The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 9 | Issue 41 | Number 3 | Article ID 3614 | Oct 03, 2011

1

The Kaminoseki Nuclear Power Plant: Community Conflictsand the Future of Japan’s Rural Periphery　　上関原子力発電所−−住民間の葛藤と日本の地方周辺の将来

Tomomi Yamaguchi

The Kaminoseki Nuclear PowerPlant: Community Conflicts and theFuture of Japan’s Rural Periphery

Tomomi Yamaguchi

Summary

The art icle explores the controversysurrounding the construction of the Kaminosekinuclear power plant in Yamaguchi prefecture.While briefly introducing opposition activismagainst the plant, I introduce the voices ofproponents of the plant. By doing so, I highlightthe harsh economic realities facing this andother rural communities and divisions withinthe construction site community.

Keywords

Kaminoseki, Fukushima, nuclear power plant,nuclear energy, energy policy, urban/ruraldivide, coucntryside, Chugoku Electric Power,Politics, Community divisions

The Atomic Age and Ashes to Honey

In the midst of the catastrophe of theFukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant thatbegan on March 11, a long-planned symposium,“The Atomic Age: From Hiroshima to thePresent” was held on May 21 at the Universityof Chicago. 1 An important goal of the eventfrom its earliest planning stages was tohighlight the connection between atomicweapons and atomic energy by showing twofilms on the theme, to be followed by paneldiscussions. The catastrophe at Fukushima and

throughout Japan’s Northeast has had anextraordinary impact on life in the immediatevicinity and caused major disruptions anddanger to people and the natural environmentfar beyond. Among the consequences of themultiple earthquakes, tsunami, and nuclearmeltdown have been a rethinking of Japan’snuclear power agenda and the future of thenation’s energy policies. The Fukushimadisaster has highlighted the culture of secrecysurrounding nuclear weapons and nuclearenergy that has long crippled public discussionof the issues, and raised questions aboutrural/urban power differentials, which havebeen amplified by the catastrophe. The processused to determine where nuclear plants arebuilt is of particular concern and has causedsignificant community divisions.

One of the films featured at the symposium wasKamanaka Hitomi’s Ashes to Honey: Toward aS u s t a i n a b l e F u t u r e ( l i n k(http://888earth.net/index.html))2, which is thethird of a trilogy by this director that deals withnuclear issues (the others are Hibakusha at theEnd of the World (2004) and RokkashoRhapsody (2006)). The film explores theongoing movement by the residents ofIwaishima, a small, Inland Sea island inYamaguchi Prefecture, opposing theconstruction of the Kaminoseki nuclear powerplant, which is separated from the constructionsite by just 3.5 km of ocean.3

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

2

Iwaishima seen from Tanoura, theconstruction site of Kaminoseki NuclearP o w e r P l a n t . S o u r c e(http://888earth.net/staffblog/2010/09/post-99.html).

Kamanaka has been especially busy sinceMarch 11, traveling throughout Japan forscreenings of her films, mostly organized bylocal citizens’ groups. She has also addressednumerous gatherings and symposiums, and hasbeen interviewed in the mass media. Ashes toHoney, along with her two previous films, nowgets the type of attention that she could neverhave imagined before the Fukushima Daiichiaccident. Kamanaka has said that her aim inproducing the films was to make the publicaware of the dangers of radiation – whetherfrom the use of weapons or from nuclear powerplants – because she did not want anyone to beaffected by radiation ever again. Now, sadly,Kamanaka’s films are gaining attention due tothe very catastrophe that she had hoped toavert through spreading her message;nevertheless, the films have been functioningas extremely powerful tools for raisingawareness and encouraging people to engagein actions against nuclear energy.

Ashes to Honey poster (center) on abulletin board in Iwaishima, along with aposter for a signature drive against theplant’s construction (photo by the author).

Ashes to Honey is one of two films on theKaminoseki plant controversy released in 2010,along with Houri no Shima (Sacred Island) byHanabusa Aya.

The two films, both the work of independentwomen filmmakers, focus on the residents ofIwaishima, the vast majority of whom havebeen opposing the construction of the plant forthe past 30 years out of fear for their livelihoodand the natural environment surrounding theisland. The fact that supporters of theKaminoseki plant feature in neither film isindicative of the polarized interpersonalrelations in the community, and the difficultiesfor opponents of the plant to even approachsupporters to hear their side of the story.4 Inthis article, I will explore the “other side” of theKaminoseki debate, i.e., the perspective ofthose who support construction. My ownposition is opposition to the construction of theKaminoseki plant, and opposition to nuclearenergy as well. Nevertheless, I have attemptedto hear the views of the supporters. This turnedout to be quite difficult. Because the films ofIwaishima – and many other media reports aswell - do not feature the supporters’ side,

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

3

opponents of nuclear power plants tend to seethe conflict as one of old and poor Iwaishimaresidents versus powerful and greedy corporatesuperpowers such as Chugoku Electric,together with the local and nat ionalgovernments. While these battle lines do exist,the story is not so simple. An adequate accountwould need to reflect the reality of strugglingrural communities facing population declineand loss of livelihood, the package provided tosecure support of local communities, andcomplex human relationships in once tightlyknit communities. By exploring the story of “theother side,” I, as an opponent of nuclearenergy, am better able to see the problemsassociated with the claims and activiststrategies of the opposition, most particularly,the question of the nature of their commitmentto the situation of so-called “ricchi” (plant sites)communities, all of which are struggling ruralcommunities.

30 Years of Struggle Over the Constructionof the Kaminoseki Plant

In June 2010, I visited Iwaishima Island with afriend, Yuki Miyamoto of DePaul University,who was also one of the organizers of theAtomic Age symposium. We wanted to see forourselves the site of the protest movementagainst the Kaminoseki plant. Our visit wasonly for a few hours, yet we saw numerousindicators throughout the island of protests – inthe form of signs, posters, and flyers.

Anti-nuclear Power Plant Sign inIwaishima (photo by the author)

Wandering around the tiny island, Yuki and Iwent into the small structure that was theIwaishima branch of Kaminoseki town hall. Weasked the person at the reception desk for amap, and inquired about what there was to seeon the island. He smiled, gave us a map, andkindly started to explain various sightseeingspots. I then noticed a flyer at the receptionwindow that read: “Study tour to visit theGenkai Nuclear Power Plant in Saga.” The flyersaid a tour for 30 residents had been organizedby the Kaminoseki Town Hall, with the townpaying transportation and lodging costs fortour participants. I asked the man at thereception desk about it, and there was anawkward moment of silence and tension; it wasobvious from his discomfort that he preferredto avoid such conversations with outsiders. Yet,as a municipal employee of the town ofKaminoseki, he has to promote the plant’sconstruction, even while working in Iwaishima.This memorable moment encapsulated the levelof divisiveness of this issue on this small island,and in the town of Kaminoseki. The municipalgovernment of Kaminoseki is promoting theplant’s construction while Iwaishima Island’sresidents overwhelmingly oppose it.

There is an almost 30-year history of intense

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

4

conflict between supporters and opponents ofthe Kaminoseki plant construction, dating backto 1982. The town of Kaminoseki comprises apeninsula and several islands, includingIwaishima. The majority of the 3,300 residentsof the town support the construction, alongwith seven organizations in the town and theKaminoseki Town government under the threemayors it has had since 1983. On the otherhand, 90% of the 500 residents of IwaishimaIsland oppose the construction. According toIwaishima residents, many of whom have beenengaged their whole lives in fishing and small-scale farming, their motive in opposing theplant is to maintain their livelihood as well as topreserve the diverse and vibrant naturalenvironment of Iwaishima and the Inland Sea.Both Ashes to Honey and Houri no Shimadescribe the everyday realities of the agingresidents, in an island struggling with youthsleaving to find jobs and overall populationdecline. The residents’ lives are closelyentwined with their protest movement againstthe plant. One such example is the weeklydemonstration held in Iwaishima every Mondayfor the past 30 years.

1,100 t h Monday demonstration inIwaishima in June 2011

S o u r c e(http://blog.shimabito.net/?eid=1061783).

There have been numerous court cases,signature drives, rallies, demonstrations,gatherings and protests among those againstconstruction over three decades. There arealso activists coming from outside of the town –such as the “Rainbow Kayaking Team” – whichaims to “maintain the wonderful nature of theparticularly beautiful bay of Tanoura, for futuregenerations” 5 and has been blockingconstruction of the Kaminoseki plant byChugoku Electric Power, by using their kayaks,alongside Iwaishima residents doing the samewith their fishing boats. Over the years theconstruction site has been a locale of intenseconflict between Chugoku Electric Power andthe Iwaishima residents and their supporters. In this situation, Chugoku Electric Power hadgreat difficulty starting construction, and whenit finally began in 2010, the company facedintense protest from the islanders and theKayaking team.

Protest against Chugoku Electric by theislanders

S o u r c e(http://ameblo.jp/nijinokayaker/image-10806364449-11059921034.html).

On February 21, 2011 construction to fill inTanoura Bay for the plant finally restarted. But

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

5

on March 11, the Tohoku Earthquake occurred,resulting in the massive accident at theFukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. OnMarch 15, Chugoku Electric halted work on theKaminoseki plant after the governor ofYamaguchi Prefecture, Nii Sekinari, asked thecompany to stop construction. Construction hasnot resumed since then, although ChugokuElectric Company still maintains its stance toproceed with the project.

“The Other Side” of the KaminosekiDebate

I became interested in the Kaminoseki issueduring five years of research on anti-feministmovements in Japan. In the course of research,a small local paper, Nihon Jiji Hyōron (JapanCurrent Review; hereafter Jiji Hyōron), based inYamaguchi City, caught my attention for itsextensive critique of feminism. This localnewspaper, usually about eight pages long, ispublished every two weeks. The paper’s officialsubscription is 30,000, and despite its focus onlocal content, Jiji Hyōron is distributed widelythroughout Japan, especially to conservativepoliticians. When I started my interviews withemployees of the paper – primarily its editor-in-chief, Yamaguchi Toshiaki – I was diverted fromthe issues I had assumed were primary tothem, as I came to realize that they consideredthe construction of the Kaminoseki plant to bethe top priority, along with keeping the U.S.base in Iwakuni. Indeed, Yamaguchi’s “life’swork” is to promote construction of theKaminoseki plant, which he firmly believes “willbenefit the local community, and the prefectureof Yamaguchi where I grew up, where Icontinue to reside, and which I love deeply,”and “also meets Japan’s national interests.” Hehas been covering issues related to theKaminoseki construction and nuclear energyfor the past 30 years, ever since he began hiscareer as a journalist, and he has also been anactivist on the issue. During repeated visits toYamaguchi prefecture, I tried to listen to hisstories.

Virtually every issue of this small newspapercontains articles in support of nuclear energyand the construction of the plant. This supporthas continued in the wake of Fukushima. Aswith other supporters of nuclear power, JijiHyōron points out its advantages as a means tocontrol global warming and energy security,along with its economic benefits for the localeconomy. Japan is without natural resourcesthat can provide a constant, reliable energysource, and its self-sufficiency rate for energyis only 4%. The paper argues that “this fact,combined with environmental concerns – suchas global warming – makes nuclear powerplants necessary.” Like many nuclear energyproponents, Jiji Hyōron also is extremelypositive about technology – they have devotedmajor coverage to the “dream” plan (which hasnot been working) of the fast breeder reactorMonju, and the development of nuclear fusionreactors. The production of high-levelradioactive waste is considered to be necessaryand the paper describes how NUMO (NuclearWaste Management Organization of Japan), thegovernment-approved body whose task is todetermine final disposal of high-levelradioactive waste, has been looking for landfillsites since 2002.6 The safety of nuclear powerplants and the superiority of nucleartechnology in Japan, despite frequentearthquakes, were stressed repeatedly in thepre-3/11 coverage of the paper.

An argument that particularly stands out is theclaim that “the plant is the means to finallystart building a real community for Kaminosekiresidents”: the town’s population hasdecreased by half in the past thirty years (in1980, there were 6,773 residents, and therewere 3,332 residents in 2010.) The percentageof elderly over 64 years old is 49.4%, thehighest in the prefecture, and the average ageof residents is 74. The demographic shift to thecities and abandonment of rural areas is aserious issue in this town, as in most ruralareas throughout Japan.

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

6

An interview with Kaminoseki MayorKashiwabara Shigemi in the January 2009 issueof Jiji Hyōron highlights the controversy.Explaining how divided the town has been overthe nuclear power plant, he goes on to expresshis deep appreciation for the grant-in-aid worth2.5 billion yen ($30 million) from the nationalgovernment, as well as money from theChugoku Electric Power Co. This financialsupport has enabled the town to deal with aserious fiscal crisis. With the construction of anew plant, the mayor believes it will finally bepossible to develop the community. To build a“flowering ocean town” (hana saku umi nomachi) is his goal, “with cable TV in all homes,buses for the elderly and disabled, publicly-operated resort centers (hoyōjo), a newmunicipal building,” and so on. He would liketo have more tourists, and to buy the manyempty houses in the town and replace themwith public housing. He states “I want to bringback vitality, promote local food, and empowerthe local economy by using the power plant.” (Jiji Hyōron, Jan 19, 2009)

The town’s own source of revenue – local taxes–is only two to three hundred million yen, lessthan one-tenth of total revenue. This placessevere limits on any attempt to construct orimprove public facilities and infrastructure. Infact, one-fourth of the town’s revenue, 1.1billion yen, comes from the grant-in-aid for thisfiscal year, and the town has also beenreceiving large sums from Chugoku Electricsince 2007.7 A new hot spa facility will open inDecember 2011, and two other facilities areplanned, spending over 1 billion yen of thegrant-in-aid. The building plans have beencriticized by the opposition as so-called“hakomono” (public work projects) politics, andthe town’s financial future - in terms ofoperating costs - is in limbo as the nationalpolicy on building new power plants has beencalled into question since the Fukushimadisaster, hence the future of the grant-in-aid isalso in danger. With the grant-in-aid, the townintroduced bus subsidies for senior citizens as

well as free medical care for the residents. Italso distributes shopping coupons worth 20,000yen per resident, by using 7.4 million yen fromthe Chugoku Electric contribution. Significantportion of the grant-in-aid is also used for thePR purposes of nuclear power plants.8

The power plant has been the major issue inthe town’s mayoral and assembly elections forthree decades. Supporters of the plant havewon the past nine mayoral elections, mostrecently the mayoral election held onSeptember 25, 2011, as well as the past sevenassembly elections. Supporters thus argue thatit is the democratic will of the people to buildthe plant, while recognizing how deeply thetown is divided and how human relationsremain broken in the community because of thepower plant. In addition, the paper viewsnuclear power as a national policy issue.Japan’s national interest is at stake, and it isimportant to spread Japan’s superior,earthquake-resistant nuclear technology – forpeaceful purposes – to developing nations.Using this same line of argument, theycharacterize the opposition as consisting ofselfish people who are not thinking of theinterests of their own community, and of Japanas a nation.

The election results, however, have beencontroversial at times. For example, in thetown mayoral election of 1987, 155 people ofthe pro-nuclear power camp suddenlyregistered as residents of Kaminoseki Townjust in time to be eligible to vote. Seven peoplewere judged guilty and later convicted ofirregularities. Oppositional citizens’ groups andmedia have reported numerous cases of briberyat town elections.9 According to photographerNasu Keiko, Chugoku Electric spent anextraordinary amount of money for entertainingtown officials, business owners and powerfulresidents of the town, and held frequent toursto the existing nuclear power plants.10

Recently, Jiji Hyōron has claimed that the main

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

7

force within the opposition has shifted fromlocal residents to outsiders, and that outsidersare committing illegal acts. The paper stylesthem as “gangs” who commit “terroristactions.” Jiji Hyōron argues that the residentsof Iwaishima, along with self-proclaimed“environmentalists” – i.e. outside activists suchas the “Rainbow Kayaking Team,” are blockingthe construction of the plant illegally andcreating a nuisance. The same criticism ofoutsiders coming into town to engage in anti-nuclear plant activities is seen in leaflets andsigns made by a residents’ organizationsupporting the plant.

Sign posted in the town of Kaminoseki,s tat ing “Those who obstruct theconstruction of the nuclear power plant,don’t come to the Town of Kaminoseki!The majority of town residents want theconstruction. Despite this, do you stillobstruct it?” Photo from a proponentorganizat ion , Kaminoseki TownDevelopment Council /KaminosekiMachizukuri Renraku Kyogikai. Source(http://kaminoseki.jp/2011/06/1789/).11

The paper also criticizes the police and CoastGuard for doing nothing to stop the protests. Editor-in-chief Yamaguchi told me that thestrategies of the opposition are problematic,because “in Iwaishima, where ninety percent ofthe residents are said to be the opposition,there is pressure on the ten percent

supporters, as well as those who occupy themiddle-ground, which keeps them fromexpressing their opinions freely.”

Hearing Mr. Yamaguchi’s stories, I could nothelp thinking of the Iwaishima residents’claims, available both in the films and on theinternet that the proponents acted unfairly. That is, both sides seem to have similarcomplaints about the other, illustrating theintense emotions that have built up during 30years of conflict that has divided the localcommunity.

Jiji Hyōron has also been extremely critical ofreports on the Kaminoseki controversy in themass media. To Yamaguchi (in contrast toopponents of nuclear power, who may think theopposite), the media reports lean too muchtoward the opposition. For him, the films onIwaishima – such as Ashes to Honey and Hourino Shima – are propaganda representingoutsiders’ opinions. He found the beautifulimages of “nature” in those films to bemanipulative tools of the opposition. “Nature”can be beautiful, he told me, but at the sametime, it is dangerous – which is the painfulreality that we all faced when we saw thetsunami on March 11. He insists that “humanshave to live in harmony with it.”

Ashes to Honey reported on Iwaishima’s plan toachieve energy self-sufficiency without nuclearpower. Yamaguchi’s response was that the planmight be interesting, yet he sees the keypurpose of advocacy of natural energy to be apolitical one: to stop the Kaminoseki plan,rather than to promote environmentalconcerns. He sees “nature” as a tool used bythe opposition, without offering a substantiveexplanation of their own beliefs. He also posesa major question: if sustainable natural energycould be made feasible on that tiny island with500 residents, would it misleadingly convincepeople that the entire town of Kaminoseki, andJapan as a whole, could be supported in thatway? The question of feasible alternatives to

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

8

nuclear power is now being posed withincreasing urgency in post-Fukushima Japan.

The Kaminoseki issue after 3/11

Since March 11, a number of arguments insupport of the plant – on the prosperity ofcommunities with a power plant, on the safetyof Japan’s advanced nuclear technology – havelost credibility for many people. While theconstruction of Kaminoseki was halted onMarch 15 due to inquiries by the Town ofKaminoseki and Yamaguchi Prefecture,Chugoku Electric has continued digging andexploration. But the governor of Yamaguchiprefecture stated in the prefectural assemblymeeting on June 27 that he would not approvean extension of Chugoku Electric’s seareclamation permit at present on the groundsthat the national governmental policy onnuclear energy and the safety measures fornuclear power plants have not yet beenpresented.

Likewise, Mayor Kashiwabara of Kaminosekisaid in the assembly on June 21 that the plan toconstruct the Kaminoseki nuclear power plantmight face extreme difficulty as the nationalgovernment is reexamining its nuclear energypolicy, and he has to consider how to developthe town without a power plant, given that thefuture of financial resources for nuclear energyremains unclear.12 Moreover, some localassemblies in surrounding cities and towns arepetitioning to halt construction of theKaminoseki plant, the first being the city ofShunan passed unanimously on May 27. Eightsurrounding cities within a 30km radius of theplanned Kaminoseki plant site followed in theirfootsteps, including Yanai, which is within 20km of the plant and was to receive governmentaid for its construction.

I met again with editor-in-chief Yamaguchi ofJiji Hyōron in late June of this year. Heexpressed surprise over the Fukushimaaccident: he had expected the problemsresulting from the accident to be resolved

much sooner. It was already obvious from itscoverage that Jiji Hyōron has been criticized byreaders for its continued promotion ofconstruction. He admitted that the situationhas been stressful. Some readers criticized JijiHyōron and canceled their subscription. In aparticular instance of bad timing, at the time ofthe Fukushima Daiichi accident, the paper wasrunning a special series hailing the Kaminosekiplant and nuclear energy.

I could see from his writings that Yamaguchi,who has been the main reporter for the paperdealing with the power plant, is deeplyfrustrated. He characterizes the ongoingsituation as an “overly emotional reaction” bythe Japanese public and the media, and arguesfor the necessity of propagating “correct”information in order to avoid panic. The paperexplains that the unexpected scale of thetsunami, not the earthquake, was the reasonfor the Fukushima accident, and the basicmethod of controlling nuclear hazards remainsthe same.13 It also claims that no serious harmto human health as a result of radiation hasbeen reported so far.14 Jiji Hyōron asks,“Nuclear technology contributes to theadvancement of our businesses, industries,medicine, lives, among others, and we shoulduse this accident as a lesson and a challenge topursue further technological innovations. Isn’tthis Japan’s way to contribute to the world?”

Yamaguchi admits that the present situation isextremely difficult for promoters of theKaminoseki plant – and for supporters ofnuclear energy in general. He anticipates thatmore nearby cities and towns may issuestatements against the plant. When asked towrite articles or conduct interviews, somespecialists who have supported nuclear energynow avoid doing so because they know they willbe harshly criticized.

The newspaper has received phone calls frompeople who report seeing the fi lms onIwaishima. Yamaguchi seeks to engage them in

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

9

conversation, and says that many know littleabout the situation beyond what has beencovered in the films. The films – and thepresence of outsiders in the protest movement– have also added complexity to the humanrelations, he said. Before the films and otherpublic attention to the Kaminoseki issue,Yamaguchi could at least talk to a few of theprotesters at Iwaishima. Despite differentstances toward the power plant, they at leastshared the overriding goal of revitalizing theirlocal community. Now, with outside activistscoming in, it has become even more difficult tohold discussions within the local community.

Furthermore, Yamaguchi wonders how muchopponents from outside understand the realityof Iwaishima and Kaminoseki. He describedthe rapid aging and the unwillingness of youngpeople to live and work on the island. Imentioned the many empty houses inIwaishima, and he said there are many emptyhouses in other parts of Kaminoseki town, too.

An empty house in Iwaishima (photo by theauthor).

Iwaishima, however, faces with the mostserious lack of young people, because of itsgeography as an isolated, hilly island. Whenvisiting the island, I also noticed that due to the

hills and narrow roads, cars cannot go near thehouses. With the rapid aging of residents, thelack of revenue is extremely pressing, and theisland still lacks basic infrastructure. Forexample, many of the elderly live alone inhouses without flush toilets.15 The depopulationof Iwaishima, Yamaguchi repeated, is muchmore serious than in other parts of Kaminoseki,but the entire area is struggling.

Narrow road in hilly Iwaishima (photo by theauthor).

Yamaguchi continued that people who wereforced into extreme economic hardship werecommitting suicide in Fukushima even as wespoke. In contrast, he said, nobody had yet diedfrom the radiation leaked from the FukushimaDaiichi plant. What should we do to resolve theissue that exists right in front of us, now? Hethinks that nuclear energy is only a temporaryand partial solution, and that other methods

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

10

using advanced technology need to bedeveloped. Yet the question is what we can andshould do now. The promoters of nuclear powerplants have been accused of promoting theplants out of a desire for money. Money isundeniably necessary, especially in acommunity facing such a serious lack ofrevenue. It is, however, also true that despitelack of revenue and young people willing to livein the island, the vast majority of the Iwaishimaresidents continue to oppose construction ofthe Kaminoseki plant, and for them, Yamaguchimight be considered the outsider. He thinks,however, that given the serious lack of taxrevenue, it is likely that more people are badlyin need o f and would l ike to rece ivecompensation money for accepting the plant,but dare not openly say so because ofcommunity pressure. 1 6

Thinking About Nuclear Energy Throughthe Lens of the Kaminoseki Controversy

The irony for Yamaguchi is that he has longtried, both as a journalist and as an activist, toconvey to Japan’s urban majority the resourcedifferential that exists between the urban andthe rural populations, which is referred to as“chiiki kakusa”.17 The urban majority is locatedfar from nuclear plants while using largequantities of nuclear power. Now, finally, withthe Fukushima disaster, urban residents havebecome aware of crushing rural poverty,though only dimly. “Thirty years was too long,and everyone wants to have the issueresolved,” Yamaguchi said. Yet, even if thepower plant is not constructed, he would like tohave a “soft landing.” I asked him what hemeant by “soft landing.” His answer was that ifthe power plant is not constructed, thereshould be alternative measures to reconstructthe local economy and community. He wouldlike everyone to understand the reality of thelocal “ricchi” (construction site) community. Not building the plant cannot be the last word.Future discussion has to lead to alternativepolicies to shape the rural areas, and the

responsibility should not be limited to the localgovernment and residents.

Since March 11, the nuclear power debate hassharpened. Yamaguchi and other proponents ofnuclear power insist that it is essential forJapan’s production of electricity and to remaincompetitive with other nations in nucleartechnology. Unlike many other conservativeproponents of nuclear energy who view Japan’snuclear energy program as a stepping stonetoward production of nuclear weapons, hedifferentiates atomic weapons and nuclearenergy.18 But what is most distinctive is the factthat he highlights the harsh reality of ruralcommunities, and this has been mostpersuasive for a struggling rural region locatednot far from Hiroshima. At least until March 11.

The power plant, as well as the socio-economicstructure in which s truggl ing rura lcommunities are left without the resources thatwould allow them to share in the nationalaffluence, is at the heart of long-lasting, seriousconflicts between urban and rural society.While it may be easy for opponents of nuclearenergy – especially urbanites living far awayfrom the plant sites – to criticize claims madeby supporters, it seems crucial to keep in mindthe harsh reality faced by local residents of theplant sites. The critics of nuclear energy–especially those who are outside of ricchi -have the responsibility to seriously consider thequestion of the economic hardship facing ruralcommunities, and the growing urban-ruralgap. Lack of revenues and basic infrastructurealways come up as reasons for siting a powerplant by proponents including the governmentand industry. Once a community starts toaccept grants-in-aid and donations, it becomesmore and more diff icult for it to seekalternative ways to be independent from suchsources. The case of Kaminoseki with the newhot spring facility illustrates the problem;without the aid and donations, it becomesdifficult to continue operation of the facility. Addressing the issue of economic hardship,

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

11

lack of infrastructures as well as suggestingalternatives to nuclear-related funds providestrategies for resist ing threats fromgovernment and industry about thedeprivations an antinuclear policy would bring.The issue also brings up profound questions ofequitable tax burdens, economic growth,environmental health, the right to a decentlivelihood, and power differentials between theurban and the rural. And most especially, whatare we citizens willing to do to create a societythat effectively addresses such inequities?

Postscript: After the Kaminoseki MayoralElection of September 25, 2011

On September 25, 2011, the Kaminosekimayoral election was held, and the incumbent,Mayor Kashiwabara Shigemi who hassupported the power plant construction,defeated the opposition candidate, YamatoSadao of Iwaishima, the leader of the anti-Kaminoseki plant movement. The electionattracted nationwide attention as the firstelection at a new construction site (ricchi) sincethe Fukushima Daiichi accident. MayorKashiwabara won for the third time. With67.4% (1,868 votes) of the votes, he had twicethe total of his opponent, Yamato Sadao (905votes). Kashiwabara won 0.6% more votes thanin the previous election as 87.55% of voterscast ballots.

Mayor Kashiwabara with supporters afterh i s e l e c t i o n S o u r c e(http://mainichi.jp/select/seiji/news/20110926k0000m010110000c.html).

I asked Mr.Yamaguchi immediately after theelection for his thoughts. He said, “I think wehave to bring an end to the unproductivedebate between promoters and opponents, ornuclear power and alternative energy (such assolar). We should begin realistic multi-dimensional discussion of the larger picture ofenergy supply, as well as our energy policy as awhole.” He continued, “in Japan, the structureof electricity supply is currently, ‘30% nuclearenergy , 60% thermal , 8% hydro , 1%geothermal and alternative sources, and 1%other.’” Looking ahead to 2030, he went on,“we should keep the percentage of nuclearenergy as it is, while “renewable energy(including hydro) supplies 20%, nuclear energy30%, thermal 40% as well as 10% from energyconservation.” He concludes, “going beyondthe current divisions and getting knowledge tothe people of Japan is the key for Japan afterthe earthquake.” His view, favoring continueddependence on nuclear energy for a substantialportion of Japan’s energy, is at odds withrecent opinion polls, and the direction chartedby former Prime Minister Kan Naoto calling forsharp increase in renewables and reduction ofnuclear power, although the direction remainsunclear under his successor Noda Yoshihiko. Inaddition, serious questions remain whether thetechnological “knowledge” that Yamaguchirepeatedly highlights can guarantee the safetyof nuclear power, above all in the world’s mostearthquake-prone nation.

The result of the mayoral election demonstrateshow difficult it is for anti-nuclear forces to winan election in Kaminoseki and perhaps in manyother struggling rural communities, even atthis moment when the Fukushima DaiichiPower Plant’s accident is ongoing and publicopinion polls reveal the surge in anti-nuclear

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

12

power sentiment.19 In blogs and twitter, Iobserved many posts expressing shock andsurprise from the opposition to the electionresult, and criticisms of the activism andcampaign tactics from both proponents andopponents of nuclear power.20 Among thecrit ic isms, the opposit ion was againcharacterized as “outsiders” and “professionalactivists” as well. This line of critique iscommon to anti-nuclear energy movement inlocal communities, and it became even morevisible following the surge of anti-nucleardemonstrations.21 Especially regarding nuclearenergy and power plants, however, it is difficult– and likely impossible – to draw a clear linebetween “insiders” and “outsiders,” given thewide range of radiation effects once anaccident occurs.22 The residents of the town ofKaminoseki are obviously not the only ones whowould be subject to radiation exposure, if amajor accident were to occur. The proponents,such as the Kaminoseki Town DevelopmentCouncil (Kaminoseki Machizukuri RenrakuKyōgikai), also interpret the election result as asign of residents’ will to have an experiencedmayor in difficult times, and they endorseMayor Kashiwabara’s statement highlightingthe difficulty of operating the town’s policiesand finances without the government’s grant-in-aid for the Kaminoseki plant.

Media reports on the election, however, revealthat Mayor Kashiwabara’s campaign did notrest exclusively on the pledge to build theKaminoseki plant. Kashiwabara, whilesupported by seven pro-nuclear organizations,did not change his long-term stance as aproponent of nuclear power. In this campaign,however, he rarely expressed support for theplant’s construction.23 Indeed, he expressedwillingness to work on alternative plans in theevent the power plant is not built due tochanges in national policy in the wake ofFukushima. As of September 2011, all but 11 ofJapan’s 54 nuclear power plants are closedpending stressed tests, and while thegovernment has expressed willingness to

restart the closed plants, the prospect is stillunclear in the face of powerful opposition.24 Allthe more, the plan to build 14 new nuclearpower plants is up in the air after theFukushima Daiichi accident, and PrimeMinister Noda stated in a press conference thatit is realistically difficult to build new powerplants.25 Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports thateven one of the leading proponents ofKaminoseki said, “I know that there will be nonew nuclear power plant in this situation.”

The result of the recent Kaminoseki mayoralelection has forced those in the opposition toreconsider how to build their movement againstnuclear energy in s truggl ing r icchi(construction site) communities that have longrelied on grants-in-aid and donations fromelectric corporations. It also posed a majorquestion for all of us – both promoters andopponents, the residents of the town and thosewho live outside of the ricchi. How are we tolook beyond divisions over nuclear power toconsider both the broader parameters ofJapan’s energy policy and the future ofKaminoseki and all other struggling ruralcommunities, particularly those that have longdepended on funding from the nuclear powercompanies and their supporters in government?

Tomomi Yamaguchi is an assistant professor ofAnthropology at Montana State University. Herrecent publications are “The Fukushima DaiichiAccident and Conservatives’ Discourse aboutNuclear Energy and Weapons in Japan,”Anthropology News (October 2011), “The Penand the Sword: Ethical Issues SurroundingResearch on Pro-war Right-Wingers in Japan,”Critical Asian Studies, Vol.42, No.3, August2010. Her co-authored book in Japanese (withOgiue Chiki and Saito Masami), Feminism and“Backlash” (provisional title) is forthcoming in2012. Her current research project involvesnationalism, racism and xenophobia incontemporary Japan, particularly on the

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

13

“Conservatives in Action” movement.

I would like to express my special thanks to theeditor-in-chief of Jiji Hyōron, YamaguchiToshiaki for spending time and sharing hisstories and insights with me, despite ourdifferent stances toward nuclear energy. Iwould also like to thank Norma Field, BethanyGrenald, Yuki Miyamoto and Mark Selden fortheir comments and suggestions on this article.

Recommended citation: Tomomi Yamaguchi,'The Kaminoseki Nuclear Power Plant:Community Conflicts and the Future of Japan’sRural Periphery,' The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9,Issue 41 No 3, October 10, 2011.

Articles on related subjects

• Jeff Kingston, Ousting Kan Naoto: The Politicsof Nuclear Crisis and Renewable Energy inJapan (https://apjjf.org/-Jeff-Kingston/3610)

• Chris Busby and Mark Selden, FukushimaC h i l d r e n a t R i s k o f H e a r t D i s e a s e(https://apjjf .org/-Mark-Selden/3609)

• Hirose Takashi, Japan’s Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Disaster Syndrome: An UnprecedentedF o r m o f C a t a s t r o p h e(https://apjjf .org/-Hirose-Takashi/3606)

• Winifred A. Bird and Elizabeth Grossman,Chemical Contamination, Cleanup andLongterm Consequences of Japan’s Earthquakea n d T s u n a m i(https://apjjf .org/-Winifred-Bird/3588)

• Kodama Tatsuhiko, Radiation Effects onHealth: Protect the Children of Fukushima(https://apjjf.org/-Kodama-Tatsuhiko/3587)

• David McNeill and Jake Adelstein, Whath a p p e n e d a t F u k u s h i m a ?(https://apjjf .org/-Jake-Adelstein/3585)

• Koide Hiroaki, The Truth About Nuclear

Power: Japanese Nuclear Engineer Calls forAbolition (https://apjjf.org/-Koide-Hiroaki/3582)

• Chris Busby, Norimatsu Satoko andNarusawa Muneo, Fukushima is Worse thanChernobyl – on Global Contamination(https://apjjf.org/site_manage/details/japanfocus.org/-Chris-Busby/3563)

• Yuki Tanaka and Peter Kuznick, Japan, theAtomic Bomb, and the "Peaceful Uses ofN u c l e a r P o w e r "(https://apjjf .org/-Yuki-TANAKA/3521)

• Paul Jobin, Dying for TEPCO? Fukushima’sN u c l e a r C o n t r a c t W o r k e r s(https://apjjf .org/-Paul-Jobin/3523)

• Say-Peace Project and Norimatsu Satoko,Protecting Children Against Radiation:Japanese Citizens Take Radiation Protectioni n t o T h e i r O w n H a n d s(https://apjjf.org/-Say_Peace-Project/3549)

See other articles on Fukushima in the What'sHot (https://apjjf.org/events) section of theAsia-Pacific Journal and a complete list(https://apjjf.org/Japans-3.11-Earthquake-Tsunami-Atomic-Meltdown) of articles on 3.11Earthquake, Tsunami and Atomic Meltdown.

Notes

1 See Norma Field “The Symposium andBeyond” for more information on thes y m p o s i u m ( l i n k(http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/atomicage/2011/05/27/the-symposium-and-beyond/)). A videoon the symposium is also available via theA t o m i c A g e b l o g(http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/atomicage/).

2 The trailer in English of Ashes to Honey canb e v i e w e d h e r e(http://888earth.net/en/trailer.html).

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

14

3 S e e K a m a n a k a H i t o m i( h t t p s : / / a p j j f . o r g / - N o r m a - F i e l d / 3 5 2 4 )(Introduced and translated by Norma Field),“Complicity and Victimhood: DirectorKamanaka Hitomi’s Nuclear Warnings,” andKamanaka Hitomi, Tsuchimoto Noriaki andN o r m a F i e l d(https://apjjf.org/-Kamanaka-Hitomi/2614),“Rokkasho, Minamata and Japan’s Future:Capturing Humanity on Film”, for moreinformation on Kamanaka’s works.

4 In contrast, Rokkasho Rhapsody by KamanakaHitomi includes interviews with supporters ofthe Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant in Aomoriprefecture while also describing the often tenseinteractions and the feelings of isolation ofthose who continue to oppose the plant (whichhas already been constructed) within thecommunity.

5 The Rainbow Kayaking Team explains theira c t i v i t y i n t h e i r b l o g(http://ameblo.jp/nijinokayaker/) (in Japanese)

6 See Pomper, Dalnoki-Veress, Lieggi andScheinmann “Nuclear Power and Spent Fuel inEast Asia: Balancing Energy, Politics andN u c l e a r P r o l i f e r a t i o n(https://apjjf.org/-Stephanie-Lieggi/3376)”concerning the problem of spent fuel andreprocessing.

7 Jiji.com 9/25/2011”The Grant-in-aid fornuclear power plants consists of one-fourth ofthe town’s budget – Kaminoseki-cho ofYamaguchi prefecture under difficult financialoperation.”

8 Chugoku Shimbun 10/1/2011 “The Grant-in-aid for the Town of Kaminoseki – Asking thesame amount as before.”

9 Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center’snewsletter Vol. 425 (11/1/2009) has a timelineon the Kaminoseki controversy, and indicatest h e 1 9 8 7 c a s e . L i n k(http://cnic.jp/modules/news/article.php?storyid=850).

Chōshū Shimbun, a leftist /communist(independent of the JCP) paper that takes anoppositional stance to the Kaminoseki plant,also writes in detail about past briberyincidents in the town of Kaminoseki byChugoku Electric. 5/15/2003 “The Frameworkof Bribery by Chugoku Electric.”

1 0 Nasu Keiko. Chūden-san Sayonara:Yamaguchi-ken Iwaishima Genpatsu to TatakauShimabito no Kiroku (Good-Bye, Chuden-san:The Record of Islanders Figting Against aNuclear Power Plant in Iwaishima). Tokyo:Soshisha, 2007 :35-37

1 1 A l e a f l e t(http://kaminoseki.jp/chirashi/6/110307町連協チラシ.pdf)by Kaminosekicho MachizukuriRenraku Kyogikai, criticizing outsiders comingto protest against the plant’s construction, isalso posted in the organization’s blog.

1 2 A s a h i S h i m b u n(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3517),“Thirty-Years of Conflicts: Kaminoseki at theCrossroad.” 6/28/2011. Also see McCormack“Hubris Punished: Japan as Nuclear State(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3517).”

13 See Adelstein and McNeill for criticism of theview that the tsunami caused the accident.They quote TEPCO workers saying that theearthquake caused significant damage to thepipes and gas tanks prior to the tsunami. Link(https://apjjf.org/-Jake-Adelstein/3585).

1 4 B u s b y a n d S e l d e n

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

15

(h t tps : / / ap j j f . o rg / -Mark -Se lden /3609) ,“Fukushima Children at Risk of Heart Disease”note that while cancer and leukemia are usuallyreferred to as the medical consequences ofradiation, high rates of heart disease amongchildren, as well as immediate effects such asbrain damage and birth defects, occurredamong Chernobyl children. Kyodo News hasreported thyroid gland irregularities in 10 of130 children evacuated from Fukushima. See“Thyroid gland irregularities found in younge v a c u e e s f r o m F u k u s h i m a , ”(http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111004p2g00m0dm116000c.html) MainichiShimbun October 4, 2011.

15 According to Yamaguchi, thanks to the verymodest national pension that many of theelderly residents of Iwaishima receive, they cansurvive – though barely . The lack ofinfrastructure is extremely serious, particularlywith the rapidly aging population.

16 See Oguma, Eiji. “The Hidden Faces ofDiaster: 3.11, the Historical Structure andFuture of Japan’s Northeast” for the similarissues of population decline and economics t r u c t u r e i n T o h o k u(https://apjjf .org/-Oguma-Eiji /3583).

17 Jiji Hyōron is distributed beyond Yamaguchiprefecture, especially to conservativepoliticians. After March 11, Jiji Hyōronpublished a theme issue on nuclear energy as abooklet, Yūsen. Yamaguchi also contributesarticles in other conservative publications.

18 An interesting example of the intentionaldissociation between nuclear weapons andnuclear energy is the use by Yamaguchi andother Kaminoseki proponents of the term,“genden,” rather than “genpatsu,” for nuclearpower plants. Yamaguchi Governor NiiSekinari, also used the term, “genden,” untilAugust this year, when he announced that he

would use the common term “genpatsu.”(Yamaguchi Shimbun, 8/2/2011) According toYamaguchi, one reason for the avoidance of theterm, “genpatsu,” is that it sounds like“genbaku,” the atomic bomb.

1 9 S e e J e f f K i n g s t o n(https://apjjf.org/-Jeff-Kingston/3610) on thedecline of the Japanese public’s support onnuclear energy and the rising support for apolicy to phase out nuclear energy with a goalto abandon it.

2 0 For example , Chōshū Sh imbun , aShimonoseki-based leftist paper in oppositionto the Kaminoseki plant, criticized theopposition candidate’s campaign strategy.Chōshū Shimbun, “The result does not meanvictory for the proponents.” 9/26/2011 Ontwitter, freelance journalist, Ishii Takaakicriticized outsiders’ interference in localpolitics as the major reason why the oppositioncould not gain significant support, even at thisp a r t i c u l a r e l e c t i o n . L i n k(http://togetter.com/li/193255).

21 For example, Ishihara Nobuteru of LDPcalled the anti-nuclear activists of Iwaishima as“outsiders” and “Chukaku-ha”, adding that theanti-nuclear rally of June 11 in Shinjuku wasled by “professional activists” of various sects.Mainichi Shimbun (Kyushu local coverage)“Yamaguchi, Kaminoseki Plant ConstructionPlan: Ishihara ‘Impossible to construct for thenext 10 years,’ ‘The opposition movement isanarchist.’” 6/19/2011

22 For the spread of radiation related to theaccidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima, seeB u s b y a n d S e l d e n(h t tps : / / ap j j f . o rg / -Mark -Se lden /3609) ,“Fukushima Children at the Risk of HeartDisease.” Selden points out that radiation is notnecessarily limited to concentric circles or

APJ | JF 9 | 41 | 3

16

evacuation zones defined by the state, and mayeasily transcend national borders through theair and water.

23 Nihon Keizai Shimbun “Kaminoseki, A stepforward for united town development efforts:Overwhelming victory for Kashiwabara.”9/27/2011; Chōshū Shimbun “The result is notvictory for the proponents.” 9/26/2011

24 Asahi Shimbun “Minister of National Strategymoving forward with the resumption of nuclearpower plants” 10/1/2011

25 Jiji.com “High hurdle for constructing newnuclear power plants: even with electionvictory by the proponents.” 9/25/2011