Paper short abstract:

From the perspective of responsible risk governance, this paper analyses “politics in the discourse of radioactive risks” that we have witnessed in various discursive arenas surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster such as mass media, governmental policymaking and risk communication activities.

Paper long abstract:

This paper analyses "politics in the discourse of radioactive risks" that we have witnessed since the accident of Fukushima nuclear power plant in various discursive arenas such as the mass media, governmental/municipal decision-making and risk communication activities, and arguments by individual scientists on Social Network Services. The discourse has rhetorically marginalized what has been at stake in terms of public anxiety and controversies over risks of low-dose radioactive contamination of foods, water, soil, and tsunami debris. Such marginalization can be classified into three forms in terms of how the risk discourse downplays the significance of scientific and/or social dimensions: (1) Reduction in dimensions of issues to scientific ones and the problem of public misunderstanding of science; (2) Mobilization of shaky or imbalanced scientific arguments; and (3) Emotional mobilization. We present case studies to exemplify these three forms of rhetorical marginalization of science and democracy. In any forms of marginalization, legitimate democratic deliberation as well as genuine scientific arguments have been suppressed and replaced by top-down technocratic decisions. In some cases, we found a disguised form of technocracy in government's policy that uses the guise of science as an excuse for bypassing democratic process. In conclusion, we discuss the nature of these problems from the perspective of more responsible risk governance of technological disasters and reflexive questions as to the grounds of our criticism of marginalization.