Gov't should clearly explain health risks of radioactive contamination
The effects of radioactive contamination of food and drinking water are spreading as workers struggle to handle a nuclear power plant crisis in Fukushima Prefecture.
Following warnings in parts of Fukushima Prefecture, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government recommended that infants in Tokyo should not drink tap water. The government has halted shipments of unprocessed milk and some vegetables produced in Fukushima Prefecture, among other areas, and is asking people not to consume these products.
The government message that has accompanied such warnings is: "These products won't harm your health. But just in case, we don't want you to eat or drink them."
Just how should we receive this seemingly contradictory message? Food and water form the foundation of people's existence. Naturally, the government should boost the monitoring of products to accurately grasp the state of contamination, but that alone won't solve the problems that have emerged.
In areas damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, food and other materials are still in short supply. The government should consider the circumstances in these areas and improve its risk management and communication.
If there are going to be restrictions on the intake of water and some food products, then the government must prepare a system to deliver replacement products to disaster-hit areas. People have been left wondering what they should do if they can't obtain replacement products, and what risks infants and pregnant women face. The government must carefully address such concerns.
If officials want people to reach calm decisions -- not just about the safety of food and water but also about the radiation in the air -- then they must do more than occasionally dishing out figures and their interpretations of them.
How much radiation have the people living in affected areas been exposed to in total? When officials say there is no health risk if people are exposed to radiation for a long time, exactly how long is a "long time"? And what does the term "health effects" actually mean? If the government wants people to remain calm then it must answer such questions in clearer terms.
Officials should also clearly state whether radiation around the nuclear power plant is declining or not and how the situation is expected to develop. Information regarding the transition of radiation levels in Fukushima Prefecture would be helpful in determining the outlook for Tokyo, too.
Understandably, it is difficult to accurately measure the physical effects of exposure to low levels of radiation. Still, the threat of damage to DNA, resulting in cancer, is worrying. The human body is equipped to repair such damage, but when the level of damage is high, the long-term risks cannot be ignored.
After the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, thyroid cancer emerged among children who continued to drink milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. Surely a priority for the Japanese government is to come up with ways to protect children, while explaining that the situation in Japan is different. If people over a certain age are not at risk, then the government should clearly say so.
In handling the situation, the government must ensure residents stay well even if radioactive contamination continues. It must not let people move about in confusion trying to get their hands on uncontaminated food and water.
(Mainichi Japan) March 24, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment