日本国という宗教—日本の危機ー

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　落合栄一郎

以下の文章は、日刊ベリタ2008年１月に掲載されたものを再掲載するものである。ただし、最近の政情の変化を取り入れるため、最後の部分を少し変更し、書き加えた。

日本と周辺国との歴史には、近代以前は、元帝国（モンゴール）による２回にわたる日本侵攻の試みがあり、戦国時代後半秀吉が明帝国攻略を意図して朝鮮へ2回にわたり出兵したなどがあったが、古代には、中国、朝鮮との交流は盛んであり、特に日本による彼の地の文化／文明の摂取は日本の歴史形成に大きく貢献した。すなわち、秀吉の試みを除けば、江戸時代末まで、周辺国とはかなり友好的な関係が保たれたようである。中国は、その中華思想に基づいて、日本を遇していたとしてもであるが。しかし、明治維新以来日本は周辺国への侵略者になってしまった。

さて江戸時代２世紀半の長きにわたって日本は260程の小国に分断されて、武士から庶民まで日本人意識はあまりなく、藩への帰属意識が殆どすべてであった。一方天皇という存在は、軍事政権による政治の影に隠れて、鎌倉時代以降の殆どの時期（例外はあった）国民の意識には強くは映ってはいなかったようである。

明治革命政府は、そうした藩意識を壊して日本人意識を植え付ける必要に迫られた。制度上は、廃藩置県、士族の廃止などの政策を進める一方、「天皇は神であり、日本に住む人民全員はその赤子（臣民）である」という神話をつくりあげ、それを明治憲法の基本に据えた。それにより、藩への帰属意識は払拭され、藩に所属した武士も農民も平等な日本国民と看做されえ、例えば等しく日本国軍人になりうる。ここに、日本国に属する人民イコール日本民族が創作され、日本民族は、天皇を親とする家族であるとなった。この神話は明治憲法起草者達の苦肉の発明であったと思われるが、それを多くの手段で、日本国民に定着させる策を実行した。天皇を担ぎ出して大々的な全国巡行を実施し、国民皆兵制（天皇への忠誠をもとに）を敷き、教育面では、幼児期から国民にこの観念を植え付けるべく教育勅語を発した。

江戸期には、儒教的「皇帝」概念なるものは知られていたが、こうした中国的皇帝の概念は日本には根を下ろすことはなかった。幕末の「尊王」思想は、軍事政権たる徳川幕府に対する、古から存在したただ単に漠然とした「スメラミコト」への回帰に過ぎず、確たる理論武装（皮相なそれはあった）が伴っていたとは思われない。勿論、後の「天皇＝神＝日本国体」は主要な概念ではなかった。

さて宗教の根本は、おそらく、人間存在の非条理性—自分の意志に関係なく産まれ、死を免れないというーに拠り所を与えるものと思われる。中近東に発生した３大宗教では、その拠り所は超自然的絶対神であって、それを信仰することによって心の安寧を得るが、自分達の神以外の神の信仰者に対する許容度は低い。それは、自分達の神こそが最も正当な神と信じるが故である。そして自分達は神に選ばれたものと確信する（選民意識）。もう一つ、これらの組織的宗教は精神生活、日常生活に対する規範を聖典として提供し、人々の人生を律するし、それが場合によっては社会に善をなすことに貢献することは否定する必要はない。

日本には、元来こうした形態の宗教は存在しなかった。外来の儒教、仏教は、聖典は導入されてはいても、それが人々の精神生活、日常生活を律することはなかった（中国、東南アジア諸国やインド（仏教からヒンドウーが主流にはなったが）でのように）。単なる生活習慣ぐらいのものはある。神道には、聖典に相当するものはない。そこで、明治政府が作り出した「日本国体＝天皇」神話を中心にした明治憲法が宗教の役目を担うことになったと考えられる（山本七平＝イザヤベンダサン氏言うところの「日本教」とは無関係）。江戸時代には、「藩、藩主」への帰属意識が人々の生存根拠ではあったのであろう。そして、藩、藩主の為に生き、死ぬことが封建社会では名誉とされ、人々（少なくとも多くの武士）はそう思い込んでいた。明治政府は、藩を「日本国」に、藩主を「天皇」にと拡大させたのである。明治10年代頃から彷彿と起った「自由民権」（主権在民）運動を否定するためでもあった。すなわち国会開設などのある程度の民主化は容認するものの、本質的には「封建制」の再確立であった。封建制は、力で民衆を押さえている限り、政治形態の一種だが、民衆が、体制側が掲げる主体への帰属を自らの拠り所とするようになった時点で宗教に変身する。

明治以降の日本の人々は、日本民族の一人であり、天皇の臣民であるというところに、自分の存在の拠り所を見いだしたのであろう、いや見いだすように仕向けられた。そして、多くの人は、そこに誇りを見いだし、その（天皇＝日本国体）ために死ぬことを誇りと思い込まされたし、実際思い込んでしまった。この考え方の極致が「特攻」である（実情は、かなりの強制があったらしいが）。

これは、日中戦争、第２次大戦へ進む過程で、更に徹底されていった。その過程で、戦死者を日本国体＝天皇を守るために進んで自分の命を投げ出した英雄に祭り上げ、その人達の霊を祀ると称して、靖国神社なるものを立ち上げた。また宗教のもう一つの側面である、日本人の選民性＝周辺国民の蔑視も強調され、日本人に植え付けられた。おそらく明治の元勲達の意図は、単に「日本」という国を作り上げるためということであったと思われる。しかしながら、その後は、市場や経済圏を広げたいという、この時期から急成長し始めた企業とその後押しをする軍閥が、その元勲達の意図を超えて、侵略戦争に人民を駆り出すための宗教へと変えていった。

この時期までに、世界規模で展開されてきた欧米の植民地政策−市場拡大—とそれがもたらす各種の利益に、企業家や軍閥などが毒されてしまったもののごとくである。欧米から開始されたこうした進展（産業革命も含めて）は、多くの人々に物質的豊かさ／生活の快適さをもたらしたーこれは人間にとって非常に魅力的である。（こういう文明はしかし、地球上の人類にとって持続不可能であることは言うまでもないが、この点は別に議論する必要がある）

この魅力は、現在でも充分に人類を魅了しているし、欧米諸国民のみならず、後進国の多くもこの魅力にとりつかれている。日本はといえば、全体的に見れば、充分すぎるほど物質的に豊かになったにも拘わらず、さらなる物質欲のみが多くの人の関心事になり、生きる拠り所がそれのみ（拝金主義という宗教）になってしまった。その上、一部の人達は憲法を改定してまで、自分達の利益の更なる増大をはかろうとしているようである。そのため、またぞろ、政府／財界などは旧憲法への回帰を画策している。すでに戦後の教育基本法を強引に改悪してしまって、国体＝天皇への忠誠を国民（幼児から）に刷り込もうとしている。この宗教は第２次世界大戦での敗戦で破綻したはずだが、その教義に縛り付けられている人々がまだかなりいるようである。こういう人達が、新憲法改悪を画策している。しかし、生きる拠り所を見失っている日本の多くの人には、国体＝天皇が彼らの拠り所を提供しかねないことは充分に考えられる。

すなわち、彼らに宗教を提供するのである。今のうちに、宗教にまでに至らないように、人々にその危険性を悟ってもらわなければならない。「美しい日本」とか「戦後レジームからの脱却」などのキャッチフレーズに誤摩化されないように、その背後の意図を汲み取ってもらわねばならない。その意図とは日本を軍事力を行使できる“正常”な国家にしようというものである。そして現在世界中から顰蹙をかっている国家（というよりその行政府）と行動を共にしようという、まともに考えれば理解しかねる意図（日本国の利益に反する）のようである。自衛権の行使を正当化したいだけともいう。また、かの国が始めた「テロ」撲滅への支援ともいう。これらの動きの本音（政府や通常のメデイアの報道より深く）を知ってそういう宣伝の不正当さを判断する必要がある。ーここまでが、原報であるー

さて、あれから９年、新アメリカ大統領が就任する直前となった。日本では、安部政権が、憲法改悪の動きを本格化している。安部政権は、すでに憲法９条を骨抜きにしてしまっている。集団自衛権を政令的に発布し、自衛隊を、自衛とは無関係な南スーダンに支援のみと称して派遣し、交戦権も認めている。そして、日本国内では、オリンピックに向けて、国威発揚とばかりに、日本バンザイ的な雰囲気が横溢しているようである。現政権の意図は天皇制の戦前への回帰であり、それによる日本国体という人民支配の体制作りに、様々な施策を施している、しかも教育体制も、大方のメデイアもそれを援護している。これは、上に論じた戦前の、明治政権から軍事政権への推移に酷似している。

なお、上で議論した明治政府のやり方に関して、日本書紀に込められている日本建国神話を取り入れたものであるという見解がある（注１）が、それには、天孫降臨などの権威づけはあるにしても、人民をその赤子とみなすような意識は表明されてはいない。そのような概念そのものが、あの藤原不比等の時代にあったとは考えられない。やはり、藩制度に数世紀支配されていた人民の意識を日本国市民という意識に変えるための施策であったと思われる。

なお、現在の日本社会の根底には、停滞する経済の復活こそが、活性化の基礎であるという概念がある。しかし、所得格差の増大を引き起こしている新自由主義の問題（注２）以上に、経済の拡張という概念そのものがすでに危機に瀕しているのである。これからは、経済は縮小せざるを得ないのである。それは、地球の資源の有限性から明白なのだが、経済学者も、企業家も、政治家も、この現実から目を背けている。それは、自分達の懐を肥やす目的以外の何者でもない。そのためならば、人殺しをするための武器・兵器、これには原発も入る、を生産し、輸出することもいとわない。経済の縮小、少子化傾向という避けられない現実にどう対処するか、人類は真剣に向き合わねばならない。こうした問題に関しては筆者のベリタ紙上の論を集めた書（注３）で少し論じた。

（注１）http://blog.livedoor.jp/bbgmgt/archives/1063742468.html

（注２）格差の肥大は2014年の時点での状態をこの紙上で論じた（http://www.nikkanberita.com/read.cgi?id=201410291128293）が、最新のデータによれば、上位８人（８％ではない）の資産が、下位50％の36億人のトータルの資産と同じだそうである。

（注３）「病む現代文明を超えて持続可能な文明へ」（本の泉社、2013）

NO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SHOULD BE ON THE EARTH

                                                                                        By Eiichiro Ochiai

I.  Introduction

     Science has advanced since the beginning of the 20^th century, and led to the current atomic age.  The discovery of the nuclear fission reaction in 1938 led immediately to its use for a military purpose.  The atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, flattened the two cities and killed several hundred thousand people instantaneously.  The cause of most of the deaths was non-radiation; extreme heat and the destructive shockwaves.  However, many also died from the strong radiation effects, without incurring burns or physical injury.  The nuclear fission reaction has since been applied to the “so-called” peaceful use, i.e., using nuclear power to produce electricity.  Both usages inevitably produce huge amounts of radioactive material as the byproducts.  The radiation from these sources now dominates the radiation background on the earth.  The radioactive materials have so far been released on the surface of the earth through the atomic bomb explosions, tests of nuclear weapons, accidents of nuclear facilities including those of Chernobyl in Ukraine, Three mile island in Pennsylvania in USA, Fukushima in Japan, and some nuclear submarines, and, also from the routine release from the nuclear facilities.

     The Chernobyl accident in 1986 affected and killed many people, but the damaged reactor No.4 has not been fixed and has been placed in a sarcophagus to prevent further release of radioactive material.  The sarcophagus, however, is deteriorated after thirty years, and is now covered with another huge dome.  The people affected are still suffering from many health problems thirty years later.

     The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan six years ago has not been fixed.  It is becoming increasingly evident that it is difficult to fix it, as three reactors’ nuclear fuel rods were melted; there is no precedence for such a disaster in human history.  The health effects of the radioactive material released are becoming significant day by day.  Unfortunately, this reality has been covered up by the Japanese government.  What’s more, the government is eagerly trying to restart as many nuclear power plants as possible, having done so with three nuclear power reactors so far, despite the fact that no electricity shortage was experienced when no single nuclear power plant was in operation for two years (2013-2015).  This implies that Japan does not need the nuclear energy.  Unfortunately even the largest opposition party (Minshin) seems to be in favor of restarting them.

      The politicians’ concern is simply “economics”, which is seen only from the standpoint of the operating corporations.  In terms of the overall economic effects, the nuclear power plants are known to be ineffective or rather disastrous. The people who are in favor of nuclear power, i.e., the present government of Japan (and others), the majority of politicians, the corporations that operate and nuclear power plants, the bureaucrats, and many so-called “experts” dependent on the nuclear industry, are concerned only with their own livelihood.  They are unaware of or they ignore the fact that radiation coming from the unavoidable byproducts of the nuclear power operation is indeed incompatible with living organisms. 

     This fact, i.e., INCOMPATIBILITY OF RADIATION WITH LIFE, seems to be recognized by the nuclear industry.  Hence, the nuclear industry and its associates (often termed “nuclear mafia”) are desperately trying to cover up the evil health effects of radiation.  They have tried, and have so far been able to cover them up relatively successfully.  This has been possible, only because the evil effects are basically subtle, not felt by the person affected, and have so far been confined to relatively small areas and few people (compared with the vast area of the entire earth and the majority of the human race).

     In the following short article we would like to show why radiation is incompatible with life, and hence that the “nuclear” power reactors as well as weapons which produce radioactive material should not be on the earth.

II.  Why is radiation incompatible with life?

1. The interaction of radiation particles with biomolecules

     Then, the basic question is: Why is radiation incompatible with life?  If this tenet is correct, the nuclear power (both weapon and electricity-producing) should not be allowed to exist on this earth, as they produce radionuclides as the by-products.  We will look into this issue from a scientific standpoint.

     Let’s recognize that the earth is a rare body in the universe.  A few earth-like bodies have been found, but whether life exists on those bodies is unknown.  The vast majority of the bodies in the universe have no life on them anyway.  Why is the earth so blessed with life?  The basic reason (i) is that the majority of material (likely more than 99.99999%) is made of stable atoms.  Two other reasons are: (ii) relatively little of cosmic ray, harmful to life, reachs the earth’s surface, and (iii) the prevailing temperature on the surface of this planet allows the presence of liquid water.  This last issue has something to do with the currently debated “climate change”, and will not be discussed here.

     First, an atom is made of a nucleus and surrounding electrons.  A nucleus consists of electrically neutral neutrons and positively charged protons.  They are confined in a very, very small area (nucleus) by the “strong” (“nuclear”) force.  On the other hands, electrons are attracted by “electromagnetic” force to the nucleus, as electrons are negatively charged.  All material including those constituting human bodies on this earth are made of stable atoms.  It needs to be added quickly that a few unstable atoms do exist on the earth and the extent of their effects on life is quite limited, though real, but cannot be made visible unless carefully studied.

     When we say “stable or unstable atom”, we mean “nucleus” rather than the whole atom consisting of a nucleus and surrounding electrons.  The energy state of the nucleus is governed by the “strong” force (“nuclear” force).  “Unstable” implies “having extra energy”, that needs to be shed.  So an unstable nucleus (of an atom) undergoes a spontaneous change to a more stable state.  The process is termed as “nuclear decay”, in which the extra energy is released as “radiation”.  So an unstable nucleus is called “radioactive nucleus” or “radionuclide”.  There are a few radiation types: alpha (a), beta (b), gamma (g) and neutron, and others.  The energies carried by these radiations are very large, as the processes of change are governed by the “strong” force.  Some examples of radiation energy are as follows: 20 KeV for b from T(tritium)(H-3), 1.2 MeV for b and g combined of Cs(cesium)-137, 546 KeV for b from Sr(strontium)-90, 5.245 MeV for a from Pu(plutonium)-239.  We will assume 1 MeV as a typical radiation particle energy in the argument below.  On the contrary, stable nuclei remain intact forever as they are, without emitting radiation.

     Because the majority of atoms on the earth are stable, they do not emit radiation.  It needs to be pointed out, though, that a few radioactive nuclides do exist on the present earth.  They include uranium (U)-238, thorium (Th)-232 and potassium (K)-40.  The direct effects of these radioactive nuclei on the living organisms are relatively minor, except for K-40.  Hence the all the living organisms are hardly subject to the negative effects of naturally occurring radionuclides; an exception is K-40.

     Reason (ii) mentioned above is how radiation from the outside of the earth, i.e., cosmic rays, approach the earth.  Cosmic rays consist of electrically charged particles such as protons, a particles and electrons (b), and of electrically neutral ones including g-ray and neutrons.  The magnetic field encircling the earth changes the course of the electrically charged particles.  As a result, most of them are reflected away from the earth, and do not significantly reach the surface of the earth.  Neutrons and g-ray will lose its energy as they enter the earth’s atmosphere.  However, neutrons cause the formation of e.g., the radioactive carbon C-14 from the atmospheric nitrogen.  Ultraviolet light is also harmful to living organisms, but it is being shielded off significantly by the ozone layer in the current atmosphere.  These special conditions surrounding the earth contribute to significant reductions of in-coming radiation, and helps living organisms to survive.  We are thus very fortunate, but unfortunately have created devices that produce a lot of radioactive material in the form of nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors.

     The effects of radiation on living organisms are based on their interactions with the molecules (compounds in general) in life.  The physical effect of radiation is of various types, but are summarized as “ionization”, i.e., ejection of an electron or electrons from a chemical compound.  In order to understand the likely magnitude of the radiation effects, we need to look at the material, i.e., chemical compounds; how they are constructed and the energy values involved in their changes, i.e., chemical reactions. 

     The materials on the earth are all made of chemical compounds/molecules; they consist of atoms connected by chemical bonds.  These bonds are made through the electromagnetic force.  For example, a water molecule is made of two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom in the manner of H-O-H, where the line connecting H and O is a chemical bond, formed by sharing two electrons between two atoms.  The negative two electrons attract two positively charged nuclei, i.e., (+ of the nucleus of H) (-- two electrons)(+of the nucleus of O).  All chemical compounds are composed of atoms connected through chemical bonds.  Some of typical energy values for chemical reactions are as follow: 13.6 eV for removing an electron from a hydrogen atom; 4.3 eV for breaking H-C bond in CH₄ (methane), 3.6 eV for breaking C-C bond in H₃C-CH₃ (ethane), 30.6 eV to remove an electron from Fe(2+).  The chemical reaction energy ranges from 1 eV to 100 eV.

     Now we will try to figure out what effects a radiation particle will have on chemical materials.  We assume that a typical chemical energy to eject an electron from a molecule is about 30 eV and the ejected electron may travel with 20 eV.  That is, a single impact of a radiation particle on a single chemical compound would use energy of 50 eV to eject an electron.  If this is so, a single radiation particle of 1 MeV will eject electrons from approximately 20 thousand molecules.  This number varies with many variables (density of chemicals in the material, kind of compounds, etc), and likely ranges something like from 100 to 10,000 molecules affected.  Many of the molecules with lost electrons may break their chemical bonds and be destroyed.  Some of them turn into free radicals.  Some ejected electrons could have high enough kinetic energy and act as b-particles.  Anyway, a single radiation particle of typical energy will destroy something like 100 to 10,000 molecules.  In the subsequent argument, we will assume 2,000 as a typical number of molecules destroyed. 

     The effects mentioned in the segment above are of direct nature; i.e., “direct” effect of radiation.  The “indirect” effect is due to the chemical reactions caused by some entities formed by the direct effect.  The most important one is the effect of hydroxyl free radical (^.OH), which forms as the breakage of an H-O bond in a water molecule.  This free radical is extremely reactive, and removes a hydrogen atom from a molecule it encounters.  The results would be another free radical formation, and likely deformation on the affected molecule.  Hydroxyl free radical is one of the so-called “reactive oxygen” species (ROS), which include superoxide free radical, hydrogen peroxide, alkyl hydroperoxides, and oxygen molecule in a singlet state (¹O₂).  The ROS’s are all more reactive than the oxygen molecules present in the atmosphere, which are in a triplet state (³O₂).  ROS’s can form under ordinary physiological conditions, except for hydroxyl free radical, which is formed only by high-energy radiation.

2. Why is 10 Sv (Gy) lethal?

     Radiation exposure dose is measured in terms of absorbed energy, Gy=J/kg.  Effects on living organisms are dependent on the nature of radiation.  a-Particle, being heavy (with two protons and two neutrons) and electrically charged, has stronger effects compared with b (an electron) or g-particle.  g is an electromagnetic wave, but behaves as a particle (photon) when it interacts with atoms and molecules.  Thus, equivalent exposure dose Sv (Sievert) is defined as Gy times weighting factor, which is 20 for a and 1 for b and g.  We will see now what Gy or Sv imparts.  In the case of b and g, Sv value is the same as Gy value.

     From the careful studies on the atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it has been determined that exposure of 10 Sv (or Gy) or higher causes an instant death to a human.  However, this energy raises the body temperature merely by 0.0024 degree, if given as heat energy.  Obviously this temperature change would not even be felt by the person, let alone killing him.  Yet it kills a person instantly.  Why?  This question leads to the basic reason why radiation is incompatible with life.

     10 J was given by a radiation exposure to, say, the explosion of an atomic bomb.  In this case, radiation comes from outside of the body; this is termed as “EXTERNAL” exposure.  Suppose this radiation consists of the typical 1 MeV particles.  Since 10 J=6.26 x 10¹⁹ eV, this much of energy will be supplied by 6.26 x 10¹³ particles of 1 MeV.  1 kg of human body typically consists of 10¹² cells.  Therefore, each cell will receive 60 radiation particles on average, if they distribute evenly throughout the body.  Hence, 60 x 2,000=120,000 molecules in each cell will be destroyed.  It is likely that many cells will die, or cannot be reproduced, and hence the body will die soon.  It is more likely that the radiation particles  are not distributed evenly, and hence that the more highly exposed portions will have many more molecules destroyed. 

     This is a simple idea.  Is there any proof for it?   Two observations will be mentioned.

     First, Dr. Shuntaro Hida witnessed the horror of the effects of the atomic bomb as a physician immediately after Hiroshima bomb: “…A fever so high that even doctors of internal medicine had rarely seen it. … as we examined our patients and wondered why they were running such fever, they began to bleed from their eyes, nose and mouth.  Even we doctors had never seen such bleeding from the eyes….we attempted to examine the inside of their mouths, but could not.  It was not simply bad breath, it was the smell of decay.  A smell so bad, we could not put our faces near their mouths….even though these people were still alive, the insides of their mouths were decaying.  Such persons soon died.”

[1].  These observations imply that many organs inside the body were destroyed by the strong radiation.

     A few workers were accidentally exposed to a strong radiation due to an accidental critical condition in JCO, a company dealing with the nuclear fuels, on September 30^th, 1999.  The person exposed to the highest dose of 17 Sv (mostly neutrons) was hospitalized immediately but died 83 days later despite being given the utmost care, including replacement of the bone marrow.  A doctor who took care of him said: “…the double strands of DNA were all broken….he died of multi-organ failure….” [2].  This implies that many biomolecules including DNA were broken and many organs were damaged by the radiation.

     Dr. S. Hida gives another insight regarding radiation exposure [1].  He reported:

 “A patient claimed: ‘I am not sick from the “pika“ (the A-bomb explosion)’ ‘What makes you say that?’ ‘Well, I did not come to Hiroshima until two days after the bombing.  You see one of my children did not return home…It wasn’t until after walking around the ruins for two days, I began to feel ill’…Soon after, he began to display a number of odd symptoms and passed away.”  It was very likely due to inhaling the floating radioactive debris (minute particles=fallout), which irradiated the body from inside.  This is termed “INTERNAL” exposure.  This aspect of exposure is more serious than the external exposure at the lower dose level, but has been officially ignored.

3. Defense mechanisms against radiation?

     Another question would be: Can living organisms have defense mechanisms against the destructive effects of radiation?  It is impossible.  Chemical means can provide energy of at most 100 eV (usually much lower) available to defend the radiation effects, which has million times as larger energy.  This is the basis for the tenet that radiation is incompatible with life on the earth.

     It needs to be mentioned that some damages done by radiation can be repaired somewhat by some mechanisms present in living organisms.  This is particularly true with DNA, the basis of life.  There are several mechanisms to repair the damages on DNA.  They have been evolved for repairing damages done by non-radiation effects, as DNA is constantly subject to disturbing effects, chemical and biological.  The mechanisms evolved so far can repair some damages done by radiation if they are of the same nature as non-radiological ones.  Radiological damages are quite random, and some of them are beyond the existing capacity to repair.  No direct repairing mechanism is known for other biomolecules.

     However, some existing chemicals and general physiology such as immunity, can reduce or alleviate the damaging effects by radiation or the damaged situation.  The free radicals formed by radiation, particularly on water molecule and oxygen molecule, can be deactivated by some chemical agents, such as glutathione, flavonoids and ascorbic acid.  For example, glutathione (abbreviated as G-S-H) can react with hydroxyl radical ^.OH radical:  2G-S-H + 2^.OH à G-S-S-G + 2H₂O.  Therefore, these molecules can somewhat reduce the indirect radiation effects.  Most of the SOR’s except hydroxyl radical occur under normal conditions without radiation, and hence some living organisms including humans have evolved mechanisms to reduce their effects.  Enzymes are known for hydrogen peroxide (catalase), superoxide (superoxide dismutase), and so on.

     Anyway, no defense has evolved against the radiation effects, and not sufficient mechanisms have been devised for repairing the damages caused by radiation.  Radiation affects any chemical compounds, but its effects are most prominent on living organisms, particularly animals, as they are based on fairly fragile systems.

**

4.  Is there a safe dose?

Could a sufficiently low exposure be safe?  Or is there any threshold of exposure level below which no health ill effects are expected?  The data obtained so far rejected the presence of threshold, and have demonstrated a linear relationship without threshold (termed “LNT” relationship) in the relationship between health risk and the exposure dose at low levels.   

     X-ray is equivalent to g-ray, though weaker, and is used for diagnostic purposes and other purposes in medicine.  The exposure is entirely external, and the dose can be determined accurately.  Several studies have demonstrated the LNT relationship regarding the cancer risk and the X-ray exposure dose [3,4].  These data deal with low level of exposure below 100 mSv.  Even the data on the atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicated LNT relationship for all kinds of cancer and many non-cancerous diseases [5].  51.3% of all the children in Ukraine who got thyroid cancers due to the Chernobyl accident received less than 100 mSv, and 16% even less than 10 mSv [6].  However, the Japanese government still insists that there is no danger for cancer at exposure dose lower than 100 mSv.

     Another issue is the effect of internal exposure as against external dose.  The official data regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki [5] are based on the external exposure dose due to the bomb explosion.  They did not take account of possible “internal” exposure.  The exposure dose caused by external irradiation is defined per the body mass (Kg), as irradiation is supposed to spread throughout the body; i.e., Gy (or Sv)= energy absorbed by 1 kg of the body.  When a radioactive material enters a body and irradiates the immediate vicinity of the location the radionuclides settled in, it irradiates, let’s suppose, only an area that weighs 2 g, because a or b particles do not travel long distances.  Nominally D (Gy) value =D joule/kg.  In reality it irradiates the area of 2 g, and hence the actual dose should be D joule/2g = D joule/0.002 kg=500D joule/kg.  The actual dose values would depend on many factors, and not always 500 times of the nominal value.  Anyway, the internal dose would be much higher than the nominal dose value implies.

     Often, an official argument is based on the nominal external dose rate, even if the actual radiation is “internal”.  Therefore, it devalues the magnitude of effects.  This is particularly true in the case of accidents at the nuclear facilities, where the external exposure dose is typically relatively low, and the serious effect is mostly due to the internal exposure.  In this case, internal exposure dose cannot be estimated from the external dose value such as spatial dose, as radioactive material may enter through various routes, and such a way to enter a body has little to do with the spatial dose.  The chance of inhalation of minute particles floating may be somewhat related to the spatial dose rate, though.

5.  Humankind has not found safe ways to dispose and store the radioactive material

The incompatibility of radiation with life implies that the radioactive material has to be disposed and stored safely, in such a way that they would not affect all the living organisms on the earth.  We have not yet found very effective ways to do this.  The radioactivity lasts a long time.  Pu-239, for example, lasts 480,000 years, which is twenty times of the half-life (24,000 years).  By that time the radioactivity will diminish to about a million times smaller than the original.  Even the most widely distributed cesium (Cs-137) takes about 600 years (20 times of its half-life 30 years) to become almost nil.  Meanwhile they keep emitting radiation, heating and damaging their surroundings.

     The Chernobyl’s damaged nuclear reactor has been covered by a large sarcophagus to reduce the escape of radiation for the last thirty years.  It has deteriorated significantly because of radiation from the fuel debris and the weather, so that another huge cover has recently been constructed and placed on top of the sarcophagus.  It is said that this cover may last a hundred years, and then it will have to be replaced or covered further.  This illustrates how difficult it is to store radioactive material.  This is a single example.  There are hundreds of sites where radioactive waste is now stored and some difficulties are experienced.  It is imperative for us to find safe ways to store the radioactive waste.  There may not be an absolutely safe solution on the earth.  Yet, the humankind is busily increasing the radioactive wastes in huge quantities.  This is insane.

III. Nuclear Power Plants need not and should not be on Earth

1.  Nuclear power reactors are NOT CLEAN

Approximately 450 nuclear power reactors are presently on this earth.  In the nuclear power production of electricity, only one third of the heat produced in a reactor is converted into electricity, and the remaining two thirds of the heat is released into the surrounding environment.  A typical 1giga watt reactor will release 4.7 x 10¹⁶ joule of heat into the environment per year.  This much heat will bring 100 million tons of water at zero degree to boiling.  This is with a single nuclear reactor.  The nuclear power reactors are excellent environmental heaters.  Hundreds of such reactors are operating on this earth.  But this fact is ignored in the argument that the nuclear power is environmentally clean.  This is not the only reason for the nuclear reactors being unclean.

     In addition, this typical reactor of 1 giga (thousand mega) watt of capacity (electricity) produces in a year radioactive material equivalent to about 1000 Hiroshima atomic bombs.  In 2015, the total amount of electricity produced by nuclear reactors was 2,441 BkWh (billion kilo watt hours: data [7]), which is 8.79 x 10¹⁸ joule.  It was produced by about 280 nuclear reactors of 1 giga watt capacity.  So they produced radioactive material approximately equivalent to 280,000 Hiroshima bombs.  In addition, they released 1.3 x 10¹⁹ joule of heat into the environment.  These are the values for just one year.  Nuclear power reactors have been operating for the last forty years, though not always this many. 

     Anyway, an enormous amount of radioactive material has been made on the earth.  How much of it has been released into the environment is not easy to estimate.  They have been released into the environment through the tests of the nuclear weapons, use of depleted uranium bombs, the routine release of some radioactive material from the nuclear facilities under normal conditions and others, in addition to the accidents at nuclear facilities.  The effects of the released radioactive material have been amply observed and reported, and yet are not shared with the majority of humankind.  We mention here only a few cases, and refer them to a few major sources.  The nuclear weapon explosion tests in the atmosphere affected the people in the eastern side, Utah, of the test site in Nevada (1951-1960, ref [8]).  Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the present Ukraine (1986) was one of the worst nuclear facility accidents, and people are still suffering  [9]. Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster (2011) caused by the huge earthquake along with tsunami is far from settled, and health effects are only now becoming manifest [10]. These incidents represent the notion that the nuclear power is “not clean” at all, rather it is the dirtiest. 

     The world on the whole depends on the nuclear power for about 11% for the electricity production in 2015 [7].  A number of countries still rely significantly on the nuclear power.  Some numbers are: 76% in France, 56% in Ukraine, 56% in Slovakia, 53% in Hungary, 38% in Slovenia, 38% in Belgium, 35% in Armenia, 35% in Sweden, 34% in Finland, 34% in Switzerland, 33% in Czech, 32% in S. Korea, and 31% in Bulgaria [7].  Fortunately no serious accidents at nuclear facilities have been experienced so far in these countries except for Ukraine (Chernobyl accident), though minor accidents are known to have taken place in many of these countries as well as others not listed here.  Nuclear facilities are prone to accidents anyway. 

     The level of dependency on the nuclear power seems to be reflected in the cancer incident rate in those nations.  The cancer rates of some countries listed above are plotted against the nuclear power dependency; it is shown in the figure below [11].  Except for France, there seems to be a correlation between them.  This does not necessarily imply that radiation from the nuclear facilities alone is somehow related to the cancer.  The more direct data relating the nuclear facilities and the cancer rate are illustrated by a study termed KiKK [12].  It investigated all German nuclear reactors and found that children living within 5 km of a nuclear reactor had higher risk of cancer (particularly, leukemia), more than twice that of those living farther away.  A similar study has been conducted [13] with regard to leukemia among children living near nuclear facilities in other countries: UK, Canada, Japan and USA, and has found the trend to be similar to that of KiKK. 

2.  The nuclear power production is NOT ECONOMICAL

     Cleaning and disposing of the damaged nuclear facilities requires an enormous amount of money, as well as human sacrifice (workers exposed to the radiation).  Compensating the victims who lost lives and healthy ways of life and who suffer from other difficulties also takes a lot of money.  Decommissioning an old nuclear reactor, even if not damaged, takes decades, and yet the radioactive waste cannot be disposed safely as yet, because humankind has not found a good way to do that.  But, obviously, we have to find a way before too long.  All these processes require money as well as energy.  All told, the amount of money for disposing of the nuclear facilities and bringing the sites back to being clean land, and providing adequate compensation for the victims will be astronomical.  It could be beyond the ability of corporations, and hence consume a lot of money earned by the citizens.  Such a situation could destroy the financial basis of a nation.

3.  Nuclear power is NOT NECESSARY

After the Fukushima disaster due to the great earthquake and tsunami in 2011, all of the fifty nuclear power plants in Japan were shut down.  After a while, the Japanese government restarted a single nuclear reactor in 2012-13.  After this reactor was shut down in order to inspect the facility, no nuclear power plant operated for almost two years until the end of August of 2015 (2013-2015).  While all these things were happening, no electricity shortage was experienced in Japan, even though Japan had relied on nuclear power for about 30% of its electricity before the Fukushima disaster.  This fact definitely implies that Japan does not need nuclear power.  Unfortunately, the current government is eager to restart the nuclear power plants, and indeed has done so with three nuclear power reactors as of Jan. 1st, 2017, despite the strong opposition from the Japanese people. 

     As mentioned earlier, a number of countries in Europe still depend heavily on the nuclear energy.  Some of them have decided in the face of the Fukushima accident to abolish the nuclear power; Germany, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland.  Recently the Taiwan government announced that they would abolish their nuclear power plants by 2025.  Other countries listed earlier have not made a move toward abolition, but, hopefully, they will soon realize the danger of the nuclear facilities, and start decommissioning them.

     We are fortunate to have inexhaustible energy sources available on this earth.  The total amount of energy humankind used in 2005 is estimated to be 4.9 x 10²⁰ joule.  The energy influx from the Sun on the entire surface of the earth is estimated to be 8.9 x 10¹⁶ joule/sec, and hence it will be 2.8 x 10²⁴ joule per year.  The solar energy alone could amply provide all the energy humankind needs.  Total wind power (driven ultimately by solar energy) available on the entire earth is estimated to be 2.3 x 10²¹ joule per year, and so, theoretically wind power alone may be sufficient.  Humankind needs to technically overcome the practical problems associated with these freely available energy sources, and should resort to these energies as far as feasible, and as soon as possible.  Other inexhaustible energy sources including “geothermal” and “tidal” should also be employed as much as feasible.  In other words, we could be energy-sufficient, without resorting to non-renewable carbon fossil fuels or nuclear power.

IV   Conclusion

No nuclear power plant should be allowed on the earth, because:

(a)   the radioactive material produced by the nuclear power reactors emit radiation which destroy living organisms;

(b)  there is no definitive safe way to store long-lasting nuclear wastes, so that no more radioactive material should be produced;

(c)   nuclear power reactors are contributing significantly to warming of the environment;

(d)  nuclear power plants are not economical, but rather could bring disasters to the operating companies and even the nation’s finances.

 References

[1] See for example: http://wcpeace.org/Hida_memoir.htm

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZSKtZb7k; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnRRWwbYPSI

[3] Eisenberg MJ, Afilalo J, Lawler PR, Abrahamowicz M, Richard H, Pilote L., “Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction”, Can. Med. Assoc. J., 183 (2011), 430-436

[4] Mathews, J. D., Forsythe, A. V., Brady, Z., Butler, M. W., Goergen, S. K., Bymes, G. B., Giles, G. G., Wallace, A. B., Anderson, P. R, Guiver, T. A., McGale, P., Cain, T. M., Dowoty, J. G., Bickerstaffe, A. C., Darby, S. C.,  “Cancer Risk in 680000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians”, Brit. Med. J., 2013.05.22

[5] Ozasa, K., Shimizu, Y., Suyama, A., Kasagi, F., Soda, M., Grant, E. J., Sakata, R., Sugiyama, H., Kodama, K., “Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 1950-2003: An overview of cancer and noncancer Diseases” (LSS-14), Rad. Res., 177 (2012), 229-243

[6] Tronko, M., Bogdanova, T., Komissarenko, I. V., Epstein, O. V., Kovalenko, A., Lichtarev, I. A., Kairo, I., Peters, S. B., LiVolsi, V. A., “Thyroid carcinoma in children and adolescents in Ukraine after the Chernobyl nuclear accident”, Cancer, 86 (1999) 149-156

[7] http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics 

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders

[9] Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., Nesterenko, A. V., “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, Ann. New York Acad., 1181 (2009)

[10] http://apjjf.org/-Eiichiro-Ochiai/4382; http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-human-consequences-of-the-fukushima-dai-ichi-nuclear-power-plant-accidents/5478670

[11] The data of nuclear dependence are from ref [7], and the cancer death rates (2014) are from http://www.globalnote.jp/post-10211.html

[12] Nussbaum, R. H., “Childhood leukemia and cancers near German nuclear reactors: Significance, context and ramifications of recent studies”, Int. Occup/ Environ. Health, 15 (2009), 318-323

[13] Baker, P. J., Hoel, D. G., “Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities”, Eur. J. Cancer Care, 16 (2007), 355-363

Eiichiro Ochiai: retired chemistry professor; has become seriously concerned with the radiation effects since the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011 and has published four books on the theme of “Radiation is Incompatible with Life”, including “Hiroshima to Fukushima: Biohazards of Radiation” (Springer Verlag (Heidelberg), 2013).