made about living species. Whether they are designated as victims will depend
on the degree of domestication or their value in terms of heritage (e.g. protected
and other endangered species). In all cases, the designation as a victim of a
natural event depends on the degree of humanization attributed to living or
inanimate natural elements. This attribution can be implied or voluntary, traditional or political.
It must be noted that the Fukushima Daiichi accident could only have been
caused by humans, even if other elements contributed to material, imaginary and
symbolic construction of the catastrophe.
10 First and foremost, the plant was created
by humans. In simple terms, if the plant had not existed, there would have been no
nuclear accident!
11
The nuclear accident is therefore unlike the earthquake or tsunami. The identification of those responsible and victims is indicative of instrumental thinking and
statutory law. The accident finds its origin in the fact that humans have used nuclear
fission to generate electricity, and they designed the necessary technology; while
external natural forces (the earthquake followed by the tsunami) damaged the plant,
they did not create an imminent danger to the environment. Radioactivity is a
natural (re)action that has been exploited by humans and become an organised,
industrial activity
12 designed to produce electricity. The nuclear accident and its
consequences were an assault on the technology’s environment and made it dangerous or unliveable for its inhabitants.
Not only humans, but also their pets were evacuated from around the
Fukushima-Daiichi plant.
13
The investigations that are being carried out into the accident and the ensuing
devastation seek to determine the responsibilities of human beings. They focus on
why the plant was built, why it was located in an area subject to earthquakes and
tsunamis, construction techniques, the use of data to assess the risk of earthquakes
and tsunamis,
14 etc. Their findings will determine who is responsible and the human
and non-human victims. In time, their understanding of the disaster will become
part of local and international statutory law. Investigations that seek to establish
who is responsible will address questions such as: were emergency services sufficiently responsive and appropriate to the situation? Were anti-seismic building
codes met? Did land-use plans take account of the risk of a tsunami? Was a full risk
10
See [12]. The construction of the catastrophe can be viewed in terms of its material, imaginary
dimensions (fantasies, individual and collective representations) and symbolic (collective meaning
attributed to material phenomena and individual and collective representations) dimensions.
11
This observation forms the basis for radical anti-nuclear protests. See [13].
12
Sometimes called the domestication of nature.
13
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/japon-evacuation-animaux-centrales-fukushimaifaw-12578.php4.
14
See the article “Tsunami: les ancêtres savaient [Tsumani: the ancestors knew]”, published in the
French newspaper Le Monde on 6 May 201l. Available online at http://www.lemonde.fr/japon/
article/2011/05/06/tsunami-les-ancetres-savaient_1517972_1492975.html.
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
31
on the degree of domestication or their value in terms of heritage (e.g. protected
and other endangered species). In all cases, the designation as a victim of a
natural event depends on the degree of humanization attributed to living or
inanimate natural elements. This attribution can be implied or voluntary, traditional or political.
It must be noted that the Fukushima Daiichi accident could only have been
caused by humans, even if other elements contributed to material, imaginary and
symbolic construction of the catastrophe.
10 First and foremost, the plant was created
by humans. In simple terms, if the plant had not existed, there would have been no
nuclear accident!
11
The nuclear accident is therefore unlike the earthquake or tsunami. The identification of those responsible and victims is indicative of instrumental thinking and
statutory law. The accident finds its origin in the fact that humans have used nuclear
fission to generate electricity, and they designed the necessary technology; while
external natural forces (the earthquake followed by the tsunami) damaged the plant,
they did not create an imminent danger to the environment. Radioactivity is a
natural (re)action that has been exploited by humans and become an organised,
industrial activity
12 designed to produce electricity. The nuclear accident and its
consequences were an assault on the technology’s environment and made it dangerous or unliveable for its inhabitants.
Not only humans, but also their pets were evacuated from around the
Fukushima-Daiichi plant.
13
The investigations that are being carried out into the accident and the ensuing
devastation seek to determine the responsibilities of human beings. They focus on
why the plant was built, why it was located in an area subject to earthquakes and
tsunamis, construction techniques, the use of data to assess the risk of earthquakes
and tsunamis,
14 etc. Their findings will determine who is responsible and the human
and non-human victims. In time, their understanding of the disaster will become
part of local and international statutory law. Investigations that seek to establish
who is responsible will address questions such as: were emergency services sufficiently responsive and appropriate to the situation? Were anti-seismic building
codes met? Did land-use plans take account of the risk of a tsunami? Was a full risk
10
See [12]. The construction of the catastrophe can be viewed in terms of its material, imaginary
dimensions (fantasies, individual and collective representations) and symbolic (collective meaning
attributed to material phenomena and individual and collective representations) dimensions.
11
This observation forms the basis for radical anti-nuclear protests. See [13].
12
Sometimes called the domestication of nature.
13
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/japon-evacuation-animaux-centrales-fukushimaifaw-12578.php4.
14
See the article “Tsunami: les ancêtres savaient [Tsumani: the ancestors knew]”, published in the
French newspaper Le Monde on 6 May 201l. Available online at http://www.lemonde.fr/japon/
article/2011/05/06/tsunami-les-ancetres-savaient_1517972_1492975.html.
Does the Concept of Loss Orient Risk Prevention Policy?
31