After the accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the evacuation of so-called "people requiring support" such as hospitalized patients and the elderly became an issue. It is required to formulate an evacuation plan.
12 years after the nuclear accident, NHK conducted a survey in each prefecture and found that while preparations are being made mainly around nuclear power plants that have already restarted, we do not have a full grasp of the details of the plan at this time. It turns out that nearly half of the municipalities that do not have
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant that occurred on March 11, 12 years ago led to a large-scale evacuation of residents in the surrounding area, which was not anticipated in advance. At least 60 of the people who evacuated from such places died in March, and there was a great loss to those who needed medical treatment and nursing care.
Based on these lessons, the disaster prevention plans of the prefectures surrounding the nuclear power plants were reviewed based on national guidelines, and the medical institutions and facilities for the elderly located within a 30 km radius from the nuclear power plants, which are expected to evacuate in the event of an accident. Welfare facilities stipulate that administrators prepare evacuation plans for residents.
From February to March, NHK conducted a questionnaire survey in 19 prefectures where such facilities are located, and asked about the preparation status of evacuation plans at the target facilities.
As a result, out of 565 medical institutions and 3,618 social welfare facilities,
▽ 407 medical institutions and
▽ 2,709 social welfare facilities have already prepared plans.
The overall creation rate was 74.5% at 3,116 out of 4,183 facilities.
The creation rate was 100% in 10 out of 19 prefectures, and exceeded 95% in 5 prefectures.
On the other hand, the population within 30 km from the nuclear power plant is about 940,000, and Ibaraki Prefecture, which has the largest population in the country, accounts for 62%. Because we don't know, as far as we can confirm, it is 5%, pushing down the overall creation rate.
In addition, when asked how they confirmed whether an evacuation plan for each facility had been created, 6 prefectures and prefectures answered that they were "requiring the submission of a plan," and 6 prefectures answered that they had prepared an evacuation plan. The two prefectures answered that they are only requesting submission of some facilities.
In addition, Shizuoka Prefecture plans to investigate in the future, and nearly half of the nine prefectures did not understand all the details of the plans created at this time.
In addition, when asked if training based on the plan was being carried out,
▽ 9 prefectures answered that they were instructing and confirming the implementation,
▽ 5 prefectures answered that they were not aware of it.
▽ 2 prefectures requested a report when implemented.
Miyagi Prefecture and Kyoto Prefecture responded that they had instructed and confirmed the implementation of social welfare facilities, and that medical institutions were not aware of it, and Shizuoka Prefecture responded that they would investigate in the future.
In the survey, we also asked how effective the planned facilities are in terms of actual disaster response.
Of the 19 prefectures
, ▽“almost can be implemented, but there are
issues,” 12 prefectures, ▽“can be implemented without problems” in 3 prefectures,
▽“not sure” in 3 prefectures, and
▽no response in 1 prefecture. bottom.
When asked about specific issues and concerns with multiple answers,
▽ "Possibility of acceptance at evacuation facilities" was the most common in 10 prefectures,
▽ "Securing means of evacuation" was 9 prefectures,
▽ "Evacuation 7 prefectures answered "Securing personnel to support",
and ▽ "Insufficient opportunities for facility training" was given in 5 prefectures.
[Questionnaire response details] Creation rate, confirmation method, implementation status of training
[Creation rate]
Nationwide creation rate.
▽ Medical institutions target 565 facilities nationwide, 407 facilities have been formulated, the creation rate is 72.0%, ▽
Social welfare facilities target 3618 facilities, have been formulated 2709 facilities, the creation rate is 74.9% was 74.5%.
Of these, in the areas surrounding the nuclear power plants that have already restarted,
▽Fukui, ▽Ehime, ▽Saga, ▽Fukuoka, ▽Kagoshima prefectures accounted for 100%,
▽Nagasaki prefecture 99%,
▽Kyoto prefecture ▽
Since
Shiga Prefecture does not know the status of the creation of social welfare facilities, we answered 3% as far as we could confirm.
In addition, in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, which has passed the examination of the new regulatory standards and the government aims to restart after this summer, ▽ Tottori Prefecture is 100%, ▽ Niigata Prefecture is 98%, ▽ Shimane Prefecture is
97
%
. ▽
While Miyagi Prefecture has a high rate of 96%,
▽ Ibaraki Prefecture, which has the largest population in Japan within 30 km of the nuclear power plant with approximately 940,000 people, has 62%.
In addition,
▽Hokkaido is 100%,
▽Aomori is 100%,
▽Ishikawa is 100%,
▽Toyama is 100%,
▽Fukushima is 68%, and
▽Shizuoka is a social welfare facility. Since we do not know the creation status, it is 5% as far as we can confirm.
[Confirmation method]
On the other hand, when asked whether an evacuation plan for each facility was created and how it was confirmed,
▽ 6 prefectures (Hokkaido, Aomori, Niigata, Ishikawa, Ehime, Saga)
"request submission of plans" ▽ 5 prefectures (Fukushima, Shimane, Tottori, Nagasaki, Kagoshima)
▽ One prefecture (Shiga) answered that they did not ask for reports or submissions and did not know.
In addition, Ibaraki Prefecture requested submission of only medical institutions and some social welfare facilities, and Kyoto Prefecture requested submission of only social welfare facilities, and responded.
In addition, there are no other options, but
▽ 4 prefectures (Miyagi, Toyama, Fukui, Fukuoka) answered that they have confirmed through on-site guidance
▽ Shizuoka prefecture answered that they will confirm in the future.
Nine prefectures have not confirmed the contents of all the plans created at this time.
[Implementation status of training]
In addition, when asked whether training based on the plan was being conducted,
▽ 9 prefectures (Hokkaido, Fukushima, Ishikawa,・Toyama, Fukui, Ehime, Saga, Fukuoka, Kagoshima)
▽ 5 prefectures "do not know" (Ibaraki, Niigata, Shiga, Shimane, Nagasaki)
▽ 2 prefectures "request reporting if implemented" ( Aomori and Tottori).
Miyagi Prefecture and Kyoto Prefecture responded that they have instructed and confirmed the implementation of social welfare facilities, but that they have not grasped medical institutions.
Shizuoka Prefecture replied that it would confirm in the future.
[Questionnaire responses in detail] What is the effectiveness of actual disaster response?
In the questionnaire survey, we also asked how effective the planned facilities are in terms of actual disaster response.
Of the 19 prefectures
, nearly two-thirds of the 12 prefectures (Hokkaido, Aomori, Miyagi, Fukushima, Niigata, Ishikawa, Toyama, Kyoto, Tottori, Ehime, Fukuoka, and Nagasaki) answered that they could "almost be implemented, but there are issues.
" 3 prefectures (Fukui, Shimane, Kagoshima)
responded that they
could implement without any problems. ▽ 3 prefectures (Ibaraki, Shizuoka, Shiga) responded that they did not know.
▽ Saga Prefecture did not respond.
When asked about specific issues and concerns with multiple answers,
▽ "Possibility of acceptance at evacuation facilities" was the most common among the 10 prefectures (Hokkaido, Aomori, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Shizuoka, Ishikawa, Toyama ▽ 9 prefectures (
Hokkaido
, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Shizuoka, Ishikawa, Toyama, Kyoto, Ehime) ▽ 7
prefectures (Hokkaido, Nagasaki) Aomori/Miyagi/Ibaraki/Ishikawa/Kyoto/Nagasaki)
▽ "Insufficient opportunities for facility training" was found in five prefectures (Hokkaido, Aomori, Miyagi, Kyoto and Fukuoka).
When asked about the reasons for their answers, they said that depending on the circumstances of the accident, such as a complex disaster with a natural disaster, it would be impossible to secure evacuation destinations and means of evacuation as planned. In addition to the voices that securing is an issue, there were voices that medical institutions could not be trained due to the new coronavirus.
Minamisoma, Fukushima with the highest number of "related deaths" More than half died during evacuation after the disaster
According to the Reconstruction Agency, as of the end of March last year, 3,789 people had died of "related deaths" due to deteriorating physical conditions due to evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake and the nuclear accident, of which 520 were in Minamisoma City and nationwide. is the most common in
A research team from Fukushima Medical University analyzed the situation of the people who died in Minamisoma City, and found that 267 people died while evacuating after being affected by the disaster at elderly care facilities or hospitals, accounting for more than half of the total. It turns out that
There were 267 people who were certified as needing long-term care, of which 185, or more than 35%, were classified as needing long-term care 4 or 5, who are said to have difficulty living without long-term care. I was.
In Minamisoma City, evacuation orders and instructions to stay indoors were issued due to the nuclear accident, and the number of times the deceased people had to evacuate and move house was on average two times, and some people had as many as 10 times.
Professor Masaharu Tsubokura, who conducted the survey, said that some elderly people died while evacuating because they could not receive sputum suction, saying, ``The inability to continue providing medical and nursing care is affecting the increase in related deaths. It's very likely," he said.
Minamisoma Details of the results of the "related deaths" analysis
This is the result of an analysis by a research team at Fukushima Medical University on 520 people who were certified as "earthquake-related deaths" in Minamisoma City.
▽The average age at the time of death was 82 years old, and the average number of days from the day of the disaster until death was 230 days.
▽ The average number of times such as moving due to evacuation was 2 times, and some people repeatedly moved 10 times.
▽ At the time of the disaster, 252 people were at home, 148 people at hospitals, and 119 people at facilities.
▽The most common cause of death was pneumonia in 78, followed by heart failure in 46, senility in 41, acute myocardial infarction in 30, and aspiration pneumonia in 25.
In addition, 16 people have committed suicide.
▽Looking at the level of long-term care required, which indicates the standard of long-term care required, 21 people have long-term care level 1, 32 people have long-term care level 2, 23 people have long-term care level 3, 67 people have long-term care level 4, and 118 people have long-term care level 5. In addition to being a person, there are 6 people who need support.