There were people out and about. A few joggers on the path along the river. Some men in a field playing golf. Here’s a photo I took of myself (using a tripod.) The river is to my right:

I enjoyed myself, and then came home. Later I looked at the news. A bear had attacked people in Fukushima City, that very same morning. What’s more, the attacks had happened directly across the river from where I took that photo!

After being in Texas for so long, I’d kind of forgotten about the bears. I knew that a bear had been spotted near this river last autumn. But I wasn’t thinking about that as I rode my bicycle.

On June 2nd, the bear attacked four people, at least one person very seriously. I’m told that when a person mauls a person’s face the injuries are gruesome and disfiguring.

Below is a news report with a man running from the bear.1 (He is not the man who was mauled in the face.)

Video of bear in Fukushima City, chasing a man

Bear Attack in Fukushima City

Fukushima City is in Tohoku. Tohoku has always had bears. Most of Tohoku is mountainous, and uninhabited by people. The bears follow the rivers from the mountains into Fukushima City, usually from west to east. (There are far more bears in west Fukushima Prefecture than in east Fukushima Prefecture.)

The numbers of attacks are increasing recently, though. My own theory is that there are so many bears in the wilderness that the younger bears are being pushed out of the mountains. They follow the river and end up in places where people live.

I’d love to write about a book about the bears in Tohoku. I’ve recently read John Vaillant’s The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival, which is about an Amur Tiger (Siberian Tiger) that kills three people in the far east part of Russia, and the effort to track the tiger down to kill it.

Too busy, though, to research and write about the Asian Black Bear. Apparently this bear is very intelligent. Perhaps she can write her own memoir?

The video is a news report posted by Taco Dancer, who posted it on March 17, but headlines it as 2011年3月14日. (March 14, 2011.) The location is Ishinomaki, in Miyagi Prefecture.

Here is the video: evacuation news report (Ishinomaki in Miyagi Prefecture)

I can understand Japanese, so I am listening to the original Japanese report. The newscaster say that elderly people have arrived in a helicopter. What you see is the elderly people being transported from the helicopter to a hospital.

The scene switches to the lobby of Ishinomaki Hospital.

Then it shows a woman in a hat. She is saying that her aunt was on dialysis.1 There was no gasoline. When they pleaded with a gas station for gasoline, they couldn’t get any. After four days of no dialysis, her aunt passed away.

The girl says that her father has not been found. (I hope she and her family are doing okay, now in 2026. ♥️I feel a little guilty posting her sadness. But I think it is important to see what was going on.) She ends with, “I was happy until now…”

I want my readers to see the elderly people being pushed in wheelchair and gurney to the hospital. This is one of the worst hit parts of Tohoku.

Why do I want others to see it? Because what happened in Tohoku was terrible. I am so tired of pro-nuclear people saying that more people died in the evacuation than from the radiation. The same sort of evacuation was going on in Fukushima. The nursing home that had deaths was very close2 to the nuclear power plant that melted down. Very close. There were no reporters taking video in Fukushima. Reporters daren’t come to Fukushima, especially the part where the nursing home was at.

Having said that, I will never say or want to imply that we in Fukushima had it harder than people in Miyagi or Iwate. I am always afraid that people will construe my meaning in that way. But hard no to that. The coastal areas of Tohoku had it the worst. Miyagi, Iwate, Fukushima.

But that doesn’t mean that the areas downwind from the nuclear power plant didn’t have it hard, too. I know what I type will never convince the people who use the nuclear disaster in Fukushima as a propaganda tool for nuclear. But that doesn’t mean I will shut up and let outsiders rewrite history.

I don’t know the outcome of the crisis in Orange County concerning the tank at JKN Aerospace. Nobody knows the outcome, as I type this on the early morning of May 25, 2026.

I was in Fukushima City on 3/11/11. We in Fukushima City were not in the evacuation zone. I evacuated, mainly for the sake of our son. We left for Yamagata Prefecture, to the home of my in-laws. Despite not being in the evacuation zone, Fukushima City received a lot of radiation from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. I do not regret evacuating. I wish we had done it sooner, because most of the radiation fell in March of 2011.

Nevertheless, even today, I am not against nuclear power plants. I am for safety, and I am against lying and fudging the truth.

But I admit, I see so many lies and half-truths coming from the nuclear power industry that I wonder if they (many of the people in the industry) tell the truth. I’ve seen how many in the nuclear industry have shifted blame from TEPCO to Fukushima Prefecture by not using the name TEPCO and instead using the name Fukushima. Fukushima is the name of the prefecture. It is not the name of the nuclear power plant. It is not shorthand for the name of the nuclear power plant that melted down.

A few years after 2011, I started to see pro-nuclear power use the motto: More people died in the evacuations than from the meltdowns. First, that is not true. The evacuation zone had (and in some parts, still has) dangerously high levels of radiation. There is no way it would be safe to live there.

When I saw the news about the tank in Orange Country, I remembered how we felt in Fukushima. First, we tried to understand what this meant. (What does it mean to be near a nuclear power plant that is melting down?) Second, we tried to figure out what to do.

I suspect the people of Orange County had the same thoughts: What does this mean, this tank thing? Do I need to evacuate? Where to? Huh? What?

I said on BlueSky that the two crises were exactly the same. A man1 challenged me when I said that the two crises are exactly the same. What I meant was that the feelings of the crises were exactly the same. I have a lot of anger against the pro-nuclear community for being so unsure in March 2011, but in 2026 being so sure of what we Fukushimers should have done. It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. What’s worse, though, is that the nuclear community is not telling the truth. There are two types of truths when it comes to a disaster: emotional truth and factual truth.

More people died in the evacuations than from the meltdowns is an emotional lie and a factual lie.

Let’s move along to similarities of the tank in Garden Grove and the nuclear power plant in Futaba/Okuma. I will write in present tense because the tank situation is ongoing.

• * Problem at tank at company (California) and problem at reactors at nuclear power plant (Fukushima.) People in charge do not know what will happen. They are trying to fix problem, but do not know how to fix it. It is dangerous to fix it, and some people are risking their lives to do so.

• * The contents of tank (California) and the contents of reactors (Fukushima) are dangerous to humans.

• * The contents of tank (California) and contents of reactors (Fukushima) are very bad for the environment.

• *People are told they must evacuate. (California and Fukushima.)

• *People are confused. Neverthless, evacuate the best they can (California and Fukushima.)

• *The owner of tank (California) doesn’t say anything to ameliorate the situation. No guidance.2 The owner of reactors (Fukushima) doesn’t say anything at all. Not even to ameliorate the situation. This was a huge problem, the lack of communication by the headquarters of TEPCO. The burden was forced onto others. (Perhaps like the burden is forced onto others in Orange County?)

• *People evacuate. But will more people die from the evacuation? Or from the contents of the tank? Ha! This is something pro-nuclear people have begun to say, years after 2011, about us in Fukushima: More people died in the evacuations than from the meltdowns. That is not true, but they say it anyway. Liars.3

Now I will type some of the differences.

• *Methyl methacrylate is the danger in Orange Country. Radiation was, and still is, the danger in Fukushima4

• *The size of the evacuation zone is much smaller in Orange County than in Fukushima Prefecture.

• *The authorities in Orange County seem to know the exact evacuation area. Whereas in Fukushima, the authorities did not know the exact evacuation area. The authorities kept changing the evacuation areas during those early days.

After March 11, 2011, I saw that people around the world were praying for us (“Pray for Japan”) and it meant so much to me. It encouraged me to know that people were thinking of us, even if they could not do anything other than that.

And so I am truly thinking of you in Orange County.❤️

I turned on CBS news last night and saw a news segment about the tank that contains methyl methacrylate. The news said that people were being evacuated in the area for the second time. After the segment, I looked up the news story on the Internet. I was fearful for the people near the tank, and wondering what was going on.

As I type this at noon on May 23, 2026, I am about to look at the latest update from Orange County Fire Authority.1 So far, the tank has not completely failed (meaning explosion or leak.)

The man in the Orange County Fire Authority video says when the workers went in there (to the tanks) that they were able to see tank gauge. It’s bad news. The temperature is rising. He says, “Does it rupture and spill? Or does it blow up?”

Their goal is to not let it blow up.

The firefighter guy says, “I know you are out of your houses. I know there is a lot of anxiety over this…We are not giving up…We’re gonna try to find a solution. We’re working 24 hours a day to do it.”

I believe him. The brave people trying to keep the tank from failing remind me of the brave people at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Risking their lives for others.

It is hard for me to discuss the similarities between the GKN Aerospace’s tank and TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant while the tank is still in a very precarious situation, and people don’t know what will happen.

But that is why I will post this now, when nobody knows what will happen. It was the same for us in Fukushima Prefecture. We didn’t know what would happen. Worse, nobody knew what would happen. Some Fukushimers were told to evacuate. Fukushimers followed evacuation orders as best as they could, without too much panic. (I know, because I was there myself. I was in shock. Yes, we were in a state of panic. But we did not have car accidents fleeing from danger. And yes, I looked that up. Nobody died by car accident in the process of evacuating.2 )

We did as we were told and we evacuated. Yet, years later, the nuclear community has the motto of: EVACUATIONS KILLED MORE PEOPLE IN FUKUSHIMA THAN RADIATION. It’s a buzz phrase for them, and it is not true.

I won’t go into why it is not true, because I would go on and on. But as a Fukushimer who lived through it, and has done extensive research, I promise that the pro-nuclear community often says things that are not true.

If pro-nuclear people know what advice to give, what’s their advice to the people of Orange County? I asked that on X. Nobody responded. On Bluesky, one person responded. He said, “Evacuate when officials order evacuation.”

That is what Fukushimers did. But years later, we are scolded for it, by pro-nuclear people!!!!

I know that evacuation in Fukushima Prefecture was necessary. More people did NOT die from the evacuation than from the radiation.

I know that evacuation in the community near the tank in Orange County—that’s necessary, too.

If people die during a necessary3 evacuation, it is because the disaster is the cause. The disaster caused the evacuation. The evacuation did not cause the evacuation. The disaster did.

It is a tough decision to decide whether to evacuate a group of people. It is a tough decision for a person to be in a situation where one must evacuate. Evacuate how? With what? Where to? What’s happening?

For the pro-nuclear people to think they know so much about what was going on in Fukushima in March of 2011 that they can play Monday morning quarterbacks…😓Damn them.

Evacuation is not easy. Sometimes it is necessary. Good luck, God bless, people of Orange County.

Can you draw? I can draw. I’m not great at it, but if you tell me to draw something, I can make an attempt. Whether it’s good or not, I don’t know. It’s better than my singing. At least my drawing doesn’t make cats yowl.

A lot of people say they can not draw. If you are one of those people who insists you can not draw, and will not draw—can you drip paint onto paper? Make a design on your art tablet? Find what works for you. Don’t try to draw a detailed picture if you can’t. Most fine details don’t show up well on MG, YA, & adult book covers, anyway.

I’d already drawn and designed the cover of Raider Mayer Won’t Get Pushed Around. This is the paperback version of Raider Mayer Won’t Get Pushed Around. Lilia drew the illustrations on the inside pages of the book. I drew the cover illustration.

It’s not perfect, I realize that. But I think it is quite good, all things considering. (Considering I did not pay for it and I did not use AI.)

I drew the cover on paper, and scanned that paper into my computer. That is the old-school way.

Lilia uses, I think, a drawing tablet. Nowadays, I think most professional illustrators use computer drawing tablets. There are advantages to using a computer drawing tablet. I recommend a tablet for drawing, even if I do not use one myself.

A year later after publishing Raider Mayer Won’t Get Pushed Around, I set out to design the cover for March in the Island of Happiness. It was easy to think of the illustration for Raider Mayer Won’t Get Pushed Around. Raider likes sumo—so Raider is doing sumo poses on the front cover!

It was much harder to decide on the cover illustration for a book about a girl who experiences the 3/11/11 quake. I wanted something that represented the book. But what? This was very difficult for me.

Below, this was an early design. Looking back, I like it and maybe I should have used it. Aw, the difficulties of being a human. I doubt AI has regrets. But yet, AI does not know true love. Or the joy of puppy’s nose. Or the taste of a perfectly ripe peach. Neener neener, AI.

NOTE: I did not draw the house or the crane. I cut them out, with the purpose of figuring out my design.

I ended up with a different design (below.) Haruka and her brother stand near the ocean on the cover of my book.

My primary inspiration was old Japanese art. Before 1900 or so, Japanese art wasn’t realistic in the same way that western art was. I looked at woodblock prints of the ocean.

Many of the woodblock prints have a line of red at the horizon. I have a red sun on my cover—after all, Japan is the Land of the Rising Sun. (My cousin pointed out that the shadows should be stronger because of the sun. Yes, he’s right. I wasn’t trying for realism though so I didn’t change it.)

I also noticed that in old woodblock prints, many of the cranes have orange and black eyes. (And notice the reddish horizon in the picture below.)

After drawing the illustration, I collaged it. I purchased the washi paper from an art supply store here in Fukushima City, and then later more paper from an art supply store in Aizu-Wakamatsu City (also in Fukushima Prefecture.)

I did most of the drawing and collaging at my dad’s house in the U.S. Notice the light that my sister let me use! She got it from a thrift store. It was very useful. She said it is the same hobby light that Andy uses in the movie The Forty-Year-Old Virgin when he paints his action figures. I know, right??!!!??!!!

You can see the developments my cover went through. Even though it was collage, I used a computer to print it out. Then I collaged it some more, adding washi paper to the sand because I felt that the sand in the left cover looked too flat.

For the kindle cover, you create only the front cover. You upload only the front cover to Amazon.

This is what I created for the kindle version of March in the Island of Happiness:

That’s it.

Creating a cover for your hardback/paperback is more complicated than creating a cover for the kindle version. (Note: My books are only in paperback, not in hardback. From now on, I will just say paperback.)

Your cover for your paperback cover must have a 1) a front cover and 2) a spine and 3) a back cover. It is all on one document. (Not on three separate documents.)

So it looks like this:

NOTE: THERE NEEDS TO BE ROOM FOR THE BAR CODE!!!!!!!! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!! SO IMPORTANT I WILL ADD MORE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This back cover won’t be a success. Why not?

Because Amazon will place the bar code onto the lower right on the back cover. The book blurb will be covered. It will look shoddy. You will be sad. Therefore, you must leave room for the bar code (on bottom right of back cover.)

!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

For the paperback cover, the most difficult thing for me to get correct was the sizing. It must fit Amazon’s template.

My covers were constantly too big or too small, or the spine didn’t fit in the spine part of the template, or something. This may be easier for a person who is using an art tablet. (I am not sure if the art table automatically sets your cover at the right size?)

I created my cover in jpg format, but Amazon requires it to be pdf format.

So I scanned my paper collaged cover into my computer, into a jpg. Then I made more changes. For example, I brightened it up. Once I got it to where I wanted, I changed that jpeg to pdf. Then I uploaded that pdf to amazon. Then I checked “preview” to see what it would look like. If it was not okay, I scanned again, doint the same process all over again. Over and over until I got it right. (If you do not know how to scan or how to change from jpeg to pdf, or what these terms means, there are sites and videos that explain these things.)

Finally, I got March in the Island of Happiness to fit the template. After that, I was able to purchase a sample copy of my book for a few dollars. It was worth it to find out what my cover will look like, and to make sure there are no major mistakes.

That is what the cover looks like if you go to: Amy's paperback cover

But in reality this is what I uploaded to Amazon:

Notice that I had to leave space on all sides. That is required by the template.

And this is what the actual paperback looks like:

I put the origami paper along the sides because it was too hard for me to get everything lined up with the template. I like the result, though. I also like the way it does not look AI, with its slight roughness.

But hopefully it doesn’t look like I slapped it together. Nothing about my book is slapped together. I took great care researching and writing the book itself, and did my very best with the cover.

Ahem, notice the bar code. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I make mistakes? YES!!!

I am not good at measuring things—yeah, I know. Dumb, right? You can see things are a little off kilter on my cover. Yes, I had a ruler. Yes, I used it. Usually. lol

I should have made the title letters in computer print. That’s my own handwriting. Compare it to my name at bottom, and illustrations by LiLicat (Lilia’s pen name for this book.) The bottom looks more professional.

Having said that, as book covers inevitably become less personal and moreAI, I think that in the long run, it’s better to show creativity at the expense of perfection.

I wrote March in the Island of Happiness to tell about the 3/11/11 triple disaster, and to help kids understand that triple disaster. That was my main goal. Not to make money. And because I don’t expect to make money from this book, I didn’t want to spend loads to create it.

I think it is a fantastic book. And that’s what matters. Right?!

Amy Lange Kawamura

PART THREE: Did radiation from TEPCO's plant cause malignancies in people of Fukushima Prefecture???

Thinking about it….

First, the results are for “suspected” malignancies. (Detected suspected thyroid cancer cases.)

That makes me wonder how many of those were benign, and how many were malignant…? After all, it was “suspected.” What does that even mean?

Looking at a separate study, here , it says: “Suspicious or malignant cases∗” but that asterisk tells us that “Excluding one suspected case found to be benign after surgery.”

So it seems that even though the table says “suspected” it also means those kids who were suspected of having malignancies, did indeed have malignancies.

In Part Three, I was looking at a study that shows that 253,346 kids were tested, and 97 “suspected” malignancies (in fact, actual malignancies) were found. Using my percentage calculator, for Part Three study, 0.0383% of Fukushima kids (tested after 3/11/11) were found to have malignancies in their thyroids.

Today, in Part Four, I look at that separate study. 300,476 Fukushima kids were tested, 113 malignancies were found. That gives us a similar percentage of 0.0376% of the kids had malignancies in their thyroids.

I wanted to explain that “suspected” in “detected suspected thyroid cancer cases” seems to mean actual malignancies. Not benign nodules, etc.

Second, I personally do not know what a high rate of malignancies is for a regular group of kids. I have no idea. I am not a scientist or a doctor.

I have read that the level found among the kids of Fukushima (0.038%) is considered high. Personally, to me, 0.038% sounds very low. But apparently it is not low. It is high.

Not once have I seen it disputed that the number of malignancies found in Fukushima kids is not high. (Does that make sense?)

So we have to take it as fact that 0.038% is high for thyroid malignancies in a group of kids.

Third, has there ever been a large group of kids tested for thyroid malignancies? I do not know the answer to that. Fukushima Prefecture has two million people. The population is similar to the state of Nebraska, or the city of Phoenix.

Apparently, among kids in general, thyroid cancer is a very rare type of cancer. But it seems unlikely that such a large group of kids have ever been tested for thyroid malignancies in exactly the same way, using the same machines, in same period, in same location (Fukushima Prefecture, in this case.) So what do we have to compare the results of the tests here in Fukushima to? I don’t know.

If Japan had been proactive and tested kids in other prefectures, we would have the control groups. But that didn’t happen. Nobody wanted to figure this stuff out. Nobody, except us in Fukushima Prefecture.

Fourth, I did not research the rates of thyroid malignancies and type this out here because I personally am worried about this issue. We in Fukushima know better than anybody what’s going on here. Our worry is not a panic. (Not anymore, anyway.)

The reason I am typing this out is because the nuclear industry has been using the meltdowns here in Fukushima as marketing. They say “Nobody died” or “Only one person died” or “The evacuations were worse than the radiation.”

The people who say those things are lying to you. They say that they look at the actual statistics—but do they? They don’t. And what’s more—

What’s the point. If somebody has not gotten by now that victims should be listened to, that somebody (or those somebodies) will never get it.

Do not exploit what happened here. Please.

Amy Lange Kawmara

Writing from my home in Fukushima City

In the previous two posts, I talked about the study that I use to figure out the answer to that question. This is the study: Detection of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents in Fukushima, Japan and it is based on the findings of the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Around 2012, I myself took my son to get his thyroid checked, and he was one of the 253,346 Fukushima kids whose thyroids were tested.

So let’s get down to it.

Years ago, 253,346 Fukushima kids were given scans that checked for abnormalities on their thyroids. (The scans all were done after 3/11/11.)

97 of those kids were found to have weird abnormalities or malignancies or something odd. Labeled in the study as: Detected suspected thyroid cancer cases (DSTC cases)

NOTE: That is high. I am not an expert on what is considered high when it comes abnormal growths on a child’s nodules, but it is a fact that that number is high. I’ve never once heard/read that it is not high.

As I have stated the debate is 1.) whether the radiation caused abnormal nodules (or cysts, etc) on the thyroids or 2.) whether those would have formed anyway (or had formed before 3/11/11) and were caught by the fancy state-of-the-art machines.

The study divides Fukushima into several parts. Here is the map below. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is on the coast in Soso District.

I live in Kenpoku District. (In the study, it is called North District.)

The study combines Aizu District and Minamiaizu District. No doubt the reason for this is because the population of Minamiazu District is extremely low. It’s completely mountains and forest.

The study tells the findings of the Fukushima Health Managment Survey. I provide their findings in the same order that it is given.

District Number of kids tested Number of kids with suspected cancer

Kenpoku (North) 66,729 29

Kenchu (Central) 70,545 23

Kennan (South) 20,328 5

Soso 23,103 12

Iwaki 42,948 19

Aizu/Minamiaizu 29,693 9

I put these numbers into an online percentage calculator. (Because the study doesn’t seem to do it?) So for my area: 29 is what % of 66,729 = 0.04345 (I rounded up.)

District Percentage, kids with suspected cancer on their thyroids

Kenpoku (North) 0.04345%

Kenchu (Central) 0.03260%

Kennan (South) 0.02460%

Soso 0.05194%

Iwaki 0.04424%

Aizu/Minamiaizu 0.03031%

Compare those percentages with this map that shows was in Fukushima Prefecture in November 2011.

The worst radiation fell in a plume that headed/fell northwest of the nuclear power plant. (TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is located end of the plume, on the coast.) Most of that plume is in Soso District.

One would expect Soso District to have the highest percentage of kids with cancery stuff on their thyroids if the radiation caused the cancery stuff. Right?

One would expect the Aizu/Minamiaizu District to have the lowest percentage of kids with cancery stuff on their thyroids if the radiation caused the cancery stuff. Right?

I’ll put the percentages in order:

District Percentage, kids with suspected on their thyroids

Soso 0.05194%

Iwaki 0.04424%

Kenpoku (North) 0.04345%

Kenchu (Central) 0.03260%

Aizu/Minamiaizu 0.03031%

Kennan (South) 0.02460%

Here’s another map of Fukushima Prefecture. Radiation in April 2011.

The blank area is the Exclusion Zone, 2011. (The radiation was so high that people were told they must evacuate permanently.) As you can see it is mostly, but not completely in the Soso District.

Compare and contrast.

I know what I think. It seems there is a link between the amount of radiation and the percentage of malignant thyroid growths.

I do have a few quibbles though. Such as, why is percentage of malignancies lowest in Kennan District? It seems that Aizu/Minamiaizu should be lower.

Kennan District had the fewest number of kids tested (20,328.) Does that lower number of kids have something to do with the low percentage there? I don’t know. What’s interesting, though is that Soso District had the second fewest numbers of kids tested (23,103) but it had the most radiation and the highest percentage of malignancies.

Despite that little quibble, it is exactly as I would expect if it is true the radiation caused malignancies. I wish there had been testing done in other prefectures (control groups.) How can it be that the people in charge are not curious?!?! Good grief.

What do you think?

But as I was going over this study, I realized that I want to discuss the study itself.

Detection of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents in Fukushima, Japan: a population-based cohort study of the Fukushima Health Management Survey

It begins: “Thyroid ultrasound examinations using a cohort study design (from the Fukushima Health Management Survey [FHMS]) were conducted….”

At the time of the quake, my son was eight-years-old. My son and I left Fukushima City for my husband’s parents’ home. (He is from Yamagata Prefecture, which is in west Tohoku Region.)

About a year later (I don’t remember the date) my husband told me to take our son to a thyroid exam. The testing site was in a large room at a local community center. It was an assembly line. (Something I was used to because the well baby check-ups had been assembly lines. It was a fun way to meet other moms of babies.)

We waited briefly with other parents and children. Then my son was put on a cot and tested by a doctor who scanned him using a machine. The doctor seemed serious as he did this. He didn’t flirt with me, or get otherwise distracted. Ha! lol I am trying to say, he took the scanning seriously.

Nothing of concern was found on my son. (And on most kids.)

When the results of the thyroid exams for Fukushima kids were revealed, it turned out that there was a high rate of malignancies. (I myself have no idea what a high rate is. But apparently, it is not disputed by anybody that the number of Fukushima kids with malignant nodules was high.)

And so the debate is whether 1.) the radiation from TEPCO’s nuclear power plant caused those malignancies or whether 2.) the malignancies were already there, and the modern machines caught them.

It seems super easy to test. Just test kids in other prefectures in exactly the same way. Do those kids have fewer malignancies as Fukushima kids? Or the same amount? Or more?

According to Martin Fackler in his article for the NYT, that study was begun, but halted before it was finished.😶

The first study that I linked above compares kids in different parts of Fukushima Prefecture to kids in other parts of Fukushima. (Radiation did not fall in all parts of Fukushima Prefecture in the same amounts. The west got less than the middle part and east. Thus, did the kids in west Fukushima Prefecture have fewer/same/more malignancies in their thyroids than the kids who were in areas with more radiation?)

As I read the study, something stands out to me:

“extremely low dose which were more than 99.9% of all the exposure was less than 5 mSv”

I do not for a minute believe that is true. It was more than that. And so feel the need to cross it out:

The study says it got that information from the Fukushima Health Management Survey. So let’s look at that. To read it, you must download it. The study used the full version (bottom download, not the top one.)

Report of the Fukushima Health Management Survey 2011-2020

It says on page 35,

“In a press release issued on December 13, 2011, the dose distribution based on Basic Survey results was announced for the first time, and it was reported that about 63% of the 1,589 residents in the preliminary survey area (excluding those engaged in radiation work) received less than 1 mSv.

“According to a press release on February 20, 2012, the number of dose estimates (excluding radiation workers in the preliminary survey area) was 9,747. Of these, 57.8% were less than 1 mSv and 99.3% were less than 10 mSv. This revealed that even in areas where air dose rates were considered as relatively high, most people had received less than 10 mSv.”

I want to read those press releases. (I can read both Japanese and English. The press releases might be only in Japanese.)

TWENTY MINUTES LATER

I’ve spent the last twenty minutes looking for them, using search terms in Japanese and English. Finally, I find links, but the information is gone.

December 13, 2011 Press Release 404 NOT FOUND

February 20, 2012 Press Release PAGE NOT FOUND

If the original information is not there, then I feel I am right not to believe that statement in the study: “extremely low dose which were more than 99.9% of all the exposure was less than 5 mSv.”

Let me cross it out:

“extremely low dose which were more than 99.9% of all the exposure was less than 5 mSv”

Should I go into why I don’t believe it? Do I have to spend the time? Can you trust me on this? Okay, I’ll slightly go into it.

That first week (March 11-20, 2011, approximately,) radiation was dumping on parts of Fukushima Prefecture. (Some parts far worse than other parts.) It was not a normal amount.

Because as we all know, radiation is a normal part of life. According to a US government site, the average American receives about 5mSv of radiation per year. (mSv=milliseiverts.) It comes from a variety of sources. The sun, of course. Bananas and brazil nuts. Security at the airport. Flying in an airplne. X-rays. Nuclear testing. The bricks in your home, or the granite in your countertop.

Obviously, 5mSv of radiation per year is an educated guess for an average American. Significantly lower if you don’t have granite countertop. (lol Just joking. I hope everybody knows I was joking.)

That 5mSv is probably spread out over your year, unless you get a Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). That CTA is a whopping 8.7 mSv in one day! I am guessing that if a person has heart problems, the benefits from the CTA outweigh the risks from the radiation.

Most of the radiation that fell on Fukushima Prefecture fell in March 2011. It was a lot. It was not an extremely low dose. It was not even a low dose.

That radiation dumped on kids as well as adults. That’s who we in Fukushima were worried about. Young people. (People under forty years old.) Kids and young adults.

If you are an average person, you receive radiation. If you are average, it is probably a low dose every day. Think of this as like a fine mist on a foggy day. It doesn’t make you wet. You don’t get drenched.

But what fell on most of Fukushima Prefecture in March of 2011 was buckets of radiation. If we compare it to rain, it was like buckets of rain were falling on Fukushima Prefecture. You know how if you are outside and it rains so much that you get instantly drenched? You are sopping wet. Sopping! That’s the way it is with the radiation in March 2011 (for many parts of Fukushima Prefecture, and the Pacific Ocean, depending on the direction of the wind.)

Yesterday I said that today I would post the answer to this question: “Did the radiation have an effect on the number of malignancies in kids’ thyroids?”

But sorry, I have had so much to say today about the study that provides clues to the answer to that question. I will post the answer tomorrow.

I want to find out: Did the radiation cause cancer in people of Fukushima?

Keep in mind, though, that people evacuated. It’s not like people stayed and let radiation fall on them so they could be test subjects as to whether or not they will get cancer. People evacuated.

In some parts of Fukushima, the people were told they must evacuate. They had no choice. (This was, generally speaking, the areas where the most radiation fell. But not always, because the experts directing the evacuations didn’t always predict accurately where the radiation would fall.)

In most parts of Fukushima, people did not have to evacuate. Some people did. My son and I did. (I don’t regret it. We were downwind from the plume. Even though Fukushima City is not in the Exclusion Zone, it received a lot of radiation. Not the most, not even close to the most. But quite a lot. Although at that time in March 2011, when we had to make decisions about whether to leave, it was unknown how much and where the radiation was falling/would fall. This is hard for outsiders to understand. Imagine an invisible fire. You don’t know where it will spread, so you check the direction of the wind and guess.)

It’s important to find out whether/to what extent the radiation caused malignancies in humans over the years. Now it is 2026. The studies should have been done. Have they been done?

Over the years, I assumed that the studies were being done. I assumed that we in Fukushima were tested (which we were) and that control groups of people in other parts of Japan were being tested in exactly the same way, etc. That’s a basic point of science.

I was waiting for the results of those studies. The results never came. Had the studies been done? What was going on? Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to know the results more than us in Fukushima.

Where were the results of the studies about whether (or to what extent) radiation causes cancer in people of Fukushima?

In 2025, an article called Fourteen Years After Japan’s Nuclear Disaster, People With Cancer Seek Answers appeared in the New York Times. It was by journalist Martin Fackler.

The article says that the studies that compare rates of cancer of people in Fukushima Prefecture with control groups in other prefectures have not been done.

He reports that a study was begun, but it was halted.

So that means that we don’t know whether/to what extent the radiation caused cancer in people of Fukushima.

Despite not knowing, the nuclear industry keeps bringing up how nobody died of cancer, or only one person died, from the radiation from the nuclear power plant. Because the studies were never done, the nuclear industry uses that non-result to say Nobody died! or One person died!

We in Fukushima have become the nuclear industry’s marketing tool. And it’s based on lies.

What? The nuclear industry lies? Say what?

I often look at the news/posts about nuclear, especially about nuclear in Japan. In March 2026, a man names Blake posted on BlueSky something:: “A decade ago today, a massive tsunami caused 3 reactors in Japan to melt down & suffer hydrogen gas explosions.
No one was killed, or even harmed, by radiation. Yet thousands did die because of an unnecessary evacuation, stoked by inflated & irrational fear of radiation.”

No, that’s not true. It’s fifteen years ago, not a decade (probably a typo by Blake. Not a big deal, IMO.) But the second part is the part that is the lie. I’ve put a line striking through it because it is not true:

I’ve often, I mean often, seen pro-nuclear people post or say: “Nobody died!” or “Only one died!” It’s false.

What actually caused me to respond was that Blake posted this MEME about the meltdowns.

I don’t really understand the meme. But the “Science” part made me think about how the group that makes the safety rules for nuclear power plants in the U.S. has been been kissing Trump’s ass. So I drew this cartoon:

Jokes on me, because Blake is Canadian. I apologize, Blake. He’s not your president.

Blake has been debating me. He says that studies have been done. I say, “If that is true, where are those studies? Show them to me.” Eventually he found a study that looks at the rates of malignancies in thyroids of Fukushima children. It gives stastics for the amount of malignancies found in different parts of Fukushima Prefecture.

I had heard about this study. (I read about it in Japanese.) So I already sort of knew about this. Yet, I had never seen the results posted in English. So I settled down and spent hours reading through this study, as written up in English.

Tomorrow (or the next day, depending on how busy I am) I’ll post what I found as I read the study that compared malignancies of in Fukushima kids’ thyroids, region to region.

When I began reading it, I thought to myself, What if the radiation did not cause an increase in malignancies?

We in Fukushima do NOT want cancer. More than nuclear people, WE DO NOT WANT OUR KIDS TO GET CANCER FROM THE RADIATION. WE OURSELVES DO NOT WANT TO GET CANCER FROM THE RADIATION.

Yet, just because I want something doesn’t mean I will get what I want. Or I might get what I want. Maybe?

What if Blake is right and this study shows that radiation made no difference in the amount of malignancies? That radiation in a nuclear meltdown is safe? What if Blake is right?

Well, first—I would feel joy. I love our kids. LOVE OUR KIDS.

Second—I would say, “You’re right, Blake.” If he is indeed right.

Third—and this is important. Pro-nuclear people and businesses have been using the meltdowns in Fukushima as their marketing tool. They’ve changed what happened to fit what they want. Not what is true. The meltdowns here have been exploited so much.

Even it is true that nobody died of radiation from the meltdowns, that’s not your marketing tool. Yuk, exploiters, you suck! Yuk! Yuk! Gross! Blech!!!

Tune in tomorrow to find out: Did the radiation have an effect on the number of malignancies in kids’ thyroids?

But the nuclear disaster here has been exploited—and lied about—by pro-nuclear people to promote nuclear.

A European man represents a company that creates nuclear reactors and parts for reactor. The company started in 2014.

He says in a clip:

“If you look at the at the actual facts of the accident in Fukushima—”

Yes, I do look at actual facts.

“—there was one person who died of radiation exposure—”

Is that an actual fact? For years, the pro-nuclear people were saying no people died of radiation. Now, they say it’s one person who has died. What’s the actual fact of this?

The actual fact is that there is one official death attributed to the radiation. Remember the suicide squad? The Fukushima “Fifty”? More than one plant worker has died of cancer since 2011. But officially, the Japanese government will not consider a cancer death to be caused by the radiation if the person smoked. And most of the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant smoked.

The one man who died is considered to have died from cancer caused by radiation because he did not smoke (and was in good health.)

Rearding general population of Fukushima: No studies have been done trying to figure out how many people may have died from cancer caused by the radiation release of 2011. No control group. So how do we know what is true? We don’t.

I tried to think of ways to figure out the truth. For example, I could look up rates up thyroid malignancies per prefecture. I can’t find that information, though. Thyroid cancer is not a common cancer so it is not listed.

In any case, all the kids of Fukushima were checked for abnormalities on their thyroids. The results were that abnormalities were high. But deaths? No. The kids were checked, and those with malignancies were treated. Nobody died. But that’s not because the radiation was no big deal. That’s because the kids received healthcare.

Regarding deaths from all forms of cancer: I looked up cancer deaths for those under age seventy-five across Japan. Each prefecture is compared to each other. Before 2011, the rate of Fukushima men’s deaths (by cancer) was in the middle of all the prefectures. Before 2011, the rate of Fukushima women’s death by cancer) were better than, or in middle of, all the prefectures.

After 2011—The rates of deaths by cancer for Fukushima people under age seventy-five (compared to other prefectures) get worse. In 2011, Fukushima men are still in the middle. By 2024, Fukushima men are in the worst group (among the prefectures.

Women are in the second best group in 2011. By 2024, they too have dropped to the worst group.

What does that mean? It’s not a controlled study. I don’t know what it means. But to say one person died from the radiation is a lie. The truth is: We do not know how many people have died from the radiation. There have never been controlled studies. And why not? My guess is that the Japanese government and TEPCO don’t want to know the answer.

“…It was a nuclear worker from the plant who volunteered to go into a room with high radiation levels. He knew what he was doing…”

Actually, the fact is: The man’s identity has never been released. Yes, he was a nuclear worker. But beyond that, we do not know what was going through his mind. We don’t know who he is. We know four things: 1.) He was at Fukushima Daiichi when it was melting down. 2.) He was physically healthy. 3.) He did not smoke. 4.) He died of cancer.

“and that can be attributed to that high radiation exposure.”

Yes, that is a fact. It can be attributed to that high radiation exposure.

“But many other people died from the accident in Fukushima.”

He says accident. I think he means the nuclear accident(?) Two men were killed by the tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. He neglects to mention those two men.

“Some of them have already died during the evacuation in car crashes…”

I looked this up. I do not think the European man looked it up. I think he just assumes it.

But no, people did not die from car crashes fleeing from the radiation. How do I know this?

I looked up (in Japanese) the fatalities from car crashes in Fukushima Prefecture in March 2011. There were six people who died. They all died in separate accidents. (Six separate accidents that are unrelated to one another.)

Three car crash fatalities occured before 3/11/11.

Thee car crash fatalies occurred after 3/11/11.

Of the six, only one was in east Fukushima, nearish the plant. But it happened before 3/11/11. Thus the person was not fleeing the radiation.

The three that happened after 3/11/11 all happened far, far from the nuclear power plant. Fukushima Prefecture is divided into west/middle/east. The nuclear power plant is on coast, therefore east section. But those three car acccident fatalities occurred in middle and west. None occured evenly remotely near the area of the nuclear power plant.

Three before 3/11/11. Three after 3/11.

The European guy is pulling facts out of his ass. Furthermore, he neglects to say that people were evacuating for many reasons. The entire east coast of Tohoku was unliveable due to the tsunami. Nuclear radiation was not the only reason people had to evacuate.

“And not allowed to return”

The only people who were not allowed to return were those living in areas with dangerously high levels of radiation. By that, I mean levels that are much higher than a nuclear power plant worker is allowed. There’s a lot I could say here, as a person of Fukushima and as somebody who has researched this a lot. But I won’t because I want to stay on track.

The European man claims to have learned from the nuclear accident in Fukushima. Learned? He exploits and lies.

All he has to say is: “If my nuclear reactor melts down, you don’t have to evacuate.” That’s what they should say. If that’s what they believe is safest for those near their plant. Fine. Good luck with that.

Ironically, none of us want to die of cancer. That’s what is crazy. We want radiation to be harmless. But is it? I don’t know the statistics. Nobody does.

Pro-nuclear people, don’t bullshit us. Don’t bullshit the world with fake facts.

Pro-nuclear people, the meltdown here in Fukushima is not your marketing tool.

I’ve lived in Fukushima City since 2006. The moment the megaquake struck, I was at home reading a book.

Do I read a lot? Yes!

After the megaquake hit, and some time had passed, I started writing a book about it. I love Middle Grade genre, and that’s why I chose MG to tell the story of a sixth-grade girl who wants to find her mom. Haruka is running out of time because nobody is allowed near the nuclear power plant. My book is called MARCH IN THE ISLAND OF HAPPINESS.

In 2016, I queried it to lit agents. It was rejected. I revised it. It was rejected again. I wrote other books (I have written a total of five books about the 3/11/11 disaster over the years.) After years went by, I realized that lit agents would never want to represent me and my books. It was hard emotionally because I kept seeing Americans write and get published about the 3/11/11 disaster—even though those authors were not in Japan on 3/11/11. There’s been a lot of exploitation of the 3/11/11 disaster by authors/lit agents/publishers.

My sister encouraged me to self-publish. I was reluctant. Self-published books are not purchased by libraries (unless the book jumps to traditionally published. Colleen Hoover’s books, for example.) I know that many families don’t have the extra money to purchase books. They depend on their libraries. If my books aren’t in libraries, many kids will never be able to read them.

That worried me, but I also realized I was never going to be published by a major publisher.1

And that meant that my books would never ever ever be carried by public libraries. So you go talk to your friends and I’ll go talk to my friends.

Ooooh, ooo-ooo-ooooh.2

I edited my book (with my sister’s help.) I asked (and paid) Lilia Kamata to do the illustrations that are inside the book. I drew that cover, collaged it, and figured out how to scan it so it matches up with the template on Amazon.3

My book must be affordable, or people won’t be able to purchase it. I set MARCH IN THE ISLAND OF HAPPINESS at the lowest price possible (that Amazon allows me to set it at.) Then I set my book at the lowest price for each country. (The American dollar price is high in Japan and many other countries because of the exchange rate. Therefore I use the lowest yen price, and so on.)

But Amy, you might be thinking, no lit agents wanted you. You must be a really bad writer.

Why, yes, I am. I am a really bad writer. But do you know what? I am a really bad writer that was in Fukushima City on 3/11/11. I am a really bad writer who got under my table when the shaking started, and thought my house might fall down. I am a really bad writer who ran to my son’s school. I am so bad!

I am bad because I have all the emotions that come with having been in the 3/11/11 disaster. And disasters are bad. I want kids to know that. Yet, the title of my book is MARCH IN THE ISLAND OF HAPPINESS. That happiness is there for a reason. My book is not sad. It’s exciting, a lot like an I SURVIVED4 book for a slightly older reader. My protag does survive. And there’s never a boring moment. Nope, nope. The 3/11/11 triple disaster was lots of things, but it was not boring.

The 3/11/11 triple disaster was terrible—as was the 2004 quake/tsunami (Southeast Asia) and the 2010 quake (Haiti.) More books by people who lived through these disasters, that’s what I want. There is emotional truth in a book by a writer who lived through a bad thing.

I appreciate your support.

As I began to read the poems in Wago Ryoichi’s Since Fukushima, emotions welled up inside of me. I wanted to cry. His words are what we in Fukushima felt in March of 2011.

Radiation is falling. A quiet quiet night.

Wago Ryoichi’s poem tweet of March 16, 2011. Yes, I can remember. The radiation fell with the rain and snow. We were not supposed to go outside, especially when it was raining or snowing. On March 16, 2011, it was sleeting in Fukushima.

Even though the day of March 11 was wonderful weather, a clear blue sky, almost immediately after the quake the weather turned for the worse, and it snowed the evening. And after that, every day that week was cloudy, and often rainy or snowy in Fukushima. I can remember needing to go out, but not wanting to because it was worse to go out when there was snow falling from the sky.

Just now, while writing, I heard a rumbling….

Yes, I could hear the earthquakes, too. I would say, “Quake!” It would hit a few moments later. It sounded like a train. There were so many aftershocks. So many. SO MANY.

First lines of several poems from this book:

My favorite high school gym is being used as a morgue…

The rain soaks my coat…

Well, well, yes. We’re all waiting for gas…

I am in an abandoned country…

abandoned Fukushima on this hushed rainy night…

today after such a long time away I returned home…

Thank you to Vagabond Press for publishing this book of poetry.

Article about Wago Ryoichi

Cirincione said to “calm down, stay steady.” I could relax? Nope. He was speaking to people in the U.S. He implied that we in Fukushima were doomed. So nope, I couldn’t relax.

I was doomed.

A lot of the early news in English about the meltdowns was similar in tone. I stopped looking at news in English completely. I changed my search engine to a Japanese one so I would not accidentally see news about the meltdowns. I got all my news from Japanese sources from mid-March 2011 to 2012.

I learn best from books. A few months after the meltdowns, I looked online for books that could help me learn about what it means to be near a nuclear power plant that has melted down. But there were no American books like that.

In 2012, the first book that was useful for me was published. It’s called Strong in the Rain, and I recommend it.

Since that time, a huge number of books have been published in the U.S. about nuclear meltdown, about Fukushima Daiichi, radiation, and other topics related to nuclear electricity. I’ve read many of them.

But all those books were written by non-Fukushimers. A few were good. Most have not been good. Most have been written by exploiters.

We Fukushimers? We didn’t get a say. There were no traditionally published1 books in English about the 3/11/11 triple disaster written by anybody who was in Fukushima Prefecture on 3/11/11.

Books were about what happened to us, but we Fukushimers were shut out of the American publishing world.

Outsiders do not know what it was like. I am not saying that books written by outsiders are always bad. I am saying that those authors do not know what it was like.

Is that not obvious? There is no way I could write a book about the 2004 tsunami, and know what it was like. Or the quake in Haiti in 2010. I can’t. Nobody can, unless they were there.

The people of Southeast Asia are not too dumb to write a book about the tsunami they lived through. The people of Haiti are not too dumb to write a book about the quake they survived. The people of Palestine are not too dumb to write a book about getting bombed. The people of Iran are not too dumb to write a book about the hell they are going through.

Literary agents and publishers think that victims (survivors) are too dumb to write their own stuff. Lack of education does not mean one can’t tell the story of what happened. And besides that, many of us don’t lack an education, anyway. No matter what, victims are considered less important than the journalists who report about them, the authors who get published writing about them, the “experts” who think they know everything but know nothing.

Finally, in 2023, the first book by a person who was in Fukushima on 3/11/11 was published by a western publisher.

An Australian publisher published the English translation of a book by a poet. The poet’s name is Wago Ryoichi.

In the days after the quake, he tweeted poems on Twitter from his home in Fukushima. In 2011, he was already a published poet in Japan (and translated to English.) After 2011, his tweeted poems were published in a book by a Japanese publisher. It took years for the translation of his book to be published by a western publisher—2023.

When Wago Ryochi’s book was published, it was the first book by one of us, people who were here then.2

Tomorrow I will talk about his book of poems, “Since Fukushima.” It’s the first (and only3) traditionally published book in English by a person who was in Fukushima on 3/11/11.

Narin Roy is a young scientist who wants that Nobel Prize. He wants it, bad. He knows if he can shut off the pesky side effects of Red Sky, that Nobel Prize will be his. But it’s not so easy. Read this book and find out what—and who!—gets in his way!

Interview with the author:

Oh, there’s a small black car. A medium-sized gray car. Another small black car. A big black car. A small white car. A small red car.

RAIDER MAYER WON’T GET PUSHED AROUND is about a kid who is the bodyguard of a billionaire. His uber-wealthy friend Melly has an Aston Martin and a Lamborghini.

Why did I choose those two cars? Mainly because they were the names of sports cars that popped into my head as I was writing the first draft of the book.

AMY! NAME THREE SPORTS CARS TO WIN $25,000!

Um, okay. Aston Martin. And uh—-Lamborghini. And um, uh—-

THE CLOCK IS TICKING. THREE SECONDS LEFT!

Um, um—

BUZZ! SORRY, TIME’S UP. YOU HAVE JUST LOST THE SWEEPSTAKES!

DeLorean! Camaro! Alfa Romeo! AGHHH!

When I visited Texas, my niece and I went to Ron Sturgeon’s private collection of cars. The entry fee is free. It is called DFW Car and Toy Museum.

Guess what attracted my eye.

Excess! Speed! Drama! Yes, it’s a Lamborghini.

And it also describes RAIDER MAYER WON’T GET PUSHED AROUND.

At the end of my book, Raider has to drive Melly’s Lamborghini to save her from a ruthless kidnapper who wants some of her money. A thirteen-year-old who drives a sports car? I needed to make this believable, or at least somewhat believable.

I established early on in the book that Raider knows how to drive a stick-shift. His dad taught him in empty parking lots. I couldn’t have Raider drive the Lamborghini at the end of the book without letting readers know that, yes, he does know how to drive a sports car, even if he is only thirteen-years-old.

Next, I needed to know what it is like to drive a Lamborghini. I do not know anybody who owns a Lamborghini so I could not simply borrow a car and experience this for myself. I looked at promotional videos. I learned that nowadays, the “key” to a Lamborghini is a rectangular shape, like a USB stick. This is important because after the kidnapper speeds off with Melly in the Aston Martin, Melly’s two best friends run to Raider for help.

“You’re her bodyguard, Raider!” said Kyria. “Do something!”

I thought fast. “Which direction did they go?”

Kyria held up her phone. A little dot was heading west on a map. “That’s her! Melly sent me a text. She said that Raider will know what to do!”

“Actually,” said Yvette, “her exact words were HELP! GET RAIDER. So do you have a plan, Raider? You’re her bodyguard.”

I didn’t even have to think about it. “Where is the key to the Lamborghini?”

“Her key is in the wooden box next to her bed!”

This book is meant to be fun. I wrote it for kids who don’t want to read, or have difficulty reading. Large text. Illustrations are by Lilia Kamata.

Excess! Speed! Drama! Yep, that will keep them turning the pages.

RAIDER MAYER WON’T GET PUSHED AROUND.

Since 1995, new words have become popular in the U.S. I hear these new words, and I think: Oh, what does that mean? Is that what everybody is saying now? Oh? Oh, oh?

WORD/WHO USED IT/DATE FIRST USED ACCORDING TO MERRIAM WEBSTER

24/7—A guy from California—first used in 1985 but I didn’t hear it until about 1999

bling—My mom’s friend, hahaha “My phone needs more bling.” 1999 but I didn’t hear it until about 2004

level up—I first heard this in Japan because it’s actually a Japanese expression. (In Japan, people often shorten expressions. Go to the next level becomes Level up. Then I noticed that English-speaking gamers online were also using level up.—2003 but it was used way before that in Japanese, as in: Kono gemu, akichatta, level up dekinai!

hot mess—I first saw/heard on internet, TV, etc.—MW doesn’t give a date first used.

performative—My sister and niece used this recently, on separate occasions—1922 which means I probably had heard it when I lived in the U.S. but just forgot about it. lol

6.

Arnold Palmer—I saw a woman get half lemonade and half tea at a drink machine, so I tried it. Later I ordered it at a restaurant, and the waitress said, “Arnold Palmer.” And I thought: I have no idea what you are talking about. Also thinking: Do I give the big reveal to the waitress? That I’ve lived in Japan since 1995 and thus little things amaze me like how nobody pays in cash anymore in the U.S.—1991 but I didn’t hear it until last week.

SEVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s what I thought until about an hour or so later when I got my first news about the quake. My neighbor—a teenager—was looking at his phone and he said, “Nihon zenkoku!” That means “All of Japan!”

Only then did I realize that Fukushima City was not the epicenter. All of Japan? How could that even be? Yet, the earthquake was so large that I could believe that the disaster was larger than my own little part of Japan.

I wrote that conversation with my neighbor into my historical fiction book MARCH IN THE ISLAND OF HAPPINESS.

“Where’s the epicenter?” Sakura asked him.

“Miyagi Prefecture! Off the coast!”

I gasped. “The epicenter isn’t here?”

“Nope,” he said. “All of Japan felt that quake!”

(from MARCH IN THE ISLAND OF HAPPINESS by Amy Lange Kawamura)

I was busy surviving, so I wasn’t watching the news that much during that first week. What happened, though, is that much of the western media did not know the geography of northern Japan. Still today, many journalists, scientists, pundits, and internet trolls call the disaster “Fukushima.” Still today, many erroneously think that the nuclear power plant is “Fukushima.”

If you’re a regular person chatting casually with a pal, I get it. I don’t know the interior regions of most countries. But if you are writing an article about the quake (or tsunami or nuclear disaster, etc.) then I expect you to know the geography of northern Japan. If you are a scientist, ditto.

“Oh, but everybody calls it Fukushima!” whine a lot of journalists and scientists.

Not everybody. Japanese people don’t call the disaster Fukushima. It is never called that in Japan. It is usually called the Great East Japan Disaster.

Westerners who call the quake (or the tsunami or the nuclear power plant) Fukushima—they are wrong.

Even if the person has a PHD, that person is still wrong. And furthermore, not an expert on the disaster.

*

Let’s start from biggest area to smallest area.

The epicenter was off the coast of Japan.

The epicenter was off the coast of Honshu.

The epicenter was off the coast of Tohoku Region.

The epicenter was off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture.

(Image from Irasutoya.com. Image may be used if credit is given.)

That’s Japan.

The biggest island is called Honshu.

The light blue part is called Tohoku Region.

(Tohoku Region is composed Aomori Prefecture, Akita Prefecture, Iwate Prefecture, Yamagata Prefecture, Miyagi Prefecture, and Fukushima Prefecture.)

But what’s a prefecture?

A prefecture is the same as a state (U.S.) or province (Canada.) A prefecture has its own governor and capital city.

That’s Tohoku Region. The earthquake struck off the coast of Tohoku Region.

After Okinawa, Tohoku Region is the poorest part of Japan. (Think about that.)

Above, that is a map of Miyagi Prefecture. The 9.0 quake struck off the coast of Miyagi.

The most deaths from the quake/tsunami were in Miyagi Prefecture.

Above, that is a map of Iwate Prefecture. (Pronounced: ee-wah-tay)

The second most deaths from the quake/tsunami were in Iwate Prefecture.

Above, that is a map of Fukushima Prefecture. (Fukushima City is my home since 2006)

The third most deaths from the quake/tsunami were in Fukushima Prefecture.

WAIT! I THOUGHT FUKUSHIMA IS THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!

Nope. Tokyo Electric’s nuclear power plant is not called Fukushima. In Japanese, it is never called Fukushima. Never.

The plant that melted down is Fukushima Daiichi. (In Japanese, Daiichi is used to shorten that name.)

Anybody who calls the nuclear power plant just Fukushima is either ignorant or a jerk.

Fukushima is the name of the prefecture, or the city. (Like New York. New York State or New York City. But not New York Nuclear Power Plant.)

*

Many so-called experts who speak English refuse to use the correct names.

I think what I would really like to say is that many people who are considered experts about the 3/11/11 triple disaster are not experts at all.

After I write something like this, I always want to delete it all. Delete. Delete. I take back everything. Sorry. Sorry. For saying what is true about the disaster that I lived through.

Please don’t block me.