Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T21:41:40.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fukushima's Dueling Museums

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jeff Kingston
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In Fukushima there are two museums that present different narratives of the 3.11 natural disaster and nuclear crisis. TEPCO's Decommissioning Archive Center focuses on the nuclear accident, what its workers endured and provides rich details on the decommissioning process expected to take three to four decades. The Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum focuses on how the lives of the prefecture's residents were affected by the cascading 3.11 disaster. The Archive elides many controversial issues that reflect badly on the utility while the Memorial conveys the human tragedy while addressing some of the controversies not covered in the Archive. TEPCO presents an evasive narrative at the Archive, but it is slickly packaged and casts the utility in the best light possible. The Memorial is impressive in scope and conveys the extent of the various tragedies with updates that responded to patrons' criticisms about controversial issues.

Type
Research Article
Information
Asia-Pacific Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 12 , June 2022 , e2
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2022

References

Sources

Akiyama, Nobumasa, (2016) “Political leadership in nuclear emergency: institutional and structural constraints” in Sagan, Scott and Edward Blanchard, eds, Learning from a Disaster: Improving Nuclear Safety and Security after Fukushima. Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Studies, pp. 80–108.Google Scholar
Asahi, (2022). “TEPCO pushes back timeline for storage tanks at Fukushima plant”, Asahi Shimbun. April 28.Google Scholar
Asahi, (2021a) “3/11 museum updates displays of nuclear crisis to give truer picture” Asahi Shimbun, April 10.Google Scholar
Asahi, . (2021b) “Editorial: Public's distrust of TEPCO runs deeper than its water tanks” Asahi Shimbun. April 14.Google Scholar
Asahi, (2020) “Don't criticize government or TEPCO, guides in Fukushima told” Asahi Shimbun, September 23.Google Scholar
Asahi, (2014). “Reality of the Fukushima 50 Special Report”, Asahi Shimbun.Google Scholar
Brown, Azby. (2021) “Fukushima Daiichi water: The world is watching or should be” Safecast, May 6.Google Scholar
Cabinet (2012). Cabinet of Japan Investigation committee on the accident at Fukushima nuclear power stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company. Final Report. 23 July. (accessed April 30, 2022).Google Scholar
Diet, . (2012) The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Executive Summary. Tokyo: National Diet of Japan.Google Scholar
Hatamura, Yotaro, et al. (2014) The 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Accident. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publishing.Google Scholar
JCER. (2019) “Accident cleanup costs rising to 35-80 trillion yen in forty years” Japan Center for Economic Research, July 3.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Miya. (2016). “Creator slams removal of pro-nuclear signs from Fukushima ghost town” Kyodo News reprinted in Japan Times. March 3.Google Scholar
Japan Times. (2017) “Editorial: NRA's nod for a Tepco restart” Japan Times. Oct 8.Google Scholar
Johnson, David, Fukurai, Hiroshi and Hirayama, Mari (2020). “Reflections on the TEPCO trial: prosecution and acquittal after Japan's nuclear meltdown” Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 18:2(1) January 15.Google Scholar
Kingston, Jeff. (2021) “The development state and nuclear power in Japan” in Cleveland, Kyle, Knowles, Scott and Shineha, Ryuma, eds., Legacies of Fukushima. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kingston, Jeff. (2012) “Mismanaging Risk and the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10:12 (2) March 12.Google Scholar
Kyodo, . (2022) “Fisheries group conveys to PM opposition to Fukushima water release” Kyodo News. April 5.Google Scholar
Lukner, Kerstin and Sakaki, Alexandra, (2013)“Lessons from Fukushima: An Assessment of the Investigations of the Nuclear Disaster,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 11:19 (2), May 13.Google Scholar
McCurry, Justin. (2013) “Fukushima 50: ‘We felt like kamikaze pilots ready to sacrifice everything’ Guardian. January 11.Google Scholar
McCurry, Justin. (2012). “Fukushima disaster could have been avoided, nuclear plant operator admits” Guardian. October 15.Google Scholar
Nanami, Nakagawa. (2021) “Evacuation complete with 227 patients left behind during Fukushima disaster”, Tansa (Tokyo Investigative Newsroom. March 10.Google Scholar
Nikkei, (2021). “Japan bans TEPCO from restarting nuclear plant over safety flaws.” Nikkei, April 14.Google Scholar
Onitsuka, Hiroshi. (2012) ‘Hooked on Nuclear Power: Japanese State-Local Relations and the Vicious Cycle of Nuclear Dependence,’ The Asia-Pacific Journal 10:3, 1 (16 January).Google Scholar
RJIF. (2014) Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Disaster: Investigating the Myth and Reality. (Expanded and updated English edition of the Report by The Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation originally published in Japanese on 1 March 2012) London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldrick, Adam and Foster, Malcolm. (2018) “Tepco's ice wall fails to freeze Fukushima's toxic water buildup” Reuters. March 8.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Mari. (2021) “Fukushima Chief: No need to extend decommissioning target” The Diplomat, March 4.Google Scholar