This particularly topic is one that has been occupying a fair degree of public attention in Japan across a broad spectrum of media outlets, and so it is to be expected that I myself would turn my attention to questions regarding the future of nuclear power in Japan and complicity in the events that led to the meltdown of the core of Reactor No.3 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in March of last year. I will admit that my understanding of the events surrounding the aftermath of the disaster and the manner in which both the Tokyo Electric Power Company (referred to here as Toden, 東電, for the sake of clarity) and the executive levels of the Japanese government sought to deal with the ramifications of a potential meltdown have been aided by the commentary provided by independent journalists within Japan such as Uesugi Takashi. In the immediate wake of the both the tsunami and reports of an unfolding crisis within the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Uesugi, together with other members of the Free Press Association of Japan, sought to obtain unambiguous answers from Toden representatives on the scale of the crisis and its implications for the people of both Fukushima prefecture and the entire Kanto region.
What has become increasingly clear to me in the course of reading Mr Uesugi's correspondence from that time and his subsequent interviews with both nuclear energy experts and other freelance journalists is the degree of collusion between Toden and representatives sent from major newspapers to cover press conferences conducted by Toden, a major sponsor of media outlets in the Kanto region. Uesugi writes of journalists from the so-called "Kisha Club" (a conglomerate of major newspaper, television, radio and internet organisations, whose influence results in their being granted exclusive access to government briefings and ministers, to the exclusion of independent and foreign journalists) occupying a majority of seats within the press conference venue, and asking questions that merely reaffirmed both Toden's and the then-Cabinet's explanations for what was occuring at the Fukushima plant (explanations that have subsequently been found to have been based on misleading information provided by Toden).
Given the confusion that existed at the time between the explanations coming from Toden, and those coming from then Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano and Prime Minister Naoto Kan, I found the deposition made by Mr Kan at the hearing being conducted into the Fukushima disaster last week to be both extraordinarily candid and refreshingly honest as he explained his reaction to news that following the failure of the coolant facility at the Fukushima Daiichi plant and the spike in core temperatures in the No.1, No.2, and No.3 reactors, Toden had planned to evacuate all staff and leave the reactors to melt down. On Monday of last week, current Toden Chairman Katsumata declared that Toden had never ordered a complete evacuation of its employees from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In response to this, former PM Kan said that around 3 a.m on the 15th of March 2011, former Industry Minister Kaeida had contacted him and told him that Toden was asking whether they could withdraw from the Fukushima plant. About an hour later, Kan had former Toden Chairman Shimizu in his office, where he told him that any plan to evacuate the plant was completely out of the question. This prompted Shimizu to meekly reply with "I understand".
At no time did Chairman Shimizu deny that Toden had given an order to evacuate, and while Toden might insist that it issued no general order of evacuation, neither did it have any contingency plan in place for part of its workforce to remain at the Fukushima Daiichi plant while the others evacuated. In short, any order for evacuation would, by proxy, be a general evacuation.
Since the events of March last year, Japan has gone through a prolonged period of self-reflection on questions of nuclear power and the suitability of such an unstable source of energy production in a country that it prone to large scale earthquakes. Leaving aside questions of whether the Ministry of Industry or Toden had exercised adequate supervision of both the construction of such facilities or conducted appropriate safety inspections during the 40 years since the introduction of nuclear energy production to Japan, it is clear that in relation to the adequate supervision of the nuclear power industry, independence is paramount. As has been reported in newspapers in recent days, the proposal by the Noda government to have a duplicate nuclear inspection agency and regulatory authority placed under the auspices of METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) has garnered a fair degree of opposition, given the absence of any adequate oversight of the nuclear industry in the former agency and the degree of collusion between industry itself and the ministry.
As such, the proposal by both the LDP and Komeito to have a nuclear regulation agency separate to METI and exercising independent authority over the nuclear energy industry is a welcome one, although whether this actually eventuates is an entirely different question (former PM Kan's view that it would be a suitable penance for having supported the establishment of a nuclear regulatory board under METI's oversight can be found here). It would be in the interests of most citizens in Japan to ensure that any nuclear regulatory body was separate to corporate concerns, and in the current climate of deep suspicion regarding the nuclear industry there might be enough political impetus to support such a plan. However any policy that incorporates an independent regulatory body will still have to wait until the parliamentary committee on nuclear energy produces its blueprint for the nuclear industry and the pros and cons of this is debated in the Diet. In the meantime, Japan's nuclear power plants will remain idle as the nation wrestles with questions of how to cope with its self-imposed faustian bargain.
What has become increasingly clear to me in the course of reading Mr Uesugi's correspondence from that time and his subsequent interviews with both nuclear energy experts and other freelance journalists is the degree of collusion between Toden and representatives sent from major newspapers to cover press conferences conducted by Toden, a major sponsor of media outlets in the Kanto region. Uesugi writes of journalists from the so-called "Kisha Club" (a conglomerate of major newspaper, television, radio and internet organisations, whose influence results in their being granted exclusive access to government briefings and ministers, to the exclusion of independent and foreign journalists) occupying a majority of seats within the press conference venue, and asking questions that merely reaffirmed both Toden's and the then-Cabinet's explanations for what was occuring at the Fukushima plant (explanations that have subsequently been found to have been based on misleading information provided by Toden).
Given the confusion that existed at the time between the explanations coming from Toden, and those coming from then Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano and Prime Minister Naoto Kan, I found the deposition made by Mr Kan at the hearing being conducted into the Fukushima disaster last week to be both extraordinarily candid and refreshingly honest as he explained his reaction to news that following the failure of the coolant facility at the Fukushima Daiichi plant and the spike in core temperatures in the No.1, No.2, and No.3 reactors, Toden had planned to evacuate all staff and leave the reactors to melt down. On Monday of last week, current Toden Chairman Katsumata declared that Toden had never ordered a complete evacuation of its employees from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In response to this, former PM Kan said that around 3 a.m on the 15th of March 2011, former Industry Minister Kaeida had contacted him and told him that Toden was asking whether they could withdraw from the Fukushima plant. About an hour later, Kan had former Toden Chairman Shimizu in his office, where he told him that any plan to evacuate the plant was completely out of the question. This prompted Shimizu to meekly reply with "I understand".
At no time did Chairman Shimizu deny that Toden had given an order to evacuate, and while Toden might insist that it issued no general order of evacuation, neither did it have any contingency plan in place for part of its workforce to remain at the Fukushima Daiichi plant while the others evacuated. In short, any order for evacuation would, by proxy, be a general evacuation.
Since the events of March last year, Japan has gone through a prolonged period of self-reflection on questions of nuclear power and the suitability of such an unstable source of energy production in a country that it prone to large scale earthquakes. Leaving aside questions of whether the Ministry of Industry or Toden had exercised adequate supervision of both the construction of such facilities or conducted appropriate safety inspections during the 40 years since the introduction of nuclear energy production to Japan, it is clear that in relation to the adequate supervision of the nuclear power industry, independence is paramount. As has been reported in newspapers in recent days, the proposal by the Noda government to have a duplicate nuclear inspection agency and regulatory authority placed under the auspices of METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) has garnered a fair degree of opposition, given the absence of any adequate oversight of the nuclear industry in the former agency and the degree of collusion between industry itself and the ministry.
As such, the proposal by both the LDP and Komeito to have a nuclear regulation agency separate to METI and exercising independent authority over the nuclear energy industry is a welcome one, although whether this actually eventuates is an entirely different question (former PM Kan's view that it would be a suitable penance for having supported the establishment of a nuclear regulatory board under METI's oversight can be found here). It would be in the interests of most citizens in Japan to ensure that any nuclear regulatory body was separate to corporate concerns, and in the current climate of deep suspicion regarding the nuclear industry there might be enough political impetus to support such a plan. However any policy that incorporates an independent regulatory body will still have to wait until the parliamentary committee on nuclear energy produces its blueprint for the nuclear industry and the pros and cons of this is debated in the Diet. In the meantime, Japan's nuclear power plants will remain idle as the nation wrestles with questions of how to cope with its self-imposed faustian bargain.
RSS Feed