JAPAN ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM, INC.

for Japanese

ATOMS in JAPAN

26 September, 2017

Responsibility for Explaining the Unknowable

"The situation at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station is so serious!"
"People are sick because of radioactivity."

Dr. Sae Ochi

Sae Ochi, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.
Lecturer, Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine
Attending Physician, Soma Central Hospital

On September 15, those were the top two articles from a Google Japan search in Japanese for “Fukushima” plus “radioactivity.” Objective data, including a map of radioactivity distributions, was third. I cannot but feel that unfounded fears and rumors about Fukushima remain firmly rooted. And speaking out against them—about the calm recognition of facts and correct knowledge—is not enough to eliminate the vague sense of terror associated with Fukushima. That is what we have learned over the past seven years.

No matter how they are explained, and no matter how easy they are to understand, ‘facts’ cannot always be conveyed.

That is a frustration felt by all who battle against unfounded rumors and fears. What are “facts,” then? There seems to be a great separation between scientific truth and social fact.

Statistics and Outliers

“My acquaintances A-san and B-san got cancer soon after the accident at the nuclear power station. How can I believe it when I’m told how low the radiation level is?”

Unless the speaker lied, that kind of personal experience is as much a “fact” for him or her as are statistical data. For people who live in Fukushima, how can they believe that numerical information prepared by a scientist or someone from an administrative office is more reliable than information based on the personal experiences of the people whom they know?

Statistical data, in order to be scientifically reliable, always exclude outliers. That is what is expected so as to avoid having a mean value distorted by outliers and misrepresenting the general truth. I think social facts—that is, the lives of individual people and the original point of humanity—may exist as outliers rather than as mean values.

Measurements and statistical data are closer to facts than personal experiences. However, that may be common sense only to scientists.

Risk and Time

Another reason for unfounded rumors and fears is biased risk recognition; that is, the extreme fear of radioactivity per se. How much risk one feels is absolutely up to the individual concerned. It would be brainwashing to try to make everyone feel “assured.”

Nevertheless, I often hear this kind of comment: “Even though I know that very well, I still have a fuzzy feeling in my mind.”

There must be many people who can “understand,” but who, when confronted by “something fuzzy”—a risk—cannot find a middle ground within themselves.

We talk about the risk of death, the risk of cancer, and any potential development or phenomenon in terms of probability. That is because we don’t really know if they will happen in the future. When we talk about probabilities, we are talking about a future that is not fixed; moreover, those probabilities are not facts, no matter how high they may be. In other words, what separates probability (a 99.99% chance that A will occur) and fact (the future will be A) is not just the 0.01%, but an unsurmountable wall between present and future. Those who are accustomed to dealing with probabilities tend to argue without explaining the premises of their argument. Consequently, they may ignore the feelings of those who don’t know how to face the uncertainty of probability.

Responsibility for Explaining the Unknowable

Statistical data cannot convey individual experiences. Probability cannot decide the future. That is a limitation of science itself. That unknowability—things beyond the ken of human beings—can be regarded as the essence of science. That scientists have not carefully explained the concept of unknowability to the public may be one of the reasons for the unfounded rumors and fears in Fukushima.

A problem for the public is that people don’t expect experts and specialists to say that they themselves “do not know.” Nevertheless, scientists have limited themselves too much in Fukushima to what they can say they do “know,” and I feel that that has quickly deprived the public of opportunities to confront, discuss and come to terms with the unknowability of individual variations and uncertainty.

Now that the Japanese society is moving ahead on restarting nuclear power plants, I wonder if the public would be able to avoid the social disorder that occurred in the Fukushima disaster—associated with over 3,000 deaths—if another accident like it recurred. Unfortunately, looking at the current situation, I can only reply “no.” One reason is that discussions of disaster control measures have not included the “common sense” that facts and the future cannot be completely ascertained from scientific measurements alone. However low the probability may be, a massive earthquake and tsunami could happen, as could a nuclear accident. Precisely because the future is and cannot be known, second and third “arrows” must also be prepared. When it comes to nuclear disasters, the basics of disaster prevention have not been fully discussed.

In Fukushima, not only what is known, but also what is not known, must be explained both objectively and logically in an easily understood manner. The responsibility to explain the unknowable is the role of scientists in building a flexible society.

Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

SNS facebooktwitter

NPPs Map

Video

Grossi on Fukushima: Marking a Decade Since the Accident

10 March, 2021
Grossi on Fukushima: Marking a Decade Since the Accident04:11

Recent News

15 October, 2021
LDP Adds SMR Development and Nuclear Fusion to NPP Restarts in Its Policy Manifesto
7 October, 2021
Kishida Administration Inaugurated, with New METI Minister Hagiuda Holding Press Conference on Taking Office
6 October, 2021
IAEA Holds 65th General Conference in Vienna, with Japanese Minister of State for Science and Technology Delivering Statement in the General Debate
30 September, 2021
JAEC Releases 2020 White Paper on Nuclear Energy
17 September, 2021
NRA Permits Shimane-2 under New Regulatory Standards
14 September, 2021
IAEA Deputy Director General Evrard Visits Japan in Advance of Safety Review of ALPS-treated Water
1 September, 2021
Evaluation Report Issued by IAEA’s Review Mission to Fukushima Daiichi: First Visit since 2018
24 August, 2021
METI and IAEA Agree on Further Review Missions to Fukushima Daiichi
4 August, 2021
JAEA Restarts High-Temperature Engineering Test Reactor “HTTR”
2 August, 2021
Information about Fukushima Daiichi NPS Water Treatment
28 July, 2021
METI’s Committee Shows Rough Draft of Next Strategic Energy Plan
2 July, 2021
Mihama-3 Restarted After Decade-long Hiatus: First Restart in Japan of a Reactor Operating Beyond 40 Years
28 June, 2021
Mihama-3 Restarts after Decade-long Hiatus
25 June, 2021
New Canada-Japan Partnership Supports Greater Collaboration to Meet Climate Change Objectives and Net-zero Goals
24 June, 2021
METI Issues New Green Growth Strategy Through Achieving Carbon Neutrality
16 June, 2021
ANRE Sticks to “S+3E”
16 June, 2021
Japanese Cabinet Approves Environmental White Paper 2021
16 June, 2021
LDP Parliamentary Association to Reconfirm Position on Utilization of Nuclear Power
16 June, 2021
Fukui Governor Concerned about Deletion of Reference to “Maximum Utilization” of Nuclear Power
14 June, 2021
Working Group on Offshore Release of Treated Water Meets in Miyagi
▲TOP