University of Hawai'i Manoa Kahualike

UH Press Book Previews University of Hawai`i Press

Fall 10-31-2018 Food Safety after Fukushima: Scientific itC izenship and the Politics of Risk Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna

Follow this and additional works at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/uhpbr Part of the Asian History Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Food Biotechnology Commons, International Relations Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, Physical and Environmental Geography Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Sternsdorff-Cisterna, Nicolas, "Food Safety after Fukushima: Scientific itC izenship and the Politics of Risk" (2018). UH Press Book Previews. 17. https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/uhpbr/17

This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Hawai`i Press at Kahualike. It has been accepted for inclusion in UH Press Book Previews by an authorized administrator of Kahualike. For more information, please contact [email protected].

FOOD SAFETY AFTER FUKUSHIMA

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 1 7/6/18 11:34 AM FOOD SAFETY AFTER FUKUSHIMA

Scientific• Citizenship and the Politics of Risk

Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna

University of Hawai‘i Press Honolulu

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 3 7/6/18 11:34 AM © 2019 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

24 23 22 21 20 19 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Sternsdorff-Cisterna, Nicolas, author. Title: Food safety after Fukushima : scientific citizenship and the politics of risk / Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna. Description: Honolulu : University of Hawai‘i Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018006250 | ISBN 9780824872137 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Food contamination—Risk assessment—Japan—Fukushima-ken. | Radioactive pollution—Risk assessment—Japan—Fukushima-ken. | Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, Japan, 2011—Environmental aspects. | Nuclear accidents and agriculture—Japan—Fukushima-ken. Classification: LCC TX571.R3 S84 2019 | DDC 363.19/22—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018006250

University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources.

Cover photo: Tokyo store opened by a network of organic Fukushima farmers to promote their products. Pictures of farmers are displayed on the wall.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 4 7/6/18 11:34 AM •Contents

Acknowledgments vii Terminology and Standards xi Timeline xv

chapter one Scientific Citizenship and Risk 1

chapter two Historical Antecedents Gender and the Environment 21

chapter three Explaining the Crisis Trust and Experts after the Nuclear Accident 44

chapter four The Production and Circulation of Radiation Data 75

v

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 5 7/6/18 11:34 AM vi Contents

chapter five Farming after the Nuclear Accident 98

chapter six Finding Safe Food Mothers and Networks of Trust 121

Epilogue 139

Notes 145 References 151 Index 165

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 6 7/6/18 11:34 AM Acknowledgments •

My deepest gratitude goes to the many people in Japan who allowed me to observe and ask questions about their lives in the aftermath of such a devastating disaster. I have given them pseudonyms in the writing of this book to protect their privacy, and though I cannot thank them by name, this project would not have been possible without their openness and kindness. I have been fortunate to have a group of mentors who provided guid­ ance, support, and encouragement throughout this process. At Harvard University, I would like to thank Theodore Bestor. His support and good advice were invaluable, and he taught me the importance of ethnographic fieldwork. Victoria Bestor was an anchor of support and provided great suggestions for this project. Ajantha Subramanian pushed my theoreti­ cal boundaries and inspired me to think about my material in new ways. Michael Herzfeld helped me learn about the craft of anthropology and the making of an ethnographic text. I also received the counsel and support of Ted Gilman, Cris Paul, Sue Farlin, Monica Munson, Stacie Matsumoto, and Marianne Fritz. I want to thank David Slater, who over the years has given me unwaver­ ing support and encouragement and was my host during the initial part of my research at the Institute of Comparative Culture at Sophia University. I was later affiliated with Waseda University, where Glenda Roberts proved a generous host. I thank her and the participants of her zemi, along with Niko Besnier, who at one of their meetings encouraged me to find my voice in ethnography. Tom Gill invited me to present to his class at Meiji Gakuin University and gave me insightful comments. Rika Kayaba helped me plan and participated in some research trips to Fukushima Prefecture.

vii

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 7 7/6/18 11:34 AM viii Acknowledgments

I spent a year at the Program on US-Japan Relations at the Weatherhead Center at Harvard University. My thanks to the director, Susan Pharr, for offering me a place to write and further develop this project. Shin Fujihira was a welcoming host, as were William Nering, Jennie Kim, and the par­ ticipants in my cohort. During this time I organized a book manuscript workshop. Christine Yano, Merry White, and Heather Paxson provided invaluable feedback on an early version that showed me the pieces that needed further development. Paul Christensen, Chiaki Nishijima, and Paula Szocik read versions of the manuscript and offered detailed reviews. I greatly benefited from invitations to present at workshops and confer­ ences, where I received feedback from my fellow participants and audiences. These included presentations at the STS Forum on the 2011 Fukushima/ East Japan Disaster at Berkeley; the International Symposium on Roles, Responsibility and Social Imaginary in a Risk Society at International Christian University; the Food Safety and Consumer Advocacy in Japan and East Asia conference at Freie University; the Sun and Star Symposium at Keio University; and the Humanitarianism in Action workshop at Hong Kong University. Special thanks to Atsushi Akera, Tomiko Yamaguchi, Cornelia Reiher, Hiroki Takeuchi, Gonçalo Santos, and their planning com­ mittees for making these events possible. I also presented papers based on this research at events organized by the Program on US-Japan rela­ tions, the Yale University Anthropology Colloquium Series, the Kyoto Institute of Economic Research (KIER) center at Kyoto University, Temple University, and Sophia University, as well as conferences by the American Anthropological Association, the Association for Asian Studies, the American Ethnological Association, Cultural Typhoon, and the 4S Social Studies of Science Meeting. My thanks to Heidi Lam, Kyle Cleveland, David Slater, and the organizers of these conferences for making these presentations possible. I have been fortunate to have a network of peers and friends who have enriched my academic and personal life: my thanks to Anh-Thu Ngo, Namita Dharia, Nancy Khalil, David Martinez, Emrah Yildiz, Julia Yezbick, Andy McDowell, Sa’ed Atshan, Shom Dasgupta, Lizzy Cooper Davis, Andrew Littlejohn, Colin Trehearne, Yi-Rong Peng, and many more. My colleagues at Southern Methodist University have provided collegial support and an intellectual environment in which to develop this book. My family has also been unwavering in their support from a distance: my mother, Maria de las Nieves Cisterna; my father, Gert Sternsdorff; and my siblings, Ricardo, Oliver, and Eileen. I would like to thank my editor at the University of Hawai‘i Press, Pamela Kelley, who has been a great source of encouragement on this

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 8 7/6/18 11:34 AM Acknowledgments ix

project. The two anonymous readers for the press provided helpful suggestions. The research for this book was funded by the Japan Foundation, the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, a Visiting Junior Research Grant from Waseda University, the Small-Scale Economies Project at the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, and a Sam Taylor Fellowship. Some scattered material from my article “Food after Fukushima: Scientific Citizenship and Risk in Japan” has been incorporated into chapters 1 and 6 of this book (Sternsdorff-Cisterna 2015). My thanks to John Wiley and Sons for permission. Last, I would like to dedicate this book to my late grandmother “Oma” Selma Schlesinger Neumann, who unfortunately did not have a chance to see the final product. She was forced to flee Nazism in Europe during World War II and lived in numerous places that spoke several languages until she settled in Chile years later. She was initially a touch skeptical when I told her I would become an anthropologist, but she recognized the importance of learning about other cultures and respecting human diver­ sity. It is from her example that I hope to have borrowed inspiration in pur­ suing anthropological research.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 9 7/6/18 11:34 AM Terminology• and Standards

In this ethnography I use the word “radiation” as an umbrella term and as shorthand to speak about the effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident. This usage is in keeping with the way I heard the people I worked with employ the term when referring to the accident and its aftermath. Radia­ tion in this case refers to ionizing radiation, of which there are several types, including alpha, beta, neutron, and gamma radiation. Not all forms of radiation are equally noxious; neutron and alpha radiation cause more harm than beta or gamma radiation. A characteristic of ionizing radiation is that when interacting with an atom, it has enough energy to remove an electron, thereby causing the atom to become charged. The World Health Organization (2016) states that “ionizing radiation is a type of energy released by atoms that travels in the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma or X-rays) or particles (neutrons, beta or alpha). The spontaneous disintegration of atoms is called radioactivity, and the excess energy emit­ ted is a form of ionizing radiation. . . . Ionizing radiation has always been a part of the human environment. Along with natural radioactive sources present in the Earth’s crust and cosmic radiation, man-made sources also contribute to our continuous exposure to ionizing radiation.” The Fukushima nuclear accident released a range of pollutants from the reactors into the surrounding areas. The releases consisted primarily of iodine-131, cesium-137, and cesium-134. In addition, researchers have detected smaller amounts of strontium-80 and plutonium (Yoshida and Kanda 2012). Radioactive materials are constantly decaying, and the rate at which they decay is expressed in the length of their half-life, which is when their radioactivity has decayed by half. Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight

xi

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 11 7/6/18 11:34 AM xii Terminology and Standards

days; although it can be a noxious contaminant for human health, within a couple of months little danger will be left from the substance. In contrast to the short half-life of iodine, cesium takes longer to decay: cesium-134 has a half-life of two years, and cesium-137 has a half-life of thirty years. Two units of measurement will often be discussed in the pages ahead.1 The first is a becquerel, which is a measure of the nuclear transformations in a radioisotope; one becquerel is equal to one radioactive disintegration per second. The unit is used to represent the amount of radioactivity in a sample, and I most often encountered it expressed in terms of weight, as in the number of becquerels present per kilogram. The food safety stan­ dards created by the Japanese government are expressed in becquerels per kilogram (bq/kg). The second is the sievert (Sv), which measures the potential of ionizing radiation to cause harm and accounts for the type of radiation and the sen­ sitivity of the tissues exposed. Doses are sometimes expressed temporally to represent a rate of exposure per hour or per year. The average exposure for the world population from natural sources is 2.4 millisieverts per year (m Sv/ye a r). Exposure to low-level ionizing radiation affects the body by causing cells to die or mutate, which can increase the likelihood of developing cancer years or decades later. Studies have established that exposure to amounts in excess of 100 mSv can lead to an increased incidence of cancer, but it is murky territory below those numbers (Brenner et al. 2003; Normile 2011). Scientific opinion is divided between researchers who believe there is no safe exposure level and others who believe that small amounts are unlikely to present significant health challenges. In her ethnography of Chernobyl, Petryna found a similar dynamic in which scientists told her that low exposure to radiation remains a “black box” (Petryna 2002, 17). Unfortunately, there is a lack of conclusive data on the effects of long­ term low-level exposure to radiation. The hope is that the epidemiologi­ cal studies currently underway in Fukushima will bring further clarity to this debate.2

FOOD SAFETY STANDARDS On March 17, 2011, the Japanese government issued emergency standards to monitor radiation in the food supply. The standards were derived from the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, which state that the general population should not be exposed to more than 5 mSv/year. On this basis the Japanese government created stan­ dards for the radioactive substances emitted from the nuclear meltdown.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 12 7/6/18 11:34 AM Terminology and Standards xiii

Table 1. Changes in the regulation values for radioactive cesium Provisional regulation values for New standard limits for radioactive radioactive cesium (March 2011) cesium (effective April 2012) Category Limit (bq/kg) Category Limit (bq/kg) Drinking water 200 Drinking water 10 Milk, dairy products 200 Milk 50 Vegetables General foods 100 Grains 500 Infant foods 50 Meat, eggs, fish, etc. } Source: Compiled from “Food and Radiation Q&A,” Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan, 8th edition, May 2013, http://www.caa.go.jp/jisin/pdf/130902 _food_qa_en.pdf. Note: The left table indicates the temporary values adopted in March 2011, and the right table shows the revised values.

The maximum allowable standard became 500 bq/kg for cesium and 2000 bq/kg for iodine (Berends and Kobayashi 2012; Hamada and Ogino 2012; Michino 2012). The standards for cesium were revised in April 2012 to a maximum of 100 bq/kg for general food products, while the iodine had decayed and was no longer a concern (Yamaguchi 2012).

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 13 7/6/18 11:34 AM •Timeline

August 1945 The United States drops two nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 1953 In the United States, President Eisenhower announces the Atoms for Peace program to promote the civilian use of nuclear energy. 1954 Japan’s nuclear energy program is established. 1966 Japan’s first nuclear power plant is commissioned. 1967 Construction begins at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. 1971 The first reactor at the Daiichi site enters into commercial use. 1979 An accident occurs at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in the United States. Japan’s support for nuclear power does not waver. 1986 A nuclear meltdown occurs in Chernobyl, Ukraine; the radiation reaches as far as Japan. The Japanese government institutes a safety standard of 370 bq/kg to monitor food imports from Europe. 1999 An accident takes place at the Tokaimura nuclear plant. Two workers die a few months after the accident due to radiation sickness. People living within a 10 km radius are asked to stay indoors, while people living in the immediate vicinity of the reactor are temporarily evacuated.

xv

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 15 7/6/18 11:34 AM xvi Timeline

2004 A broken steam pipe kills five workers and injures another six at the Mihama nuclear plant. March 10, 2011 Japan is home to fifty-four nuclear reactors that produce approximately 30 percent of its energy supply. The government plans to increase capacity until reactors generate 50 percent of the country’s energy. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site is home to six reactors, the latest of which went online in 1979. March 11, 2011 At 2:46 p.m. an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 hits the northern part of Japan’s main island of Honshu. It is the strongest earthquake to have ever struck Japan. The earthquake causes a tsunami that hits the Pacific coast with waves measuring up to forty meters in height and traveling up to 10 km inland. The tsunami kills approximately sixteen thousand people and displaces more than one hundred thousand. The tsunami overpowers the seawalls protecting the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and inundates the site. The plant loses its main electrical connection, and the tsunami destroys the backup generators. Without electrical power, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is unable to cool the reactors down. The evacuation of residents from the 3 km zone around the nuclear plant begins. The zone is extended to 10 km the next day and to 20 km after the explosions. March 12, 2011 At 3:36 p.m. a hydrogen explosion damages the reactor building of unit one. March 14, 2011 At 11:01 a.m. the reactor building of unit three suffers from a hydrogen explosion, and engineers suspect that a nuclear meltdown has occurred. March 15, 2011 At approximately 6:00 a.m., a hydrogen explosion damages the building of reactor four and leaves the spent-fuel pool in a precarious position. March 17, 2011 The Japanese government introduces temporary emergency standards to monitor the food supply. It sets a maximum of 500 bq/kg for radioactive cesium and 2000 bq/kg for radioactive iodine. March 23, 2011 The Tokyo Municipal Water Authority advises residents to use bottled water to prepare infant formula. April 1, 2011 Contaminated water produced from the effort to cool the reactors is released to the Pacific Ocean.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 16 7/6/18 11:34 AM Timeline xvii

April–May 2011 Spinach, milk, leafy vegetables, and bamboo shoots from Fukushima Prefecture are banned from circulation after exceeding government temporary safety standards. A co-op is found to have unknowingly sold contaminated spinach. July 13–18, 2011 The government discovers that more than four hundred cows contaminated above its safety levels were processed and their meat distributed to consumers. It issues a temporary ban on the circulation of beef from Fukushima. January 1, 2012 The Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Pollution by Radioactive Materials is established, and the Ministry of Environment takes charge of measuring and disposing of the contaminated soil that results from the decontamination efforts. April 1, 2012 The law to regulate radioactive pollutants in the food supply is changed. The standards decrease to a maximum of 100 bq/kg for radioactive cesium. July 5, 2012 The investigatory commission of the National Diet of Japan releases the executive summary of their upcoming report concluding that the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was a “man-made” disaster. It rejects TEPCO’s assertion that such an event was unforeseeable and argues that the accident resulted from human negligence and poor design. Summer 2013 Fukushima Prefecture introduces a new method to test radiation in rice. Every bag of rice grown in the prefecture is tested before going out to the market. Data produced by thousands of tests show that commercial crops rarely exhibit signs of radioactive contamination (more than 99.5 percent show undetectable levels).

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 17 7/6/18 11:34 AM CHAPTER 1 Scientific •Citizenship and Risk

Takada-san, a mother in her early thirties, worked as a salesperson at a seafood shop in Tokyo that opened after the Great East Japan Earthquake (usually referred to as 3.11—March 11, 2011).1 The shop’s mission was to support the revival of the fishing industry in Tohoku in northeastern Japan—the region where the earthquake and tsunami struck. I talked to Takada-san in 2013 during a special occasion at the shop, when oysters had begun to arrive again from the affected regions, signaling a revival of the industry. At the shop Takada-san called out to passers-by, promoting the oysters’ virtues and mentioning their delicious taste. The shop capitalized on its close proximity to a major train station by selling oysters on the spot, either raw with a dash of ponzu sauce or grilled over charcoal. When Takada­ san’s shift ended, the owner told her to have an oyster. She took a raw one with her as she walked to the train, slurping and chewing it a couple of times to savor its marine punch. She then approached a garbage can and spat it out, leaving only the taste in her mouth. When Takada-san told me this story, I asked her why she had spit out the oyster; she said she was worried about radiation. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant (henceforth the Fukushima nuclear plant, not to be confused with the Fukushima Daini nuclear plant), which had experienced a nuclear meltdown as a result of 3.11, is a few hundred kilometers south of the oyster farm. Takada-san told me that she was torn between her desire to taste the oyster and her fear. As the mother of a young daughter, she was keenly aware of the risks of radiation in the food supply and worried

1

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 1 7/6/18 11:34 AM 2 Chapter 1

that the oyster might harbor radioactive contaminants. Unable to ignore its allure, she thought chewing it twice and spitting it out seemed like a good compromise. During the time I spent researching food safety and radiation in Japan, I heard many stories like Takada-san’s. The common denominator was a deeply felt ambiguity about whether domestic food was safe to eat in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, as well as a lack of faith in the government’s ability to adequately monitor the food supply. People such as Takada-san had little, if any, trust in government assurances of safety. Many of the people I met were skeptics because during the first few months of the crisis products contaminated above government standards, such as beef and spinach, reached the marketplace.2 They were also skep­ tical because, for a brief period, the government requested that drinking water not be given to infants;3 permissible levels of radiation exposure for the general population were temporarily raised by twenty times; specific food products from affected regions were banned from circulation;4 and foreign countries banned or limited food imports from Japan.5 People felt that, at best, the Japanese government was incompetent at handling the crisis and, at worst, was risking the health of the general population to protect the powerful nuclear industry and limit its liabilities. Moreover, there was and still is a scientific debate about the health effects of long-term, low-level exposure to radiation. Exposure to large amounts of radiation can cause radiation sickness and even death, but experts have divergent opinions about the health effects of low-level expo­ sure over a prolonged period of time (Normile 2011; Morris-Suzuki 2014). Few, if any, in the general population were exposed to enough radiation to cause radiation sickness. Rather, the general public faced the indetermi­ nacies of low-level exposure, which may or may not increase the odds of developing cancer. Health complications can take years or decades to sur­ face, by which point they would be difficult to causally link to radiation exposure from the accident. Also, many people suffer from cancer without exposure to a nuclear disaster. Radiation exposure can happen externally, when the body is affected by radiation from its surroundings, or internally, when radiation is ingested. Other than relocating or avoiding the outdoors, relatively little can be done to limit external exposure. In terms of internal exposure, making deliber­ ate food choices was one way for concerned citizens to exercise some level of control. Japan has a free market with a well-developed food distribution system, and people were free to source their food in ways they felt pre­ vented radiation exposure. Given the lack of consensus about the health effects of long-term, low-level exposure, the people I worked with in Japan

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 2 7/6/18 11:34 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 3

were suspicious of the government’s show of certainty when claiming the environment and the food were safe. Food, in this context, became an area in which citizens could chal­ lenge the government narratives of safety after the disaster. This dynamic, I argue, resulted in a transformation of the relationship between the citi­ zens and the state. I term this “scientific citizenship” and maintain that through its practices citizens found a sense of trustworthiness (anshin) in the production, consumption, and circulation of food. By scientific citizen­ ship, I refer to a transformation in the relationship between citizens and the state that is catalyzed and mediated by the acquisition of scientific lit­ eracy. It involves citizens amassing enough knowledge to critically assess expert advice and deciding, in this case, to circumvent the state’s expertise in order to protect the health and lives of current and future generations (this will be discussed further in the next section). Anthropologists who have worked in disaster areas often note that uncertainty about the risks unleashed by an event is a key characteris­ tic of a postdisaster environment.6 Liable companies seeking to limit their responsibilities may actively produce uncertainty (Button 2010). Uncertainty can also originate when a disaster catalyzes a disruption to social life (Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 1999), or it may stem from unclear knowledge about the health effects of pollutants (Brooks 2012; Petryna 2002; Rose Johnston 2011). Under these circumstances, questions of safety and livelihood become entangled in political battles over definitions of what constitutes damage and who is a victim. As Mary Douglas (1966, 1992) pointed out, risk and safety are not only scientific categories. They are also intrinsically social. Danger and safety are cultural categories that can be analyzed as such. Adam and van Loon argue “for the need to under­ stand risk construction as a practice of manufacturing particular uncer­ tainties that may have harmful consequences to ‘life’ in the broadest sense of the term. The essence of risk is not that it is happening, but that it might be happening.” (Adam and van Loon 2000, 2). Ulrich Beck (1992) has also called attention to the social nature of risk and the importance of the relations that define it. Risk as an a priori cat­ egory does not exist; it emerges only from a social process whereby a phe­ nomenon or practice is labeled as such. Safe food, of course, must meet laboratory standards for safety, but there is an associated issue of whether it feels safe. As the example of Takada-san shows, she refused to swallow the oyster because it did not feel safe. The close proximity of the oyster farm to the nuclear plant made it suspicious and hence risky. A problem related to uncertainty in the wake of a disaster is the defi­ nition of what constitutes damage. Who can legitimately claim to be the

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 3 7/6/18 11:34 AM 4 Chapter 1

victim of a disaster and hence receive reparations and/or assistance? How are the parameters of recognizable damage formulated and in whose inter­ ests? Button (2010) has shown that companies and governments sometimes frame the science behind an industrial disaster to limit the scope of those eligible for reparations while Bond (2013) has examined the specific ways in which the environment is imagined after a disaster. Kim Fortun (2001) explored the politics that underline the decision to declare a disaster over, which can have profound implications in terms of reparations and recon­ struction. In Fortun’s study of the Bhopal accident in India, the state and offending company sought to bring prompt closure to the disaster. But the activists with whom Fortun pursued research resisted closure because adverse health effects continued to emerge over the long term. Declaring the disaster over would have denied compensation to those who suffered after the closure date. In line with this tradition of querying the category of damage, I seek to consider damage after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in an expansive way and include more than just radioactive contamination. Radiation exposure was just one of many ways in which the nuclear meltdown affected citi­ zens. The government has focused its energies on establishing how much radiation people were exposed to and whether those levels warrant relo­ cation, compensation, or medical treatment. This line of reasoning priori­ tizes the perspective that radioactive contamination is the form of damage that must be monitored and addressed after the disaster. Yet the Fukushima nuclear meltdown also caused damage to the fabric of society. It created an environment where Takada-san felt compelled to spit out an oyster, where women thought they were not good mothers if they let their children play outside, where trust between producers and consumers of food was broken, and where citizens found themselves caught between different narratives about the scope of the risks they faced. Hida Shuntaro, a medical doctor who treated patients after the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki, argued that after 3.11 every person in Japan became a hibakusha (radiation sufferer).7 The word originally referred to those killed or sickened by the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and is written with characters that signal damage from an explosion. Hida asserted that everyone in Japan is now a hibakusha written in katakana, a phonetic script. Written phonetically, it broadens the category beyond the nuclear bombings and suggests that we have all been damaged by radia­ tion in multiple forms. Everyone is in the same boat now. This ethnography takes an expansive view of the meaning of damage to investigate the ways in which the disaster affected social relations. It may be that most people in Japan will never develop health complications as a result of exposure

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 4 7/6/18 11:34 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 5

from the Fukushima nuclear accident, but the effects of the disaster are more insidious and must be recognized as such.

SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP In this ethnography I use the concept of scientific citizenship to ana­ lyze the dynamics between citizens and the state that were informed by contrasting perceptions of the risks underlying the events following the nuclear accident. Those I met in Japan did not feel reassured by the state’s approach to food safety and therefore reassessed aspects of their relation­ ships to state authority. Scientific citizenship means one has the skills to critically examine the state’s response to questions such as food safety and, in this case, look for alternatives to the system. It is a mode of engage­ ment in which citizenship is inscribed in the decision to circumvent the state and find other ways to ensure the basic right to life and health. Sci­ entific citizens know that radiation poses risks, which may be mitigated by developing independent safety regulations and practices that are dis­ tinct from those of the state. This can entail, for example: opening radia­ tion screening centers where food is tested to stricter standards than the state’s, creating networks where knowledge is disseminated so others can also learn to critically engage the state on questions about radiation, or reading radiation dispersal maps and deciding to relocate despite the state deeming the background radiation levels where one resides fit for human habitation. Scientific citizenship is not a path toward seeking pro­ tection from the state; it is an alternative route. The community is consid­ ered to be at risk, and the state cannot be trusted to protect it. My formulation of scientific citizenship draws from the work of Aihwa Ong (2006), who has contended that citizenship is being transformed in the context of neoliberal globalization. Professional managers and a global middle class strategically cultivate a flexible citizenship that allows them to be selective about where they work, invest, and live. Their professional skills enable them to transcend the traditional constraints of the nation- state and cultivate a more flexible approach in their relationships to one or more states. I take from Ong the notion that citizens can alter their rela­ tionships to the state via a set of skills. Individuals can acquire new skills (i.e., professional skills attractive in the global marketplace or the ability to better scrutinize the laws and workings of the bureaucracy) that have the potential to transform their relationships with the state. In particular, I suggest that 3.11 was a catalyst that encouraged some people in Japan to acquire scientific literacy they could use to critically evaluate the state’s handling of the crisis. This acquisition of scientific literacy allowed for the

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 5 7/6/18 11:34 AM 6 Chapter 1

emergence of a political subject whose skills transformed his or her rela­ tionship to the state and who used this new knowledge to conclude that the state could not be relied upon to protect the population from the risks of radioactive pollution in the food supply. In his study of citizen science, Irwin (1995; see also Irwin 2001) noted that environmental citizenship is not limited to voting patterns; it can be expressed via consumer choice or civil society activism. The formulation of scientific citizenship I propose suggests that these nonvoting practices play a role in how citizenship is constituted and that the habits and knowledge acquired through them transform the relationship between the citizens and the state. Adriana Petryna (2002) identified a similar phenomenon after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, where notions of citizenship were rearticu­ lated in the wake of the disaster. She terms this “biological citizenship,” a process through which citizens learned to understand their bodies’ reac­ tions and articulate their symptoms as connected to radiation exposure. Those able to establish a link between the two could make a more compel­ ling case for compensation and assistance from the state. The citizens of Chernobyl mobilized their biological selves in order to assert their rights. Ranciere (2004) argued that being a political subject entails straddling the line between having and not having rights, and it is in this tension that citizenship is forged and its associated rights negotiated. The politics I witnessed were characterized by citizens learning about radiation and critically evaluating the state’s responses. In that process, they also re-eval­ uated their relationship to state expertise and the trust placed on it to look after the population. By putting these emergent forms of knowledge into practice, citizens found spaces within civil society groups and networks of like-minded peers where they could establish their rights to health and life and minimize their exposure by exchanging information and finding food screened to stricter standards than the state’s. In this ethnography I sug­ gest that these groups and networks played an important role in inform­ ing the understanding of risk and the selection of food.

RISK AND THE INDIVIDUAL Ulrich Beck’s (1992) work on the study of risk has been highly influential. He has identified a transition to a reflexive stage of modernity that is char­ acterized by new sources of risk brought about by modernity itself. The hazards we face are no longer dominated by extraneous events, such as earthquakes or floods, but rather modernity itself has transformed and produced risk. Global warming, genetically modified organisms, and nuclear power are examples of changes that technology has catalyzed

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 6 7/6/18 11:34 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 7

whose associated risks have ushered in what Beck has called the “risk society.” The risk society is a realization that “the most threatening and self-endangering risks are the real or putative risks emerging from recent advances in nuclear, chemical, and biomedical technologies” (Ekberg 2007, 348). If previous eras were characterized by scarcity, the risk soci­ ety is defined by insecurity (Mythen 2004). In the risk society, Beck has asserted, science and the state have lost some of their authority in defin­ ing the parameters of risk and the ability to protect their populations. Environmental risks are of a scale that transcends national borders, and individual states may not be able to protect their citizens from events hap­ pening outside their territories. Overall, Beck has drawn our attention to the new and insidious ways that risk permeates and serves as a structur­ ing feature of modernity. One of the consequences of living in Beck’s risk society is a process of individualization. Traditional social units, such as the family or politi­ cal structures, have lost some of their strength; as a result, individuals are increasingly confronting risk. Beck labeled this a “tragic individual­ ization of risk” whereby people must confront risks by themselves while simultaneously being alienated from expert systems. The individual finds himself or herself in a marketplace without recourse to expertise, trying to navigate the hazards that characterize the risk society. Beck suggests to us that the decision to consume products that are potentially hazardous, such as genetically modified organisms, falls to a “responsible consumer” who must weigh the options without the help of expert advice (Beck 2006). Beck’s argument about the individualization of risk shares similarities with neoliberalism’s emphasis on self-responsibility and individual choice. “Neoliberalism” refers to a set of policies that aims to reduce the role of the state and privileges market solutions to allocate resources (Fourcade- Gourinchas and Babb 2002; Harvey 2007; Riles 2013). At the same time, it is a project of governance that encourages citizens to rule themselves and be responsible for their choices (Comaroff and Comaroff 2001; Foucault 2008; Greenhouse 2010; Ong 2006; Rose 2007). As a system it privileges the role of the individual and of the market in regulating life and the choices to be made. The individual becomes the locus for action and the market the arena in which those choices are negotiated. In this environment the market can emerge as a central feature in medi­ ating risk. Market forces may respond to consumer demand and provide options for those seeking to minimize their exposure. After the nuclear accident, a number of businesses in Japan positioned themselves as pur­ veyors of safe food. A national supermarket chain promised its custom­ ers zero radiation in its house brand, while producers of mushrooms and

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 7 7/6/18 11:34 AM 8 Chapter 1

beef added reminders to their packaging that their products were tested and safe to consume. Similarly, there were shoppers who embraced the market as it provided alternatives to the government-mandated thresholds of safety. If the government required that only food meeting its standards reach the marketplace, retailers and consumer cooperatives equipped with radiation detectors began offering stricter standards. The marketplace pre­ sented an opportunity for individuals to assume greater responsibility over their consumption choices and mitigation of risk.8 Nevertheless, using the market as a mechanism for mediating risk may entail that those lead­ ing precarious lives have fewer resources to cope.9 In spite of an emphasis on the role of the individual and the markets in providing an arena for action, my research found that individuals con­ cerned about food safety engaged in considerable deliberation and shar­ ing of information before making their final purchasing decisions. As Beck suggested, there existed a considerable lack of trust in government exper­ tise, and individuals faced a situation in which they needed to confront new risks while being simultaneously alienated from expert advice. The final act of consumption, when the shopper is at a grocery store decid­ ing which ingredients to purchase, may appear to be an individualized action in which decisions must be made about one’s willingness to con­ sume potentially hazardous foods. But for many of the people I met in Japan, group activities and networks were salient in the ways they came to understand and cope with the risks of radioactive pollution. The group activities through which risk was conceptualized and understood suggest that there is a considerable role for emergent and established networks to situate risk and guide their participants in how to navigate—whether in the marketplace or elsewhere—a hazard such as radioactive pollution. In the chapters that follow, I reveal the deliberation and sharing of informa­ tion that took place as people assessed their options during their journeys to the act of consumption.

CITIZEN MOVEMENTS AND THE STATE The relationship between social movements and the state has been the sub­ ject of considerable research. A distinction in the literature is often found between “traditional social movements” that are primarily driven by class concerns and “new social movements” that include issues defined by identity or questions—such as the environment—that do not necessarily align along class lines (Collins and Evans 2002; Edelman 2001). The tactics that social movements employ vary considerably from case to case. Activ­ ists dispute some issues through the legal system (Engle 2010; McKean

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 8 7/6/18 11:34 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 9

1981; Pérez 2016); others embrace protest (Sopranzetti 2014), online activ­ ism (Bonilla and Rosa 2015; Juris 2012), or transnational networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998); market-based approaches allow consumers to use their purchasing power to support a cause or boycott certain products (Guth­ man 2007; Lyon 2011; Moberg 2014). Social movements may turn to recog­ nizable scripts that reference the contingent history and cultural context of the issue to be understood (Hess 2007), while in some cases people may resist with small acts of defiance (Scott 1985). Michael Hathaway, in his study of globalized environmentalism in southern China, argued that the concept of a social movement suggests a level of coordination and tar­ geted action toward a goal (Hathaway 2013, 9). Nevertheless, his research revealed larger constellations of individuals and groups who influence each other and advance a cause but may not be coordinated to the extent of a social movement. As such, he proposed analyzing them as globalized formations, which emphasize a larger set of actors and a degree of contin­ gency that occurs as numerous groups work on a broader issue but do not necessarily share tactics or internal coordination. In this ethnography I borrow Hathaway’s notion of formations to think about the multiple civil society groups that emerged and worked in the aftermath of 3.11 (see also Aldrich 2013b) while noting that many partici­ pants did not speak through institutions (Slater, Morioka, and Danzuka 2014). There were groups protesting nuclear power (Ogawa 2013), lobbying on behalf of labor issues in the nuclear industry (Hecht 2013; Jobin 2011), measuring radiation in food (Kimura 2013), working for the welfare of those forced to flee the evacuation zone and of animals left behind in the exclusion zone, volunteering in tsunami-affected areas (Toivonen 2013), economically supporting producers working to recover from the disaster, and more.10 Tactics varied: some embraced public protest;11 others turned to art (Manabe 2015), signature drives, engagement with the formal political process (Aldrich 2013a), lawsuits, the creation of new civil society groups (Yasuhito Abe 2015; Kimura 2016), and more.12 These groups did not always act in a coordinated fashion and sometimes disagreed with each other, but as a collective they illustrated the extent to which the events of 3.11 called people to action. Many people were newcomers to political activity who were moved by the accident to participate—people who concluded that the situation called for citizens to become involved and craft alternatives for the future. As I will elaborate further in chapter 2, during the occupation of Japan after World War II, the United States rewrote Japan’s constitution and trans­ formed the relationship between citizens and their government. Timothy George (2001) has asserted that people who had until then been imperial

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 9 7/6/18 11:34 AM 10 Chapter 1

subjects were given rights under the new constitution and conceptualized as citizens who could make demands from the state. Japan’s rapid postwar economic growth led to several cases of industrial pollution, and citizens organized to demand compensation and protection from the ecological consequences of rapid industrialization. These movements, as well as other instances of citizen protest, are examples of what Simon Avenell (2010) described as shimin movements. Shimin is often translated as “citizen,” but it can also mean “civil,” as in civil society (ibid., 10). In his historical account of the rise of what he calls the mythology of the shimin, Avenell argued that

as an idea, shimin proposed a new relationship between individual and state; it made possible a progressive re-imagination of the nation; it legiti­ mizes the defense of private interest against corporate and political inter­ ference and, most important of all, it infused individual and social action with significance far beyond the specific issues at stake, linking them to an ideal—if protean—vision of a new civil society for a new Japan. (Ibid., 3)

This is contrasted with kokumin (also meaning “citizen” but literally “per­ son of the nation”), which denotes belonging to the nation-state. If kokumin signals membership in formal political citizenship, shimin politics differs as it “emanated from, subsided in, and, indeed, drew its life force from civil society” (ibid., 11). During my fieldwork, I heard the term shimin used in the way Avenell described to denote citizen movements that positioned themselves as alternatives or oppositions to the state. Many of the inde­ pendent radiation testing centers that I describe in chapter 4 call them­ selves shimin sokuteishitsu (citizen testing centers). In this ethnography I conceptualize the social movements I encountered as a form of shimin politics and focus on the ways in which citizens developed their posi­ tions independently or against the state. I turn now to introducing some of the ways people in Japan spoke of food safety and what that vocabu­ lary reveals about how risk was conceptualized.

VOCABULARIES OF RISK: THE SCIENTIFIC AND THE SUBJECTIVE On January 24, 2012, I attended a meeting in Fukushima City where representatives of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries outlined to local residents and farmers the upcoming changes to permissible levels of radioactive pollutants in the food supply. At the meeting, government representatives explained that in April 2012—four months in the future— the standard would drop from 500 bq/kg to 100 bq/kg. They believed

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 10 7/6/18 11:34 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 11

that this should help farmers overcome some of the public’s mistrust in their products. During the question and answer session, several farmers in the audi­ ence asked the government representatives tough questions. One said that he and his fellow farmers were doing their best to grow safe produce, and most crops were testing under the permissible limit of radioactive contami­ nation. If the crops were safe, then why were consumers still wary of them? Another farmer said that he used a citizen testing center to ensure that his crops were within safe levels. Still, he wondered, would consumers accept the new safety standards of 100 bq/kg? The government had made suspi­ cious announcements on safety before, so why would the public trust it this time? A third farmer suggested that although the government’s presenta­ tion focused on food safety (anzen 安全), it did not address how to gener­ ate a climate of trustworthiness (anshin 安心) about food from Fukushima. The government could set strict standards, but enforcing technical stan­ dards alone would do little to overcome consumer mistrust. The better way forward, he said, was to bring together food safety and the peace of mind that comes with it (anshin to anzen wo tsunageru). What stood out in this event was the fact that the farmers in the audience and the govern­ ment representatives were speaking on two different registers. The gov­ ernment’s presentation focused on the technical and measurable aspects of the crisis (anzen): What is the current exposure level in Fukushima? How many samples have been tested? How many of those have cleared the limits? What the audience demanded, however, was for the government to hold a more holistic view of the problem—to acknowledge that the crisis was not limited to scientific samples but that real anshin problems existed. They asked the government to recognize that there was a social element to the crisis that must be handled. Farmers could farm according to gov­ ernment guidelines, but if consumers would not trust the products, what could the farmers do? As the third farmer suggested, food safety is both a question of science and of affect. In Japanese, safe food is often described as having both anzen and anshin. While anzen and anshin are often used together, the two words refer to different dynamics. Anzen points to the world of science and preci­ sion. Shoku no anzen—food safety—refers to the technical and measurable ways of thinking about food safety. It is the domain where products are tested and categorized by scientifically established criteria. While argu­ ments can be raised about how food safety is measured and the degrees of acceptable risk, anzen speaks to a system based on rationality and consis­ tency in its standards. The fact that anzen works as an adjective to describe a condition of being underscores this point.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 11 7/6/18 11:34 AM 12 Chapter 1

Anshin, on the other hand, speaks to questions of the heart—as many people put it to me—and indeed, the second character in this word means “heart.” If anzen points to measurable magnitudes of safety, anshin refers to the positive emotional reactions people have about food. It is a subjective and personal way of understanding food safety that emphasizes the peace of mind one feels about the products. Furthermore, anshin can be conju­ gated into a verb, denoting the possibility of generating anshin feelings. Both words are often used in conjunction to promote foods as anzen, anshin na shokuhin (safe and trustworthy food), or anshin de, anzen na shokuhin wo tabete kudasai (Please eat our foods that are safe and trustworthy). For example, the introduction to a magazine on protecting one’s family from radiation states: “We edited this book as an anshin/anzen roadmap to guide your beloved family through this post 3.11 world of low-level radioactive contamination” (Itō 2011, 2). When I asked about the relationship between the two terms—and I asked this question of almost everyone I met—I was told that if a product is deemed safe (anzen), then one could eat it with peace of mind (anshin). I attended several food safety seminars after the meltdown where the speaker told the audience that although they must certainly feel uneasy (fuan) about food and radiation, the speaker would teach them how to choose and prepare food that is safe (anzen) and trustworthy (anshin). This framing of food safety echoes Nestle’s (2010) distinction between “science­ based” and “value-based” approaches to food safety risks. She argued that scientists’ understanding of food risk responds to different variables than those of the general public, and this gap often leads the public to mistrust the food industry and its regulators. Paxson (2008) looked at a similar dynamic in which some eat the microbes in raw-milk cheeses with confi­ dence, while others see them as risky (Paxson 2008). The anzen/anshin for­ mulation allows these two interrelated aspects of food safety to coexist in the same moment. It brings the rational and the affective together as inte­ gral aspects of what food safety means. This is not to suggest that the two poles exist as discrete categories but that in the space created by this for­ mulation the understanding and the practices of food safety emerge. At the same time, changes in the relationship between the scientific and the affective can precipitate a breakdown of trust in food safety. The radiation releases from the Fukushima nuclear plant brought forth doubts about the science of radiation and its effects on human health. On the one hand, there is no scientific consensus about the safety of long-term, low-level expo­ sure to radiation (anzen); on the other hand, trust in the government and the experts eroded, leading to mistrust and difficulty in feeling anshin, or confident, about the information being circulated. The difference between

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 12 7/6/18 11:34 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 13

anzen and anshin is a useful way to think about how risk was constructed and handled after 3.11 (see also Kageura 2011). This formulation illumi­ nates how food safety arises out of a process that incorporates both tech­ nical and subjective elements and places the social nature of risk and the ways actors seek to define its parameters in the foreground. I argue that scientific citizenship and the relationships and practices it engendered became paths toward finding a feeling of safety anshin( ) in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident. The search for anshin proved a catalyst for a transformation in the relationship between citizens and the state. For many of the people I met, trust in the government after the Fukushima nuclear accident was eroded. As such, the disaster moti­ vated those concerned about food safety to reconsider their relationships to the state and to assign novel meanings to their concepts of their duties as citizens. This stance centers on the feeling that citizens must build alternative channels to ensure the health of future generations. It wrestles with state authority in defining the terms of acceptable risk, and given the uncertainty about the effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on human health, it behooves citizens to find ways to circumvent state authority to protect their health and that of their children. Those who sought a sense of trustworthiness (anshin) in the production, consumption, and circulation of food created networks of trust where scientific literacy was acquired and scientific citizenship was forged.

THE GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE AND THE TRIPLE DISASTER On March 11, 2011, Japan’s largest ever recorded earthquake hit the north­ eastern part of the main island of Honshu. The magnitude 9.0 earthquake was powerful enough to be felt throughout the country and precipitated a deadly tsunami. The disaster known as the Higashi Nihon Daishinsai (東 日本大震災 ) in Japanese, but also often referred to as 3.11, killed approxi­ mately sixteen thousand people and displaced more than one hundred thousand. The images of the tsunami were broadcast live, and the world saw its destructive power dislodging houses from their foundations and creating a sea of debris and mud that inexorably moved inland, destroy­ ing everything in its path. Approximately 130 km south of the epicenter is the Fukushima nuclear site. Commissioned in the early 1970s and operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the complex housed six boiling water reactors, making it one of the largest nuclear sites in the world. The earthquake and tsunami knocked the plant’s cooling and backup systems off-line, and the

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 13 7/6/18 11:34 AM 14 Chapter 1

operator lost control of the reactors. Of the six reactors, numbers five and six were off-line for maintenance, and reactor four was being refueled. Reactors one, two, and three were operating at capacity and experienced a nuclear meltdown. The core vessel most likely became compromised as nuclear fuel melted through the bottom of the reactor and leaked into the surrounding structure. (At the time of this writing, robots are being used to survey the sites because of the high radiation in the area. Engineers cannot enter and have been unable to confirm the full extent of the damage inside the reactors.) Reactors one and three also suffered from hydrogen explosions, which caused the containment buildings to release compounds such as tellurium, iodine, and cesium into the surrounding areas (Harada et al. 2014). Since the explosions, contaminated water used to cool the reactors has occasionally leaked into the Pacific Ocean. Reactor four was defueled, but the spent nuclear rods were stored in a pool on top of the building. An explosion on March 15, 2011, damaged the build­ ing, leaving the rods in a precarious and dangerous position. Fukushima Prefecture and the surrounding areas received the bulk of the pollutants, but traces of radioactive cesium have been found throughout Japan, and beyond—though in very small quantities (Samuels 2013; Thakur, Ballard, and Nelson 2013). The International Atomic Energy Agency classified the accident at the maximum level of 7; Chernobyl is the only other accident classified as such.13 The accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant created one of Japan’s largest food safety crises. But this incident followed a string of food safety scandals in the last decade, such as BSE (bovine spongiform encepha­ lopathy) (Kamisato 2005; Tomiko Yamaguchi 2014), and a longer history of industrial disasters and pollution (Kirby 2011; Walker 2010), including nuclear accidents of a smaller scale (Avenell 2012; Broadbent 1999; McKean 1981). During the decade prior to the earthquake, there was a strong sense that Japanese food products were safer and of higher quality than their imported counterparts. After a 2008 incident of imported poisoned dump­ lings from China, many consumers turned to domestic products as safer and more reliable alternatives to food imports (cf. Caldwell 2002). Imported foods were treated with suspicion, and domestic products were seen as safe and reliable in contrast (Bestor 2004; Kimura and Nishiyama 2008; Rosenberger 2009). The distinction between safe (domestic) and unsafe (imported) required overlooking several food scandals that Japanese com­ panies caused. Nonetheless, consumer surveys showed that the Japanese public considered domestic food to be a safer alternative and were often willing to pay a premium for it (Hall 2010). After the earthquake, the

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 14 7/6/18 11:34 AM Figure 1.1. Map of the distribution of radioactive cesium, compiled with data by MEXT Japan. Data available at http://emdb.jaea.go.jp.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 15 7/6/18 11:35 AM 16 Chapter 1

division between foreign and domestic became more difficult to uphold, and domestic food could not signify safety as easily as before. On a broader level, the Great East Japan Earthquake came on the heels of a slow decline in Japan, which in the 1980s was thought to possibly be overtaking the United States as the world’s largest economy. Since the economic bubble burst at the beginning of the 1990s, Japan has been described as being in a long economic recession that has been difficult to turn around. A declining birth rate combined with limited immigration has turned Japan’s population into an aging society, poised to have more retirees than working people to support it. This is certainly the case in the rural areas of Tohoku, where the young have left for the cities, and the earthquake accelerated emigration from the region. The Japanese economic model’s foundation was a promise of job security in return for loyalty to the company. Yet in recent years, salaried men who once may have aspired to spend their lives working for the same company on a secure path toward seniority have faced layoffs. Fewer such positions are now available for young Japanese, and the labor market has sharply increased its use of part- time staff, creating a growing pool of younger workers who labor under unstable conditions and have a slim chance of entering full-time employ­ ment. The word furītā (part-time worker) encapsulates these people, many of whom are the working poor (Ishida and Slater 2010). In light of these societal changes, Anne Allison (2013) proposed to see Japan through the prism of precarity. She observed a Japan in disrepair and in despair and has called the condition “the soul on strike.” Based on fieldwork with an expanding pool of the precariat, she has told a story of a society and sociality coming apart at the seams. Allison has acknowl­ edged the disaster’s potential to bring hope and forge new bonds of soli­ darity, but her main narrative has been one of a greater sense of instability. The triple disaster simply expanded the number of people living in uncer­ tainty, danger, and precariousness.14 Whereas prior to the earthquake those most at risk were disaffected youth, immigrants, minorities, and the elderly, radioactive pollution was a turn toward a perilous existence that has encompassed a much larger swath of the population. Middle-class mothers, the affluent, the poor, and those whose livelihoods and homes were destroyed by the accident all coexist in precarity now. It is in this con­ text that 3.11 happened and has resonated so strongly in the public’s out­ look. This precariousness of everyday life also permeated my fieldwork. However, I also focus on the places that bring people together and where Allison sees hope, where sociality is formed even among unlikely partners, and where relief and peace of mind (anshin) can be found.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 16 7/6/18 11:35 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 17

Every January the Japanese Kanji Proficiency Society chooses, by pop­ ular vote, the Chinese character (kanji) that best encapsulates the mood of the previous year. The character for 2011 was kizuna (bonds). It signaled the importance of solidarity after the triple disaster and the new bonds people formed to assist one another. While the selection of kizuna as char­ acter of the year can be seen as an attempt to lift the morale of the country, those bonds were in fact sprouting in the aftermath of the accident. People who had never taken an active interest in politics were moved to become involved. Some took to the streets to protest in ways that had not been seen in Tokyo for decades. Others formed new networks. Mothers came together to ask their school boards to test school lunches. Scientists scaled back their research so they could have more time to communicate with the public and explain the science behind the catastrophe. Countless people volun­ teered in northern Japan, shoveling mud and helping to revive the fishing industry. Others planned “refresh” holidays for children from Fukushima Prefecture, hosting them for a week in unaffected areas to give them a chance to play freely outdoors. Neighbors loaned each other books about radiation, moms started reading groups, and others started relief and/or radiation-education nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). These are the people who independently studied radiation and concluded that some­ thing needed to be done. They could not count on the state to protect the population, so they asserted their scientific citizenship to create alterna­ tive, healthy spaces where life could prosper. Hida Shuntaro, the doctor who witnessed the horrors of Nagasaki, wrote a booklet on how to protect oneself from radiation and actively shared his experiences on the lecture circuit. The title of one of his lectures, “To Live Life” (Inochi wo ikiru), captures the spirit of these movements and also suggests embracing life in the face of adversity after the nuclear accident. This is a politics for life.

CHAPTER SUMMARIES AND METHODOLOGY The research for this ethnography was conducted over a period of twenty-seven months between 2011 and 2013, with follow-up visits dur­ ing 2014 and 2016. I was based in the greater Tokyo area and took twelve research trips to affected areas in Tohoku. I attended over seventy study sessions about radiation and food, conducted participant observation at a food co-op, and performed numerous informal interviews and sixty in- depth interviews with farmers, activists, retailers, radiation experts, and government officials. The people I worked with were concerned about food safety, but their livelihoods were not disrupted to the extent of those

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 17 7/6/18 11:35 AM 18 Chapter 1

displaced by the 20 km exclusion zone around the nuclear plant or the nuclear plant workers. The perspectives of these latter groups fall outside the scope of this research.15 The ethnographic examples may strike some readers as an overreaction to the magnitude of the risks involved. To be sure, the people I worked with have taken an active interest in questions of food safety and were organiz­ ing to a greater extent than most consumers. At the same time, they were not alone in their mistrust of domestic food. A survey by the Food Safety Research Institute at Tokyo University found that between 2011 and 2013, suspicion of food from the affected areas increased (Hosono et al. 2013). In 2011, in response to the question of how much respondents would be will­ ing to pay for products that tested below government safety standards, 13 percent answered zero, suggesting that they would rather not consume those products. In 2012 that figure dropped to 10 percent but then climbed to 22.5 percent in 2013. In a 2013 survey, the Consumer Affairs Agency (2016) found that among those who paid attention to the provenance of their food (approximately 68 percent of respondents), 27.9 percent said they did so in order to avoid buying radiated products. In February 2015 that figure was 22.8 percent. Finally, most of the people I met during my field­ work had little or no experience in politics prior to the accident. Before the disaster they may have fallen under the vague category of the “average consumer.” Overwhelmingly, they were moved to action by the nuclear meltdown. While there are people in Japan who are not particularly con­ cerned about food safety and radiation, a significant group took the issue seriously. The rest of this book is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 provides a historical backdrop to the Fukushima nuclear accident and the politics that followed it. The first section introduces a history of women and activ­ ism in Japan. Women were at the forefront of food safety activism after the Fukushima nuclear accident, and in this section I trace their activities as part of a longer history of women’s engagement with the state. I show how the link between women and domesticity framed their political involve­ ment and the ways in which motherhood became a political category that could be mobilized to enter the debate about food safety. The second sec­ tion looks at a history of industrial pollution and focuses on Minamata dis­ ease as an early precursor to the activism in Fukushima. Minamata disease emerged in the 1960s as one of the first instances in which citizens felt the need to assert their rights because of government inaction. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the politics inherent in conducting eth­ nographic research after a disaster.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 18 7/6/18 11:35 AM Scientific Citizenship and Risk 19

Chapter 3 focuses on the role of experts. It situates the complex problem the Japanese government faced when designing risk communication and the loss of trust in its messages. I introduce the work of their risk commu­ nicators and show how they sought to frame the risks inherent to the crisis. Their message encouraged people to see radiation exposure as a part of everyday life, with the risks that came from the accident representing only a slight increase in the risk everyone was already facing. I then turn to the work of expert advice in the form of books and Internet sources that sought to give people the tools to be proactive about limiting their exposure. The chapter argues that an inherent tension of risk communication after the Fukushima nuclear accident was in contending with the history of the pol­ lutants: the releases from the plant signified a moment when the myth of the safety of nuclear power crumbled in Japan. As such, it has become dif­ ficult for the government to ask people to trust its statements about safety when the experts promised the reactors were safe in the first place. Chapter 4 is devoted to the production and circulation of radiation data. One of the key characteristics of radiation as a pollutant is that the human senses cannot perceive it. We cannot see, smell, taste, touch, or hear radiation. We rely on a technological interface to render it visible to us. Yet the detectors used to measure radiation provide approximations and are unable to offer absolute readings. Depending on testing conditions and the machine used, results can vary, and I argue that this indeterminacy has contributed to the sense of uncertainty and some of the conflicting interpretations of the severity of the crisis. Ethnographically, the chapter introduces the workings of a citizen testing center and the ways radiation results are communicated to the public when purchasing food. Chapter 5 looks at questions of food production. This chapter intro­ duces the dilemmas facing food producers in Fukushima Prefecture, which I argue are twofold: On the one hand, they must contend with the possibility that they might distribute food that carries a health risk for the consumer. On the other hand, most farmers produce food with undetect­ able levels of radiation, yet they must still battle against the name associa­ tion of Fukushima with the radiation disaster. I argue that the relationship between Fukushima as a physical space and the symbolic representations of Fukushima work against each other for many farmers and explore the current efforts to rehabilitate the name of Fukushima. The chapter pres­ ents the stories of several farmers as well as the work being done at the Fukushima Agricultural Technical Center. The last chapter focuses on mothers’ work to find safe food. It narrates the story of a mother who opened a vegetable store and a reading club in

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 19 7/6/18 11:35 AM 20 Chapter 1

which I participated. These stories illustrate the ways in which scientific citizenship was forged between groups of concerned people and the steps they took to minimize risk for themselves and their children. The chap­ ter focuses on the relationship between safety as a technical measurement (anzen) and the search for confidence anshin( ) in the procurement of food.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 20 7/6/18 11:35 AM References•

Abe, Yasuhito. 2015. Measuring for What: Networked Citizen Science Movements after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. PhD diss., University of Southern California. Abe, Yuki. 2015. The Nuclear Power Debate after Fukushima: A Text-Mining Analysis of Japanese Newspapers. Contemporary Japan 27 (2): 89–110. Adachi, Kiyoshi, Yuko Ohara-Hirano, Pauline Kent, and Daishiro Nomiya. 2012. Disas­ ter and Sociology: The Great East Japan Earthquake and Its Implications. Theme issue, International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21 (1): 2–132. Adam, Barbara, and Joost van Loon. 2000. Repositioning Risk: The Challenge for Social Theory. In The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory, edited by Bar­ bara Adam, Ulrich Beck, and Joost van Loon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Akahane, Keiichi, Shunsuke Yonai, Shigekazu Fukuda, Nobuyuki Miyahara, Hiro­ shi Yasuda, Kazuki Iwaoka, Masaki Matsumoto, Akifumi Fukumura, and Makoto Akashi. 2012. The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Exposures in the Environment. Environmentalist 32 (2): 136–143. Akizuki, Tatsuichiro. 1982. Nagasaki 1945: The First Full-Length Eyewitness Account of the Atomic Bomb Attack on Nagasaki. Edited by Gordon Honeycombe. Translated by Keiichi Nagata. London: Quartet Books. Aldrich, Daniel P. 2008. Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ———. 2013a. A Normal Accident or a Sea-Change? Nuclear Host Communities Respond to the 3/11 Disaster. Japanese Journal of Political Science 14 (2): 261–276. ———. 2013b. Rethinking Civil Society–State Relations in Japan after the Fukushima Accident. Polity 45 (2): 249–264. Allen, Barbara L. 2004. Shifting Boundary Work: Issues and Tensions in Environmental Health Science in the Case of Grand Bois, Louisiana. Science as Culture 13 (4): 429–448. Allison, Anne. 1991. Japanese Mothers and Obentōs: The Lunch-Box as Ideological State Apparatus. Anthropological Quarterly 64 (4): 195–208. ———. 2006. Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination. Berkeley: Uni­ versity of California Press.

151

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 151 7/6/18 11:35 AM 152 References

———. 2013. Precarious Japan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Anderson, Marnie S. 2010. A Place in Public: Women’s Rights in Meiji Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Andoh, Masaki, Yukio Nakahara, Shuichi Tsuda, Tadayoshi Yoshida, Norihiro Matsuda, Fumiaki Takahashi, Satoshi Mikami, et al. 2015. Measurement of Air Dose Rates over a Wide Area around the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant through a Series of Car-Borne Surveys. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 139:266–280. Appadurai, Arjun, ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arimoto, Tateo, and Yasushi Sato. 2012. Science and Society. Rebuilding Public Trust in Science for Policy-Making. Science 337 (6099): 1176–1177. Avenell, Simon A. 2010. Making Japanese Citizens: Civil Society and the Mythology of the Shimin in Postwar Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2012. From Fearsome Pollution to Fukushima: Environmental Activism and the Nuclear Blind Spot in Contemporary Japan. Environmental History 17 (2): 244–276. Babenko, Vladimir. 2011. Jibun to kodomo wo hōshanō kara mamoru ni wa [Protect yourself and children from radiation]. Tokyo: Sekaibunkasha. Bachev, Hrabrin, and Fusao Ito. 2013. Fukushima Nuclear Disaster—Implications for Japanese Agriculture and Food Chains. MPRA Series, no. 49462:1–77. Bacon, Paul, and Christopher Hobson. 2014. Human Security and Japan’s Triple Disaster: Responding to the 2011 Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Nuclear Crisis. New York: Routledge. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ———. 2006. Living in the World Risk Society. Economy and Society 35 (3): 329–345. Behrens, Erik, Franziska U. Schwarzkopf, Joke F. Lübbecke, and Claus W. Böning. 2012. Model Simulations on the Long-Term Dispersal of 137cs Released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima. Environmental Research Letters 7 (3): 034004. Berends, Gijs, and Megumi Kobayashi. 2012. Food after Fukushima—Japan’s Regula­ tory Response to the Radioactive Contamination of Its Food Chain. Food & Drug Law Journal 67:51. Bestor, Theodore C. 2004. Tsukiji: The Fish Market at the Center of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2013. Disasters, Natural and Unnatural: Reflections on March 11, 2011, and Its Aftermath. Journal of Asian Studies 72 (4): 763–782. Bond, David. 2013. Governing Disaster: The Political Life of the Environment during the BP Oil Spill. Cultural Anthropology 28 (4): 694–715. Bonilla, Yarimar, and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. #Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Eth­ nography, and the Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States. American Ethnologist 42 (1): 4–17. Borovoy, Amy. 2005. The Too-Good Wife: Alcohol, Codependency, and the Politics of Nurtur­ ance in Postwar Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bradley, F. J., and R. M. Pratt. 2007. Regulations. In Radionuclide Concentrations in Food and the Environment, edited by Michael Poschl and Leo M. L. Nollet. New York: Taylor & Francis. Brenner, David J., Richard Doll, Dudley T. Goodhead, Eric J. Hall, Charles E. Land, John B. Little, Jay H. Lubin, Dale L. Preston, R. Julian Preston, and Jerome S. Puskin. 2003. Cancer Risks Attributable to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Assessing What We Really Know. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (24): 13761–13766.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 152 7/6/18 11:35 AM References 153

Breslau, Joshua. 2000. Globalizing Disaster Trauma: Psychiatry, Science, and Culture after the Kobe Earthquake. Ethos 28 (2): 174–197. Brinton, Mary C. 1994. Women and the Economic Miracle: Gender and Work in Postwar Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2001. Women’s Labor in East Asian Economies. In Women’s Working Lives in East Asia, edited by Mary C. Brinton. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brittingham, Rochelle, and Tricia Wachtendorf. 2013. The Effect of Situated Access on People with Disabilities: An Examination of Sheltering and Temporary Housing after the 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 29 (S1): S433–S455. Broadbent, J. 1999. Environmental Politics in Japan: Networks of Power and Protest. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, Andrew. 2012. Radiating Knowledge: The Public Anthropology of Nuclear Energy. American Anthropologist 114 (1): 137–140. Brumfiel, Geoff, and Ichiko Fuyuno. 2012. Japan’s Nuclear Crisis: Fukushima’s Legacy of Fear. Nature News 483 (7388): 138–140. Buesseler, Ken O. 2012. Fishing for Answers off Fukushima. Science 338 (6106): 480– 482. Button, Gregory. 2010. Disaster Culture. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Caldwell, Melissa L. 2002. The Taste of Nationalism: Food Politics in Postsocialist Mos­ cow. Ethnos 67 (3): 295–319. Candea, Matei. 2011. Our Division of the Universe. Current Anthropology 52 (3): 309–334. Carson, Rachel. 2002. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cavasin, Nathalie. 2008. Citizen Activism and the Nuclear Industry in Japan: After the Tokai Village Disaster. In Local Environmental Movements: A Comparative Study of the United States and Japan, edited by Unryu Suganuma and P. Pradyumna. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Chernobyl Forum. 2006. Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Chibnik, Michael. 2011. Anthropology, Economics, and Choice. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cleveland, Kyle. 2014a. Significant Breaking Worse. Critical Asian Studies 46 (3): 509–539. ———. 2014b. Mobilizing Nuclear Bias: The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis and the Politics of Uncertainty. The Asia-Pacific Journal 12 (7): no. 4. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296. Comaroff, Jean, and John L. Comaroff. 2001. Millennial Capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Comfort, Louise K., Aya Okada, and Gunes Ertan. 2013. Networks of Action in Cata­ strophic Events: The 11 March 2011 Tohoku-oki Disasters. Earthquake Spectra 29 (S1): S387–S402. Condry, Ian. 2011. Post-3/11 Japan and the Radical Recontextualization of Value: Music, Social Media, and End-Around Strategies for Cultural Action. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 20 (1): 4–17. Consumer Affairs Agency. 2016. Shōhisha hakusho Heisei 27 nendo [White paper on consumer affairs 2015]. Accessed May 7, 2017. http://www.caa.go.jp/adjustments /pdf/27hakusho_honbun.pdf. Dauer, Lawrence T., Pat Zanzonico, R. Michael Tuttle, Dennis M. Quinn, and H. Wil­ liam Strauss. 2011. The Japanese Tsunami and Resulting Nuclear Emergency at the

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 153 7/6/18 11:35 AM 154 References

Fukushima Daiichi Power Facility: Technical, Radiologic, and Response Perspec­ tives. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 52 (9): 1423–1432. Dauvergne, Peter. 1997. Shadows in the Forest: Japan and the Politics of Timber in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo. New York: Taylor & Francis. ———. 1992. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge. Dower, John. 1993. Peace and Democracy in Two Systems: External Policy and Internal Conflict. In Postwar Japan as History, edited by Andrew Gordon. Berkeley: California University Press. Dudden, Alexis. 2012. The Ongoing Disaster. Journal of Asian Studies 71 (2): 345–359. Dunn, Elizabeth C. 2003. Trojan Pig: Paradoxes of Food Safety Regulation. Environment and Planning A 35 (8): 1493–1511. Edelman, Marc. 2001. Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:285 – 317. Ekberg, Merryn. 2007. The Parameters of the Risk Society: A Review and Exploration. Current Sociology 55 (3): 343–366. Engle, Karen. 2010. The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development: Rights, Culture, Strat­ egy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Eschle, Catherine. 2013. Gender and the Subject of (Anti)nuclear Politics: Revisiting Women’s Campaigning against the Bomb. International Studies Quarterly 57 (4): 713–724. Faison, Elyssa. 2007. Managing Women: Disciplining Labor in Modern Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Feldhoff, Thomas. 2013. New Challenges after Fukushima: Nuclear Energy, Critical Junctures and Regional Development Policies in Japan. Electronic Journal of Contem­ porary Japanese Studies 13 (1): no. 5. Ferguson, James. 2006. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Fesenko, Sergey V., Rudolf M. Alexakhin, Mikhail I. Balonov, Iossif M. Bogdevitch, Brenda J. Howard, Valery A. Kashparov, Natalia I. Sanzharova, Alexey V. Panov, Gabriele Voigt, and Yury M. Zhuchenka. 2007. An Extended Critical Review of Twenty Years of Countermeasures Used in Agriculture after the Chernobyl Acci­ dent. Science of the Total Environment 383 (1–3): 1–24. Fortun, Kim. 2001. Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1978–79. Edited by Michel Senellart. Translated by Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fourcade-Gourinchas, Marion, and Sarah L. Babb. 2002. The Rebirth of the Liberal Creed: Paths to Neoliberalism in Four Countries. American Journal of Sociology 108 (3): 533–579. Friedan, Betty. 2013. The Feminine Mystique. Rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton. Fuchs, Doris, Agni Kalfagianni, and Tetty Havinga. 2009. Actors in Private Food Gov­ ernance: The Legitimacy of Retail Standards and Multistakeholder Initiatives with Civil Society Participation. Agriculture and Human Values 28 (3): 1–15. Fukuda, Tomokazu, Yasushi Kino, Yasuyuki Abe, Hideaki Yamashiro, Yoshikazu Kuwahara, Hidekazu Nihei, Yosuke Sano, et al. 2013. Distribution of Artificial

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 154 7/6/18 11:35 AM References 155

Radionuclides in Abandoned Cattle in the Evacuation Zone of the Fukushima Dai­ ichi Nuclear Power Plant. PLoS One 8 (1): e54312. Funabashi, Yoichi, and Kay Kitazawa. 2012. Fukushima in Review: A Complex Disas­ ter, a Disastrous Response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68 (2): 9–21. Garon, Sheldon. 1993. Women’s Groups and the Japanese State: Contending Approaches to Political Integration, 1890–1945. Journal of Japanese Studies 19 (1): 5–41. ———. 1997. Molding Japanese Minds: The State in Everyday Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Geilhorn, Barbara, and Kristina Iwata-Weickgenannt, eds. 2017. Fukushima and the Arts: Negotiating Nuclear Disaster. New York: Routledge. George, Timothy S. 2001. Minamata: Pollution and the Struggle for Democracy in Postwar Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Gill, Tom. 2013. This Spoiled Soil: Place, People and Community in an Irradiated Vil­ lage in Fukushima Prefecture. In Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disasters of March 2011, edited by Tom Gill, Brigitte Steger, and David H. Slater. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. ———. 2014. Radiation and Responsibility: What Is the Right Thing for an Anthropolo­ gist to Do in Fukushima? Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology 15:151–163. Gill, Tom, Brigitte Steger, and David H. Slater, eds. 2013. Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disasters of March 2011. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Goldstein-Gidoni, Ofra. 2012. Housewives of Japan: An Ethnography of Real Lives and Con­ sumerized Domesticity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gordon, Andrew. 2003. A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2005. Managing the Japanese Household: The New Life Movement in Postwar Japan. In Gendering Modern Japanese History, edited by Barbara Molony and Kathleen Uno. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Greenhouse, Carol J., ed. 2010. Ethnographies of Neoliberalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gusterson, Hugh. 1996. Nuclear Weapons Testing: Scientific Experiment as Political Ritual. In Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power and Knowledge, edited by Laura Nader. New York: Routledge. Guthman, Julie. 2004. Back to the Land: The Paradox of Organic Food Standards. Envi­ ronment and Planning A 36 (3): 511–528. ———. 2007. The Polanyian Way? Voluntary Food Labels as Neoliberal Governance. Antipode 39 (3): 456–478. Hall, Derek. 2010. Food with a Visible Face: Traceability and the Public Promotion of Private Governance in the Japanese Food System. Geoforum 41 (5): 826–835. Hamada, Nobuyuki, and Haruyuki Ogino. 2012. Food Safety Regulations: What We Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Journal of Environmental Radioactiv­ ity 111:83–99. Harada, Kouji H., Tamon Niisoe, Mie Imanaka, Tomoyuki Takahashi, Katsumi Amako, Yukiko Fujii, Masatoshi Kanameishi, et al. 2014. Radiation Dose Rates Now and in the Future for Residents Neighboring Restricted Areas of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (10): E914–E923. Harvey, David. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 155 7/6/18 11:35 AM 156 References

Hathaway, Michael J. 2013. Environmental Winds: Making the Global in Southwest China. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hayano, Ryugo S., Masaharu Tsukobura, Makoto Miyazaki, Hideo Satou, Katsumi Sato, Shin Masaki, and Yu Sakuma. 2013. Internal Radiocesium Contamination of Adults and Children in Fukushima 7 to 20 Months after the Fukushima NPP Accident as Measured by Extensive Whole-Body-Counter Surveys. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B 89 (4): 157–163. ———. 2015. Whole-Body Counter Surveys of Miharu-Town School Children for Four Consecutive Years after the Fukushima NPP Accident. Proceedings of the Japan Acad­ emy, Series B 91 (3): 92–98. Hecht, Gabrielle. 2013. Nuclear Janitors: Contract Workers at the Fukushima Reactors and Beyond. The Asia-Pacific Journal 11 (1): no. 2. Hess, David J. 2007. Crosscurrents: Social Movements and the Anthropology of Science and Technology. American Anthropologist 109 (3): 463–472. Hommerich, Carola. 2012. Trust And Subjective Well-Being after the Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Meltdown: Preliminary Results. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21 (1): 46–64. Hosono, Hiromi, Tsutomu Sekizami, Hirokazu T. Subone, and Yuko Kumagai. 2013. Shōhisha chōsa no jōhō: 3 kai no intaanetto chōsa kara [Report on consumer research: 3rd Internet survey]. Tokyo University. Accessed May 7, 2017. http://www.frc.a.u -tokyo.ac.jp/safety/radioactive_material/media/. Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. 2014. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Disaster: Investigating the Myth and Reality. New York: Routledge. Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Develop­ ment. New York: Routledge. ———. 2001. Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosci­ ences. Public Understanding of Science 10:1–18. Ishida, Hiroshi, and David H. Slater. eds. 2010. Social Class in Contemporary Japan: Struc­ tures, Sorting and Strategies. New York: Routledge. Itō, Nobuhiko, ed. 2011. Kazoku wo mamoru!!: Hōshaseibusshitsu wo nozoku shokuji [Pro­ tect your family!!: Meals without radioactive materials]. Tokyo: Sōgōtosho. Iuchi, Kanako, Laurie A. Johnson, and Robert B. Olshansky. 2013. Securing Tohoku’s Future: Planning for Rebuilding in the First Year Following the Tohoku-oki Earth­ quake and Tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 29 (S1): S479–S499. Jobin, Paul. 2011. Dying for TEPCO? Fukushima’s Nuclear Contract Workers. The Asia- Pacific Journal 9 (18): no. 3. Jones, Mark A. 2010. Children as Treasures: Childhood and the Middle Class in Early Twenti­ eth Century Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jorant, Caroline. 2011. The Implications of Fukushima. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67 (4): 14–17. Juris, Jeffrey S. 2012. Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social Media, Public Space, and Emerging Logics of Aggregation. American Ethnologist 39 (2): 259–279. Kadota, Ryusho. 2012. Shi no fuchi wo mita otoko [The man who stared at the brink of death]. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyūjo. Kageura, Kyo. 2011. 3.11 go no hōshanō “anzen” hōdō wo yomitoku [Understanding reports about safety and radioactivity after 3.11]. Tokyo: Gendai Kikakushitsu. Kajitani, Yoshio, Stephanie E. Chang, and Hirokazu Tatano. 2013. Economic Impacts of the 2011 Tohoku-oki Earthquake and Tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 29 (S1): S457–S478.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 156 7/6/18 11:35 AM References 157

Kamisato, Tatsuhiro. 2005. BSE Crisis in Japan: A Chronological Overview. Environ­ mental Health and Preventative Medicine 10 (5): 295–302. Kan, Naoto. 2017. My Nuclear Nightmare: Leading Japan through Fukushima Disaster to a Nuclear-Free Future. Translated by Jeffrey S. Irish. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kando, Akiko, and Akira Sugenoya. 2012. Naibu hibaku kō sureba fusegeru! [Do this to protect against internal exposure!]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū. Kaufman, Sharon R. 2010. Regarding the Rise in Autism: Vaccine Safety Doubt, Condi­ tions of Inquiry, and the Shape of Freedom. Ethos 38 (1): 8–32. Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Net­ works in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kelly, Dominic. 2014. Ideology, Society, and the Origins of Nuclear Power in Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 9 (1): 47–64. Kimura, Aya Hirata. 2013. Standards as Hybrid Forum: Comparison of the Post-Fuku­ shima Radiation Standards by a Consumer Cooperative, the Private Sector, and the Japanese Government. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 20 (1): 11–29. ———. 2016. Radiation Brain Moms and Citizen Scientists: The Gender Politics of Food Con­ tamination after Fukushima. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kimura, Aya Hirata, and Mima Nishiyama. 2008. The Chisan-Chisho Movement: Japa­ nese Local Food Movement and Its Challenges. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (1): 49–64. Kingston, Jeff. 2012a. Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan: Response and Recovery after Japan’s 3/11. New York: Routledge. ———. 2012b. Japan’s Nuclear Village. The Asia-Pacific Journal 10 (37): no. 1. ———. 2014. Abe’s Nuclear Renaissance. Critical Asian Studies 46 (3): 461–484. Kirby, Peter W. 2011. Troubled Natures: Waste, Environment, Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Knowles, Scott Gabriel. 2011. The Disaster Experts: Mastering Risk in Modern America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Koyama, Ryōta. 2013. The Influence and Damage Caused by the Nuclear Disaster on Fukushima’s Agriculture. Shōgaku Ronshū 81 (4): 11–21. Koyama, Ryōta, and Tomomi Komatsu. 2013. Nō no saisei to shoku no anzen: Genpatsu jiko to Fukushima no ninen [Revitalizing agriculture and food safety: Fukushima and the nuclear accident after two years]. Tokyo: Shinnihonshuppansha. Krauss, Ellis S., Thomas P. Rohlen, and Patricia G. Steinhoff. 1984. Conflict in Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1984. Kuchinskaya, Olga. 2012. Twice Invisible: Formal Representations of Radiation Danger. Social Studies of Science 43 (1): 78–96. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. LeBlanc, Robin M. 1999. Bicycle Citizens: The Political World of the Japanese Housewife. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Lewis, Catherine. 1978. Women in the Consumer Movement. In Proceedings of the Tokyo Symposium on Women, edited by Merry White and Barbara Molony. Tokyo: Interna­ tional Group for the Study of Women. Lezaun, Javier, and Linda Soneryd. 2007. Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicita­ tion and the Mobility of Publics. Public Understanding of Science 16:279–297.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 157 7/6/18 11:35 AM 158 References

Lock, Margaret. 1987. Protests of a Good Wife and Wise Mother: The Medicalization of Distress in Japan. In Health, Illness, and Medical Care in Japan: Cultural and Social Dimensions, edited by Edward Norbeck and Margaret Lock. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Luoma, Samuel N., and Ragnar E. Löfstedt. 2007. Contaminated Salmon and the Pub­ lic’s Trust. Environmental Science & Technology 41 (6): 1811–1814. Lyon, Sarah. 2011. Coffee and Community: Maya Farmers and Fair-Trade Markets. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Mackie, Vera C. 2003. Feminism in Modern Japan: Citizenship, Embodiment, and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maki, Norio. 2013. Disaster Response to the 2011 Tohoku-oki Earthquake: National Coordination, a Common Operational Picture, and Command and Control in Local Governments. Earthquake Spectra 29 (S1): S369–S385. Malin, Andrea. 1994. Mother Who Won’t Disappear. Human Rights Quarterly 16 (1): 187. Manabe, Noriko. 2015. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Protest Music after Fukushima. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKean, Margaret A. 1981. Environmental Protest and Citizen Politics in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. McLaughlin, Levi. 2013a. What Have Religious Groups Done after 3.11? Part 1: A Brief Survey of Religious Mobilization after the Great East Japan Earthquake Disasters. Religion Compass 7 (8): 294–308. ———. 2013b. What Have Religious Groups Done after 3.11? Part 2: From Religious Mobilization to “Spiritual Care.” Religion Compass 7 (8): 309–325. Merz, Stefan, Katsumi Shozugawa, and Georg Steinhauser. 2015. Analysis of Japanese Radionuclide Monitoring Data of Food before and after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Environmental Science & Technology 49 (5): 2875–2885. Michino, Hideji. 2012. Tokyo denryoku Fukushima daiichi genshiryokuhatsudensho jiko ni tomonau shokuhin no hōshaseibusshitsu osen taisaku nitsuite [Countermea­ sures for radioactive food contamination in regards to TEPCO’s Fukushima daiichi accident]. Nōgyō to keizai 78 (1): 83–100. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 2015. Nōrinsuisanshō ni okeru hisaich­ isan shokuhin no shōhi kakudai nitsuite [Expanding the consumption of food from disaster-stricken regions in regards to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries]. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main -cat1/sub-cat1-4/20150603_2_nousuishousetumeisiryou.pdf. ———. 2016. Yūki nōgyō no suishin nitsuite [The promotion of organic agriculture]. Accessed January 2, 2017. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/kankyo/yuuki/convention /h26/pdf/d01.pdf. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Japan. 2012. White Paper on Science and Technology. Accessed November 18, 2015. http://www.mext.go .jp/english/whitepaper/1323541.htm. Miyamoto, Ken’ichi. 2013. Japanese Environmental Policy: Lessons from Experience and Remaining Problems. In Japan at Nature’s Edge: The Environmental Context of a Global Power, edited by Ian J. Miller, Julia T. Adeney, and Brett L. Walker. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Mizuguchi, Kenya, and Shojiro Akashi. 2011. Shokuhin no hōshanō osen kanzen taisaku manyuaru: Zero bekureru no shokutaku wo mezasu tame no baiburu [The complete man­ ual to counter radioactive contamination in food: A bible for zero-becquerel din­ ing]. Tokyo: Takarajimasha.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 158 7/6/18 11:35 AM References 159

Moberg, Mark. 2014. Certification and Neoliberal Governance: Moral Economies of Fair Trade in the Eastern Caribbean. American Anthropologist 116 (1): 8–22. Moen, Darrell G. 1997. The Japanese Organic Farming Movement: Consumers and Farmers United. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 29 (4). Accessed December 6, 2017. http://dgmoen.net/blog/scholarship/the-japanese-organic-farming -movement-consumers-and-farmers-united/index.html. ———. 2000. Grassroots-Based Organic Foods Distributors, Retailers, and Consumer Cooperatives in Japan: Broadening the Organic Farming Movement. Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies 32:55–76. Morimoto, Ryo. 2014. Message without a Coda: On the Rhetoric of Photographic Records. Signs and Society 2 (2): 284–313. Morino, Yu, Toshimasa Ohara, Mirai Watanabe, Seiji Hayashi, and Masato Nishizawa. 2013. Episode Analysis of Deposition of Radiocesium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Environmental Science & Technology 47 (5): 2314–2322. Morioka, Rika. 2013. Mother Courage: Women as Activists between a Passive Popu­ lace and a Paralyzed Government. In Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disasters of March 2011, edited by Tom Gill, Brigitte Steger, and David H. Slater. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. ———. 2014. Gender Difference in the Health Risk Perception of Radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The Role of Hegemonic Masculinity. Social Science & Medicine 107C:105–112. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. 2014. Touching the Grass: Science, Uncertainty and Everyday Life from Chernobyl to Fukushima. Science Technology & Society 19 (3): 331–362. Mulgan, Aurelia. 2005. Where Tradition Meets Change: Japan’s Agricultural Politics in Transition. Journal of Japanese Studies 31 (2): 261–298. Murakami, Michio, and Taikan Oki. 2014. Estimated Dietary Intake of Radionuclides and Health Risks for the Citizens of Fukushima City, Tokyo, and Osaka after the 2011 Nuclear Accident. PLoS One 9 (11): e112791. Murakami, Michio, Kyoko Ono, Masaharu Tsubokura, Shuhei Nomura, Tomoyoshi Oikawa, Tosihiro Oka, Masahiro Kami, and Taikan Oki. 2015. Was the Risk from Nursing-Home Evacuation after the Fukushima Accident Higher than the Radia­ tion Risk? PLoS One 10 (9): e0137906. Muto, Ruiko. 2012. Fukushima kara anata e [From Fukushima to you]. Tokyo: Otsukishoten. Mythen, Gabe. 2004. Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society. London: Pluto Press. Nabeshi, Hiromi, Tomoaki Tsutsumi, Yoshinori Uekusa, Akiko Hachisuka, Rieko Matsuda, and Reiko Teshima. 2014. Surveillance of Strontium-90 in Foods after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Journal of the Food Hygienic Soci­ ety of Japan 56 (4): 133–143. Nakagawa, Keiichi. 2012. Hōshaseni ga kataru: Hibaku to hatsugan no shinjitsu [A radiation doctor speaks: The truth about exposure and cancer]. Tokyo: Besutoserāzu. Nakanishi, Hiromi, Atsushi Mori, Kouki Takeda, Houdo Tanaka, Natsuko Kobayashi, Keitaro Tanoi, Takashi Yamakawa, and Satoshi Mori. 2015. Discovery of Radioactive Silver (110m Ag) in Spiders and Other Fauna in the Terrestrial Environment after the Meltdown of Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B 91 (4): 160–174. Nakayachi, Kazuya. 2015. Examining Public Trust in Risk-Managing Organizations after a Major Disaster. Risk Analysis 35:57– 67.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 159 7/6/18 11:35 AM 160 References

National Diet of Japan. The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive Summary. Accessed January 23, 2016. https://www.nirs.org /fukushima/naiic_report.pdf. Nestle, Marion. 2010. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: University of Cali­ fornia Press. Normile, Dennis. 2011. Fukushima Revives the Low-Dose Debate. Science 332 (6032): 908–910. Ogawa, Akihiro. 2010. The Failure of Civil Society?: The Third Sector and the State in Con­ temporary Japan. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. ———. 2013. Demanding a Safer Tomorrow: Japan’s Anti-nuclear Rallies in the Sum­ mer of 2012. Anthropology Today 29, no. 1:21–24. Ohara-Hirano, Yukio. 2012. The Mental Health Status of Indonesian Candidates Leav­ ing for Japan under the Japan-Indonesia Economic Partnership Agreement: After the Great East Japan Earthquake. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21 (1): 37–45. Okada, Hiroki. 2012. An Anthropological Examination of Differences between the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Great Hanshin Earthquake. Asian Anthropol­ ogy 11:55–63. Okamura, Hiroshi, Shiro Ikeda, Takami Morita, and Shinto Eguchi. 2016. Risk Assess­ ment of Radioisotope Contamination for Aquatic Living Resources in and around Japan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (14): 3838–3843. Oliver-Smith, Anthony. 1996. Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:303–328. Oliver-Smith, Anthony, and Susanna M. Hoffman, eds. 1999. The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective. New York: Routledge. Ong, Aihwa. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Onodera, Takashi, and Chi-Kyeong Kim. 2006. BSE Situation and Establishment of Food Safety Commission in Japan. Journal of Veterinary Sciences 7:1–11. Otsubo, Sumiko. 2005. Engendering Eugenics: Feminists and Marriage Restriction Leg­ islation in the 1920s. In Gendering Modern Japanese History, edited by Barbara Molony and Kathleen Uno. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Paredes, J. Anthony, Ed. 2006. In Focus: The Impact of the Hurricanes of 2005 on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the United States. Theme issue, American Anthropolo­ gist 108 (4): 637–813. Paxson, Heather. 2008. Post-Pasteurian Cultures: The Microbiopolitics of Raw-Milk Cheese in the United States. Cultural Anthropology 23 (1): 15–47. Pérez, Federico. 2016. Excavating Legal Landscapes: Juridical Archaeology and the Politics of Bureaucratic Materiality in Bogotá, Colombia. Cultural Anthropology 31 (2): 215–243. Petryna, Adriana. 2002. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pritchard, Sara B. 2012. An Envirotechnical Disaster: Nature, Technology, and Politics at Fukushima. Environmental History 17 (2): 219–243. Ranciere, Jacques. 2004. Who is the Subject of the Rights of Man? South Atlantic Quar­ terly 103 (2): 297–310. Reiher, Cornelia. 2017. Food Safety and Consumer Trust in Post-Fukushima Japan. Japan Forum 29 (1): 53–76.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 160 7/6/18 11:35 AM References 161

Riles, Annelise. 2013. Market Collaboration: Finance, Culture, and Ethnography after Neoliberalism. American Anthropologist 115 (4): 555–569. Rose Johnston, Barbara. 2011. In This Nuclear World, What Is the Meaning of “Safe”? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 18. https://thebulletin.org/nuclear -world-what-meaning-safe. Rose, Nikolas S. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberger, Nancy. 2009. Global Food Terror in Japan: Media Shaping Risk Percep­ tion, the Nation, and Women. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 48 (4): 237–262. ———. 2014. “Making an Ant’s Forehead of Difference”: Organic Agriculture as an Alternative Lifestyle in Japan. In Capturing Contemporary Japan: Differentiation and Uncertainty, edited by Satsuki Kawano, Glenda S. Roberts, and Susan Orpett Long. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Sakai, Masaru, Takashi Gomi, Masanori Nunokawa, Taeko Wakahara, and Yuichi Onda. 2014. Soil Removal as a Decontamination Practice and Radiocesium Accu­ mulation in Tadpoles in Rice Paddies at Fukushima. Environmental Pollution 187:112– 115. Samuels, Richard J. 2013. 3.11: Disaster and Change in Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer­ sity Press. Sanada, Yukihisa, Takeshi Sugita, Yukiyasu Nishizawa, Atsuya Kondo, and Tatsuo Torii. 2014. The Aerial Radiation Monitoring in Japan after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Progress in Nuclear Science and Technology 4:76–80. Sayre, Ryan. 2011. The Un-thought of Preparedness: Concealments of Disaster Pre­ paredness in Tokyo’s Everyday. Anthropology and Humanism 36:215–224. Schencking, J. Charles. 2013. The Great Kanto Earthquake and the Chimera of National Reconstruction in Japan. New York: Columbia University Press. Schreurs, Miranda A. 2004. Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Seikatsu Club. 2012. Atarashii hōshanō dokuji kijunchi ga shigatsu kara sutāto! [The new independent standards for radioactivity start in April!]. Action Report Special Issue, April. Shanks, Arthur, Sean Fournier, and Sonoya Shanks. 2012. Challenges in Determin­ ing the Isotopic Mixture for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Health Physics 102 (5): 527–534. Shapiro, Nicholas. 2015. Attuning to the Chemosphere: Domestic Formaldehyde, Bodily Reasoning, and the Chemical Sublime. Cultural Anthropology 30 (3): 368–393. Shimazono, Susumu. 2013. Genpatsu saigai to akademizumu [The nuclear disaster and Academism]. Tokyo: Godoshuppan. Shimura, Tsutomu, Ichiro Yamaguchi, Hiroshi Terada, Erik Robert Svendsen, and Naoki Kunugita. 2015. Public Health Activities for Mitigation of Radiation Expo­ sures and Risk Communication Challenges after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Journal of Radiation Research 56 (3): 422–429. Shōhisha mondai kenkyūjo. 2011. Hōshanō kara kodomo no shoku wo mamoru hōhō [How to protect your children’s food from radiation]. Tokyo: Ueibushuppan. Slater, David H. 2011. Fukushima Women against Nuclear Power: Finding a Voice from Tohoku. The Asia-Pacific Journal. Accessed January 23, 2016. http://japanfocus.org/ -David%20H.-Slater/4694/article.html.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 161 7/6/18 11:35 AM 162 References

———. 2013a. Moralities of Volunteer Aid: The Permutation of Gifts and Their Recipro­ cals. In Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disasters of March 2011, edited by Tom Gill, David H. Slater, and Brigitte Steger. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. ———. 2013b. Urgent Ethnography. In Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disasters of March 2011, edited by Tom Gill, Brigitte Steger, and David H. Slater. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Slater, David H., Rika Morioka, and Haruka Danzuka. 2014. Micro-politics of Radia­ tion: Young Mothers Looking for a Voice in Post-3.11 Fukushima. Critical Asian Stud­ ies 46 (3): 485–508. Slater, David H., Keiko Nishimura, and Love Kindstrand. 2012. Social Media, Informa­ tion, and Political Activism in Japan’s 3.11 Crisis. The Asia-Pacific Journal 10 (24): no. 1. Slovic, Paul. 2012. The Perception Gap: Radiation and Risk. Bulletin of the Atomic Scien­ tists 68 (3): 67–75. Sopranzetti, Claudio. 2014. Owners of the Map: Mobility and Mobilization among Motorcycle Taxi Drivers in Bangkok. City & Society 26 (1): 120–143. Steinhauser, Georg, Alexander Brandl, and Thomas E. Johnson. 2014. Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Accidents: A Review of the Environmental Impacts. Science of the Total Environment 470–471:800–817. Steinhauser, Georg, Viktoria Schauer, and Katsumi Shozugawa. 2013. Concentration of Strontium-90 at Selected Hot Spots in Japan. PLoS One 8 (3): e57760. Sternsdorff-Cisterna, Nicolas. 2013. Space and Terroir in the Chilean Wine Industry. In Wine and Culture: From Vineyard to Glass, edited by Robert Ulin and Rachel Black. London: Berg. ———. 2015. “Food after Fukushima: Scientific Citizenship and Risk in Japan,” Ameri­ can Anthropologist 117 (3): 455–467. Takahara, Teruhiko, Satoru Endo, Momo Takada, Yurika Oba, Wim Ikbal Nursal, Takeshi Igawa, Hideyuki Doi, Toshihiro Yamada, and Toshinori Okuda. 2015. Radiocesium Accumulation in the Anuran Frog, Rana Tagoi Tagoi, in Forest Eco­ systems after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Environmental Pollution 199:89–94. Takahashi, Satsuki. 2012. Safety in Numbers: Radiation Guidelines and Food Security in Post-Fukushima Japan. July 3. Temple University, Tokyo. Tanpoposya. 2011. Hōshanō kara kazoku wo mamoru hon [The book to protect your family from radiation]. Tokyo: Eiwa Shuppansha. Ten Hoeve, John E., and Mark Z. Jacobson. 2012. Worldwide Health Effects of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Energy & Environmental Science 5 (9): 8743– 8757. Thakur, P., S. Ballard, and R. Nelson. 2013. An Overview of Fukushima Radionu­ clides Measured in the Northern Hemisphere. Science of the Total Environment 458–460:577–613. Tocco, Martha. 2005. Made in Japan: Meiji Women’s Education. In Gendering Modern Japanese History, edited by Kathleen Uno and Barbara Molony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Toivonen, Tuukka. 2013. Youth for 3.11 and the Challenge of Dispatching Young Urban Volunteers to North-eastern Japan. In Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disasters of March 2011, edited by Tom Gill, Brigitte Steger, and Slater H. David. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 162 7/6/18 11:35 AM References 163

Tokyo Electric Power Company. Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report. Accessed January 23, 2016. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e /images/120620e0104.pdf. Tollefson, J. W. 2014. The Discursive Reproduction of Technoscience and Japanese National Identity in the Daily Yomiuri Coverage of the Fukushima Nuclear Disas­ ter. Discourse & Communication 8 (3): 299–317. Traweek, Sharon. 1998. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tsubokura, Masaharu, Shigeaki Kato, Tomohiro Morita, Shuhei Nomura, Masa­ hiro Kami, Kikugoro Sakaihara, Tatsuo Hanai, Tomoyoshi Oikawa, and Yukio Kanazawa. 2015. Assessment of the Annual Additional Effective Doses amongst Minamisoma Children during the Second Year after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster. PLoS One 10 (6): e0129114. Tsubokura, Masaharu, Shigeaki Kato, Shuhei Nomura, Stuart Gilmour, Masahiko Nihei, Yu Sakuma, Tomoyoshi Oikawa, Yukio Kanazawa, Masahiro Kami, and Ryugo Hayano. 2014. Reduction of High Levels of Internal Radio-Contamination by Dietary Intervention in Residents of Areas Affected by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Disaster: A Case Series. PLoS One 9 (6): e100302. Tsurumi, E. Patricia. 1992. Factory Girls: Women in the Thread Mills of Meiji Japan. Princ­ eton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ueno, Chizuko. 1987. The Position of Japanese Women Reconsidered. Current Anthropol­ ogy 28 (4): S75–S84. ———. 1988. The Japanese Women’s Movement: The Counter-Values to Industrialism. In The Japanese Trajectory: Modernization and Beyond, edited by Gavan McCormack and Yoshio Sugimoto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1996. Collapse of “Japanese Mothers.” US-Japan Women’s Journal. English Sup­ plement, 3–19. Uno, Kathleen. 1993. The Death of “Good Wife, Wise Mother”? In Postwar Japan as His­ tory, edited by Andrew Gordon. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1995. The Origins of Good Wife, Wise Mother in Modern Japan. In Japanische Frauengeschichte(n), edited by Erich Pauer and Regine Mathias. Marburg: Förder­ verein Marburger Japan-Reihe, 31–47. UNSCEAR. 2013. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation UNSCEAR 2013 Report. Accessed April 15, 2017. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2013_1 .html. Vogel, Suzanne. 1978. Professional Housewife: The Career of Urban Middle Class Japa­ nese Women. Japan Interpreter 12 (1): 16–43. Walker, Brett T. 2010. Toxic Archipelago: A History of Industrial Disease in Japan. Seattle: University of Washington Press. White, Merry. 1987. The Virtue of Japanese Mothers: Cultural Definitions of Women’s Lives. Daedalus 116 (3): 149–163. ———. 1992. Home Truths: Women and Social Change in Japan. Daedalus 121 (4): 61–82. Williamson, Piers. 2012. Largest Demonstrations in Half a Century Protest the Restart of Japanese Nuclear Power Plant. The Asia-Pacific Journal 27 (5): no. 5. Woehr, Ulrike. 1996. Early Feminist Ideas on Motherhood in Japan: Challenging the Official Ideal of “Good Wife, Wise Mother.” Hiroshima kokusai kenkyū 2:57–104. World Health Organization. 2012. Preliminary Dose Estimation from the Nuclear Acci­ dent after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Radiation Programme.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 163 7/6/18 11:35 AM 164 References

Department of Public Health and Environment. Geneva: WHO. Accessed January 23, 2016. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44877/1/9789241503662_eng.pdf. ———.2016. Ionizing Radiation. Accessed January 22, 2016. http://www.who.int/ionizing _radiation/about/en/. Wynne, Brian. 2001. Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10 (4): 445–481. Yamaguchi, Ichiro. 2012. Radioactive Concentration of Food Caused by Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster and New Radiological Standards for Foodstuffs in the Existing Exposure Situation in Japan after a Severe Nuclear Accident. Japanese Journal of Health Physics 47 (2): 144–147. Yamaguchi, Tomiko. 2014. Social Imaginary and Dilemmas of Policy Practice: The Food Safety Arena in Japan. Food Policy 45:167–173. Yamashita, Yusuke. 2012. How Does the Restoration of Tōhoku Society Begin? Center and Periphery in the Great East Japan Earthquake. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21 (1): 6–11. Yasunari, Teppei J., Andreas Stohl, Ryugo S. Hayano, John F. Burkhart, Sabine Eck­ hardt, and Tetsuzo Yasunari. 2011. Cesium-137 Deposition and Contamination of Japanese Soils Due to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (49): 19530–19534. Yoshida, Naohiro, and Jota Kanda. 2012. Tracking the Fukushima Radionuclides. Sci­ ence 336 (6085): 1115–1116.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 164 7/6/18 11:35 AM About• the Author

Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna is assistant professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University. He received his PhD in social anthropol­ ogy from Harvard University and specializes in the study of food, the environment, and Japan.

Sternsdorff_V3.indd 171 7/6/18 11:35 AM