Dec 17, 2012

Japan’s elections signal disillusionment and change

Japanese voters throw out a liberal government after three years of political instability, economic failure and the bungled handling of a devastating natural disaster. But nuclear power could be back on the agenda.

Professor Damien Kingsbury

Crikey international affairs commentator

The crushing victory by Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party in the weekend’s elections signals Japanese voters are worried, disillusioned and impatient for change. With Japan’s economy still in the doldrums, China’s influence growing and the country still reeling from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, many Japanese want a return to when the country was an economic powerhouse and its regional and domestic security was assured.


Leave a comment

13 thoughts on “Japan’s elections signal disillusionment and change

  1. Mark Duffett

    Strange that Kingsbury describes Japan as ‘reeling’ from Fukushima with its zero deaths and largely unnecessary evacuations, rather than from the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami which killed 20,000 and destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure.

  2. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Mark Duffett, your opinion, without a skerrick of evidence, that evacuations from the vicinity of the Fukushima plant were “largely unnecessary”, is useless in explaining Japan’s fear of nuclear power. I gather that more than 100,000 people are currently displaced from the region, some for the rest of their lives. That emptied landscape, potentially far more valuable and/or costly than the earthquake coast, is now burdened with a man-made monstrosity which neither engineers, politicians or armchair experts can possibly explain. No dollar number will make any sense. Can you not imagine how that would affect a nation and culture? Wouldn’t “reeling” come close or would you prefer something like ‘wrong-headed’?

  3. Mark Duffett

    Charlie, some skerricks: Cuttler 2012:

    This commentary reviews the international radiation protection policy that resulted in the evacuation of more than 90,000 residents from areas near the Fukushima Daiichi NPS and the enormous expenditures to protect them against a hypothetical risk of cancer. The basis for the precautionary measures is shown to be invalid; the radiation level chosen for evacuation is not conservative. The actions caused unnecessary fear and suffering. An appropriate level for evacuation is recommended. Radical changes to the ICRP recommendations are long overdue.

    And given the election results, perhaps Japan’s fear of nuclear power has been overstated?

  4. John Bennetts

    Hugh is guilty of that which he accuses another author. His entire comment is without a skerrik of supporting knowledge or reasoning.

    MD has demonstrated many, many times, both in Crikey’s comments columns and elsewhere, eg Brave New Climate, a moderated site which is strong on the scwhich has strict rules requiring citations for sources of facts, that he is well qualified to offer an opinion regarding the factual and statistical basis for his comments.

    H(C)McC, on the other hand, has relied again on preconceived, inflexible opinion and attempted character assassination.

  5. John Bennetts

    Previous comment sent in error: Moderator please delete in favour of the following.

    Hugh is guilty of that which he accuses another author. His entire comment is without a skerrik of supporting knowledge or reasoning.

    MD has demonstrated many, many times, both in Crikey’s comments columns and elsewhere, that he is well qualified to offer an opinion regarding the factual and statistical basis for his comments.

  6. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Hey Guys, you of the supporting knowledge and reasoning. I suggested there are more than 100,000 people displaced from the ‘radiation exclusion zone’. Correct me if I’m wrong – I heard a figure of 140,000 on the news a couple of days ago. They are unable to return to their farms and townships, unlike their neighbours up and down the coast who at least can return to their homes or what is left of them.
    You are suggesting that some of them could return because the “precautionary measures” are invalidly established. However, they have not returned because they are not allowed to. They are still displaced. Now there is a new government. If that government finds a way to guarantee the safety of returnees and more particularly their children then maybe they will return. But if they don’t accept the guarantees (and remember there are 100,000 of them), are you saying they are wrong? Are you saying that they should believe a couple of Australian experts because Japanese experts, and more importantly their political masters, don’t know how to do this stuff? Big call.
    JB, Read MD’s first comment. There is not one skerrick of evidence for his opinion that a description of Japan as “reeling” is inaccurate or wrong. Oh, of course he has established his credentials in other matters at other times but on this occasion he is dabbling in semantics and won’t offer an alternative.
    So if you were Japanese and living in Japan and there were 100,000 people (give or take) still displaced from the locale of a ruined nuclear power station more than a year after the event and there was no indication as to how long this situation might apply for, how would you describe your feelings? Just give me a word or phrase, something that makes sense to someone reeling (being shaken physically or mentally) by reality.

  7. Mark Duffett

    Charlie, I’m not saying the consequences of the displacements are insignificant. Indeed, it’s one of the points I’m making, that the impact of evacuation (including 761 deaths by one estimate is far worse than physical radiation effects would ever have amounted to.

    Nor did I contend that Japan was not ‘reeling’. What I do maintain is that it’s doing so much more from the quake and tsunami than Fukushima (how many people does 20,000 deaths affect? A lot more than 100,000), and that it’s passing strange the author cited the latter and not the former.

  8. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Mark, you are right to point out that 20,000 deaths directly from the tsunami is a shocking event. But that was more than a year ago. Those deaths and that significant loss of infrastructure have now become past tense.
    The 100,000 (give or take) displaced citizens are present tense. They are shacked up with fellow citizens in some impromptu arrangement that cannot go on forever. Apparently, many of them are farmers whose land and produce is so polluted it is not fit or safe for human consumption. That problem is down to the nuclear reactor. The land (and sea in some places) was not ruined by the tsunami, it was ruined by an unsafe man-made machine that is now broken and a pox on the landscape. It’s a radiation problem and there’s nothing the nuclear power industry can do to deflect the public gaze from that empty landscape and those 100,000 displaced people. You want Japan to be reeling “…much more from the quake and tsunami than Fukushima”, but then you would want that wouldn’t you. Nuclear power is supposed to be safe but every time there is a serious incident people are displaced, landscapes are permanently damaged and societies are convulsed. There’s nothing “passing strange” about the occurrence – it’s a logical progression. And no doubt there will be more of the same.

  9. Mark Duffett

    So all those bereavements, broken relationships (personal and economic) and infrastructure…everyone’s over that now. Moved on. All fixed. Right.

    Suggest you read the refs I’ve been putting up. What you are talking about is not a radiation problem, it’s a fear of radiation problem. I’d happily eat 99% of the food produced from Fukushima prefecture. And to talk about ‘permanent damage’ is simply wrong.

  10. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Bullshit Mark. Your first paragraph is for you not me. Get over yourself.
    The fear of radiation problem is for the nuclear industry to settle. It is the nuclear industry that creates the standards for food quality, workplace health and safety and so on. The Japanese nuclear industry failed miserably in convincing the Japanese government and people that it knows how to handle a nuclear breakdown. They were absolutely obliged to evacuate, at the very least, a few kilometres around the plant. For a short time. But how long is a short time? And how do you convince a traditional Japanese farmer that the crop he half grew last year that was contaminated and unfit for Japanese consumption, is now miraculously OK? This is no longer a scientific, engineering problem. It is a political and social problem, seemingly but not surprisingly, beyond the wit of the nuclear industry.
    I’d say the site of the Fukushima nuclear power station is permanently damaged and no humans will live and sleep next to it for several generations.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details