Skip to main content

Part of the book series: The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series ((PMAES))

  • 301 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter “Conclusion” makes an overall assessment of the policy of the Japanese government on animals in Fukushima. The Japanese government failed to launch comprehensive and full-scale animal rescue operations in the exclusion zone and thereby abandoned most of the animals there. This resulted in the deaths of about 90 percent of the animals in the exclusion zone. This tragedy in Fukushima could have been avoided if only the Japanese government had allowed volunteer animal protection groups to legally engage in rescue work, even if not supporting their activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hoshi Hiroshi, https://www.facebook.com/messages/hoshi.hiroshifacebook, August 24, 2016.

  2. 2.

    “3 11 resukyū-nisshi” (3 11 Rescue Diary), January 8, 2016, http://okomenokiwami.blog38.fc2.com/blog-date-201207.html.

  3. 3.

    Hoshi.

  4. 4.

    Hoshi; “Ōkuma-machi hōboku-gyū no sonogo” (Update on the Cattle in Ōkuma Township), Tokyo Shimbun, September 13, 2016, http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/feature/tohokujisin/fukushima_report/list/CK2016091302000168.html.

  5. 5.

    Ibid. (both).

  6. 6.

    Hoshi; Hoshi Hiroshi, Misuterareta inochi o sukue! Part 2 (Save Lives That Were Abandoned! Part 2), Tokyo: Shakai-hihyōsha, 2013, preface-1-2, 31, 158–161.

  7. 7.

    Ibid. (both); “Inue-neko kyūsai no wa” (Ring for Rescue of Dogs and Cats), April 22, 2016, http://inunekokyusainowa.la.coocan.jp/kyuenhonbu.html.

  8. 8.

    Hoshi (2016); “Ōkuma-machi hōboku-gyū no sonogo” (Update on the Cattle in Ōkuma Township), Tokyo Shimbun, September 13, 2016, http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/feature/tohokujisin/fukushima_report/list/CK2016091302000168.html.

  9. 9.

    “Ōkuma-machi hōboku-gyū no sonogo.” For details on the debate, see Suzan J. Armstrong and Richard G. Botzler, eds., The Animal Ethics Reader, 2nd edition, New York: Routledge, 2008; Tom L. Beauchamp and R. G. Frey, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014; Andrew Linzey, Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009; Andrew Linzey, ed., The Global Guide to Animal Protection, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2013; Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum, eds., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    Hoshi (2016), Hoshi Hiroshi (2013), preface-1-2, 74, 83–84.

  12. 12.

    Hoshi (2016), Hoshi (2013), preface-1-2, 72; Hoshi Hiroshi, Misuterareta inochi o sukue! (Save Lives That Were Abandoned!), Tokyo: Shakai-hihyōsha, 2012, 122.

  13. 13.

    Jonathan Soble, “Fukushima Keeps Fighting a Radioactive Tide,” New York Times, March 11, 2016.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.; Hoshi (2013), preface-1-2.

  15. 15.

    Hoshi (2013), preface-1-2, 138–139; Hoshi (2016).

  16. 16.

    Ibid. (both); “Fukushima no josen-do sairiyō o: Minami-Sōma shichō, Kankyō-shō ni yōkyū” (Minami-Sōma City Mayor Requested of the Ministry of the Environment [Safe] Reuse of the Decontaminated Soil in Fukushima), Chūnichi Shimbun, August 31, 2017, http://www.chunichi.co.jp/s/article/2017083101001272.html.

  17. 17.

    “Sasshō-shobun no kachiku saishū-shori e (Final Disposal for Buried Livestock Animals), Chūnichi Shimbun, October 22, 2016.

  18. 18.

    “Genpatsu hinan-ijime o zenkoku chōsa e” (National Survey on Bullying of Nuclear Power Disaster Evacuees), Tokyo Shimbun, March 10, 2017.

  19. 19.

    “Fukushima hinan-ijime 199-ken” (199 Cases of Bullying of Fukushima Evacuees), Tokyo Shimbun, April 11, 2017.

  20. 20.

    “Nōchi no hōshano osen taisaku okizari” ([Japanese Government] has ignored to take Measures to Cleanup the Radioactive Contamination of Farmland), Tokyo Shimbun, July 4, 2017.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Soble; Martin Fackler, “An Invisible Dike,” New York Times, August 30, 2016.

  23. 23.

    “‘Shii-chan’ nimo omoide kaeshitai” (Want to Return Memento to “Shii-chan,” Too), Chūnichi Shimbun, April 23, 2012; Kate Springer, “Soccer Ball Lost in Japan Tsunami Surfaces in Alaska,” April 24, 2012, http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/24/soccer-ball-lost-in-japan-tsunami-surfaces-in-alaska/.

  24. 24.

    “Bei ni hyōchaku no barēbōru” (Volleyball That Drifted to the United States), Chūnichi Shimbun, April 24, 2012.

  25. 25.

    “Koizumi-shi ga namida Tomodachi-sakusen no kenkō-higai ‘misugosenai’” (Mr. Koizumi in Tears [Says] “Cannot Ignore” Health Damage to Operation Tomodachi [Military Men]), Asahi Shimbun, May 18, 2016.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Itoh, M. (2018). Conclusion. In: Animals and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70757-0_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics