128
6.2.11 Interpretations of the Problems of Minamata Disease
and Importance of Understanding Framings
Behind Them
Simply speaking, two typical interpretations of the problems of Minamata disease
can be found nowadays. For most of the general public, the Minamata disease disaster is an event etched in Japanese history. This was a bitter experience. Thanks to
this experience, however, the once-damaged Japanese environment became clean
once again environmental governance became stricter, regulations were established,
and new environmental technologies were developed. Thus, they believe that Japan
has learned many lessons from these problems of Minamata disease, and can be
proud of how quickly Japan has recovered from such disaster.
On the other hand, some people continue conducting large-scale health examinations on the effects of methylmercury for accumulating knowledge regarding the
overall picture of methylmercury-derived health damage, and trying to “discover”
people who are not yet known or recognized certified as victims by the government
(or even not by themselves) because of their milder degree of damage. Because
some people who have suffered from Minamata disease-like symptoms but are not
yet been treated recognized as such, concluding that problems caused by Minamata
disease have been resolved would be committing a most grievous error (Minamata
City 2007). Some have taken their pleas to court to raise awareness of the government’s responsibility to have taken measures to restrict fish consumption after
Minamata disease was officially acknowledged. They also claimed that the local
and national governments and Chisso Corporation tried to make the certification
criteria for Minamata disease victims stricter so as to reduce compensation costs
(Harada 2004). In their belief, the problems of Minamata disease most definitely
remain unresolved, because uncompensated victims still remain and also because
the local and national governments and society still ignore or pay insufficient attention to the potentially hidden victims.
The gap between these two typical interpretations is now widening. The majority
of the general public having the first interpretation seems unaware of the existence
of the latter interpretation. Several ongoing law cases and periodic Minamata
disease- related health examinations seem to remain unnoticed by those waiting for
scientific evidence to provide a conclusive solution, and putting humanitarian
aspects as a lower priority. Some of them even believe that the latter humanitarianconscious people are overexaggerating their claims in an effort to obtain excessive
compensation (Higashijima 2010).
However, many interpretations are created from a combination of the several
framings that I introduced in the previous section. Even if the interpretations completely differ from one another, all of them are apparently recognized as problems
caused by Minamata disease. The difference is which part is being stressed as the
M. Onuki
6.2.11 Interpretations of the Problems of Minamata Disease
and Importance of Understanding Framings
Behind Them
Simply speaking, two typical interpretations of the problems of Minamata disease
can be found nowadays. For most of the general public, the Minamata disease disaster is an event etched in Japanese history. This was a bitter experience. Thanks to
this experience, however, the once-damaged Japanese environment became clean
once again environmental governance became stricter, regulations were established,
and new environmental technologies were developed. Thus, they believe that Japan
has learned many lessons from these problems of Minamata disease, and can be
proud of how quickly Japan has recovered from such disaster.
On the other hand, some people continue conducting large-scale health examinations on the effects of methylmercury for accumulating knowledge regarding the
overall picture of methylmercury-derived health damage, and trying to “discover”
people who are not yet known or recognized certified as victims by the government
(or even not by themselves) because of their milder degree of damage. Because
some people who have suffered from Minamata disease-like symptoms but are not
yet been treated recognized as such, concluding that problems caused by Minamata
disease have been resolved would be committing a most grievous error (Minamata
City 2007). Some have taken their pleas to court to raise awareness of the government’s responsibility to have taken measures to restrict fish consumption after
Minamata disease was officially acknowledged. They also claimed that the local
and national governments and Chisso Corporation tried to make the certification
criteria for Minamata disease victims stricter so as to reduce compensation costs
(Harada 2004). In their belief, the problems of Minamata disease most definitely
remain unresolved, because uncompensated victims still remain and also because
the local and national governments and society still ignore or pay insufficient attention to the potentially hidden victims.
The gap between these two typical interpretations is now widening. The majority
of the general public having the first interpretation seems unaware of the existence
of the latter interpretation. Several ongoing law cases and periodic Minamata
disease- related health examinations seem to remain unnoticed by those waiting for
scientific evidence to provide a conclusive solution, and putting humanitarian
aspects as a lower priority. Some of them even believe that the latter humanitarianconscious people are overexaggerating their claims in an effort to obtain excessive
compensation (Higashijima 2010).
However, many interpretations are created from a combination of the several
framings that I introduced in the previous section. Even if the interpretations completely differ from one another, all of them are apparently recognized as problems
caused by Minamata disease. The difference is which part is being stressed as the
M. Onuki