> By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident
I don't speak Japanese, so there are obviously some assumptions I'm making, but ...
If there are thresholds then those thresholds are being used to stop people selling products or as guidance for things like the evacuation and exclusion zones. If they are not in line with the current best knowledge, then people will be losing their livelihoods and being ejected from their homes and barred from returning for no reason. That is a crisis and should certainly prompt immediate action.
Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation because that would instill a sense of confidence in government.
(1) That is unfair to the people they displaced.
(2) I have no way of checking how the Japanese feel about their government, but at some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. The truth has intrinsic value and should be supported by regulation.
If a law, regulation or standard is inappropriate the government should change it promptly. If the population are being superstitious, maybe work on improving the education system. Spread some knowledge.
> Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation
That regulation had in been in place for quite some time, clearly for a reason. To suddenly relax it in the middle of a crisis where such regulation could save lives at the expense of property, it's just not the right thing to do.
> (1) That is unfair to the people they displaced.
Are you being provocative on purpose? People had already been displaced and did not go back when they raised thresholds. The change was, in all likelihood, an attempt at making "little people" go about their lives so as to reduce the inconvenience on central government. After all, the worse it could happen was that cancer rates would go up in a few years, which someone else could deal with. That is unfair.
> At some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality.
As proven by facts, you'll be optimistic at your peril. Good leadership (and hence government) is about empathy as much as it is about truth. This goes double if you've only just attempted to minimize and downplay a catastrophe, as TEPCO and Japanese authorities did right after the tsunami. How can you ask people to trust you in matters that advantage you more than them, when you've only just lied to them?
> If the population are being superstitious
Detecting corruption is not "superstition". This comment is downright callous towards people who lost their livelihood because of greed and incompetence by TEPCO and the Japanese government.
I don't speak Japanese, so there are obviously some assumptions I'm making, but ...
If there are thresholds then those thresholds are being used to stop people selling products or as guidance for things like the evacuation and exclusion zones. If they are not in line with the current best knowledge, then people will be losing their livelihoods and being ejected from their homes and barred from returning for no reason. That is a crisis and should certainly prompt immediate action.
Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation because that would instill a sense of confidence in government.
(1) That is unfair to the people they displaced.
(2) I have no way of checking how the Japanese feel about their government, but at some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. The truth has intrinsic value and should be supported by regulation.
If a law, regulation or standard is inappropriate the government should change it promptly. If the population are being superstitious, maybe work on improving the education system. Spread some knowledge.