FILM: Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Promotional Documentary (1985) [Japanese]

Editor’s note: This week, we are pleased to feature contributions from Sofia University graduate students enrolled in Tak Watanabe’s 2011 spring semester classes in Tokyo, Japan. We begin with a film translation and subtitling project of a Japanese documentary that details the construction of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.*

Nichiei Kagaku Eiga Seisakujo. 日映科学映画製作所 [Nichiei Science Film Production]. 1985. Fukushima no Genshiryoku. 福島の原子力 [Nuclear Power of Fukushima]. YouTube video, 27:00, posted originally by “habingo2,” April 02, 2011, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sspp6D8giHc, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTshYXmN1AY (Japanese). English subtitled version by Kudakwashe Mutenda and Keiko Nishimura, posted by “collabo311.” 13 September 2011. 
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFkkRr-gMww, Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E90DeDzpus.

前代未聞の福島原子力事故の実情が徐々に明らかになるにつれて、「福島原子力発電所はどのくらい安全だったのか？」という疑問が今日最も聞かれるようになった。この1987年に東京電力によって製作された27分に及ぶ福島原子力発電所の宣伝映画は、少なくとも東京電力の立場から、その質問に答える以上の内容となっている。一般市民に向け、平易かつ分かりやすい言葉で、原子力技術の複雑な仕組みが説明されている。

この宣伝映画は雄弁に福島原子力発電所の歴史を語っていく。建設場所の選択から建設過程、諸系統の試験、燃料装荷と起動試験、保守点検、労働者と周辺地域のための安全基準、放射能や放射性廃棄物の処理などについてが説明される。映画全体を通して、原子力発電所とその環境の調和を表現するために様々なBGMが使われており、原子力発電所の建設過程や営業運転、そして福島での人々の生活を撮影した写真・実写映像やアニメーションが効果的に組み合わされ、視聴者の理解を助けるようになっている。

本映画全体を通して、安全性というものは決して軽視されてはいない。「用心深く」「徹底的に」「注意深く」「ひとつひとつを」「厳しく監視」などの言葉の使われ方からもそれは明らかだ。1966年の建設当時、福島原子力発電所は疑い無く世界で最も技術を結集した、安全性の権化のような驚くべき建設物であった。

一般向けに作られていることからも分かるように、この宣伝映画は分かりやすく親しみやすい内容となっている。本作は当時劇場で公開され、多くの日本人が見に訪れたと言われている。

– クダ∙ムテンダ ＆ 西村恵子

*This documentary was translated and subtitled as a part of a course assignment in the Graduate Program in Global Studies at Sophia University. The resulting subtitled video is hosted by a collaborative web project organized by Sophia University graduate students, collabo311, of which one of the translators of the Fukushima power plant video, Keiko Nishimura, is a member.  Collabo311 reports on and analyzes cultural reactions to the events of 3.11 and includes various media, from Internet to architecture, spanning topics from radiation to animation.

本: Site fights: Divisive facilities and civil society in Japan and the West

Aldrich, D.P. (2008). Site fights: Divisive facilities and civil society in Japan and the West. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

邦訳：ダニエル・P・アルドリッチ『誰が負を引きうけるのか：原発・ダム・空港立地をめぐる紛争と市民社会』世界思想社、2012年

本書は原子力発電所や空港やダムなどといった市民全体にとっては必要であるものの、それらの施設が設置される地域共同体には好ましくない影響を及ぼす可能性のある施設について、日本の国家機関と市民社会の関係性という観点から論じた専門書である。著者のダニエル・P・アルドリッチ（パデュー大学準教授）は本書を通じて、国家機関は市民社会の成熟度が低い地域にこれらの施設を設置する傾向があると主張している。著者によると、市民社会としていまだじゅうぶんに成熟していない地域において組織的な反対運動が存在しない場合には、政策立案者は強硬的な手段を通してその地域にこれらの施設を設置する傾向があるという。このことは、市民社会として成熟している地域において組織的な反対運動が起きた場合にのみ、政策立案者は地域住民の理解を得るために説得や補助金などのソフトな手段を講じる傾向があることを示す。

本書は日本の原子力政策および福島原発事故の理解を深めるうえで有益な資料であると言える。なお、本書は2012年に世界思想社から『誰が負を引きうけるのか：原発・ダム・空港立地をめぐる紛争と市民社会』として邦訳された。

本書の構成は以下の通り。

Introduction: Site Fights and Policy Tools

1. Picking Sites
2. A Logic of Tool Choice
3. Occasional Turbulence: Airport Siting in Japan and France
4. Dam the Rivers: Siting Water Projects in Japan and France
5. Trying to Change Hearts and Minds: Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Siting
6. David versus Goliath: France Nuclear Power Plant Siting
7. Conclusion: Areas for Future Investigation

各章の中でもとりわけ東日本大震災に伴う福島原発事故の参考になるものとして、第五章と第六章が挙げられる。第五章では、日本の原子力政策の歴史が叙述されたのち、日本政府がいかにしてさまざまな地域住民による反原発運動に対処したかが分析されている。第六章は比較研究の対象として、日本の国家機構と共通点を多く持つフランスの事例が取り上げられている。国家機構では共通点が多いものの、日仏の政策立案者による反原発運動に対する対処の仕方には大きな違いが存在する。本書は専門的な用語が数々散見されるものの、その都度丁寧に説明されているため高校生高学年から大学生以上に適切な教材であると思われる。

-Yasuhito Abe

[関連した２０１１年のアルドリッチとデュシンベールに書かれた記事「Hatoko Comes Home」はこちら。]

記事: Hatoko comes home: Civil society and nuclear power in Japan

Dusinberre, M & Aldrich, D.P. (2011). Hatoko comes home: Civil society and nuclear power in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies, 70 (3), 638-705

被爆地である広島からそう離れていない山口県上関町がいかにして1980年代初頭に原子力発電所を誘致するに至ったかを検証した研究である。1974年4月、日本放送協会（NHK）は朝の連続ドラマ「鳩子の海」の放映を開始した。この連続ドラマは、広島で被爆した後に山口県上関町の住民の養子となった少女（平和のシンボルの鳩から「鳩子」と名付けられる）が成長する過程を描いている。本論文の著者マーティン・デュシンベール（ニューキャッスル大学講師）とダニエル・P・アルドリッチ（パデュー大学準教授）は、戦後日本の原子力政策と上関町の過疎化を中心とした社会経済的衰退を描きつつ、石油危機後の中央政府や中国電力、そして地域のエリートや地域住民たちがどのような理由をもって原発誘致に至ったかかを検証している。

本論文は1980年代初期の山口県上関町というケースを取り上げた研究である。しかし、著者らによると、本論文に描かれている上関町の原発誘致決定に至るプロセスには、福島を含めた他の地域の原発誘致にも当てはまる共通点が存在するという。著者らは、上関町の原発誘致に至るプロセスにおける「地域社会の運営のされ方」「地域住民による自分たちの生活する地域の経済が衰退することへの恐れ」「電力会社による地域住民の日常生活に対する介入」「中央政府から地域社会に与えられる補助金の誘惑」「原発の安全性に関する議論が回避される」という点にこれらの共通点を見出している(702頁)。

日本の原子力政策および福島原発事故の理解を地域社会の立場から深めるうえで有益な資料であると言える。高校で習う戦後史の知識を要するので、大学生以上の教材として適切だと思われる。

-Yasuhito Abe

［関連したアルドリッチの邦訳された本『Site Fights』はこちら。]

BOOK: A Social History of Science and Technology in Contemporary Japan: Volume 4: Transformation Period, 1970-1979

Yoshioka, Hitoshi. 2006. “Future Plans for Nuclear Physics Research,” “The Rise of Nuclear Fusion Research,” “The Development and Utilization of Nuclear Reactors.” In A Social History of Science and Technology in Contemporary Japan: Volume 4: High Economic Growth Period, 1960-1969, edited by Shigeru Nakayama and Hitoshi Yoshioka, 189-273. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Volume 4 of A Social History of Science and Technology in Contemporary Japan contains three chapters of note to those interested in Japanese nuclear history, all of which were written by Hitoshi Yoshioka. Chapter 8, “Reorganization of the Administration and Regulation of Nuclear Development,” describes the establishment of the Nuclear Safety Commission (Genshiryoku Anzen Iinkai) in 1978 and the concomitant increase in the role of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) in the development of nuclear technology. Chapter 9, “Nuclear Power Plant Location Disputes,” addresses the politics of determining where nuclear power plants would be built. It also details the ill-fated attempt to build a nuclear-powered commercial ship. Finally, Yoshioka describes the development of the technology and infrastructure to enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel in Chapter 10, “The Development of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology.” These three chapters highlight different aspects of the social, political and technical history of the nuclear power industry in Japan. They explore how the development of reactors occurred in historically specific contexts of strenuous efforts and political struggle by a variety of local, official and commercial actors over a period of time during which outcomes were uncertain.

Chapter 8, “Reorganization of the Administration and Regulation of Nuclear Development,” describes the process by which MITI expanded its influence over the nuclear industry in the 1970s and 80s, eventually gaining control over a portion of the research and development of nuclear power that had been the sole reserve of the Science and Technology Agency (STA). Unlike the large and powerful U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the smaller Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) could only review the actions of MITI and the STA, and was effectively sidelined as nothing more than a bureaucratic advisory board.

Chapter 9, “Nuclear Power Plant Location Disputes,” shows how one of the main barriers to the construction of power plants was convincing local fishing collectives to abandon their fishing rights to the waters near the plant. Since the Edo period, villages have enjoyed the right of communal access to fishing grounds adjacent to their land, and laws in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries confirmed these rights. Unless the locals ceded these rights, nuclear power plants could not gain access to the water they needed to operate. This chapter details the strategies that fishing cooperatives and other citizens used to slow or prevent the building of nuclear power plants in their regions, including a page or two on the resistance efforts in Fukushima.

Also in Chapter 9, Yoshioka highlights the asymmetry of protest power by presenting the case of an experimental nuclear-powered vessel, the Mutsu. In 1974, when the government tested the boat’s reactor without the approval of the local fishing cooperatives, the locals surrounded the ship with 300 fishing boats. The Mutsu sneaked out of port under the cover of a typhoon and promptly sprang a leak in its reactor coolant. It remained adrift for 45 days while fishermen blockaded its return to port.

Chapter 10, “The Development of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology,” describes how nuclear waste reprocessing technology preceded the development of fuel enrichment technology in Japan. Reprocessing technology was imported from abroad while enrichment was developed locally. In addition to technical and political challenges (such as Japan’s treaty obligations to the U.S.), Yoshioka attributes the delay of a decade between the development these two lines of technology to the Japanese government’s policy of prioritizing nuclear reactors over fuel technologies. Regardless of the timing, however, the ability to both enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel allowed Japan eventually to achieve its goal of having an independent fuel cycle, in which virtually the entire life cycle of nuclear fuel could be handled domestically.

These three chapters are of particular interest to readers looking for historical contextualization of the development of reactors such as those at Fukushima, and the industry that supports them. Although, once established, the existence of such reactors may seem solid and non-negotiable, Yoshioka demonstrates that the path of their development was by no means natural or inevitable, and did not take place in a political vacuum.

- Craig Nelson

Further reading on Hitoshi Yoshioka’s histories of nuclear power in Japan:

• A Social History of Science and Technology in Contemporary Japan: Volume 2: Road to Self-Reliance, 1952-1959
• BOOK: A Social History of Nuclear Power: Its Development in Japan (1999)
• CHAPTER: Technology versus Commercial Feasibility: Nuclear Power and Electric Utilities (1999)

FILM: Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Promotional Documentary (1985) [English]

Editor’s note: This week, we are pleased to feature contributions from Sofia University graduate students enrolled in Tak Watanabe’s 2011 spring semester classes in Tokyo, Japan. We begin with a film translation and subtitling project of a Japanese documentary that details the construction of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.*

Nichiei Kagaku Eiga Seisakujo. 日映科学映画製作所 [Nichiei Science Film Production]. 1985. Fukushima no Genshiryoku. 福島の原子力 [Nuclear Power of Fukushima]. YouTube video, 27:00, posted originally by “habingo2,” April 02, 2011, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sspp6D8giHc, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTshYXmN1AY (Japanese). English subtitled version by Kudakwashe Mutenda and Keiko Nishimura, posted by “collabo311.” 13 September 2011. 
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFkkRr-gMww, Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E90DeDzpus.

As the unprecedented Fukushima nuclear disaster continues to unfold, “How safe was the Fukushima Nuclear Plant?” continues to number among one of today’s most frequently asked questions. The 27-minute promotional video, Fukushima no Genshiryoku [Nuclear Power of Fukushima] introducing the then newly constructed Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, does more than answer this question affirmatively, at least from the perspective of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The video was made by TEPCO in 1987 for the general public and uses very simple and easy to understand language to explain the complex mechanism and processes of nuclear energy production.

The eloquently narrated video informs us of the history of the creation and operation of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, from the selection of the construction site, its construction, preliminary tests, energy generation, implementation of safety measures for both workers and the community, measurement of radiation and the disposal of nuclear waste. Various musical melodies that suggest harmony between the nuclear plant and the environment runs throughout the background of the video. A combination of animation, real life pictures, and videos taken during the plant’s construction, operation, and from daily life in Fukushima, are used to make the material easier to understand. On the other hand, music evocative of a James Bond movie also cues in scenes that seem to suggest awe of the scale of the human technological and architectural accomplishment.

Since the video was made for the general Japanese public, it is very easy to understand and entertaining to watch. This English subtitled version of the original video makes apparent how the concept of safety was stressed throughout the documentary with constant repetitions of the words and phrases “carefully,” “thoroughly,” “attentively,” “strictly monitored,” and “one by one.” According to the video’s narrator, Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant was considered state-of-the-art technology when it was constructed in 1966 as a marvel in size and as the epitome of safety within the nuclear industry worldwide.

According to the Science Film Museum in Japan, the video was actually shown in Japanese movie theaters as a documentary film and many people went to see it.

– Kuda Mutenda and Nishimura Keiko

*This documentary was translated and subtitled as a part of a course assignment in the Graduate Program in Global Studies at Sophia University. The resulting subtitled video is hosted by a collaborative web project organized by Sophia University graduate students, collabo311, of which one of the translators of the Fukushima power plant video, Keiko Nishimura, is a member.  Collabo311 reports on and analyzes cultural reactions to the events of 3.11 and includes various media, from Internet to architecture, spanning topics from radiation to animation.

FILM: Nuclear Ginza (1995)

Röhl, Nicholas. 1995. Kakusareta Hibaku Rōdō: Nihon no Genpatsu Rōdōsha. 隠された被曝労働 – 日本の原発労働者 物語 [Nuclear Ginza]. YouTube video, 30 min, posted by “aikoku369”, Mar 30, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC7sFNtGk4A

Nicholas Röhl, a student of Japan’s master director Imamura Shohei, produced this 30-minute documentary in 1995 for Channel 4. The film exposes how Japan’s nuclear energy industry used disadvantaged people in the 1970s and ’80s to carry out highly dangerous manual labor inside their power stations. The story follows the photojournalist/ anti-nuclear activist Kenji Higuchi as he exposes the exploitation of the “untouchables” who were pulled out of the slums of Tokyo and Osaka in order to work while exposed to radiation, often without their knowledge. Referring to the tacit cooperation and close ties between the Japanese government and the country’s nuclear industry, a man notes in one scene that “democracy has been destroyed where nuclear power stations exist.” The film shows how Japan, having suffered nuclear attacks in the past, remarkably transformed itself within a few decades into one of the most “nuclearized” nations worldwide. This documentary film has special significance in the light of the recent Fukushima nuclear crisis, in which media reports about the exploitation of unskilled laborers in the plant spawned a major controversy.
– Christian Dimmer

Note: These videos may require you to open a separate browser window.

NUCLEAR GINZA, PART 1 of 3

NUCLEAR GINZA, PART 2 of 3

NUCLEAR GINZA, PART 3 of 3

FILM: A Is For Atom (1953)

Urbano, Carl, John Sutherland Productions. 1953. A is for Atom, YouTube video, 15 min, posted by “nuclearvault,” Jul 30, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi-ItrJISQE

This animated short was sponsored by General Electric, one of the key U.S. manufacturers of electric appliances, power generation stations, and nuclear weapon components, in an effort to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The film belongs to the genre of so-called “benevolent atom” films that were released during the 1950s as part of the “Atoms for Peace” campaign. A Is For Atom is an artifact of an era characterized by a strong narrative of belief in science and in technological progress. The potentially threatening nuclear technology is presented to the public in a “humanized” fashion, with elemental forces being depicted as humanoid figures such as Dr. Atom, who has an atom for a head. In a key sequence, the film introduces the five atomic “giants,” which “man has released from within the atom’s heart”: the warrior and destroyer, the farmer, the healer, the engineer and the research worker. Each of these giants is depicted as a majestic figure, towering over the earth, bringing progress and limitless growth to the world. The viewers are reassured that ”all are within man’s power and subject to his command,” that our future depends “on man’s wisdom, on his firmness in the use of that power.” –Christian Dimmer

Various versions of the film document can be downloaded at the Internet Archive or at the Open Video Project.

Note: This video may require you to open a new browser window.

FILM: A Is For Atom (1992)

Curtis, Adam. 1992. A is for Atom, Google video, 45:51 min, accessed Apr 24, 2011, from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1860517361048002456

The British 45-minute documentary A Is For Atom was named after the 1953 animated short of the ‘Atoms for peace’ campaign with the same title. The final installment of a BBC-2 series about politics and science, called Pandora’s Box, the film tells the story of the development of peaceful nuclear technologies in the United States, Britain and Russia, and how political and business forces of the time contributed to these transformation. In order to make the production of nuclear power plants profitable, for example, private corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric pushed for the construction of bigger plants in order to utilize economies of scale. However, with growing reactor sizes, safe operation could no longer be fully guaranteed. The film shows that despite repeated warnings by senior scientists from the Atomic Energy Commission  and the industry itself, the corporations succeeded in avoiding costly changes to the plant design. In the Soviet Union, on the other hand, political pressure for a rapid electrification of the country coupled with an insufficient budget resulted in inferior reactor designs, which ultimately culminated in the Chernobyl disaster. One of the most unsettling scenes of the film unfurls as AEC scientists state as early as 1964 that “we have found in our present study nothing. . . which guarantees either that major reactor accidents will not occur or that protective safeguard systems will not fail. Should such accidents occur very large damages could result.”  What they refer to are evocative of the problematic design issues of the very type of nuclear reactor that would be used later in the Fukushima No.1 plant that came into operation in 1971.
– Christian Dimmer

A 10 minutes longer version of this documentary is available on the blog of director Adam Curtis

FILM: Trust Your Friend Pluto-kun: A Plutonium Story (1993)

Dōryokuro Kakunenryō kaihatsu jigyōdan 動力炉・核燃料開発事業団 [Japan Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation]. 1993. Tayoreru Nakama Purūtokun: Purutoniyumu Monogatari 頼れる仲間プルト君 —プルトニウム物語 [Trust your Friend Pluto-kun: A Plutonium Story]. YouTube video, 10: 52, posted by “chiniasobu,” Mar 28, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJlul0lTroY&NR=1

This short promotional film is one of many of its kind that have been produced over the last four decades in order to dissuade the public from the idea that nuclear energy could be anything but safe and clean. This particular film was commissioned by the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (today’s Japan Atomic Energy Agency) and 250 copies were distributed to public relations facilities such as atomic energy museums or in the visitor centers of nuclear power stations. The lead character is the friendly and cute Pluto-kun, sporting a baseball helmet with the element symbol, Pu. He tells the mostly young target audience that he is saddened by his negative image. He regrets that he was first deployed in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and he stresses that he dislikes war and loves his work in peaceful energy generation.

Pluto-kun, representing the nuclear industry, feels misunderstood and invites viewers to follow the “real story of plutonium.” Accompanied by cheerful music, such as “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” Pluto-kun assures that no atom bomb could be built from nuclear waste, and that the theft of plutonium is impossible. If ingested, the young Japanese audience is told, no harm to the health is done because plutonium will be expelled from the body (in the bathroom). The viewers are told that while not lethal, people should avoid inhaling plutonium or letting it come into contact with the bloodstream, as the element can accumulate in lymph nodes and organs and emit alpha waves. Viewers are also told that extrapolations from animal tests suggest that a causal link between plutonium and known cancer cases in humans is “absolutely” unthinkable. Pluto-kun raises an important question: Is plutonium really something that humans cannot control with great wisdom? –Christian Dimmer

Please contact teach3eleven [at] gmail.com if you are interested in a collaboration to make English subtitles for this film for educational purposes.