作者: Winifred A Bird , Jane Braxton Little , None
DOI: 10.1289/EHP.121-A78
关键词: Context (language use) 、 Environmental protection 、 Geography 、 Firewood 、 Chernobyl Nuclear Accident 、 Ecology 、 Nuclear power plant 、 Fukushima Nuclear Accident 、 Radioactive contamination 、 Flood myth 、 Forest management
摘要: In a narrow wooded valley just inside the Fukushima evacuation zone, cold mountain dusk is falling over terraced plots where Genkatsu Kanno grew rice and vegetables for most of his life. The idle fields are illuminated by lights from house, several men bend intently low wooden table as they pore satellite photographs contour maps. “So did you say drinking water spring is?” asks Tatsuaki Kobayashi, restoration ecologist at Chiba University, he studies print showing valley’s forest-and-field patchwork. extends thick brown finger, carefully tracing path its upslope source down to house that permitted visit but no longer live in. Akihiko Kondoh, hydrologist also says could be contaminated with radioactive cesium if heavy rains flood area.1 Kanno, 65, he’s thinking digging well so can farm in again one day. Top: Kawauchi, Prefecture 2012; Bottom: Chernobyl, Ukraine 2006 On this evening year eight months after multiple explosions Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, grappling head-on widespread complex environmental health threats Japan has ever faced: Before fallout released March 2011 arrived cities line Prefecture’s central corridor, it drifted northwest small, cultivated valleys, meandering creeks, post-and-beam farmhouses Abukuma Mountains.2 region’s residents depended on land clean water, wild foods, firewood. Forests neighborhoods like Kanno’s center dilemma. The questions neighbors asking about their forests families’ resurface local, prefectural, national meetings. They aren’t alone. Around world, government officials scientists have been struggling decades manage nuclear-contaminated ways minimize radiation exposures human populations. Although significant contamination accidents reactors military facilities dates back 1950s,3 dilemma how emerged dramatically publically reactor V.I. Lenin Plant near Chernobyl blew up 26 April 1986. accident massive amount through western Soviet Union across northern Europe.4,5 It fell heavily power plant, region covered fields. The problems contaminants brought would not disappear quickly. Although iodine-131 falls half days, half-life cesium-137 30 years; plutonium-239 it’s 24,100 years. took immediate steps limit impacts removing residents. Since 1991 breakup Union, managed protective buffer trees other plants help stabilize within mostly uninhabited area. This strategy become world’s principal model handling severe landscape level. For work, however, governments must permanently ban people large areas or accept those who remain will exposed more than International Commission Radiological Protection recommends general population.6 In contrast, Japan’s current recovery plan revolves around allow move home. context, represent threat public health. Still, question whether can—or should—be cleaned remains extremely controversial. Two years disaster, yet decided follow template forest management instead try create new postnuclear remediation.