チェルノブイリと福島の経験をふまえて大規模原子力事故に備える教訓というのなら、原発を稼働させないことが一番です。
福島の経験ということなら、まず事故の直接の被害者、避難をした人、被曝の恐怖を抱えながら福島の地で暮らし続けている人という本来の当事者からの意見を取り入れたものにすべきです。
事故が起きたとき、避難してきた人にガイガーカウンターで被曝量を測りましたが、余りに高い線量だったため、測定限度を13000CPMから10万CPMにまで一気に引き上げてしまいました。そのときの数値を本人に知らせないまま線引きをしたので、初期被曝量の記録があいまいにされてしまいました。
ICRPが1ミリシーベルト、20ミリシーベルト、100ミリシーベルトという数字を扱うと、政府は都合よくその数字を使い、被曝者を苦しめるということを充分承知して頂きたいと思います。
そして現在日本政府は20ミリシーベルト以下なら問題はないとして、避難の解除をして、住宅支援を打ちきり帰還を迫っています。避難した人々は被曝か貧困かの選択を迫られています。
チェルノブイリと異なり避難の権利も保養の権利も認められていないのは、はなはだしい人権侵害です。
If we learned any lessons from the experiences of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, the discontinuation of nuclear power plants would be the best preparation for large nuclear accidents in the future. If one were to draw on “the experience of the Fukushima nuclear disaster,” one must adopt the experiences and opinions of the people who were directly affected by the accident, who evacuated, and who continue to live on the soil of Fukushima amidst fear of various forms of radiation exposure.
At the time of the accident, evacuees were measured radiation exposure levels with Geiger counters as emergency response. If the level exceeds 13,000 cpm, one is subject to subsequent procedures like decontamination and second measurement. But this threshold of 13,000 cpm was suddenly raised to 100,000 cpm for the arbitrary reason that most of the evacuees were measured far higher doses than 13,000 cpm. Further, the measurements were not recorded properly nor informed to the individuals, which continues to be a source for contestation as to the issue of early-phase doses.
The ICRP should know that the threshold numbers they use like 1 mSv, 20 mSv, and 100 mSv may be taken up and used for the interests of each government at the expense of the exposed populations, as the Japanese government has shown.
The Japanese government has been lifting evacuation orders in nuclear-affected regions, and has terminated government-aided housing provision for evacuees (“return policy”) based on its stance that radiation exposures of up to 20 mSv per year do not pose harmful health risks. Under such circumstances, both compulsory and voluntary evacuees are virtually being prodded to choose living amidst prolonged radiation exposure or enduring the impoverishment.
Unlike the Chernobyl disaster, the right to choose between evacuation or staying is not being respected after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Neither is the right to restoring health (“recuperation”) by regularly coming out of contaminated environments in the case of people who live amidst risks of further exposure. We are witnessing massive violations of human rights.