Skip to main content

Managing Future Disasters: Japan’s Energy Security and Nanotechnology Regulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Asia-Pacific Disaster Management
  • 1375 Accesses

Abstract

The disasters in Fukushima following 11 March 2011 have reminded us of the fragility of technological safety measures and the danger of lax implementation of safety regulations. The loss of confidence in the reliability of nuclear energy has quickly spread around the world, raising concerns about energy security. The rapid development of nanotechnology and its applications in a wide range of products such as solar cells, are expected to help alleviate these global energy security concerns. However, inadequate regulation of the application of this new technology to industries, businesses and households may pose equally significant security threats to human health, the environment and natural resources. This chapter addresses challenges to the regulation of nanotechnology, drawing on the experience and impacts of the failure of nuclear safety regulation in Japan to prevent the Fukushima nuclear disaster. It will be argued that Japan should be more pre-emptive in revisiting the regulatory framework for accident management from a security perspective, while at the same time facilitating scientists’ free experimentation using engineered nanomaterials as catalysts for scientific breakthroughs in alternative energy sources.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Legewie (2012).

  2. 2.

    Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2011).

  3. 3.

    Dickie and Soble (2012).

  4. 4.

    See, for example, US Environmental Protection Agency (2007), pp. 29–62; UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007); UK Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering (2004).

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Center for International Environmental Law (2009); US Environmental Protection Agency (2007), pp. 36–41.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Gottschalk and Nowack (2011) and UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2008).

  7. 7.

    Yergin (2006), p. 71.

  8. 8.

    Japan Forum on International Relations (2006), pp. 6–11.

  9. 9.

    Law No. 72 of 2009.

  10. 10.

    Japan Forum on International Relations (2006), pp. 11, 13.

  11. 11.

    Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (2010), p. 9.

  12. 12.

    Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2011), ch. 3.

  13. 13.

    NHK (2012) and Maeda (2012).

  14. 14.

    Japan Forum of International Relations (2006), p. 19.

  15. 15.

    Kaneko (2012).

  16. 16.

    Graziano Da Silva (2012).

  17. 17.

    METI (2011).

  18. 18.

    Council for Science and Technology Policy (2010).

  19. 19.

    Council for Science and Technology Policy (2006).

  20. 20.

    Sato and Horie (2012).

  21. 21.

    Chen et al. (2011) and Jehng and Chen (2010).

  22. 22.

    Bourzac (2011).

  23. 23.

    NEDO (2012).

  24. 24.

    Osaka University Academia-Industry Liaison Consortium for Human Resource Development on Nano Science and Engineering (2012).

  25. 25.

    Since the Liberal Democratic Party came back in power in December 2012, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has advocated for a review of a nuclear-free energy strategy pursued by the Democratic Party of Japan-led administration of former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda: Yomiuri Shimbun (2013). For a detailed analysis of the political background in Japan’s nuclear policy shifts, see Claremont (2013), in this volume.

  26. 26.

    International Nuclear Safety Group (2010), paras 7–8. See further Cook (2013), in this volume.

  27. 27.

    Kan (2012).

  28. 28.

    UNSC Res 1308 (17 July 2000), Preamble.

  29. 29.

    WHO (2007), p. 5. See also, WHO (2005).

  30. 30.

    Nöggerath et al. (2011), pp. 38–43; Shiroyama (2012), p. 3. See also Nottage et al. (2013), in this volume.

  31. 31.

    Nöggerath et al. (2011), p. 44.

  32. 32.

    Adey and Anderson (2012), p. 101.

  33. 33.

    Shiroyama (2012), p. 4.

  34. 34.

    Suzuki (2011), p. 12.

  35. 35.

    Suzuki (2011), p. 11.

  36. 36.

    TEPCO (2012).

  37. 37.

    Law No. 156 of 1999.

  38. 38.

    Suzuki (2011), pp. 13–14.

  39. 39.

    JAEC (2012), p. 37.

  40. 40.

    JAEC (2011).

  41. 41.

    Diaz (2011).

  42. 42.

    JAEC (2012), pp. 327–328.

  43. 43.

    JAEC (2012), p. 328, fn 64.

  44. 44.

    Diaz (2011).

  45. 45.

    JAEC (2012), p. 330.

  46. 46.

    JAEC (2012), p. 6.

  47. 47.

    Edano (2011).

  48. 48.

    Law No. 47 of 2012. The reference to ‘national security’ in the new legislation raised ill-informed concerns for the possibility of justifying the development of nuclear weapons: Asahi Shimbun (2012).

  49. 49.

    Bowman et al. (2010).

  50. 50.

    P7_TC2-COD(2008)0028, adopted at second reading on 6 July 2011. The amended regulation, however, is not in force due to refusal by the European Union Council.

  51. 51.

    Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Making Available on the Market and Use of Biocidal Products, PE-CONS 3/12 (effective from 1 September 2013), Art. 4(4).

  52. 52.

    See generally, Fleurke and Somsen (2011), pp. 362–363, 373–375; Breggin et al. (2011), pp. 217–234; van Leeuwen and Vermeire (2007), pp. 516–543.

  53. 53.

    European Commission has taken the position that substances are regulated under REACH irrespective of their form or size and therefore, in principle, include nanomaterials: European Commission (2008), p. 6. However, significant gaps have been identified, for example, in relation to the tonnage threshold and the scope of various exceptions: Eisenberger et al. (2010), p. 3.

  54. 54.

    15 USC §§2603–2604 (1976). For details, see Naidu (2009).

  55. 55.

    NICNAS (2011), pp. 2–3. Under this new guideline, additional data will be requested where an industrial nanomaterial is expected to involve exposure to human health or the environment ‘based on use scenario’.

  56. 56.

    Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2006, as amended in July 2012, Sch 1, Section 2(8). Effective from 1 July 2015.

  57. 57.

    Sahu and Casciano (2009) and Monteiro-Riviere and Tran (2007).

  58. 58.

    METI (2009) and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2008a).

  59. 59.

    Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2008b).

  60. 60.

    Independent Study Group on Environmental Impacts of Nanomaterials (2009).

  61. 61.

    Independent Study Group on Environmental Impacts of Nanomaterials (2009), p. 1.

  62. 62.

    Independent Study Group on Environmental Impacts of Nanomaterials (2009), p. 10.

  63. 63.

    See, for example, Air Pollution Control Act, Law No. 97 of 1968, as last amended by Law No. 105 of 2011, Art. 17; Water Pollution Control Act, Law No. 138 of 1970, as last amended by Law No. 105 of 2011, Art. 14-2; Offensive Odor Control Act, Law No. 91 of 1971, as last amended by Law No. 122 of 2011, Art. 10.

  64. 64.

    Compare, for example, Nottage (2011).

  65. 65.

    Law No. 223 of 1961, as last amended by Law No. 41 of 2012.

  66. 66.

    See also Ministry of Environment (2009), pp. 15–19.

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the support by the Australian Research Council under its Discovery Grant program (Project ID110102637).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hitoshi Nasu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nasu, H. (2014). Managing Future Disasters: Japan’s Energy Security and Nanotechnology Regulation. In: Butt, S., Nasu, H., Nottage, L. (eds) Asia-Pacific Disaster Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39768-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics