Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident


Draft document: Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident
Submitted by Naomi Maki, Thanks & Dream: Association of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Evacuees
Commenting as an individual

I lived in Tomioka-machi. Futaba-gun, Fukushima, in a house standing within 8-9 km from the nuclear power plant, before the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident . The next day after the earthquake, a forced evacuation order was issued. We had to move in a very harsh situation, with heavy traffic, with minimum gasoline. Food and drinks were hard to obtain, and it was very difficult to keep warm in the cold, snowy season of early spring. In the following six months, I moved more than 10 times. I don't want to have this experience ever again, and I don't want anyone to experience it, either.

After the nuclear accident, the upper limit of radioactive allowance by screening tests was changed significantly. I had an inspection after the change and was told that nothing was wrong, but I threw away my coat in fear of contamination. I saw a lot of clothes thrown away by those who had an anomaly.

 

Should we citizens remain passive in response to dangerous radioactivity, like this, while some authority can change the allowable exposure limit for some convenient reason? I want to protect my own life.

 

If a person lives for 50 years while being exposed to 1 mSv per year, the total exposure of the person will be 50 mSv. Can it be said that the person will not suffer any health damage due to radiation? If you set a wide range of standards for exposure limits, I think there is a high possibility that it will have a significant impact on children. I would like you to clearly state that you will adhere to 1 mSv without using the ambiguous expression of aiming for 1 mSv.

 

My home town has been decontaminated in and around my house, but forests and other areas cannot be decontaminated, and there are places where the radiation doses are high. Since the townspeople fled throughout the country, there is no community any longer that existed before the accident. I can't return home in such conditions.

 

Protect us, especially children and women, from unnecessary exposure. As a Japanese who suffered from an unprecedented nuclear power plant accident, I would like you to know the health hazards caused by radiation in Fukushima and east Japan where a large amount of radioactive mass has spread, and to make new recommendations based on that. Thank you in advance.

 

私は福島第一原発事故以前、福島県双葉郡富岡町に住んでいました。原発から8−9キロ圏内に家がありました。地震の翌日に強制避難指示が出て、渋滞の中、ガソリンもギリギリで過酷な移動をし、食べ物や飲み物にも困窮し、早春の雪の降る寒さの中、暖を取ることもままなりませんでした。そしてその後半年間、10回以上移動しました。このような体験は二度としたくありませんし、誰にも経験させたくありません。
原発事故後、スクリーニング検査の上限は大幅に上回る形で変更されました。私は変更後に検査を受け、異常はありませんでしたが、怖くて着ていたコートを捨てました。異常が出た人の何枚もの衣服が捨てられてるのを見ました。
私達市民は、このように誰かの都合で被ばく許容量を変更させられたりして、危険な放射能に対して受動的な存在にならなければならないのでしょうか。私は自らの意思で命を守りたいです。
たとえば1年間に1ミリシーベルトを被曝しながら50年生きた人がいたら、その人の総被曝量は50ミリシーベルトになります。その人に放射能による健康被害が出ないと言い切れるでしょうか。被曝限度量の基準を幅広く設定してしまうと、特に子供に大きな影響が出る可能性が高くなると思います。1ミリ程度を目指すという曖昧な表現を使わずに、1ミリを厳守する、とはっきり明言して欲しいです。 
私の故郷は住宅やその周辺は除染されましたが、山林などは除染できず、放射線量が高いところも存在します。町民が全国バラバラに逃げたので、事故前のコミュニティも存在しません。
私はそんな故郷には帰れません。
私達、特に子供や女性をを無用な被曝から守って下さい。未曾有の原発事故があった日本人として、放射能が拡散した福島、東日本の方の放射能による健康被害を知って、それをもとに新勧告を作成していただきたいということです。よろしくお願い致します。

 


Back