In this paper, I discuss from a philosophical viewpoint the so-called radiation problem that resulted from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. The starting point lies in the conceptual distinction between “damage due to radiation” and “damage caused by avoiding radiation.” We can recognize the direct “damage due to radiation” in Fukushima as not serious based on the empirical data so that I focus upon the problem of the “damage caused by avoiding radiation,” particularly the damage due to evacuation actions. Actually, evacuation actions caused more refugees to die of suicide and diseases than supposed. Obviously, there is a practical problem on whether the forceful and emergent evacuation was needed. In addition, I will point out that some people psychologically had negative feelings about the radiation problem altogether, for example, absurdity, discomfort, anxiety, or distrust, where some of them tend to twistedly solve those by giving moral censure to people and the product in affected areas. This brought about serious harm to people in Fukushima. I will interpret some people’s careless adoption of precautionary principle and their misunderstanding of the legal standard in radiation protection as being latent in this tragedy.

1. [1] R. Hayano, M. Tsubokura, M. Miyazaki, H. Satou, K. Satou, S. Masaki, and Y. Sakuma, “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, Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol.89, pp. 157-163, 2013.
2. [2] T. Hoeve and M. Z. Jacobson, “Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident,” Energy & Environmental Science, DOI: 10.1039/c2ee22019a, 2012.
3. [3] M. Ichinose, “A philosophy confronting the problem of radiation exposure,” Chikuma Publishing Company, 2013 (in Japanese).
4. [4] M. Ichinose, “Life is valuable, and life is mortal: Philosophical reconsideration on self-deception lurking within the debate concerning radiation exposure in the case of Fukushima,” Philosophical Studies, Vol.33, pp. 1-48, The department of Philosophy, The University of Tokyo, 2015a (in Japanese).
5. [5] M. Ichinose, “A Philosophical fragment on “Life is mortal”: Difference and Continuity between Humans and Animals,” ‘Inochi (Life)’ Reconsidered, The Society of Philosophy, Japan, pp. 46-74, 2015b (in Japanese).
6. [6] M. Ichinose, K. Ito, K. Kageura, T. Kodama, S. Shimazono, and K. Nakagawa, “Morals on low dose radiation exposure,” Kawade Shobo New Publishing Company, 2012 (in Japanese).
7. [7] K. Kodama, S. Shimizu, and K. Noguchi, “Science and social study of radiation exposure,” Kamogawa publishing company, 2014 (in Japanese).
8. [8] S. Shiozawa, “Radiation contamination in rice fields and its transmission to rices,” The Journal of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage, and Rural Engineering, Vol.89, No.7, pp. 15-18, 2012 (in Japanese).
9. [9] N. Shimegi, “Present Status of the Precautionary Principle on Risk Management,” Bulletin of Seigakukan University, Vol.15, No.2, pp. 91-107, 2003 (in Japanese).
10. [10] S. Nomura, S. Gilmour, M. Tsubokura, D. Yoneoka, A. Sugimoto, T. Oikawa, M. Kami, and K. Shibuya, “Mortality Risk amongst Nursing Home Residents Evacuated after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” PLOS ONE on line, March 27, 2013.
11. [11] C. R. Sunstein, “Worst-Case Scenarios,” Harvard University Press, 2007.
12. [12] H. Tasaki, “Elementary knowledge to live confronting troublesome radiation,” Asahi Publishing Company, 2012 (in Japanese).
13. [13] M. Doi, R. Kanda, H. Yonehara, S. Yoshinaga, and Y. Shimada, “Low dose radiation and health effects,” National Institute of Radiological Sciences, 2007 (in Japanese).