Fukushima: With and without experts

One Friday, exactly two weeks after the tsunami, I meet a friend. She is worried: the Fukushima catastrophe, lots of news snippets, a nuclear power plant operator that only provides information in dribs and drabs and experts who can't be trusted.

I have little objection to this: During the various rounds of cost-cutting in recent years, many editorial offices have outsourced the explanation of the background to experts, and in the debates all of them are lobbyists - either one of them is in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants or he opposes it. However, the thinning out of editorial teams has also led to a loss of specialist knowledge, and colleagues who are familiar with the subject of nuclear technology and the nuclear industry are usually absent.

My friend then reported that Fukushima had left her no peace, she had researched online and came across images showing that all the reactor buildings had been largely destroyed. (This was not yet public knowledge at the time.) She was convinced that a lot of radioactive material would soon leak out, especially into the sea.

I insist that she should tell me the sources. I know that rumors and conspiracy fantasies thrive in times of uncertain news. The following days confirm most of her fears.

So have the Swiss media failed?

Let's look back. In the first few days of the Fukushima disaster, Swiss media also reported extensively, persistently and up to date. Although the news situation is poor, this is not surprising in the case of a major disaster. Independent media professionals are also unable to work on site.

However, it soon becomes clear to the observer that both the nuclear power plant operator Tepco and the Japanese authorities are either playing it down or are overly hopeful when it comes to planned rescue measures. Based on little information, experts have to make assessments, and they usually do so cautiously, sometimes even dismissively. In Switzerland in particular, it is predominantly men who work in the nuclear industry or who generally monitor it benevolently.

But the experts are gradually disappearing from the news programs. The media are still broadcasting the daily agency reports, occasionally also texts from correspondents. They all summarize little more than the Japanese news situation: the catastrophe is progressing, placated by the "cartel of government and media". According to correspondent Martin Kölling, in an effort to prevent panic, the Japanese media "voluntarily joined in".

In plain language: the deliberate Japanese disinformation is reflected in the Swiss media - with hardly any questioning. The basic tenor is that although there are major problems in Fukushima, there is no danger to the population. The radioactive water discharged into the sea is quickly diluted there, so there is no cause for concern. As is often the case, calm should be the first civic duty.

A report from Bavaria fits in poorly with this: many wild boars have to be disposed of. They are radioactively contaminated because the soil contains caesium-137 and accumulates in mushrooms, which wild boars like to eat. The nuclear cloud after Chernobyl deposited a lot of waste in the soil over southern Germany.

So what about the current conditions in the Pacific Ocean? And how does the food chain work there? Is there even an expert on this? Or will the Fukushima disaster now become a large-scale scientific experiment that experts will only be able to report on with certainty in a few years' time?

The conclusion is contradictory. Fukushima news without further explanations from experts turned Swiss media into loudspeakers for the trivialization strategy of the Japanese nuclear power plant operators and the government. However, the catastrophe has now reached such proportions that no expert can yet estimate the long-term consequences with any degree of reliability.