I’m inserting portions of an email I received from Andy Couturier.
I spoke with Atsuko Watanabe, from Chapter 3 of my book (A Different Kind of Luxury). She recommended two groups, both of which, she says, would be helped *tremendously* by a donation of $1000.
After getting two suggestions from Atsuko, I spoke later with my old colleague and friend Koichi Honda, who speaks excellent English and uses email. His email is: hondak@mb.pikara.ne.jp . I have copied him in this email. His phone number is: 011-81-88-665-0758 Be sure to check the time difference before calling. I usually call between 4 PM and 11 PM California time. He’s the best person to be in contact with. Do cc me in communications, but I may not be replying.
Here are two groups. One is a national group which, among other things, provides crucial factual information about nuclear power. Honda-san says “we check with them every day to see what’s happening.”
The second group is a local Shikoku group (the island I lived on for 4 years, and where five people I profiled live. Please see the map in the book.). They are fighting to close down the nuclear reactor in Matsuyama city, and their leader is Ms. Kyoko Ono. They will be protesting at a shareholders meeting in May, and they need money to fund their campaign and get the word out. They are definitely “scrappy” as you asked for. So here’s the information.
The first group:
Based in Tokyo, we are the Citizen`s Nuclear Information Center (CNIC). With a network of scientists, activists, and common citizens, we work to create a nuclear free world.
Their website in English is: http://www.cnic.jp/english/
Here’s how to support them: http://www.cnic.jp/english/cnic/support.html
People outside Japan should send an international postal money order made out to Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. Please specify the purpose of the money order as ‘Donation’. Alternatively, you can ask us to send you details regarding bank transfers.
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15 Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164 Japan
3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15 Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164 Japan
Tel: 81-3-5330-9520; Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
The second group:
Nuclear Power “Sayonara” Shikoku Network. This group is fighting to close down the nuclear power station in Shikoku. Please contact Mr. Honda about them and their work. He’s an active local member. The webpage I found for them, only in Japanese, is here:
I would imagine they don’t have the resources or the time to translate their website into English. Also, I think using an international postal money order is the way to donate to them.
Lastly, Oizumi (Chapter 1) has faxed me a list of nuclear power companies/ plant administrators, and he asks us (fervently) that we CALL them up and say, in Englsih: “Shut down the nuclear power plants.” I think this could actually be effective, for us to call from the US. I will get you that list when I receive it (it was faxed to my friend Matt). For more information on Oizumi and his activities, please look at my recent blog posts at http://differentkindofluxury.com Cynthia has gotten together to buy him geiger counters.
My other friend, Kai Sawyer, may be able to help out with groups doing anti nuclear work. I’ve also cc’d him. He’s bilingual, and has just fled from Tokyo. He’s a young permaculture / engaged Buddhism activist, and a fantastic person. His excellent blog is here, with info about the post-tsunami and earthquake and nuclear situation: http://livingpermaculture.blogspot.com/
Before I got off the phone, Honda san said to me “We Japanese are very strong, and helping each other we can overcome this.”
Best,
Andy
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 1, 2011 at 8:05 am
crisismaven
This is the best help anyone could give:
The only questions you need ask your governments to end the nightmare for good are here:
http://crisismaven.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/how-i-brought-down-the-nuclear-industry-in-my-country-and-how-you-can-do-it-in-yours/
April 2, 2011 at 8:57 am
tra
An excellent summary of the current situation at the Fukushima plant can be found at the Union Of Concerned Scientists’ “All Things Nuclear” blog, under the title “3-Week Update on Japan’s Nuclear Crisis,” dated April 2, 2011:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear?utm_source=SP&utm_medium=more&utm_campaign=sp-nuke-more-direct-3-24-2011
April 4, 2011 at 6:33 am
Mitch
The best defense of nuclear power I’ve read. It’s worth reading if you consider yourself to have an open mind. It’s worth reading even if you already know all the answers, because it will show you the argument you’ll need to fight against or support.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/04/fear-nuclear-power-fukushima-risks
April 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm
tra
Like me, you may have thought that the U.S. nulear industry had reached the absolute limit of jackassery when one of their leading spokesmen responded to the Fukushima disaster by calling nuclear power a “clean, safe, emission-free” energy source.
But you’ll have to admit that the Indian nuclear industry has at least matched — and perhaps even surpassed — the U.S. industry’s jackassery with this amazing statement from the Nuclear Power Corporation of India:
“There is no nuclear accident or incident in Japan’s Fukushima plants. It is a well planned emergency preparedness programme.” S.K. Jain, Chairman, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL)
http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/indias-nuclear-establishment-prepared-to-deal-with-a-fukushima-type-crisis/1/14410.html
April 4, 2011 at 8:52 pm
tra
Mitch,
If that’s the best defense of nuclear power that’s out there…then the nuclear industry is truly in deep doo-doo.
All he does is raise the same old it’s-either-nuclear-or-more fossil fuels false dilemma, while simultaneously underplaying the risks of nuclear with the ludicrous claim that probably not even one person will die due to the Fukusima disaster. I guess that must be the “Chernobyl” accounting method again, where we’ll only count it if they actually die during the meltdown and we’ll just ignore all the excess cancer deaths that show up over the next few decades.
April 4, 2011 at 9:06 pm
tra
This issue of who should be counted (or not counted) as casualties of the Chernobyl disaster (and how to count them) is one of the things that keeps coming up in these discussions of just how dangerous nuclear power is or isn’t, relative to other sources. According to one article I read today, these estimates
range from the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation study (57 direct deaths and 4,000 cancers expected) to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), who estimated that more than 10,000 people had been affected by thyroid cancer alone and a further 50,000 cases could be expected.
Moving up the scale, a 2006 report for Green MEPs suggested up to 60,000 possible deaths; Greenpeace took the evidence of 52 scientists and estimated the deaths and illnesses to be 93,000 terminal cancers already and perhaps 140,000 more in time. Using other data, the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences declared in 2006 that 212,000 people had died as a direct consequence of Chernobyl.
At the end of 2006, Yablokov and two colleagues, factoring in the worldwide drop in births and increase in cancers seen after the accident, estimated in a study published in the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences that 985,000 people had so far died…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/01/fukushima-chernobyl-risks-radiation
See if you can name another cause of death for which there is so much disagreement about what the actual numbers are. I can’t think of one.
April 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm
tra
Mitch,
From the article you linked to:
The use of renewables is increasing and will play an important part in the future energy mix, but it’s questionable whether renewables alone will be able to satisfy rising energy demands.
Do you see the glaring omission there? No mention of conservation or energy efficiency, just a built-in assumption that we must “satisfy rising energy demands” rather than aiming to reduce or at least stabilize energy demands.
April 5, 2011 at 5:58 am
Mitch
tra,
You’re right that she omitted conservation and energy efficiency. And I agree that’s the first place countries like the United States can and should turn. But I think she’s coming at it from a global perspective. Like it or not, there’s going to be an enormously growing demand from countries that are just powering up, and it’s going to swamp any effect from conservation in the United States and any other enormously wasteful economies out there.
Right now, ironically enough, I think the best hope out there is biotech and sustainable synthetic petroleum substitutes.