（Scroll down and find original text in Chinese）
Foreword
On August 24, 2023, the nation with a flag of "red sun on a white background" officially announced that it would be releasing "treated nuclear wastewater" into the sea.
Its East Asian neighbours were disgruntled.
Notably, the "big brother", often referred to as the "Red Five Star," took a strong stance against this move, believing that this initiative could pose a threat to the "security of all mankind". Consequently, it declared a complete suspension of all aquatic product imports from the country in question.
In a show of solidarity, the "Red and Blue Stars," closely affiliated with their influential big brother, adopted a similar stance, thereby underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Another nation, symbolized by the "Taiji Flag," quickly adopted a defensive stance, claiming that the nation in question had adhered to international scientific standards. However, the public remained skeptical and firmly rejected seafood from that nation, concerned about the potential for marine pollution.
On the sidelines, the nation symbolized by the "White Star Moon" took a more cautious approach. Their leaders pondered, "Well... I have the ability to protect my country's people," and the people continued to enjoy their meals without too much worry.
On the far side of the ocean, the "Little Euro" and "Little Ameri" did not seem to take this situation very seriously.
After a month, I have already witnessed numerous analytical articles dealing with "nuclear wastewater", moral condemnation, panic about food safety, and antagonistic actions to sow discord.
It's at this juncture that we should take a moment to reflect on the situation from an anthropological perspective to better understand the context.
After all, twelve years ago, a similar crisis involving risks and trust had gripped the "Land of the Rising Sun."
A little food for thought
In 2011, the world witnessed the devastating Fukushima earthquake, which was swiftly followed by a destructive tsunami and a consequential nuclear leak. Amid these tumultuous events, a young scholar, Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna, then a Harvard student, was immersed in an anthropological exploration of food safety in Japan. Following the culmination of his doctoral journey, Nicolas's scholarly endeavors bore fruit in the form of his monograph, "Food Security after Fukushima: Scientific Citizenship and the Politics of Risk."
This book, upon closer examination, offers insights that can help us analyze the current "nuclear wastewater" issue, particularly in three key areas:
1. A "Risk Society" Unveiled
The Fukushima incident, according to Sternsdorff-Cisterna, stands as a manifestation of what sociologist Beck has coined the "risk society." Unlike natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods, our contemporary society teems with novel risk sources catalyzed by technologies like global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power. This conceptualization underscores the imperative need to recognize risk construction as a practice engendering specific uncertainties, replete with potentially deleterious consequences for "life" in its most expansive sense. It beckons us to ponder the intricate web of uncertainties that modernity has woven.
2. Beyond Nuclear Contamination: Trust Erosion and Social Ramifications
The pernicious effects of these novel risks extend far beyond the realm of nuclear contamination itself. They undermine the delicate fabric of trust binding citizens to the state. Sternsdorff-Cisterna contends that the Fukushima catastrophe served as a catalyst, motivating certain Japanese citizens to acquire scientific literacy, a tool they harnessed to critically scrutinize the state's handling of the crisis. The acquisition of scientific literacy endowed them with the ability to transform their relationship with the state, leading them to conclude that the state was ill-suited to safeguard the populace from the risks of radioactive contamination. This transformation birthed the emergence of the "political subject," whose newfound skills revolutionized the power dynamic between the state and its citizens, as trust eroded and skepticism thrived.
The reverberations of this crisis were not restricted to the realm of trust. The broader social landscape bore the weight of substantial consequences. The public's willingness to accept official information dwindled as trust in government and experts waned. Even entities, individuals, groups, and businesses unrelated to the Fukushima event found themselves caught in the crossfire, suffering both financial and reputational damage as a result of unfounded rumors—a phenomenon aptly described as "fūhyō higai," or damage by rumor.
3. Food Safety: A Nexus of Science and Emotion
Food safety, Sternsdorff-Cisterna delineates, is an intricate terrain, melding the scientific and the emotional in a delicate interplay. In Japan, the notion of safe food extends beyond mere safety, encompassing the concept of "security." "Safety" entails a realm governed by rigorous testing and categorization, based on scientifically established standards—a bastion of objectivity and a system predicated on the rationality and consistency of standards.
In stark contrast, "security" meanders into the subjective sphere, encapsulating the positive emotional responses that individuals attach to food. These two facets of food safety—rational safety and subjective security—intertwine in a complex nexus. A rupture in this balance precipitates a potential breakdown of trust in food safety. The release of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant sowed seeds of skepticism about the science of radiation and its impact on human health. Consequently, some Japanese citizens chose to bypass authoritative discourses, drawing on their own knowledge and forging social networks to procure food aligned with stricter standards than those promulgated by the government and experts. This phenomenon, as elucidated by Sternsdorff-Cisterna, encapsulates the concept of "scientific citizenship," underscoring the agency of individuals in navigating complex terrains of trust and safety.
Back to the real world
Okay, so what does this have to do with the "nuclear wastewater discharge" incident?
In this case, it's all about risk and trust, science and emotion.
In blunt terms, the release of nuclear wastewater poses a novel risk. When the measures for assessing this risk lack credibility, a dangerous rift emerges between science and emotions. With public opinion swayed by unfounded rumors, individuals may react impulsively or adopt a prudent approach as consumers.
Nevertheless, in contrast to the situation a dozen years ago, the current discharges have a more "international" dimension, impacting a broader populace in the region. Simultaneously, the pervasive influence of social media and the increased diversity in information dissemination further compound the complexity of the issue.
Now, I would like to discuss three main questions with you:
How are nuclear risks measured, expressed, and publicised? How do people living in Japan perceive nuclear wastewater incidents and food safety issues? How has social media become a transnational battlefield of science and emotion?
I. Controlling Nuclear Risk: How is Risk Measured, Represented, and Publicised?
Twelve years ago, an important aspect of controlling risk was monitoring cesium levels in food. The standard set by the Japanese government at the beginning of the crisis was that cesium in food should not exceed 500 bq/kg. In contrast, the standards in the European Union and the United States were more lenient, at 1,000 bq/kg versus 1,200 bq/kg. On the other hand, the countries affected by the Chernobyl meltdown had more stringent standards, with Ukraine at 40 bq/kg, Belarus at 37 bq/kg, and Germany at 8 bq/kg. 8 bq/kg. In addition to monitoring, Miroslav Pinak, an official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), noted that "waste generated in Fukushima Prefecture is being collected and stored at the site or at nearby temporary storage sites. The waste will be placed in an interim storage facility developed and operated by the central government. After up to 30 years of temporary storage in the interim storage facility, it will be finally disposed of outside the prefecture."
Risk communication about food safety in the wake of the Fukushima crisis has been a difficult process for the Japanese government. An official from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare pointed out that once food contains radioactive contaminants, there could be health effects. But because the level of irradiation in Japan is so low, it may or may not cause illness, and if it does, it may not appear for years or even decades. This makes it difficult to derive a cause-and-effect relationship for irradiation. "It is therefore difficult for risk communicators to adequately express the threats that people face. They have to explain the nature of the risk and the consequences of its dispersion while avoiding exaggerating the risk and causing panic." (p. 52)
Political campaigns and performance theatre have been used to reduce people's aversion to risk. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) launched a campaign to promote products from the Tohoku region called 食べて応援しよう, in order to encourage people across the country to share responsibility for the recovery of the affected areas. Tasting demonstrations by government officials and supermarkets seemed to show that "Fukushima food is safe to eat".
(JR East helping to promote Fukushima-produced food, taken by the author at Ueno Station, Tokyo 20230914)
The power struggle over naming also plays a pivotal role in risk management. While the majority of national and regional media outlets opted for the term "nuclear wastewater," or even the more alarming "nuclear sewage," to depict the event, the official Japanese terminology adopted a subtler approach, referring to it as "ALPS treated water". This strategy of neutralizing and removing the nuclear connotation from the naming appears to be an attempt to alleviate concerns regarding the discharge and its ecological consequences.
According to the Japanese government, the utilization of ALPS, a "multi-nuclide removal system," has the capacity to reduce the presence of 62 different nuclear substances in the wastewater to levels below international standards, with the exception of tritium. Tritium can be brought down to one-seventh of the WHO drinking water standard by diluting it a hundredfold, aimed at alleviating apprehensions related to this particular isotope.
To quell fears surrounding tritium, Japanese officials have provided comparative figures: the total tritium discharged from Fukushima's nuclear wastewater amounts to 22 megabecquerels per year, which is roughly one-tenth of the annual emissions from China's Qinshan nuclear power plant (218 megabecquerels) and approximately half of the annual emissions from the Devil's Hollow nuclear power plant in the United States (40 megabecquerels). Nevertheless, critics argue that the terms "nuclear disaster wastewater" and "nuclear power plant wastewater" are not equivalent to each other.
These "scientific standards" find endorsement from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA's Office of Press and Public Information issued a notice on the day of the discharge, affirming that following an "impartial, independent, and objective safety review," the IAEA determined that TEPCO's provided data, including "water flow rate, radiation monitoring data, and diluted tritium concentration," met the required international safety standards. The IAEA also committed to conducting ongoing independent corroborative activities throughout the multi-decade discharge process, involving both IAEA laboratories and third-party facilities.
Fast forward twelve years, and the focal point of risk management now centers on monitoring tritium levels in nuclear wastewater. Tritium, characterized by its natural half-life of 12.3 years (meaning that its radiation halves every 12.3 years) and a biological half-life of 7 to 14 days, as well as its excretion in bodily fluids, is deemed to pose low radiological significance to the human body. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to conclude that "treated water, when appropriately diluted, may be safer than drinking water."
Nevertheless, certain skeptical experts contend that instead of fixating solely on the dangers of tritium, greater attention should be directed toward verifying the effective removal of other radioactive elements through the ALPS system. In comparison to tritium, isotopes such as cesium-137 (28.79 years), strontium-90 (29.1 years), carbon-14 (5,730 years), and iodine-129 (1.57×10^7 years) exhibit significantly longer biological half-lives and the potential to persist in the human body's bones, teeth, thyroid gland, and muscles, potentially engendering prolonged and uncontrollable health effects.
II. People living in Japan: What do they think about the nuclear wastewater incident and food safety?
In the following section, I will analyse the nuclear wastewater incident and different views on food safety from the perspectives of food producers, distributors, and consumers. Among them, I will subdivide the category of consumers again according to age, gender, ethnicity, etc., in order to present the diversity of voices.
From the perspective of producers, as a direct stakeholder, fishermen within Fukushima Prefecture showed their strong opposition to the nuclear wastewater. Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) engaged in numerous discussions with the Fukushima Prefecture Fishermen's Association executives. One fisherman, Akira Egawa of the Iwaki City Fisheries Cooperative Society, remained unwavering in his opposition, even after hearing Mr. Nishimura's (Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry) explanation. He expressed concerns about reputational damage and voiced his frustration, stating, "I am against the release. All the people involved are angry. I don't know what the government is thinking." The fishermen emphasized that sustaining their livelihoods for decades is no simple feat and called upon the government to assume full responsibility for the situation. (Fukushima Minpo 20230823)
In terms of distributors, a panel survey conducted by the University of Tokyo and Fukushima University revealed a shift in sentiment compared to four years ago. Fish distributors in major Japanese cities now display a greater willingness to purchase Fukushima-produced seafood, with an increase from 37.6% to 51.9%. Their opposition to wastewater discharge has also diminished significantly, dropping from 66.9% to 28.9%. Concerns about the impact of nuclear wastewater on human health have decreased from 40.4% to 15.8%. Nevertheless, despite this ten-percentage-point reduction, nearly 80% of respondents still believe that wastewater discharges have a "substantial impact" or "some impact" on consumer behavior.
Viewed from consumers, recent polls conducted over the past month indicate that over half of the general public either "approve," "understand," or "accept" the wastewater disposal practice. However, they contend that the government's explanation of the process is "inadequate." Notably, the younger generation exhibits a more favorable attitude toward the discharge. According to the findings from the Social Research and Studies Center, 40% of respondents aged 18-39, 30% of those aged 40-50, and only 20% of those aged 60 or above considered the discharge to be "appropriate."
As for the potential "damage by rumor" on consumer behavior, data from the Iwaki City Fisheries Association in Fukushima Prefecture illustrates that it may not be as severe as perceived by aquatic distribution practitioners. The market situation revealed that the average price per kilogram of halibut, a prominent fish variety, has increased by approximately 10% compared to the previous year. The Prefectural Fisheries and Marine Research Centre summarized that market prices for most fish species have remained relatively stable, and there has been no discernible harm to the prefecture's reputation as a consequence of the wastewater incident. (Fukushima Minpo 20230923)
What do consumers living in Japan actually think?
Middle-aged/Older generations and Mothers The day after the official announcement of the drainage, I asked a Japanese gentleman in his 50s about his attitude and opinion. Our dialogue unfolded against the backdrop of a bustling and popular sushi restaurant in the vibrant district of Asakusa. He began by reassuring me, "There should be no cause for concern with the seafood we're enjoying today," as he expressed confidence in the safety of our culinary selections. However, he went on to express his empathy with the Chinese public.
In response, I posed a question, "So, are you willing to consume food from Fukushima?"
His response was candid and laden with introspection, "No." His gaze drifted momentarily, as if he were summoning a memory from the recesses of his mind. "My nephew used to advocate for Fukushima's culinary offerings," he continued, "He once offered me a taste of their peaches, which, I must admit, were exceptionally sweet. However, I couldn't shake a persistent feeling of 'dissonance' (iwakan) in my heart. Despite the assurances of scientists regarding the safety of Fukushima-produced food, I found myself unable to fully embrace it." This gentleman's contemplations underscore the subtle tension between reason and emotion that often underlies individuals' decision-making processes. Notably, it is a sentiment shared by many older individuals who tend to prioritize their own well-being.
Food safety transcends personal health; it resonates with broader concerns for future generations. This overarching unease was palpable in a poignant account provided by Nicholas in his ethnographic work: "After the earthquake (in 2011), her thirty-three-year-old daughter, Mrs Takao, began to worry about the safety of her four-year-old daughter ...... and took some steps to limit the radiation: she stopped buying mushrooms, which absorb radiation easily . ...She also stopped giving her child milk for about six months ...... and avoided fish ...... She changed her seafood diet, cooking mainly imported salmon from Norway or Chile. Finally, she stopped buying Japanese bottled water and started having Fiji mineral water delivered to her house. ...... At some point, she found herself cooking pasta in imported water and wondering if she had gone too far. Ms Takao explained that she found it difficult to be a concerned mother without being considered obsessed. ...... I (referring to the author) told her that I had met other mothers who were concerned about these perceptions and had secretly taken the Geiger counter to the local park at night to test the grounds and make sure their children could play there safely. She nodded and said she could understand their concerns. It was imperative to be careful and take the measures available to keep their children safe, but it was also necessary to keep things in perspective amidst the clutter of information and choices to avoid turning anti-radiation measures into an obsession. However, this is easier said than done for Ms Takao, who must remind herself not to be too keen on protecting her child from radiation, or at least not to talk about it openly so as not to cause offence to those around her. " (pp. 121-122)
Japan's younger generation When dissected by age, it becomes evident that Japan's younger generation exhibits a notably higher degree of acceptance towards the Fukushima wastewater discharge incident. I vividly recall a conversation with a Japanese woman in her twenties who offered her perspective on this matter. She nonchalantly remarked in Japanese, "いいじゃん、綺麗にしてくれたから," which roughly translates to "It's not so bad, it's all cleaned up already." She went on to inquire about my motivations for discussing this topic, expressing a lack of concern about the safety of Japanese food within her social circle. With a smile, she confidently asserted, "Have you eaten the food from Fukushima? It's really good. All Japanese food is good."
A similar sentiment was echoed by a Korean man in his early thirties, who was born and raised in Japan. He candidly shared, "Honestly, none of us consider it newsworthy. While I don't place blind trust in the government or TEPCO, I do have faith in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their findings are regarded as both independent and authoritative."
However, probably due to my Chinese background, he hesitated momentarily before continuing, "I'm sorry to say this, but in my view, I'm not particularly impressed with products originating from China. American and Australian goods are somewhat less favorable. Japanese food, in my opinion, stands out as the best."
The pride underlying his words serves as a testament to the prevailing perception of food safety among consumers in Japan. It evokes contemplation regarding the nuanced gradations people ascribe to food, distinguishing between what is deemed excellent and inferior. Food, in the eyes of consumers, transcends mere sustenance; it assumes a social and moral significance, with far-reaching consequences.
A comparative lens reveals the contrasting outcomes of two analogous food safety incidents:
In 2013, a Japanese worker tainted frozen food with insecticide, resulting in over 300 cases of poisoning. This incident not only led to the apprehension of the perpetrator but also ignited widespread discourse on the mental well-being of Japanese factory workers and the fairness of their working conditions.
Conversely, in 2007, a Chinese worker injected pesticides into a batch of frozen dumplings following a dispute with his employer. Some of these contaminated food found their way to Japan, causing approximately ten individuals to fall ill after consumption. Shintaro Ishihara, the then-Governor of Tokyo, drew a parallel between this incident and the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The term "food terror" proliferated across various media platforms, ultimately culminating in a life imprisonment sentence for the perpetrator in China.
In this context, the younger generation of Japanese consumers stands out for their pragmatic approach when they embark on their grocery shopping expeditions. The paramount considerations that guide their choices are the taste of the products and their price. "Fukushima food," on one hand, embodies a symbol of national pride and modernity for Japan. Simultaneously, it is positioned as an economically accessible option within the Japanese market. For these young consumers, the concept of "origin" often takes a backseat, or they tend to opt for the finest products available at the most competitive prices while retaining an awareness of the products' origins.
It's worth noting that the government's extensive promotional campaign regarding Fukushima food, spanning over a decade, has likely left an indelible imprint on the collective psyche of these young consumers. These efforts have significantly shaped their perceptions, potentially during their formative years in elementary and junior high school. Foreign Migrants in Japan I reached out to a diverse group of friends hailing from the United States, India, Singapore, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, each with varying lengths of residence in Japan, spanning from six months to a decade. As foreigners and everyday consumers, their perspectives were distinctly non-participatory in protest movements or public demonstrations, and they remained largely unaffected by the "Eat to Support" campaign. Consequently, a predominant inclination among them was to steer clear of Fukushima-sourced food products. Within this group, two discernible archetypes emerged: the "Helpless Sympathizers" and the "Scientific Foreign Citizens".
(1) "Helpless Sympathizers"
Among the foreign migrants community, the "Helpless Sympathizers" voiced sentiments of confusion and resignation. They grappled with feelings of inadequacy, as one individual lamented, "I don't know how to cope. Or is my response effective? Anyway, I'm going back home next year and don't want to think about it that much." In some instances, their friends and family abroad exhibited a noticeable lack of concern, prioritizing fears of natural disasters over radiation risks. "My family in the US didn't even notice, my mother was more worried about the earthquake instead."
A Singaporean resident of Japan for six years portrayed a sense of empathy for Fukushima, rationalizing "radiation" as an inherent facet of a "risk society." She cited the extensive testing conducted on Fukushima's produce and pondered whether the region warranted abandonment akin to Chernobyl. Her perspective underscored the perceived appeal of Fukushima's cuisine while cautiously avoiding explicit support.
"I've seen some older grannies describing the food in Fukushima, they've done a lot of testing ...... Does this place really need to be abandoned like Chernobyl? They need to be rebuilt too. The food is indeed very tasty, I tried eating a fish and it shouldn't be a big problem. There's also radiation from using a mobile phone every day, so a one-time exposure won't cause too much trouble." I questioned closely, "So would you support Fukushima food?" She smiled meaningfully, "I don't resist, but I wouldn't actively support it." A woman from Hong Kong in her twenties shared a relatively laissez-faire attitude, asserting that one's body was a personal matter and that Japanese food should not be excessively stigmatized. She acknowledged her family's concerns while alluding to issues like gutter oil in China to put the Fukushima situation into context.
"My family is very concerned, they often watch mainland news in Hong Kong. But I don't think it's a big deal. After all, I don't plan to have children. Speaking of which, there's a serious problem with gutter oil in China, too."
(2) "Scientific Foreign Citizens"
The "Scientific Foreign Citizens," on the other hand, exemplified a more measured and analytical approach. This approach combined constructive criticism with the quest for knowledge, seeking solace in rationality while expressing frustration.
"The best way to address this is to invite knowledgeable Chinese experts to Japan to monitor the situation firsthand and subsequently publish impartial third-party data." One Chinese friend asserted with righteous indignation at the dinner table, "What else can we do, we can only scold them to vent our emotions on the one hand, and learn more knowledge to make ourselves feel more at ease on the other." Many Chinese interlocutors, despite their reservations about Japan's wastewater disposal, managed to view the situation through a logical lens. They emphasized that it made little sense for Japan to deliberately harm itself and attempted to alleviate excessive concern.
"Please use logic to think about this. The Japanese dumped wastewater in their own sea. Are they not the first to bear the brunt? They're not that stupid to harm themselves. So don't worry too much."
Nonetheless, this pragmatic perspective did not equate to complete indifference. One individual humorously recounted his shock upon learning that Fukushima food is not the most dangerous.
"A friend from Tohoku University recently told me that food from Ibaraki Prefecture has even more radiation than Fukushima. My God, I've been eating it for ten years straight!" He suddenly let out a loud laugh to hide the embarrassment behind his words, and the emotional release seemed to help him detach some of the worry of that moment.
These "Scientific Foreign Citizens" also recognized the need to scrutinize the decision-making process itself to minimize future errors.
"Have you found evidence of the dangers of nuclear wastewater discharges? You can't really talk to a bunch of one-sided people on Weibo. Aren't we supposed to be focusing on the questions, 'Who decides the scientific standards' and 'Why should we trust the decision makers'?"
Moreover, this group possessed insider insights into Japan's food production. They voiced concerns about the safety of Japanese food, with one individual revealing unsettling details about the bento assembly line, which had deterred them from purchasing such items. Furthermore, the cost-driven use of Fukushima-produced ingredients by convenience stores and restaurants led them to be cautious about their dining choices, opting to minimize exposure to these products.
"I don't think Japanese food is that safe either. Do you know how the bento assembly line works in Japan? I have a friend who works there, and after that, I don't dare to buy the whole Familymart bento anymore." He gave a somewhat disgusted look after his words.
"In order to keep costs down, some convenience stores and restaurants use Fukushima-produced food, so I can only try not to buy or eat out."
III. Social Media: A Transnational Battlefield of Science and Emotion?
The announcement that "China fully suspends imports of Japanese seafood" raises questions about its actual impact on the Japanese economy. In reality, the effect appears to be minimal. Japan's global trade is predominantly steered by exports of automobiles and machinery, with seafood contributing to less than 1 percent of this trade. Furthermore, the primary market for Japanese fish remains within the country. It is estimated that a modest increase in seafood consumption by Japanese citizens, equating to approximately 1,300 yen (about $65) per person annually, could potentially offset the loss of export demand from mainland China and Hong Kong. In 2022, this export loss amounted to a total of 160 billion yen (as reported by Fukushima Minyo News, 20230923).
Stefan Angrick, an economist at Moody's Analytics, noted, "The discharge of Fukushima wastewater holds significance primarily on the political and environmental fronts" (BBC, 20230826).
Major mainstream and social media have become the main battleground for assigning this political and environmental significance.
......(to be continued)
嬉皮笑脸前言
2023年8月24日，“白底红日”正式宣布将排放“经过处理的核废水”入海。
此话一出，东亚邻居们不安分了。
“红色五星”大哥毅然决然表示反对，认为这一举措可能对“全人类的安全”构成威胁，宣布全面暂停进口来自霓虹的所有水产品。
“红蓝五星”紧随其后，口吻与大哥如出一辙。
“太极旗”赶忙一幅打哈哈的姿态，表示霓虹有在好好遵守国际科学标准，奈何公众不买其帐，对海鲜和海洋污染连忙摆手say no。
“白星月”在旁仔细琢磨，“嗯……我有能力保护本国民众”，然后老百姓接着乐呵呵地吃。
至于大洋彼岸的小欧和小美，根本就没把这当一回事儿。
时隔一个月，我已经目睹了许多处理“核废水”的分析文章、谴责“排废水”的道德论断、担心食品安全的恐慌情绪、还有挑拨离间的对立行动。
相信是时候来一篇“马后炮”，帮助大家从人类学的视角，理一理来龙去脉了。
毕竟，十二年前，同样的风险与信任危机也曾笼罩着东瀛大地。
来点精神食粮
2011年，福岛地震，随后引发海啸与核泄漏。当时就读哈佛的尼古拉斯·斯特恩斯多夫-西斯特纳 （Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna），正身处日本，对食品安全进行人类学田野调查。博士毕业后，尼古拉斯出版了《福岛之后的食品安全：科学公民和风险政治》一书。
书中的内容，现在细细读来，对分析当下的“核废水”问题也颇有启发，主要包括三点。
其一，尼古拉斯认为，福岛事件是社会学家贝克所言“风险社会”的产物。与地震洪水等自然灾害不同，我们所处的现代社会，充满着全球变暖、转基因生物、核电等技术催化下的新风险来源。“需要将风险（risk）构建理解为一种制造特定不确定性（uncertainty）的实践，这些不确定性可能对最广泛意义上的‘生命’产生有害后果。”（第3页）
其二，新风险带来的损害（damage）远超核污染本身。首先，它破坏了公民与国家之间的信任关系。尼古拉斯认为，“3.11 是一种催化剂，鼓励一些日本人获得科学素养（scientific literacy），他们可以利用这些素养批判性地评估国家对危机的处理方式。科学素养的获得使得政治主体（political subject）的出现成为可能，其技能改变了他或她与国家的关系，并利用这些新知识得出结论：不能依靠国家来保护人民免受放射性污染的风险。”（第5-6页）其次，更广泛意义的社会损害不容小觑。由于对政府和专家的信任受到削弱，民众对官方信息的接受度下降，甚至由于毫无根据的谣言，使与事件不相关的个人/团体/企业受到经济与声誉上的双重打击（“風評被害”fūhyō higai damage by rumor) （第55页）。
其三，食品安全既是一个科学问题，也是一个情感问题。在日本，安全食品（safe food）通常被描述为同时具有安全（anzen, safe）和安心（anshi, secure）两个方面。安全指的是“按照科学制定的标准对产品进行测试和分类的领域“，是一个“客观”、“基于合理性和标准一致性的系统”（第11页）。安心则属于主观的领域，代表着“人们对食物的积极情绪反应”（第12页）。食品安全的这两个相互关联的方面意味着理性和情感的结合。然而，两者之间关系的变化可能会导致人们对食品安全的信任崩溃。福岛核电站释放的辐射引发了人们对辐射科学及其对人类健康影响的怀疑。因此，一些日本民众选择避开权威性话语，通过运用自身知识和组建社会网络，以比政府及专家更加严格的标准，去获取令自己放心的食物。这也是尼古拉斯所说的“科学公民”（scientific citizenship）。
回到现实世界
好了，那上述观点与“核废水排放”事件有何关联？
本次事件，说到底还是风险与信任、科学与情感的问题。
展开来说，“核废水排放”，在带来一种新的风险。如果这个风险的测量者无法被信任，那么科学和情感就会分离，再加上舆论的推动，谣言四起，民众会产生情绪化反应或者采取谨慎的消费行动。
然而，与十二年前不同的是，这次排海事件更“国际化”，牵扯到的地区民众更广泛，同时，社交媒体也更发达，信息传播主体也更多元了。
现在，我想与大家一同思考三大问题：
核风险如何被测量、表述、宣传？在日本生活的人们如何看待核废水事件和食品安全问题？社交媒体如何成为一个跨国的科学与情感战场？
一、核风险的管控：风险如何被测量、表述、宣传？
十二年前，管控风险的一个重要方面是监测食物中的铯水平。日本政府在危机初期所制定的标准是，食品中的铯不应超过 500 bq/kg。相比之下，欧盟和美国的标准更为宽松，为 1000 bq/kg与 1200 bq/kg。另一方面，受切尔诺贝利核泄漏影响的国家则有更严格的标准，乌克兰为 40 bq/kg，白俄罗斯为 37 bq/kg，德国为 8 bq/kg。除了监测外，国际原子能机构官员Miroslav Pinak指出，“福岛县产生的废物被收集并贮存在现场或附近的临时贮存点。这些废物将放置在由中央政府开发和运营的临时贮存设施中。在临时贮存设施中临时贮存长达30年后，将在县外进行最终处置。”
对日本政府来说，对福岛危机后的食品安全进行风险沟通（risk communication）是一个艰难的过程。厚生劳动省的一个官员指出，一旦食物中包含放射性污染物，就可能会对健康产生影响。但由于日本的辐照水平很低，可能会致病，也可能不会致病，即使致病，也可能在数年甚至数十年后才出现。这就很难得出辐照的因果关系。“因此，风险沟通者很难充分表达人们所面临的威胁。他们既要解释风险的性质及其分散的结果，又要避免夸大风险和引起恐慌。”（第52页）
政治运动和表演剧场被用于降低人们对风险的厌恶。农林水产省曾发动了一项”以吃应援“（食べて応援しよう）的东北地区产品宣传活动，以鼓励全国民众分担受灾地区的恢复责任。上至政府官员、下至超市销售的品尝表演，都似乎在展示，“福岛食物完全可以让人放心大快朵颐”。
对命名的权力争夺也是管控风险的领域之一。当多数国家地区媒体采用“核废水”甚至“核污水”一词来描述本次事件时，日本官方的术语却十分微妙：“处理水”（ALPS treated water）。这种中性化、去核化的命名行为似乎在努力去除人们对排水及其对生态环境影响的担忧。
日本政府声称，利用“多核素去除系统”ALPS，可以将核废水里的62种核物质都降低到国际标准以下，而唯一的例外——氚，则能通过100倍的稀释，降低至世卫组织规定的饮用水标准的七分之一。
为了降低人们对氚的忌惮，日本官方还公布了以下数据：福岛核废水每年排放的氚总量为22兆贝克勒尔，约为中国秦山核电站每年排放量的十分之一（218 兆贝克勒尔），大概是美国魔鬼谷核电站每年排放量的一半（40 兆贝克勒尔）。尽管批评者认为，“核灾废水”和“核电厂废水“不能一概而论。
这些“科学标准”受到了国际原子能机构的支持。其新闻和宣传办公室在排水当日发布了以下通告：
经过“公正、独立和客观的安全审查”，原子能机构认为，东电提供的三项数据“水流量、辐射监测数据和稀释后的氚浓度”没有问题，排水行动“符合相关的国际安全标准”。“原子能机构的独立确证活动也将在整个排放过程中继续进行，预计将持续数十年，并将有原子能机构实验室和第三方实验室参与其中。”
十二年后，监测核废水中的氚水平成了管控风险的重点。由于氚在自然界中半衰期为12.3年（意味着每12.3年氚的辐射量减半），生物半衰期为7到14天，再加上氚会随着体液排出，因此被认为对人体辐射作用较小。“处理水在稀释之后比饮用水还安全”，这样的结论也并非没有道理。
然而，也有专家质疑者指出，与其聚焦于氚的危害，我们更要关注其他放射元素有没有真的通过ALPS系统被去除掉。相比于氚，铯137（28.79年）、锶90（29.1年）、碳14（5730年）、碘129（1.57×107年）的生物半衰期更长，会残留在人体骨骼、牙齿、甲状腺与肌肉中，对健康产生长久不可控的影响。
二、在日生活者：如何看待核废水事件与食品安全问题？
下面我将从食品生产者、流通者、消费者的角度来分析本次排水事件和对食品安全的看法。其中，我将消费者这一类别根据年龄、性别、民族等再次细分，以展示多种不同的声音。
从生产者的角度来看，作为直接利益相关者，福岛县内的渔民对排水一事反对声音较大。日本经济产业省官员曾与福岛县渔民联合会干部举行多次会谈。在“即使听了西村先生（经济产业相）的解释，我的反对立场也不会改变。这是不可能改变的。” 磐城市水产合作社会长江川彰在会后长叹了一口气，他多次表达了对声誉受损的担忧。“我反对释放。所有相关的人都很愤怒。我不知道政府到底在想什么，”他毫不掩饰愤怒地说。在场渔民们认为，“几十年来保持紧张感绝非易事，希望政府承担全部责任。”（福岛民报20230823）
从流通者的角度来看，东京大学与福岛大学的追踪调查显示，与四年前相比，位于日本各大城市的水产流通从业者购买福岛产的海鲜意愿提高（从37.6%到51.9%），向海洋排放废物“反对”声音减弱（从66.9%到28.9%），核废水对人体健康影响担忧下降（从40.4% 到15.8%）。然而，尽管比之前下降了约10个百分点，仍有近八成受访者认为排水对消费行为“影响很大”或“有一定影响”。
从消费者的角度来看，过去的一个多月的民调显示，半数以上的民众“赞成”、“理解”、或“接受”排水行为，但认为政府对该行为的“说明不够充分”。其中，年轻一代对排水行为更倾向于给出积极评价。据社会调查研究中心的结果显示，认为“排水妥当”的受访者中，18-39岁占了4成，40-50岁3成左右，而60岁以上的只有2成。
“風評被害”对消费行为的影响，并没有水产流通从业者想象中严重。根据福岛县磐城市水产协会公布的市场情况，常盘鱼的典型品种比目鱼每公斤的平均价格比去年上涨了约10%。根据县水产海洋研究中心的总结，几乎所有鱼类的市场价格都没有发生重大变化，县政府表示“未发现因排水事件而造成声誉受损”。（福岛民报20230923）
新闻媒体与舆论调查结果
NHK（2023/08/13）
処理水放出「説明不十分」6割 水産関係流通業者アンケート結果 （東京大学&福島大学）
朝日新闻（2023/08/21）
処理水への「説明不十分」7割に “放出賛成”5割 ANN世論調査
（岸田内閣の支持率は4カ月連続で下落し、33.4％）
日经新闻（2023/08/27）
内閣支持率42%、横ばい 原発処理水放出「理解」67%
読売新聞（2023/08/27）
処理水放出「評価する」５７％…読売世論調査
每日新闻（2023/09/04）
処理水の海洋放出 83％「容認」 世論調査・社会調査研究センター
（「問題はあるが、やむをえない」が54％で、「妥当だ」の29％と合わせ83％が容認。
若い年代の方が積極的に肯定する傾向。）
朝日新闻（2023/09/18）
処理水放出「評価する」66% 「しない」28% 朝日世論調査
实际上，在日本生活的消费者们，抱有怎样的想法呢？
日本年长人士及母亲群体
排水官宣次日，我曾询问一位50多岁的日本男士的态度与看法。当天，位于浅草的人气寿司店依旧满员。
“今天吃的海鲜，应该没有问题。”他如此解释道，接着又向我表示对中国民众恐慌情绪的理解。
我回了一句，“那您会食用福岛产的食品吗？”
“不会。”忽然，他眼神往左飘去，似乎在回忆着什么，“我侄子曾经推广过福岛的食物……他让我尝了尝桃子，味道确实很甜，但说实话，我心里总有一种‘违和感’……尽管一些科学家声称福岛产的食物很安全，但情感上我还是接受不了。“
他的想法体现了一种理性与情感的分离。年长人士往往对自身健康更为在意。
食品安全不仅仅关乎个人健康，还反映了人类对子孙后代的担忧。我曾听一些母亲表达过这种担忧：“你食用的食物会一直留存在你的体内，然后遗传给下一代。”这种焦虑在尼古拉斯的民族志中体现得淋漓尽致：
“（2011年）地震发生后，三十三岁的女儿高尾女士开始担心四岁女儿的安全……并采取了一些措施来限制辐射：她停止购买蘑菇，因为蘑菇很容易吸收辐射……她还停止给孩子喝牛奶大约六个月……并避免吃鱼……她改变了海鲜饮食习惯，主要烹饪来自挪威或智利的进口鲑鱼。 最后，她不再购买日本瓶装水，而是开始让斐济矿泉水送到她家。……在某个时候，她发现自己用进口水煮意大利面，并怀疑自己是否做得太过分了。 高尾女士解释说，她发现很难成为一个关切的母亲（a concerned mother）而又不被认为痴迷（obsessed）。 ……我（指作者）告诉她，我遇到过其他母亲，她们担心这些看法，并在晚上偷偷地带着盖革计数器到当地的公园测试场地，确保她们的孩子可以在那里安全地玩耍。 她点点头并表示她能理解他们的担忧。 务必要小心谨慎，并采取可用的措施来保护孩子的安全，但在杂乱的信息和选择中，也有必要保持正确的观点，避免将反辐射措施变成一种痴迷。 然而，这对高尾小姐来说，说起来容易做起来难，她必须提醒自己不要太热衷于保护孩子免受辐射，或者至少不要公开谈论这件事，以免引起周围人的不满。 ”（第121-122页）
日本年轻一代
若按年龄划分，日本年轻一代对排水事件的接受程度最高。一位20多岁的日本女生曾经这么评价排水行为，“いいじゃん、綺麗にしてくれたから”（不挺好的吗，都已经弄干净了）。接着，她反问我为什么会想讨论这个话题，是不是担心日本的食物有害健康。在她的社交圈内，大家都不觉得这是一个“特别需要关注”的新闻。她微笑着说道，似乎想要抚平我并不存在的担忧，“你吃过福岛的食物吗，真的很好吃。日本的食物都很好。”
另一位30岁出头、日本出生长大的韩国籍男生有着类似的看法，“说实话，我们都不觉得这是新闻。我不相信政府和东电，但我信原子能机构，他们的研究成果非常独立权威。”
他停顿了下，瞄了我一眼，“虽然我这么说，对你很抱歉“，显然，他有些顾虑我的”中国人“身份。
”但在我心中，我对中国产的东西印象不太好，美国和澳洲的也要差一些。日本的食物是最好的。”
他的话语中透露出的骄傲感，反映出日本国内消费者对食品安全的一般看法。这不禁让我想到人们对于食物的等级与好坏的划分。食物不仅只是食物本身，当与人发生联系时，它就具备了社会性和道德性，并且会产生迥然不同的后果。比如以下两起过程相似的食品安全事件：
2013年，一名日本工人在冷冻食品中使用杀虫剂进行投毒，导致300多人中毒。虽然投毒者被捕，但这起事件引发了关于日本工厂工人心理健康和不公平劳动条件的广泛讨论。
2007年，一名中国工人在与雇主发生争端后，在一批冷冻饺子中注射了农药。其中一些饺子随后出口到日本，导致大约10人因食用这些饺子而生病。时任东京都知事的民族主义人士石原慎太郎将此事件比作美国的 9/11 袭击和伦敦爆炸案，“食品恐怖”一词在各种媒体平台上激增。最终，投毒者在中国被判处无期徒刑。
日本年轻人们告诉我，去超市选购食物时，“好吃”和“价格”两个因素最重要。“福岛食物”，一方面是体现日本现代性和民族自豪感的“国産”，另一方面，在国内同类产品中价格亲民。年轻人或是完全不在意“产地”，或是在有产地意识的基础上挑选最物美价廉的产品。政府十多年来的福岛食品宣传运动，对于当时还是大中小学生的他们，也许也起了不少作用。
旅日人士
我又陆续问了一些来自美国、印度、新加坡、中国内地及港澳台的友人，他们在日本的生活经历从半年到十年不等。作为外国人及一般消费者，他们不会参加抗议等市民集会，也不会响应“以吃应援”运动，而多数会选择避开“福岛产食品”。从他们身上，我看到了“无可奈何同情者”和“科学外国人公民”的身影。
（1）“无可奈何同情者”
“不知道要如何应对。或者说，我的应对有效果吗？反正，我明年就回国了，也不想那么多了。”
"我美国的家人根本没留意，我母亲反而更担心地震的问题。"
一位旅日六年的新加坡女性对福岛表示同情，将“辐射”正常化为“风险社会”中不可避免的产物：
“我曾看到一些年长的婆婆在介绍福岛的食物，他们已经做了很多检测……这个地方真的需要像切尔诺贝利一样被遗弃吗？他们也需要重建。这些食物确实非常美味，我尝试吃了一条鱼，应该不会有大问题。每天使用手机也会有辐射，但你又不是一直住在山里，一次性接触应该不会有太大的反应。”
我追问，“那你会支持福岛的食物吗？”
她意味深长地笑了下，“我不抗拒，但我不会主动支持。”
一位20多岁的香港女性认为“身体只是个人的事情”，认为不应对日本食品过分“污名化”：
“我的家人很在意，他们在香港经常看大陆新闻。但我觉得没关系啦，毕竟我都不打算生孩子。说起来，国内的地沟油问题也很严重啊。”
（2）“科学外国人公民”
“最好的方式，就是请有知识的中国人到日本来自行监测，然后公布独立的第三方数据。” 一位中国朋友在餐桌上义愤填膺道，“还能怎么办，我们只能一方面骂他们发泄情绪，一方面学多点知识让自己更安心。”
许多中国友人不能接受日本排水行为，却仍能保持理性去思考整个过程。
“你用逻辑想想，日本人把废水倒在自家海里，不是首当其冲吗？他们没那么傻害自己吧。所以也不要过分担心。”
但“不要过分担心”并不意味着“放心”。
“最近有位东北大学的朋友告诉我，茨城县产的食物辐射量甚至比福岛更多。我的天，我可是连续吃了十年！”他突然放声大笑，以掩饰自己话语背后的尴尬，情绪的释放似乎帮助他疏解了些那一刻的担忧。
还有人呼吁关注决策过程本身，以减少下一次决策或者未来三十年的失误：
“你找到核废水排放的危险证据了吗？跟国内的一群一边倒的人真的没法谈。难道我们不是要关注，“到底是谁决定了科学标准”、“我们为什么要相信决策者”这些问题吗？”
“科学外国人公民”掌握着不少日本食品生产的“内幕知识”。
“我也没觉得日本食品有多安全。你知道日本的便当流水线是怎样的吗？我有个朋友在那里打工，之后我再也不敢买全家便当了。”语毕，他露出有点嫌弃的表情。
“为了降低成本，一些便利店和餐厅会使用福岛产的食物，只能尽量不买或者不外食了。”
三、社交媒体：跨国的科学与情感战场？
“中国全面暂停进口日本海产品”。实际上对日本经济打击有多大？影响不大。日本的全球贸易主要由汽车和机械出口驱动，海产品在其中所占比重不到1%。加之，日本鱼类的主要市场仍然在国内。据估计，如果每个日本国民每年多消费价值1300日元（约65元人民币）的海鲜，就有可能抵消对中国大陆和香港的出口需求损失（2022年，总计1600亿日元）（福岛民友新闻20230923）。
穆迪分析公司的经济学家斯特凡·安格力克（Stefan Angrick）评论道：“福岛污水排放主要具有政治和环境意义。”（BBC 20230826）
各大主流和社交媒体成为了赋予这种政治和环境意义的主战场。
……
恭喜看到这里的各位，下面的内容有点sensitive，感兴趣的看官我们可以私底下讨论。
Comments