On 10/9, a special program titled "Hope from Fukushima - the challenge of the Project FUKUSHIMA" was aired on NHK’s ETV channel, which triggered a lively exchange of views regarding the program itself and the pros and cons of the "Festival FUKUSHIMA!" on Twitter. Those expressing dissent about the "festival" are basing their opinions on the assumed major problem of staging such an event in a region of high radiation. Music critic Takahashi Kentaro’s argumentation was particularly coherent, and following his tweets inspired me to the following thread of thoughts. (See also http://togetter.com/li/198726)

 

Takahashi argued as follows. 1) "Rationally thinking, there are actions that involve exposure to radiation in one form or another, whereas I believe it is worthwhile if this action ultimately leads to a significant decrease of radiation exposure that outshines the amount of radiation that people are exposed to in that case. But did that event really help decrease the amount of radiation for anyone?" 2) "It’s all a matter of self-responsibility. That’s a fact, but is that alright? The organizers welcomed the irrational attendance of festival visitors at the risk of exposure to radiation. I think that is no good. An event organizer has the responsibility to make judgments based on rational thinking (or common-sense)." 3) "An event with famous musicians like Sakamoto Ryuichi that attracted more than ten thousand visitors was held in Fukushima City, which demonstrated that this kind of event was feasible in Fukushima. As a matter of fact, there was a three-day festival in September, for which the Project Fukushima served as an example." 4) "In addition, the event was characterized by a feeling of propaganda proposing that life was still possible in Fukushima, which is probably strong enough to hold back some of those planning to escape. Therefore it is not only a matter of one day, and results in an even increased exposure to radiation." About the NHK program itself, Takahashi commented, 5) "It looked like mere propaganda to make people believe that pollution in Fukushima was not that serious, and that they could continue to live there." (This was the first tweet on the day of the broadcast, followed in order by comments 1-4 the next day.)

 

I basically agree with point 1). When you come right down to it, I would say the event had a considerably enlightening effect in terms of (knowledge related to) exposure to radiation. But still, at least immediately it did not lead to "a significant decrease of radiation exposure that outshines the amount of radiation that people are exposed to in that case." However, those who look not only at the "Festival" but at the larger picture of the entire "Project" will know that the hosts have been carrying out a "Citizen Scientist Training Program". Personally I'm expecting from this course that it will be offered continually, and actually "lead to a significant decrease of radiation exposure of a lot of people." Point 3) simply refers to a fact that is beyond approval or disapproval. Points 4) and 5) express an impression that differs from my own, but that I do understand. If the claim that "pollution in Fukushima is critical and makes the region uninhabitable" is weighty (as sad as it is, that possibility is undeniable), I even believe that the production of special programs and reports based on such affirmation is a matter of course in terms of sound politics.

 

I suppose there are different opinions regarding point 2), depending on the definition and judgment of "rational thinking" and "common sense" in the statements, "The organizers welcomed the irrational attendance of festival visitors at the risk of exposure to radiation," and "An event organizer has the responsibility to make judgments based on rational thinking (or common-sense)." A message on the "Festival" host’s website read, "The program is subject to large-scale changes or even cancellation depending on circumstances including the radiation, earthquake, and nuclear power plant situations, as well as social conditions. Please read the guidelines carefully." Regarding "radiation", the results of four measuring sessions carried out prior to the event were published along with provisionally calculated amounts of radiation, accompanied by the comment, "We hope this may help those who consider attending/participating in the festival make a decision". With the published data and comments, the host (organizer) quite obviously believed that they were making a "judgment based on rational thinking (or common-sense)." Takahashi surely didn't consider this to be "rational (or common-sense) ". "What is most tragic is the fact that children that were brought along to the event most certainly weren't there on their own free will," he pointed out, adding assertively that "the visitor’s self-responsibility means the organizer’s immunity, and secondly, it is directly connected to the message that staying and continuing to live in Fukushima is a matter of self-responsibility as well." It is an "argumentation blurring the line between the organizer’s and the participant’s responsibility" that Takahashi strictly rejects.

 

This reminded me of a text that poet Ito Hiromi once wrote. It was about 25 years ago, and I believe it was published in some magazine, but as I don't have the actual text in front of me, I can only try to reproduce it from my memory.

 

Ito’s husband at the time was a researcher of Polish literature, who had lived in Warsaw for some time in the early 1980s. The Chernobyl accident in '86, when Ito had just returned to Japan, caused a worldwide panic revolving around food products. In Japan, people began to avoid wine, pasta and other European produce. Against this backdrop, Ito wrote, "Our friends in Poland know about the radiation exposure, but they have no choice but to eat that food. There is nothing I can do for them, but at least I want to be there with them and eat with them." Soon after that, her husband got a post at University of Warsaw, and the Itos moved to Poland again in 1988. In other words, the wish to "be there with them and eat with them" was realized. It was not an event, so naturally there was no host or organizer. Ito and her husband "participated" perfectly voluntarily and self-responsibly. How great must the joy of their friends in Warsaw have been! The Itos not only didn't let us down, but they traveled all the way from the Far East. Besides, they were aware that the food they ate was contaminated.

 

Radioactive materials undoubtedly sap human health both physically and mentally. On the other hand, people cannot live when being let down by others. That the "Project" and "Festival" hosts (organizers) were having this in mind when they launched the project is clear from the following declaration posted on their website. "Even amidst a crisis that may cause our hometowns to be lost, we would like to think about the future of Fukushima by retaining its connection with the outside world and the hope of continuing to live in this land." The "connection" does of course not have to be an outdoor festival. Nevertheless, I suppose the participating musicians, and like them many of the visitors who came from outside Fukushima Prefecture, were driven by emotions similar to what Ito was feeling for the people in Poland. At least I was, and there was even some kind of feeling involved that made me consider myself not merely as a visitor, but as one of the hosts. This is perhaps a double presumptuous idea (toward both hosts and victims), but anyway, given that I am one of the hosts, this naturally makes me co-responsible for the event’s continuation.

 

Such were my thoughts while browsing Twitter (Togetter), and I will do some more thinking. It requires some more thinking.

 

(October 13, 2011)