How Media Narratives Manufactured Fukushima’s Reputational Damage

Through the firsthand testimony of a foreign researcher who worked in Fukushima, this essay exposes the gap between empirical data and media narratives surrounding radiation risk and public perception.

March 17, 2017

The following is excerpted from “We Want to Stop the Reputational Damage to Fukushima,” published in the latest issue of the monthly magazine Voice, which I introduced the day before yesterday.
Emphasis within the text, except for the headings, is mine.

Claire Leppold

(Graduate student at the University of Edinburgh / Former staff member at Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital)
Born in Eugene, Oregon, USA.
After earning a bachelor’s degree at Oregon State University, she enrolled in the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) to study international public health and obtained her master’s degree in 2015.
From May 2015 to September 2016, she worked at Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital before advancing to the doctoral program at the University of Edinburgh.
She had previously studied in Japan for a short period, and during this stay passed the highest level of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test.

— The turning point came two years ago when you were enrolled in the master’s program at the University of Edinburgh and attended a special lecture by a Japanese research group conducting surveys in Fukushima, correct?

Claire

After attending that lecture, the image I had of Fukushima was completely overturned.
The research results they presented were the exact opposite of the information I thought I “knew.”
The lecture explained that large-scale screening tests conducted on infants and children living in Fukushima showed no detectable adverse effects from internal radiation exposure.
On the other hand, it was explained that what was clearly observed on site was an increase in lifestyle-related diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, which are not directly related to radiation, as well as various problems associated with evacuation to temporary housing.
I began to wonder, “Why is there such a discrepancy between data collected on site and the information reported in the media and on the internet?”
At the same time, I strongly felt that “I want to know more about the reality of Fukushima, and to do that, I need to go there and see the truth with my own eyes,” which led me to decide to move to Fukushima.

— After that, you were introduced by a Japanese group and came to live in Fukushima. How did your parents feel about that?

Claire

At first, they were very surprised.
I showed my anxious parents all the academic papers and articles related to radiation in the disaster-affected areas and carefully explained that radiation levels in Fukushima were by no means dangerous.
Perhaps reassured by the objective data, my parents began to listen calmly to what I had to say, and in the end, they approved my move to Fukushima.
I remain deeply grateful to my parents for trusting me and willingly sending me to Japan.

— They sound like wonderful parents.

What kind of activities are you engaged in at Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital, where you are currently affiliated?

Claire

Initially, my stay took the form of a short-term study abroad for the purpose of writing my master’s thesis, but after obtaining my master’s degree, I worked there full-time for one year.
I mainly helped edit and translate English-language papers published by the hospital, and in between my duties, I disseminated research-related articles online and worked on writing academic papers.

No Health Effects from the Disaster Observed in Newborns

— Last year, you published research results analyzing 1,101 newborns (excluding multiple births) born at Minamisoma Municipal Hospital between 2008 and 2015, showing that there was no change in the incidence of preterm births or low birth weight infants even after the nuclear accident.

This article continues.