Japan Today

Haruki Murakami’s solution to nuclear power debate: Just call it 'nuclear power'

By Scott Wilson, RocketNews24

You may have heard that Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami runs a blog where he answers questions sent in by readers. He’s tackled subjects ranging from the meaning of life to how to become a writer to what animal ability he’d like to have.

In one of his most recent questions, Murakami gives his opinion on a very touchy subject in Japan: nuclear power. Instead of calling out for reform or regulations though, he suggests one very simple change: that Japanese people refer to what they currently call “atomic energy power plants” as “nuclear power plants” instead.

Ever since the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, tsunami, and subsequent Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown, nuclear power has been a very controversial subject in Japan. Just a few months ago, the first official steps were taken to restart two nuclear reactors in Sendai *Kyushu), causing outrage among the local population.

All this is probably what caused an anonymous 54-year old female lecturer to ask Murakami this question:

“In your 1999 collection of essays, you wrote: ‘Japan, as an economic power, should find another source of power besides atomic energy. It may cause a temporary economic dip, but we will be respected as a country that does not use nuclear power.’ …Then in the speech you gave when you received the International Catalunya Prize, in regard to the meltdown, you said: ‘Japan should say “no” to nuclear.’ Now, several years later, what is your opinion?”

Before we get to Murakami’s answer, we need to just clear up a bit of linguistic information. In Japanese, nuclear power plants are referred to as “atomic energy power plants,” using the word "genshi" (atomic) instead of "kaku" (nuclear). This may not seem like an incredibly important point, but it is a little strange that “nuclear weapons” is translated into Japanese using "kaku," while “nuclear power plant” conveniently avoids that scary word and opts for the less-evocative-of-destruction "genshi" instead.

Here is Murakami’s (abridged) response:

“Ah, I did write something like that, didn’t I? Either way though, my thoughts on nuclear energy haven’t changed since then.

“In my opinion, I don’t think we should call them ‘atomic energy power plants.’ They’re called ‘nuclear power plants’ in English, so why is it different in Japanese? Just that small change makes it seem like they’re trying to hide how dangerous these places are from people. It makes them sound more peaceful.

“The big electric companies pour money into these (comparatively) poor areas, get the government on their side, then before you know it they’ve constructed a plant with the approval of only the small area it’s actually being built in (when they really should require the approval of the surrounding areas as well). That’s how disasters like Fukushima happen.

“So can we call them ‘nuclear power plants’ from now on? It would help validate the opinions of the people who oppose them. That’s my two cents on the matter.”

Nuclear energy in Japan is not going to stop being a contentious issue anytime soon. There are those who argue it’s by far the safest and cleanest form of reliable energy, but anyone traumatized by the Fukushima meltdown is going to have a very different opinion.

Source: Murakami-san no Tokoro

Read more stories from RocketNews24. -- Haruki Murakami answers the question, “What is the meaning of life?” -- That’s the Power of Music – It Really Does Bring Joy to the World -- Black Smoke Detected From Nuclear Reactor ‘Monju’ During Test Operations

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Does this mean the International Atomic Energy Agency was infiltrated by the evil little men from the nuclear village in order to give it a less scary name? And who says "Do you mean atomic power is really NUCLEAR power? Oh, now I'm REALLY scared!"

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Not at all surprised that Murakami's politics are as insipid as his fiction.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Check out the linguistic note in the story above. In the Japanese usage, the word choice is deliberately based on euphemism to make nuclear power seem less risky than it is. Internationally, using "atomic" or "nuclear" interchangeably doesn't have the same effect since we also use "atomic bomb" and "nuclear bomb" interchangeably. In Japanese, you might be scared if they changed the word choice.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Murakami is an entertaining writer. But that does not mean we should listen to, or ask, his advice on all kinds of important policy matters.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

He raises a good point about the need for assent from more than just the direct area it is built. A nuclear power plant's influence encompasses a much greater area and should require more consideration of the opinions of all those potentially affected by its devastating destructive potential.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sadly, every option has pros and cons. Coal is powerful enough to supply the necessary energy, but extremely polluting; wind & solar are very clean with only slight noise pollution, but cannot provide enough energy to modern day cities. Is geothermal possible in Japan?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Put your trust in small, modular, underground nuclear power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites