Minamata: how a policy maker addressed a very wicked water quality policy problem

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgments

This article is an adaptation in English of Chapter 5 in Kobayashi (2016), reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher, Shimizukoubundo-Shobou. The author thanks Dr James Nickum and his colleagues for their valuable feedback, comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In Niigata, the other site of Minamata disease in Japan, 705 received compensation, 152 of whom were still alive, as of March 2017.

2. Kumamoto and Niigata were sites of poisoning. Some victims subsequently moved to Tokyo (Kanto) and Osaka (Kansai) and had standing in the courts there.

3. M. Yoshii, address at the third ceremony in memory of Minamata disease victims, May 1994.

4. I can only speculate on the reasons for this provision, but there would seem to be at least three. (1) The Supreme Court provided that recognized symptoms should be evidenced within 5 years of exposure to organic mercury. (2) It is difficult to distinguish symptoms associated with ageing from those associated with Minamata disease syndrome. (3) Compensation, by its nature, should be done as promptly as possible.

5. Figures refer to Kumamoto. Applications in Niigata linked to Minamata disease are not included.

6. Press conference, Governor Kabashima of Kumamoto, 25 July 2012.

Additional information

Funding

The original paper was partially supported by the Global Environmental System Leaders Program of Keio University.