Table Of ContentYuko Fujigaki E ditor
Lessons
From
Fukushima
Japanese Case Studies on Science,
Technology and Society
Lessons From Fukushima
Yuko Fujigaki
Editor
Lessons From Fukushima
Japanese Case Studies on Science,
Technology and Society
123
Editor
Yuko Fujigaki
Graduate School ofArts andSciences
Universityof Tokyo
Tokyo, Tokyo
Japan
ISBN 978-3-319-15352-0 ISBN 978-3-319-15353-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15353-7
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015931539
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerInternationalPublishingAGSwitzerlandispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia
(www.springer.com)
Foreword by Rethy Chhem
The destruction brought down and across the Japanese coast in March 2011 has
returned to us our fear and our uncertainty. We had assumed mastery where
misunderstanding and negligence lay. Above all, we have seen the world, and
ourselves inside it, brought to cold reflections:
How have our systems failed?
How have we failed to prevent?
How have we failed to imagine?
Thethirdcharge,ourmostsevereandaccusatory,encompassesthewholeofour
misstepsandmalpracticetowardsthisdisasterandallbeforeit:Wemayhavefailed
to imagine.
Once, requiring only a crude understanding of possibilities and outcomes,
wielding technologies of risk was a seemingly simple affair. Their behaviour we
assumed to be known, controlled and local. We managed the benefits and risks
oftheseinstrumentswithpredictivelaws,andthus,predictiveremediationwhenwe
experiencefailure.Theuncertaintiesofourtechnologyanditsscientificbasiswere
to be uncovered through progress, never beyond the limits of investigation and
never included as a feature of science.
Now,inspiteofthis,ourincreasinglycomplexsocialworldhaschallengedusto
revise our entrenched narrowness of problem solving. We witness physical
destruction pushing far beyond the normative framework of scientific understand-
ing and must draw new ways of looking, from a variety offields, to these intricate
problems. We must filter our vision through the pages of new volumes.
In sum, we must reimagine.
Withover30years’experienceinradiationmedicineasapracticingradiologist,
a historian of science and social scientist—along with numerous publications on
clinical radiology, radiation protection and a Science-Technology-Society (STS)
handbook for Fukushima Medical University (FMU)—I have developed a unique
perspective on this emergent requirement of social understanding in disaster relief.
Theinteractionsbetweenscience,technologyandsocietyareimmenselyimportant
v
vi ForewordbyRethyChhem
to gaining a clear analysis of disaster towards remediation. With such vision, we
can uncover the complex and wondrous assemblage of the nuclear reactor beneath
the mechanistic surface: A singular nexus of the social, the political and the
material, powered by courage and ambition. Likewise, we can investigate its
failures with similar acuity.
Whenthecompounddisasterof3/11occurred,Iwitnessedeffortstomitigatethe
short and mid-term damage of the disaster troubled by immense difficulties. As a
VisitingProfessortoNagasakiandHiroshimaUniversitiesaswellasFMU,whereI
was teaching STS to healthcare professionals during the crisis and the recovery
phase, I became acutely aware of thelimitations of these emergency efforts. These
efforts—which, particularly at the center of disaster, were often heroic—were not
simply afflicted by the conditions of radioactive fallout, but also by misunder-
standing of the unique human afflictions brought on by its after effects. Moreover,
the communication of risk to the public remained greatly hindered by this lack of
comprehension surrounding the social issues of the disaster. It seemed to us that
otherwiseclean,easilyassuagedproblemshadliftedfromthetextbookandintothe
social, taking on the form of acute psychological illness. In other words, infor-
mation that performed neatly in theory would complicate and disperse in this very
alive, very human situation.
This social element proved critical, with few of those professionals leading the
emergency response possessing an expert understanding. The mass migration of
Japanesecitizensfromthedisasterareatosaferground,thedislocatedyouth,adults
and elderly: all were shuttled away from their realities to form temporary lives for
indefinite time. Lives caught in jeopardy, journeying between the irradiated
shoreline to the anxieties of unemployment and social exclusion.
Had the capacity for exploring the possibilities of our technology led to an
inability to control its development? Had our dependency on the existence of this
technologysimplyblindedustotheircomplex dangers?The tripledisasterof3/11
had thoroughly pierced the rigidity of disaster preparedness. To reimagine and
reform, we must spread the boundaries of our understanding.
The publication you hold is a welcome response to this challenge. By first
addressingmajorquestionsrelatedtothesocialimpactsoftheFukushimaDisaster,
Professor Yuko Fujigaki continues a potent argument towards broadening our
understanding of the placement of the Fukushima disaster in the mutable folds of
society.
Particularly important to our understanding, the author illustrates the historical
bearingofnucleartechnology—fromtheatomicbombingsoflate1945tothechief
concern of Fukushima—on the island nation and how these technologies would
becomeinterwoven within thecomplex national character of Japan. Thishistorical
perspective provides Professor Fujigaki with the grounds for crucial comparisons
with other diseases (Minimata and Itai-Itai disease) and with other cases (HIV-
tainted-blood scandal and Winny case) in part two of publication in order to
investigatethecomplexrelationshipbetweenscience,technologyandsociety.This
series of similar yet distinct technological concerns allows the author to trace the
ForewordbyRethyChhem vii
actors and assemblages that construct the foundations by which technologies are
envisioned, enacted and remedied, particular once they fail to serve us correctly.
ProfessorFujigaki’sbreadthofknowledgeinthefieldofSTSandherleadership
intheJapaneseSTScommunitybrilliantlyshowcasesindividualeffortstoprogress
our knowledge of risk communication, the complex layers of interactions within
society, and scientific and technological activity. The creation of this publication
itselfisevidenceoftheconsiderableeffortsshownbytheprofessor,havingledthe
process of gathering Japanese experts to contribute to this uniquely valuable pub-
lication. Through such academic ambitions, we continue to push outward and
expand the frame of our perception to the convoluted realities of disaster, partic-
ularlywhereoursocialfabrichasfrayedmostconspicuously,whereliveshavebeen
troubled most deeply.
And with a new vision atop these pillars of experience, relationships between
particles and people attain equal importance, each requiring sound and balanced
analysis. And with this analysis, we can survey our errors at its truest extent, and
bring science to greater utility.
Dr. Rethy Chhem
Visiting Professor
Fukushima Medical University
Hiroshima University
Nagasaki University
Foreword by Wiebe E. Bijker
This volume provides a rich collection of studies to help us understand the “Great
East Japan Earthquake”, or rather the triple disaster—of earthquake, tsunami and
nuclear power plant failure—that happened in and around Fukushima in March
2011. The chapters address questions about the historical development of the
Japanese nuclear program, risk management and communication, new forms of
participatory technology planning,pollutionandpublichealth,andthegovernance
oftechnology.Thesequestionsareaddressedbyusingabroadrangeofapproaches
fromtheinterdisciplinaryspectrumthatmakesupthefieldofScience,Technology
and Society studies (STS).
But it does more than addressing these important questions generated by
“Fukushima”. The volume, through its lens of the triple disaster, creates a fasci-
nating cross-section of Japanese society. Using STS perspectives, Yuko Fujigaki
and her colleagues sketch a picture of Japanese society that is at the same time
familiar to my European eyes, and fascinatingly different.
ThefirsttimeIvisitedJapanin2003,thiswas—quiteironicallyinthecontextof
this volume—on invitation by the Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry(CRIEPI)andtheJapanScienceandTechnologyAgency(JST),todiscuss
new forms of citizens’ participation in locating power stations. Ever since, I have
been struck by the potential richness of conversations between East and West,
between Japan and Europe/US. The founding of the Japanese Society for Science
and Technology Studies (JSSTS) in 2001 and the successful large international
conferencethatJSSTSorganizedwiththeSocietyforSocialStudiesofScience(4S)
inTokyoin2010haveunderlinedhowfruitfulsuchSTS-inspiredcomparisonsand
conversations can be.
It is a triviality to note that societies differ, also in their socio-technical make-
up. More interesting is the question whether STS, as an emerging discipline that
studiessuchsocietiesasconstitutedbyscienceandtechnology,differsbetweenthe
various subcontinents of our globe too. Readers are invited to explore in this
volume whether there is something as a Japanese style of doing STS. The volume
certainly provides an illuminating view of Japanese society.
ix
x ForewordbyWiebeE.Bijker
In the case of this volume moreover, the STS authors do more than study
Japanese society and the triple disaster. They engage with the burning societal
questions that were generated by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Japanese STS
researchers have reacted to the Fukushima events by joining government advisory
committees, doing post-disaster communication, conducting policy experiments
such as deliberative polling, participating in public discussions and providing
historicalandcriticalanalysesofwhattheJapanesecitizenssawhappeningaround
them.AndfinallytheyintensivelycontributedwithSTScolleaguesfromabroadto
help the IAEA and Fukushima Medical University to develop an STS-inspired
curriculum to better prepare medical doctors for events such as the triple disaster.
Thisbook,insum, notonly provides anenlightening analysis oftheGreatEast
Japan Earthquake, but also offers an intriguing view of Japanese techno-scientific
culture,andgivesaninspiringexampleofhowSTSscholarscouldengagewiththe
world around them.
Wiebe E. Bijker
Professor of Technology and Society
Maastricht University
Past-President
Society for Social Studies of Science (4S)
Preface
The Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents after an earthquake in March 2011
have drawn the world’s attention to the relationship between science, technology
and society in the high-technology setting of Japan. For example, how are the
nuclearpowerplantsembeddedinpolitical,economicandsocialcontextsinJapan?
Underwhatkindsofrelationshipsbetweenscience,technologyandsocietyaresuch
accidents produced? In addition, how are these relationships constructed histori-
cally? This book provides a case analysis on the Triple Disaster (i.e. earthquake,
tsunami and nuclear power plants) to address the first two questions and also
provides analysis on Minamata disease (Mercury pollution) and Itai-Itai disease
(Cadmium pollution) to examine the last question.
The first question is one that I received from Ulrike Felt, Professor at the
University of Vienna, just after the earthquake in April 2011. Professor Felt posed
this question at the “STS 20+20” (Science and Technology Studies: The Next
Twenty: A conference reflecting on the past 20 years of STS graduate study and
looking ahead to the next 20) at Harvard University. This is a very important
questionforanalysingtheFukushimaaccidentsfromtheperspectivesfromScience
and Technology Studies. Since the conference, we Japanese researchers have
eagerly examined this first question as well as the second question; for example, I
chaired and played an discussant in the joint plenary of the History of Science
Society (HSS), the Society for History of Science (SHOT), and the Society for
Social Studies of Science (4S) in Cleveland on November 3, 2011, on “Dealing
with Disasters: Perspectives on Fukushima from the History and Social Studies of
ScienceandTechnology”.Discussionshavealsobeendevelopedinthesessionsat
the4SandtheEuropeanAssociationofScienceandTechnologyStudies(EASST)
joint conference in October 2012 in Copenhagen. We make full use of these dis-
cussions in four chapters in Part I.
Toanswerthelastquestion,wedealwithseveralcaseanalysesinPartII.These
analyses are based on the Japanese STS textbook edited in 2005 in Japanese as a
result of a project funded by the Japan Science and Technology Agency. The
projectbeganinJanuary2002,andwereceivedhelpfuladvicefromSheilaJasanoff,
a Professor at Harvard University, at the Science and Democracy Meeting held in
xi
