether it is appropriate to presume an accident with as big an impact as the one at Chernobyl," a report said.

The Brazilian government also made a similar protest. The distance specification was deleted in the end.

Until the Great East Japan Earthquake crippled the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant last March, the only disaster response guideline Tokyo had in place was for the disaster response headquarters to "begin considering" measures to regulate food intake. There would be "enough time" from the onset of an accident to the implementation of regulations on the intake of food, the authorities said at the time.

Following the Fukushima disaster, the health ministry hastily came up with provisional safety regulations that may not have been far-reaching enough.

"Following the latest accident, radioactive cesium exceeded the safety standard in tea leaves from Shizuoka Prefecture, more than 300 km from the Fukushima plant," said Hideaki Tsuzuku, the director of the Radiation Protection and Accident Management Division at the NSC. "Retrospectively, 300 km was not too large. We knew, from the Chernobyl experience, that radioactive substances below levels that are harmful to human bodies can be condensed in plants and domestic animals."

The NSC, currently reviewing the disaster response guideline, plans to define numerical standards for radioactive substance levels at which food and beverage intake regulations should be enacted.

We all know what happened last year. Instead of banning the shipment of agricultural products within the 300-kilometer radius from Fukushima I Nuke Plant, the government encouraged the production, encouraged the shipment, and encouraged people to buy the products to help support farmers. They sample-tested vegetables, one vegetable from one farm in one city, to assure people the entire shipment from the entire city was safe. Before designating the highly contaminated Iitate-mura and Namie-machi in Fukushima Prefecture as "planned evacuation zone", the government encouraged cattle farmers to sell their cattle quickly.

And now, one year later, the Nuclear Safety Commission has the gall to say the 300 kilometer radius was not too big after all.


Anonymous said...

As usual, humans only concern themselves with immediate profit and benefits. The future? What's that? Won't happen. Just keep smiling.

Anonymous said...

Japan government's failure to take a hyper-conservative safety-first approach to food after the Fukushima meltdowns was a key factor in DESTROYING any credibility they would have in the aftermath.

Anyone thinking about the safety of distributing and burning Tohoku waste must consider how poorly they handled food safety after the Fukushima meltdowns. Burning the Tohoku trash in Kyushu, Kansai, Chubu, Okinawa and Hokkaido is simply more of the same stupidity. Wake up Japan.

Anonymous said...

nO! U say wake up?
I say you are doing good japan, they are obsesssed with idiocy and killing and greed etc, this is gooD because it shows true nature and it will BE A LESSON that WILL GO UNHEEDED. tHIS IS THE truth U ARE SEEING

Chibaguy said...

The Japanese are silently awake in some parts but if you have ever seen Exskf's blog as to the perception of radiation exposure throughout Japan the confusion is apparent.

The government did an excellent job re concealing the truth. This being said, they are responsible for the factual "rumors.". Anyone that has any background in recalls would know the government's response was the worst countermeasure they could have taken. It all should have been contained. However, what we see now is the so-called baseless rumor being qualified. Yes, they did this for immediate profit under the pretense of reconstruction but the long term effects will trump anything in the short term when history is written.

As a great doctor I know said, "the Japanese do not think about the future as it is not in the culture.". Thus, the fires will burn.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting.
There's no business with zero risk, but this prooves that the Japanese administrations were gambling with risk, not dealing with it.
A big difference. Now the price is high.

Post a Comment