That's a good question. I used to live in Japan around the area of the disaster, so I still have a vested personal interest in the event. It's something I try t

That's a good question. I used to live in Japan around the area of the disaster, so I still have a vested personal interest in the event. It's something I try to keep at the back of my mind thinking about the people living there. I worry about people who live in Koriyama which is a great city but there is obviously a heightened risk now. For those who can't move their families, the radioactive isotopes of cesium and what was iodine in the initial exposure obviously could cause cancer or other diseases. Especially in children, which makes me sad. It's not something I talk about because there is little benefit to prevention at this point and really more negativity surrounding those who try to use it in journalism to shock people or create unnecessary panic. In some ways I might not have a scientific view of the disaster, but studying at a university in the region in May of that year, I did have access to regular reports of the radiation level and I did do some amateur investigating. I don't believe anyone who says California is or was at risk from the radiation has any right saying that. I also believe that, in the long term, many of the areas surrounding the disaster in northeastern Japan are safe and that tourism in the region has been impacted disproportionately to the risk. I know that it's a complicated issue and that mistakes have been made, labeling food that's been grown in Fukushima, or failing to set up a proper evacuation zone initially, but all in all it's a real place where people are still living, and most of the attention Fukushima has gotten in the US has been really misplaced, in that there hasn't been sympathy and there's been a fearful response.