Fukushima: one year onTighter regulation of industry’s disaster preparedness required
Before 11 March 2011, Japan was held up as a paragon for preparedness; they had a national readiness plan, regular disaster drills, and strong civic engagement; the Fukushima disaster exposed a disturbing reality: search and rescue efforts were delayed, shelters ill-equipped, and supply chains broken; worst of all, there was confusion about who was managing the nuclear accident — the power company TEPCO or the Japanese government; information, when forthcoming, was sometimes contradictory
Sunday marked the 1-year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, and experts at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University took stock of disaster response, nuclear fears, and lessons learned.
Before 11 March 2011, Japan was held up as a paragon for preparedness. They had a national readiness plan, regular disaster drills, and strong civic engagement. In the face of an unprecedented 9.0 earthquake, massive tsunami, and a nuclear accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi power plant, however, the country experienced a host of challenges — many that continue to be felt.
A Columbia University release reports that Irwin Redlener, M.D., professor and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness of the Mailman School, said that within a few days there were a number of problems.
Search and rescue efforts were delayed, shelters ill-equipped, and supply chains broken. Worst of all, said Dr. Redlener, there was confusion about who was managing the nuclear accident — the power company TEPCO or the Japanese government. Information, when forthcoming, was sometimes contradictory. Adding to the confusion, there were worries, even among officials, that the thirteen million residents of Tokyo would need to be evacuated. “All of this adds to widespread psychological chaos during an evolving catastrophic disaster,” Dr. Redlener explained.
The Japanese public was angry and distrusting, said Richard Garfield, RN Dr.PH., professor of Clinical Population and Family Health, who visited the country last summer. Some went so far as to buy their own Geiger counters and post readings online. While the anger was justified, he explained, the radiation worries have been misplaced. More than 15,850 people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami, but so far there have been no fatalities or serious illnesses related to the nuclear accident. The meltdown was largely contained and most of the radiation was carried out to sea.
Exposure levels remained low, he said, and even cleanup workers might see their lifetime cancer risk go up by a mere fraction of a percent.
“There is a disconnect on the part of the public, and even on the part of scientists and medical professionals, when it comes to radiation and health risks,” said Norman J. Kleiman, Ph.D., director of the Eye Radiation and Environmental Research Laboratory, at the Mailman School. One of the biggest lessons from Fukushima, he said, is the need for “accurate, rapid dissemination of information to the general public — what they should expect,
