Nuclear crisis continued

The past week has been a difficult one for me. I am surprised to find myself distracted very easily and frequently, making it difficult to concentrate on anything but the news in Japan. I think it is fortunate that we do not have cable TV. Last week I visited a Japanese friend who had her TV on to CNN, and during the short time I was there, horrific images were replayed over and over again. I am glad that I do not need to unnecessarily expose myself, and my daughter, to such violent images.

My primary information source is from the internet. The problem with the internet is that there is too much information available, and we never know what political or sensationalist agenda is behind each piece of information. The good thing about the internet is that we can find all different kinds of news and views. According to numerous internet sources, amounts of radioactive material have been detected in water, milk, and vegetables such as spinach, not only from Fukushima but in Tokyo, 220 km away. However, the Japanese government is informing the public that "the radiation levels exceeded the limits allowed by the government, but the products 'pose no immediate health risk'" (The Guardian, 19 March). According to the CNN, the World Health Organization has also declared that "short-term exposure to food contaminated by radiation from Japan's damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant poses no immediate health risk". But really, the question we should be asking ourselves is this: what is meant by "no immediate health risk"? What exactly are the reasoning behind these statements?

As an anthropologist who has documented the human environmental impact of nuclear weapons testing wrote in a commentary: "In this nuclear world, what is the meaning of 'safe'?" To quote a little more from her:

In a nuclear crisis, life becomes a nightmare for those people trying to make sense of the uncertainties. Imaginably, the questions are endless. Radiation is invisible, how do you know when you are in danger? How long will this danger persist? How can you reduce the hazard to yourself and family? What level of exposure is safe? How do you get access to vital information in time to prevent or minimize exposure? What are the potential risks of acute and chronic exposures? What are the related consequential damages of exposure? Whose information do you trust? How do you rebuild a healthy way of life in the aftermath of nuclear disaster? And the list of unknowns goes on. These questions are difficult to answer in the chaos and context of an ongoing disaster, and they become even more complicated by the fact that governments and the nuclear industry maintain tight control of information, operations, scientific research, and the biomedical lessons that shape public-health response. This regulation of information has been the case since the nuclear age began, and understanding this helps to illuminate why there is no clear consensus on what Japan's nuclear disaster means in terms of local and global human health.

Another worrisome development closer to home is this one: that "despite growing opposition sparked by the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan", Indonesia is proceeding with plans to build four nuclear reactors (IRIN, 21 March). This brings us to the question so aptly posed by an op-ed in The Washington Post: "If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese can’t build a completely safe reactor, who can?"

But the Japanese, just like anyone else, make mistakes. Just this morning I read that people who had escaped in officially designated higher-ground shelters to escape the tsunamis were swept away, because such shelters were designed with 5.5m-high waves in mind, and the actual waves that engulfed the coasts of north-east Japan were up to 7.3m (JMA 2011). It's also reported that just a month prior, government regulators "approved a 10-year extension for the oldest of the six reactors at the power station" and that after the extension was granted, The Tokyo Electric Power Company admitted that "it had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment related to the cooling systems, including water pumps and diesel generators, at the power station’s six reactors.

I do not know if humans are capable of building "completely safe" nuclear power plants. So long as humans are capable of making mistakes, I suspect not. I hope we do not have to face another nuclear disaster to find out.

A social-natural disaster

Ever since the massive earthquake hit north-eastern Japan on 11 March, my email and SMS inboxes have been flooded with concerns from friends and colleagues. Living in a country where hazards strike and often turn into devastating disasters, I am not surprised to hear expressions of concern coming from strangers--shop keepers that I meet for the first time, for example.

Fortunately, no family member or close friends have been hurt directly from the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. My parents' dog may suffer from a urinary track infection, as his daily walks have been limited due to temporary stopping of the elevators in my parents' 26-storey apartment building in central Tokyo. Another family member living in Tokyo had to walk 4 hours to get home, as the train services were stopped. But these inconveniences are minor compared to the damage and suffering of people directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami. My thoughts are with them.

At the same time, I worry immensely about the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants in Fukushima. State of nuclear emergency has been called, with six reactors reportedly having difficulties with their cooling systems (14 March, Sydney Morning Herald). I am not sure if we should be consoled by comments from experts who say that a partial meltdown "is not a disaster" and a complete meltdown is not likely (14 March, Reuters). What bothers me is the conflicting and contradictory information I am seeing in the various media, in Japanese and in English. In addition to the confusion, there is obviously much covering-up going on, and the truth to the extent of damage may only be uncovered later.

Having lived in two of the top ten countries with a high reliance on nuclear energy (France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, while Japan's is 30%) (IAEA 2008), I cannot pretend to be a simple bystander to the whole issue.

The nuclear crisis in Japan is literally adding fuel to opposition to building of new reactors around the world (13 March, Beyond Nuclear). In Germany and Switzerland, plans to build or renew nuclear power plants are being and suspended (14 March, the Guardian).

The advantage of nuclear energy is that it does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not emit greenhouse gasses (Darwill 2010). It has been touted by many a viable option to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, the question we should ask ourselves is this: do we want to resort to nuclear power to combat climate change?

In addition to problems such as environmental pollution (radioactive contamination and nuclear waste disposal) and concerns over safety such as those we are currently facing in Japan, the fundamental issue we should be considering is that “nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything” (Solnit 2007). Nuclear power plants, like power plants that rely on fossil fuel, retain “the big infrastructure of centralized power production and […] the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power”. Simply substituting nuclear with fossil fuel is not changing the fundamental problem we have: our increased need for energy.

Nearly ten years ago, I had a conversation with Prof Akio Morishima, former President of the Central Environmental Council of the Environment Agency of Japan. After learning that he spent much of his career fighting for victims of environmental pollution during Japan’s rapid economic growth in the 1960s and 70s, I was surprised to hear that he supported the development of nuclear energy. While admitting that nuclear energy is problematic, he asked, "but what are the alternatives?" The possibility that our increasing need for energy could be curbed had not occurred to him.

The challenge we thus face is this: to fundamentally change the way we live and suppress our insatiable energy use. Unless we do so, it is unlikely we can stop climate change. And that, in my opinion, is what makes climate change an extremely contentious issue.

I will be closely following the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants. This is a human-made disaster following a geological disaster.

Top photo taken from http://www.smh.com.au/environment/bigpics/japan-disaster, subtitled "Houses are swept by a tsunami in Natori City in northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011".

Candi Borobudur

ユネスコの世界遺産に登録されているボロボドゥール寺院遺跡群は、ジョグジャカルタから４０キロくらいはなれていて、車で片道１時間かかります。Alam Bahasa 語学学校のフィールドトリップとして、行きました。８世紀に建設されたこの寺院は、仏教のもの。３壇に分かれていて、階段とドアが東西南北各方向にあり、正面がありません。下の２壇にはとても細かい、仏教説話にもとづいたレリーフが彫られていて、欠けているところも多いものの、見事でした。一番上の壇には仏塔と仏像がありますが、一番上までには、２０１１年６月まで行かれません。２０１０年のムラピ山噴火と影響で灰の被害を受け、現在清掃中だからです。ユネスコのこれに関する記事は、ここを参照。

語学学校の先生の説明はインドネシア語と英語が混ざっていて残念ながら全て理解することができませんでしたが、ボロボドゥールの近くには２つの他の寺院があり、この３寺院は一直線に並んでいるそうです。また、インドネシアにはこの寺院が建てられた後、ヒンズー教が紹介されたけれど、カースト制がインドネシア人には合わず、後に入ってきたイスラム教が定着したそうです。

黒灰色の寺院と、周りの豊かな緑、そして空の青のコントラストが印象的でした。

平日に行ったので一般的な観光客はそれほどいませんでしたが、遠足の学生がたくさん。観光客が多いから週末を避けるようアドヴァイズされましたが、平日もかなりの数の子供達がいました。また、とても暑いので朝早めに行くのがいいですし、帽子または日傘が必需品です。インドネシアに住んでいる証明ができるKITASがあると、入園料が安くなります。

また、安物のお土産を売る人たちに付きまとわれるのと、出口にあるお土産屋の多さには、ちょっとびっくりしました。インドネシアの観光地の出口にはかならずたくさんのお土産屋があり、それを通らないと出られません。店の人たちはかなり強引に声をかけてきます。

２００２年にカンボディアのアンコール・ワットに行きましたが、それと同じくらいくらい感動した場所でした。

Yogyakarta での語学研修

２月、２週間語学研修のためジョグジャカルタに滞在しました。これは私の職場が半分負担してくれる研修制度で、新しく来イした外国人職員がそれを受ける権利があります。インドネシアに来て１０ヶ月、ようやく研修に行く余裕ができました。実際のところインドネシア語ができなくてもジャカルタでの生活にはそれほど不自由しないといのですが、やはりちょっとは知っておくと当然便利。ほんのちょっとだけでも現地語で意思疎通ができるようになるのは現地人に対する礼儀ですし、よかったです。

ジョグジャカルタといえば、ジャヴァ文化の中心地。バティック（更紗）や影絵芝居でも有名ですし、ボロブドゥール遺跡やプランバナン寺院群などの遺跡もあります。市内にはクラトンと呼ばれるスルタンの宮殿や水の宮殿もあります。

ジャカルタよりずいぶん規模は小さい町ですが、車やモーターバイクの量の多さは同じくらいに感じました。ただ、小さい分歩きやすい環境でした。毎日ホームステイ先から語学学校まで１キロくらいは歩き、健康的な生活を送ったような気がします。

我々が通った語学学校 Alam Bahasa は、主にマン・ツー・マンの授業で、一日６時間、２週間で合計６０時間のコースをとりました。１日２時間の授業が３回、毎授業先生が変わります。最初の週は６人の先生がいて、それはちょっと多すぎるということで２週目は先生を４人に減らしてもらいました。ここの先生、上手な先生も多いのですが、あきらかに慣れていない先生もいて（アルバイトに多いよう）、それはちょっと残念でした。また、毎日すごい量のボキャブラリーを学ぶので、毎晩苦労しました。この６０時間コースを修了すると、「Communicative Beginner」の修了証をもらいますが、まあ正直言って、このコースを修了して初めてインドネシア語の奥深さを知ることができた、という感じです。とりあえずタクシーや買い物、レストランで注文するのに不自由しない程度のレベル。

ジョグジャカルタ滞在中は、ヘルさんの家でホームステイしました。ここはホームステイというよりは、下宿という感じ。合計１２の部屋に、主に語学学校の生徒（我々が通った Alam Bahasa と、ライバル校の Wisma ）が泊まっています。外国人が多いため、またホストファミリーが皆英語ができるので、あまり語学のためには効果がなかったのです。が、とても料理が美味しく、毎日夕飯を楽しみにしていました。

これからは、滞在中訪問した観光地の情報をアップしていく予定です。

photo taken from http://www.yogyakartadiscovery.com/