Apr 14, 2011


Japan nuclear operator to pay compensation to evacuees

An elderly woman who fled from the vicinity of Fukushima nuclear power plant sits at an evacuation centre set in a gymnasium in Kawamata, Fukushima Prefecture Residents close to the Fukushima plant have been living in evacuation centres for more than a month
The Japanese government has ordered the operator of the nuclear plant damaged by last month's quake and tsunami to pay compensation to affected families.
About 48,000 families who lived within 30km (18 miles) of the Fukushima Daiichi plant will be eligible.
The compensation is described as provisional, with more details to be announced later in the day.
The plant operator, Tepco, is still trying to stabilise the nuclear facility.
"Tokyo Electric Company (Tepco) is to make an urgent and speedy payment in order to compensate for the losses incurred by evacuation and orders to stay indoors," said chief government spokesman Yukio Edano.
"The basic idea is that one household will receive 1 million yen ($12,000, £7,331). We think that such an amount is necessary as a provisional payment," he said.
The BBC's correspondent in Tokyo, Roland Buerk, says the payments are the first of what is likely to be a massive compensation bill.
JP Morgan has estimated Tepco may face claims of up to 2 trillion yen, nearly $24bn (£15bn) by the end of this year.
Protests
Tepco and the Japanese government have faced criticism for not offering compensation earlier.
People forced to leave the area near the nuclear plant have been living in evacuation centres for more than a month.
With businesses shut, fields untended and fishing abandoned many have lost their livelihoods as well as their homes, our correspondent says.
There have been protests outside the headquarters of the plant's operator, with some protesters travelling long distances to make their feelings known.
"There are around 150 evacuation centres alone. It will take some time until everyone gets money. But we want the company to quickly do this to support people's lives," Trade Minister Banri Kaieda said at a news conference.
The ministry said the government's approach to Tepco was a request, not an order.
Tepco's president, Masataka Shimizu, was expected to formally announce the plan later on Friday.
"This is just a beginning. The accident has not ended. We will continue to ask the government and Tepco to fully compensate evacuees," said the governor of Fukushima, Yuhei Sato.
Search continues
Work to stabilise the nuclear plant is continuing. Engineers are pumping water into three reactors to cool fuel rods after cooling systems were knocked out by the quake and tsunami.
They have discharged waste water with low levels of radioactivity into the sea to make room to store more highly contaminated waste water on site.
Water needs to be removed from the basements of reactors 1, 2, and 3 before vital work on the cooling systems can begin.
On Thursday Tepco said that water levels in the basement of reactor 2 were continuing to rise, even as some was being pumped to storage.
Meanwhile, Japanese police are continuing their search for victims of the 11 March disasters within a 10km zone around the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant.
Up to 1,000 bodies are thought to be in the area, but their retrieval has been delayed because of radiation fears.
The earthquake and tsunami left 13,538 people dead and another 14,589 are missing. More than 150,000 have been made homeless.
BBC map


Is dangerous cycling a problem?

Cyclist
MPs could introduce a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. But how much of a danger do these two-wheeled travellers really pose?
There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than cyclists.
To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green, commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's roads while keeping themselves fit.
But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are "lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them.
Now this debate - regularly articulated, with the aid of Anglo-Saxon dialect, during rush-hour traffic - has found a forum in the House of Commons, where MP Andrea Leadsom has introduced a private members' bill to create new crimes of causing death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless cycling.
She cites the case of Rhiannon Bennett, who was 17 when she was killed by a speeding cyclist in 2007. The cyclist - who, the court heard, had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" - was fined £2,200 and avoided jail.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

  • Killed by cycles: 18
  • Seriously injured by cycles: 434
  • Killed by cars: 3,495
  • Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport
The MP, herself a keen cyclist, insists she does not want to penalise Britons from getting on their bikes. Her intention is to ensure all road users take "equal responsibility" for their actions, as drivers are already subject to analogous legislation. The government has said it will consider supporting the bill.
But the discussion raises the question of how much of a danger bicycles actually pose on the nation's roads.
Cycling campaigners insist the popular perceptions of rampaging cyclists are not supported by statistical evidence. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.
Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed.
Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom urges MPs to back a change to the law
Alex Bailey of the Cyclists Touring Club (CTC), which lobbies on behalf of bike users, says valuable parliamentary time could and should be used more effectively to improve road safety. He says there is no need to change the law as twice in the past decade an 1861 act has been used to jail cyclists who killed pedestrians while riding on the pavement.
The notion of the marauding, aggressive cyclist causing rampage on the road, he insists, has little grounding in fact.
"It has a lot of currency in the media," he says. "But it's emotionally based, not rationally based. The problem is not about cyclists at all."
Certainly, few would argue that the boom in cycling has led to a transformation in the activity's public image.

Great Britain cycle safety statistics

  • In 2008, pedal bikes made up 1.8% of urban, non-motorway traffic but were involved in just 0.25% of pedestrian deaths and below 1% of serious pedestrian injuries
  • During the same year, there were 13,272 recorded collisions between cars and bicycles, resulting in the deaths of 52 cyclists and no car drivers or passengers
  • A study of collisions between cyclists and other vehicles from 2005-07 found police allocated blame to drivers in 60% of cases, to the cyclist in 30% and to both parties in the remainder
Source: Department for Transport
Once it might have conjured up images like that of George Orwell's old maids "biking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn mornings".
Now, at least in built-up areas, one stereotype, rightly or wrongly, is of well-paid men in expensive leisurewear with a sense of entitlement and a refusal to conform to the same rules as everyone else.
Tony Armstrong, chief executive of Living Streets, which represents pedestrians, says that while most cyclists behave safely, it should not be ignored that "a significant minority cause concern and fear among pedestrians by their reckless and irresponsible behaviour".
He acknowledges deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists are relatively rare, but adds that the impact of more mundane anti-social behaviour is more difficult to quantify.
"Although fatalities are recorded, there is no way of measuring how many people have been intimidated or left feeling vulnerable by irresponsible cycling," he says. "We know from our supporters that this is a major concern."

The first-ever cycle crime

Kirkpatrick Macmillan's bicycle
  • Kirkpatrick Macmillan, a blacksmith from Keir Mill, Dumfriesshire, is credited by most historians with inventing the pedal bicycle in 1839
  • In 1842, a newspaper report describes "a gentleman from Dumfries-shire bestride a velocipede of ingenious design" who knocked over a little girl in Glasgow's Gorbals area and was fined five shillings
  • Many believe the offender must have been Macmillan himself. He died in 1878 without ever having patented his invention
Indeed, Professor Stephen Glaister, director of motorists' advocacy group the RAC Foundation, suggests much of the hostility on the roads stems from a lack of understanding and suggests levelling out the legislation would reassure drivers that the rules were being applied fairly.
"In some ways, road users are tribal in their nature; loyal to their fellow drivers or cyclists, and dismissive of - or antagonistic towards - those who choose to travel by another method," he says.
"Subjecting everyone who uses the public highway to the same laws might actually forge better relationships between us all and erode the idea held by many that those who travel by an alternative mode routinely make up rules of the road to suit themselves."
But some bike-users reject the idea that anecdote and mutual suspicion should drive policy.
In particular, Guardian columnist and cycling advocate Zoe Williams says she is exasperated by the references to red light-jumping whenever bikes are discussed.
She insists the practice largely stems from fear, not arrogance, due to the high number of cyclists killed each year by heavy goods vehicles turning left at junctions, and says ministers should concentrate on tackling such deaths if they really want to make the roads safer.
She adds: "Can you imagine if every time we talked about cars people complained about drivers doing 80mph on the motorway?
"Most cyclists are actually pretty timid. You're constantly living on your wits because you're vulnerable. Instead of drawing up laws like this we should be encouraging cycling and making it easier."
The discussion will continue at Westminster. But legislating away the antipathy between cyclists and drivers will surely be a momentous challenge for MPs.

How do routefinders find their routes?

SatnavComputers now often decide the way
Many now rely on satnav or online routefinders for directions - instead of paper maps - but how do these gizmos find their way?
Once, you gazed at the map, remembered that cursed bridge on the old A30 near Bodmin where lorries got wedged, thought of a number, doubled it, gave up, guessed, set off at 4am, whatever.
Now, you consult an online routefinder.
Or maybe eight, as I did. I wouldn't usually, honest. It's like having eight argumentative backseat drivers, as you'll see.
So how far is it, anyway? And how long does it take? The occasion was another bank holiday, the journey was Hertfordshire to the South Devon coast near Kingsbridge, and here are the results:
Map and graph showing journey times
Is that a bigger spread than you'd expect? The distances are 246, 244, 243, 242, 221, 221, 220, and 220 miles. The durations vary by more than an hour. But the explanation is not that some are adjusted for traffic conditions.
Four routefinders recommend the M4 down to Devon, the other four the A303. When trying a few different times of travel on the TomTom - which is one of those that says it updates according to traffic conditions during the day - it varied by a maximum of 20 minutes from quickest to slowest in either direction.
I had expected more. In the event, we passed a life-sapping tailback on the M5 in the other direction that would add who-knows-how-much suppressed road rage.
So how do they do it? The one I spoke to was a bit cagey about this in case the competition would be listening. But the basics are that they first assume you drive legally, count the distance, make standard calculations for how much time a roundabout or junction adds, then check samples of these with real drives.
There's apparently no encyclopaedia of routes from every destination to every other. Rather, they look for the shortest way to the trunk road network and then refer to a database of main routes, before finding the shortest reasonable - ie not down a farm track - connection at the other end.

Start Quote

Do you choose who values your house, audits your company or sets your exams because you think they will give you the most favourable verdict? Or the most accurate?”
So we might expect variations to tend to be proportionately bigger where less of the route is on a trunk road.
But here's a question that moves the problem of measurement from one about miles to one about you. Do you choose the route finder that offers the quickest journey, the slowest, or one in the middle? Are you a travel optimist or pessimist?
If you think it possible that one of them knows a better route, it might make sense to choose the fastest. But how likely is that? Makes you wonder why they don't put a range of uncertainty around the journey time.
The distance is what it is, the journey will take what it takes. As they used to say about the timetable for certain continental rail networks - you leave when you leave and arrive when you arrive. This doesn't change just because someone thinks otherwise.
But I wonder if the hope that it might is common in many areas of life. For example, do you choose who values your house, audits your company or sets your exams because you think they will give you the most favourable verdict? Or the most accurate?
In other words, do we go for the one that we think will tell us what we want to hear - and stuff the facts?
Come to think of it, you do meet people who like to say they did the journey faster than they really did - yeah, my driving's that good. Or slower - see how I struggled to get here. See what you put me through?
It is what it is, but measurement is something else. Measurement, as we all know, is also about the measurer.

Japan residents on raised nuclear threat level

Japan has raised the emergency at the Fukushima nuclear plantto level seven - the highest on the international scale of nuclear accidents. Here, residents across Japan reflect on the revised threat.

Marc Kemp, English teacher, Koriyama, Fukushima

This whole thing has been a nightmare - the quakes have not stopped the entire time.
Marc KempMarc: "I'd be lying if I said I had complete faith in what the authorities are telling us"
The latest big ones - at 7.1 and 6.6 - were big enough to cause their own aftershocks and set off a new series of quakes in quick succession.
A lack of transparency over what exactly is happening at the Fukushima is ruining my last vestiges of peace.
The very fact that they have put this accident on the same level as Chernobyl - even if it was a different kind of incident - adds to the stress level.
And I'd be lying if I said I had complete faith in what the authorities are telling us. We are given little pieces of information that we have to patch together ourselves.
My fiancée and I have only recently returned to this area. After the initial explosion we moved another 60km (37 miles) away from the plant.
People are trying to get back to normal here. The city hall is off-limits because of quake damage, but they have moved the board of education to an evacuation centre, complete with desks and computers.
There are no longer queues for petrol. More food shops are opening up. But the main department store is closed because of damage, and there are less people on the streets.

Eng Seng Tan, university administrator, Tokyo

Start Quote

Some of my colleagues are stocking up on water and not allowing their kids to drink from the tap ”
The Japanese people are trying not to show their nervousness despite the warning about the nuclear threat level and several aftershocks on the same day. Physically they are used to the jolts, but mentally they are stressed-out.
I'm starting to lose my nerve a little following the latest news about the nuclear plant.
I'm from Singapore and have lived here for 10 years. Since the disaster, I had chosen to believe Japanese media reports and had no plan whatsoever to leave the city.
I wasn't concerned about the radiation level until a couple of weeks ago. The media had given the impression that everything was fine unless you lived within the exclusion zone.
I'm losing trust in what the media and the authorities are telling us.
I have a feeling that the authorities are keeping information back from us. Some of my colleagues have expressed similar fears. Some are stocking up on water and not allowing their kids to drink from the tap despite government advice.
I've just come back from a major supermarket. There were long queues and bottled mineral water was sold-out, despite the rule of one litre per household. I managed to get two small bottles of sparkling water.

Kiyoharu Bajo, business consultant, Hiroshima

Start Quote

I hope that people around the world remember that most of the cities and towns in Japan are safe”
I hear that many foreigners have left Japan. I can understand their fear but I hope that people around the world remember that most of the cities and towns in Japan are safe.
I'm a 56-year-old businessman living in Hiroshima. I have lived here more than 50 years and my current house is only 200m away from where the atom bomb fell.
Despite that nuclear attack many people here live long lives, into their eighties and nineties.
The government has said that although the threat is high, the situation with the Fukushima plant is quite different to the Chernobyl situation.
Life is fairly normal here in Hiroshima. We were not affected by the quake and are a long way from the nuclear power plant in Fukushima.
Of course people worry about their family. One of my sons is living and studying in Tokyo. But he's not worried about the situation there and won't be leaving the city.

Ayako Matsumoto, saleswoman, Gunma

Ayako MatsumotoAyako: "What we want is the truth about what is really going on"
I don't understand why our government needed to raise the nuclear threat level up to seven at this time.
People in Japan have been exhausted since the 11 March quake - but we are trying to live our lives in a normal way. What we want is the truth, the truth about what is really going on.
I heard one official on TV saying we need to be ready for the possibility that things may take a turn for the worse. Well, it's difficult to know what we should be prepared for when they keep changing the information they give us.
I have also been following international media, and I feel there is more information presented in the world media than in our own press.
Things are relatively normal here in Gunma, but there have been a lot of aftershocks. They have been occurring every 15 to 30 minutes since Monday - it's pretty scary.
We may be some 200km (120 miles) from Fukushima but the nuclear incident is worrying. The problem with radiation is that it is invisible, so you don't know where it is.