記者の目：福島第１原発事故と産業優先

このまま原発に依存し続けるのか。
リスクの高い原子炉から順に廃止するのか。
一気に全廃を目指すのか。
廃止に伴う不便は甘受できるのか。
今度こそ国民一人一人が自らの胸に問い、答えを出し、そして行動を起こさねばならない。
「お上任せ」がいかに危ういか、私たちはもう十分に学んだはずだ。
(cite from Mainichi Shinbun)

(Mainichi Japan) May 6, 2011
Disastrous pattern of academic-gov't collusion must not be allowed to continue
記者の目：福島第１原発事故と産業優先＝福岡賢正（西部報道部）

　◇繰り返された水俣病の構図

I am struck with a sense of deja vu as the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant continues.
　東京電力福島第１原発で進行中の危機に、私は既視感を覚えている。

National policy founded on a thirst for economic growth that has put the interests of industry first, and actions taken by politicians who have only lent their ears to experts whose views support their goals, has caused much irreparable damage over the years.
経済成長を追い求め、産業の利益を最優先する国策の下で、その意思を代弁する学者の意見だけに政治が耳を傾け続けた結果、この国は取り返しのつかない被害を何度も生じさせてきたからだ。

If this destructive chain of action is not stopped, we are bound to face further tragedy.
その連鎖を止めない限り、再び悲劇が起きるだろう。

A group of 16 pro-nuclear scientists led by a former president of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ) and former members of the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan held a press conference on April 1.
　日本原子力学会の元会長や原子力安全委員会の元委員など原子力を先頭に立って推進した学者１６人が連名で３月末、「緊急建言」をまとめた。

In it, they said that the amount of radioactive material stored in the reactors at the Fukushima plant far exceeds that which was stored at Chernobyl, and that even if we are to avoid immediate dangers, the Fukushima plant would require close monitoring for many years to come.
４月１日に行った会見で彼らは、福島の原子炉内に蓄えられている放射性物質の量はチェルノブイリをはるかに上回ることを指摘し、たとえ危機を脱しても極めて長い歳月、厳重な管理を続ける必要があると語った。

These remarks, which were coming not from anti-nuclear activists but from pro-nuclear experts, were evidence that nuclear energy proponents were finally acknowledging the seriousness of the current situation.
反原発側ではなく、推進側の学者がようやく、現状の深刻さを認めた。

　◇１４年前の警告、班目氏らは無視

It was 14 years ago that Kobe University professor emeritus and seismologist Katsuhiko Ishibashi wrote a paper warning of the possibility of a nuclear accident, like the current one, triggered by a massive quake or tsunami.
　今回のような大地震・大津波による原発事故を、地震学者の石橋克彦・神戸大名誉教授が「原発震災」と名付け１４年前に論文で警告していたことを、３月２９日にコラム「発信箱」で書いた。

In the May issue of the monthly magazine Sekai, Ishibashi mentions how NSC Chair Haruki Madarame and Toshisho Kosako -- a radiation expert and professor at the University of Tokyo who resigned from his post as a senior nuclear advisor to the government on April 30 over the government's handling of the crisis -- reacted to his paper at the time.
　その石橋論文に対し、現在の原子力安全委員長である班目（まだらめ）春樹氏や今回の事故発生５日後に内閣参与に任じられた小佐古敏荘（こさことしそう）・東大大学院教授（４月３０日内閣参与辞任）が当時、どんな見解を示していたのか。石橋氏が雑誌「世界」５月号に書いている。

According to Ishibashi, Madarame disputed the various concerns that were raised, and characterized Ishibashi as a nuclear layperson, saying, "We've never heard of Ishibashi at the AESJ."
　班目氏はあらゆる懸念を打ち消した上で「石橋氏は原子力学会では聞いたことがない人である」と素人扱いした。

Kosako also lambasted Ishibashi's claims, saying, "There is absolutely no possibility of massive amounts of radiation being released... When publishing papers, it is common for academics to be cautious about covering subjects on which they lack expertise.
小佐古氏も「多量な放射能の外部放出は全く起こり得ない」とし、「論文掲載にあたって学者は、専門的でない項目には慎重になるのが普通である。

In his paper, Ishibashi makes unfounded statements about a topic outside his specialty."
石橋論文は、明らかに自らの専門外の事項についても論拠なく言及している」と批判したという。

There are countless examples of seals of approval given to scientists' views that support the implementation of government policy, while those challenging the government are dismissed and silenced.
　国の施策遂行にあたって、都合のよい学者の意見を「お墨付き」にして、不都合な他の意見を封じ込めてしまった例は過去にいくらでもある。

Take the case of Minamata disease. In 1956, a research team at Kumamoto University determined that the disease afflicting local residents was caused by ingesting heavy metals that had accumulated in seafood from Minamata Bay.
Three years later, a research team at the then Ministry of Welfare compiled a report concluding that the disease was caused by eating seafood tainted with methylmercury.
　水俣病では、１９５６年に熊本大の研究班が水俣湾の魚介類に蓄積された重金属による中毒と指摘し、５９年には厚生省（当時）の研究部会も魚介類の有機水銀が原因と報告した。

The government, however, citing scientists who offered various theories on the cause of the disease, including spoiled fish, refused to acknowledge that environmental pollution was the culprit.
しかし、国は腐った魚原因説などを発表した学者の見解を盾に公害と認めず、その後もチッソのアセトアルデヒド工場からの廃液の垂れ流しが放置された。

This allowed chemical company Chisso Corp.'s acetaldehyde factory to continue releasing toxic effluvia into local waters, while Minamata Bay area residents continued to eat poisoned fish, giving rise to an explosion of Minamata Disease patients.
その結果、湾周辺の人々は汚染された魚を食べ続け、膨大な数の新しい患者が生まれ続けた。

In 1965, a similar factory operated by Showa Denko Corp. in Niigata Prefecture caused a "second Minamata Disease crisis."
６５年には新潟にあった昭和電工の同型工場の廃水による「第二水俣病」も見つかった。

The government officially admitted in September 1968 that the disease was caused by methylmercury, but by then factories similar to the ones in Kumamoto and Niigata were already obsolete and out of operation. In other words, Minamata disease was recognized as the cause of the tragedy only after industry no longer had any use for the factories emitting the toxins.
　国は６８年９月の政府見解で、この公害の原因を有機水銀と正式に認めたが、その４カ月前までに、技術革新によって国内の同型工場はすべて生産を終えていた。公害と認定されたのは、産業界にとって用済みとなった後だった。

The time when asbestos contamination was making headlines all over the country fits the same pattern.
The Environment Ministry appointed an academic to chair an asbestos health hazard committee -- an academic found later to have served as an advisor to the Japan Asbestos Association for 13 years, during which time he'd questioned restrictions on asbestos use in a promotional video.
He subsequently stepped down from the committee post.
　アスベスト問題でも、被害の拡大が明らかになった後、環境省が設けた健康被害問題検討会の座長に就いた学者が、日本石綿協会の顧問を１３年間務め、ＰＲビデオで石綿規制に疑問を呈していた事実が発覚し、座長を辞めている。

It was also not too far in the past that major public works projects such as the construction of a small dam at the mouth of the Nagara River and the Isahaya Bay reclamation project were promoted by the government citing backing of experts who claimed the environmental impacts of such projects would be "minimal," only to see major destruction being wreaked on the ecosystem.
　長良川河口堰（ぜき）や諫早湾干拓事業などの大型公共事業が、「環境に与える影響は軽微」との学者の見立てを口実に推進され、深刻な環境破壊を招いたのも記憶に新しい。

The crisis we currently face with the Fukushima power plant is the direct result of the collusive relationship between industry, government and academia.
　そんな産官学の癒着の果てに、私たちは今、福島の事態に直面している。

　◇「お上任せ」脱し、自ら考え行動を

Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a science journalist and former nuclear engineer, points out in Sekai that based on data of the Fukushima plant's water levels and pressure, it is possible the No. 1 reactor lost its coolant due to quake damage to pipes in the pressure vessel.
　公開された福島第１原発の水位や圧力のデータから、元原子炉製造技術者でサイエンスライターの田中三彦氏は、１号機では激しい地震動によって原子炉圧力容器の配管が破損して冷却材喪失が起きた可能性を「世界」５月号で指摘している。

Tanaka also speculates that the reason for the explosion at the No. 2 reactor after hydrogen accumulated near the pressure suppression pool at the bottom of the reactor building -- despite the gas being lighter than oxygen -- is that hydrogen leaked into the pool through pressure-suppression pipes, and was released through cracks in the pool caused by the quake, eventually reacting with surrounding oxygen.
同様に２号機についても、圧力容器内で発生した水素が、空気より軽いのに原子炉建屋の最下部にある圧力抑制プール近くにたまって爆発した理由として、水素が圧力調整用の配管を伝ってプールに流れ込み、地震でプールに生じた亀裂から外に漏れて周辺の酸素と反応した－－と推論している。

In other words, Tanaka believes the nuclear reactor had suffered major damage even before the tsunami hit.
　つまり、津波の前に原子炉は地震によって深刻なダメージを受けていたというのだ。

While nothing has been done to verify or dispel such possibilities, there already have been murmurs within the industrial community that Japanese nuclear power plants will be safe as long as anti-tsunami measures are implemented.
こうした点の検証も行われていないのに、産業界などからは早くも「津波対策を万全にすれば日本の原発は安全」との声が漏れ始めている。

Are we going to maintain our dependence on nuclear energy?
　このまま原発に依存し続けるのか。

Are we going to stop the nuclear reactors beginning with the riskiest ones, or get rid of them all at once?
リスクの高い原子炉から順に廃止するのか。一気に全廃を目指すのか。

It is time for every Japanese citizen to ask themselves these questions and take action.
廃止に伴う不便は甘受できるのか。今度こそ国民一人一人が自らの胸に問い、答えを出し、そして行動を起こさねばならない。

By now, we know all too well how dangerous it is to leave these questions to government.
「お上任せ」がいかに危ういか、私たちはもう十分に学んだはずだ。

(By Kensei Fukuoka, Kyushu News Department)
毎日新聞　2011年5月3日　東京朝刊