Early in the afternoon of 11 March 2011, as the sun gradually gave way to an overcast sky, the people of Fukushima were going about their everyday business. Though this period of the year was a pivotal time with the preparation for the graduation ceremony, which created a festive atmosphere, it was a day like any other until, at 14:46, the ground began to shake. This not an uncommon occurrence, and something for which Japanese people are well-prepared, but the tremors quickly escalated to an unprecedented scale, plunging people’s lives into chaos. The savagery of the earthquake sent furniture and ornaments tumbling to the ground. It stopped traffic, cut the electrical grid, and burst pipes. When night fell, most residents were without water and electricity, and therefore without lighting, heating, phone lines, or TV, as violent aftershocks continued to rock their homes. Due to the unavailability of information means, most people had no overall view of the situation. Thus, most people were unaware of the worst: that a tsunami had broken on the coastal zone, leaving no trace of life in its wake and flooding the emergency cooling systems for the reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Later, they would learn that three nuclear reactors had been destroyed, resulting in major radioactive contamination.
Four years after the worst combination of natural and technological disasters in Japan, the scars of the tragedy are still visible along the coastline flooded by the tsunami and in the no-go zone evacuated by the population. There, abandoned houses, cattle, personal belongings and infrastructure create a ghostly, spine-tingling atmosphere, but outside the zone life seems to go on, almost normally. Here and there, a station monitors the ambient dose rate, displaying microsieverts per hour in real time, and land decontamination crews scrape the soil, filling waste bags to be transported to temporary storage areas pending processing… Life as usual? Not quite!
Though not obvious at first glance, much remains to be tackled, starting with the trauma left by more than four years of struggling with daily difficulties by people anxious to regain control over their lives, some of them still living away from their homes in temporary or rented housing, relying on the evacuation support they receive from the government. The tsunami claimed some 16,000 lives in one moment; nearly five years later, the fallout from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant continues to be perceived as a threat to health and a barrier to returning to normal life.
Some thirty years after Chernobyl, the Fukushima tragedy clearly shows that those in charge of radiation protection must consider every facet of a radiological accident, for life is not just about health. This paradigm shift is the cornerstone of the experience gained from four years of fruitful exchanges – notably through the Fukushima Dialogue initiative – between radiation protection experts and a community of individuals living in Fukushima Prefecture who want above all to regain full control over their lives.
A stone’s throw from lively Date or Fukushima City, the once busy coastal strip of Tomioka, Namie, Futaba or ookuma became a saddening wasteland, dotted here and there with disemboweled houses, their sagging walls spilling out the heart-wrenching remains of suddenly broken family lives: clothing, books, bedding, toys, kitchenware, TV sets, photos, furniture… things of joy and sorrow littering the ground in unspeakable chaos, rotting in silent despair.
All this time, media coverage of the catastrophe focused on the situation at the plant: the inability to cool down the reactor cores, the dramatic explosions in three units, the radioactive releases, the expanding exclusion zones, the evacuation of people living inside the zones… But what about the pain of those dwelling in the vicinity of the plant, totally unprepared to live in a radioactively contaminated environment? Much has been said about the population as a statistical entity, but very little about the extreme anxiety of individuals who suffered the loss of their freedom.
Initially, the government set in motion an evacuation process:
- Within a 3-kilometer radius on March 11th
- Within a 10 and then 20-kilometer radius on March 12th
On March 15th the government instructed people living in the 20 to 30-kilometer radius to shelter at home. Ten days later, this instruction was lifted and people who could not evacuate in case of a further emergency were encouraged to leave the zone as soon as possible.
Altogether, it is estimated that nearly 150,000 people left the 30-kilometer radius, during this period, either by evacuation or voluntarily. These zones have been later renamed by the government as: zone in preparation for the lifting of the evacuation order, restricted residence zone, and difficult-to-return zone.
(Sources: Reconstruction Agency of Japan / www.reconstruction.go.jp – Nuclear Section, French Embassy in Tokyo).
Evolution of evacuation zones in the wake of the Fukushima accident
Craving for control
Everyone was concerned about exposure to radioactive contamination, but many dared not talk about it, either with relatives or with neighbors. How could they possibly do so, given their complete lack of knowledge about radioactivity and how to cope with it? Many villagers resigned themselves to staying indoors, entertaining vague hopes of external support. Still, as time passed, some individuals decided to seek out knowledge and guidance, as they knew that this was the only way to regain control of their daily lives and, someday, return to some extent to a ‘normal’ life. Their commitment, resilience and search for empowerment are at the heart of this story.
Fostering
a self-help spirit
Prof. Iossif Bogdevitch,
Belarusian Research Institute for Soil Science and Agrochemistry (BRISSA)
– The merit of the Ethos approach was to create a positive spirit among inhabitants of villages contaminated by radioactivity, changing their mindset from feeling as a victim from the disaster to feeling empowered to manage the situation.”
In Belarus, many people were evacuated at the time of the accident and relocated temporally or permanently. Despite a strong mobilization of authorities and experts the situation of the population that stayed in the contaminated territories has continued to deteriorate over the following years due to the collapse of the Soviet regime.
From the nineties the international community has mobilized to help the affected populations. It is in this context that foreign experts together with local authorities and professionals participated in initiatives aiming at rehabilitating the living conditions in the contaminated areas based on the direct involvement of the inhabitants in the day-to-day management of the radiological situation.
Learning from Chernobyl:
The experience feedback from Belarus and Norway
On April 26th, 1986, a violent blast destroyed the containment building of reactor n°4 at Chernobyl nuclear power plant, blowing unprecedented amounts of radioactive materials into the biosphere. Within days, the contaminated air plume spread over most parts of the European continent, following the changes in wind direction. Rain and snow deposited significant amounts of radioactivity on the ground in many countries, particularly the neighboring Belarus, but also far away, e.g. in Norway. The local residents were strongly impacted.
Norway: safeguarding
ancestral roots
For most of the South Sámi people in central Norway and Sweden reindeer husbandry is still the main livelihood. At the end of April – beginning of May 1986, the fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear power contaminated their vast mountain grazing areas. The uptake of radiocaesium was particularly high in reindeers. Their whole reindeer dependent culture was threatened by the situation.
Thanks to close cooperation with authorities and scientists in radiation protection and radioecology, most herders became progressively acquainted with measuring their reindeers, feeding them with lichen from less contaminated areas, using cesium-reducing cooking methods, etc., thereby protecting their way of life.
Lavrans Skuterud,
Senior scientist, Norwegian Radiation Protection Agency (NRPA)
– We visited herders, goat farmers, sheep farmers, and we experienced the slaughtering of reindeers… We have a lot of experience in Norway on practical consequences of fallouts for the local population, for farmers, for food production, and also on the management: regulations, compensations, etc. I think this has much relevance for Japanese farmers or food producers. Be it a reindeer, be it a sheep, be it a sansai… It’s much about culture, food, lifestyle, the fundamentals in our daily lives.”
Ryoko Ando,
NPO Ethos in Fukushima, Suetsugi
http://ethos-fukushima.blogspot.jp
–After the nuclear accident, voices raged about Fukushima but left behind those of us who live in Fukushima. Everybody wanted to have his or her say without regard for what we think and feel. I could not accept that. I even felt angry. I started ETHOS in Fukushima out of a conviction that it is we who should narrate our life. In the midst of the turmoil, ICRP 111 was the only support for our minds.”
ICRP Publication 111, entitled Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency, provides guidance for the protection of people living in such areas. Although the focus is on radiation protection, the publication also recognizes the complexity of post-accident situations, which cannot be managed without addressing all the affected aspects of daily life, including the environmental, health, economic, social, psychological, cultural, ethical and political domains.
The publication stresses the direct involvement of the affected population and local professionals for the rehabilitation of living conditions, and the management of the situation, and the responsibility of authorities at both the national and local levels to create the conditions and provide the means for the population’s involvement and empowerment. The role of radiation monitoring, health surveillance, and the management of contaminated foodstuffs and other commodities is described from this perspective.
A groundbreaking radiation protection approach
A peaceful lady, age 34 at the time of the accident, living close to Iwaki, a town next to the exclusion zone, Ryoko Ando is one of those who decided to confront the situation without further ado. Totally unable to ascertain whether it was risky to stay in her village, she started tweeting and searching for information on the web in an attempt to understand the radiological situation. Via the social networks, Mrs. Ando got in touch with individuals, in the Prefecture and across Japan, who were concerned by the situation in Fukushima and ready to start supporting her efforts.
By chance, her web search led to a report published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection – ICRP Publication 111 – and indirectly to the Belarus and Norwegian experience in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, which inspired that publication. Could there be lessons to be learned, she wondered, from the experience of people who had to face the consequences of a severe nuclear accident with massive radioactive releases?
Instantly, she realized the significance of this groundbreaking approach for the people of Fukushima and the importance of giving more people access to it. Among other points, the ICRP Publication 111 emphasizes the importance of measurements to assessing the radiological risks in all aspects of everyday life and to a discussion of the results with other “sensor citizens”.
It is a key step towards the empowerment of individuals and, ultimately, recovery.
From ethos in belarus to ‘ethos in fukushima’
A pilot project supported by the European Commission in the late nineties, ETHOS sought to provide a new, inclusive approach to the rehabilitation of living conditions in the contaminated territories of Belarus in the post-accident context of Chernobyl.
One thing in particular caught Mrs. Ando’s attention: the ETHOS approach relies on strong involvement by the local population in the rehabilitation process to create conditions enabling inhabitants to reconstruct their quality of life in all the day-to-day aspects that were affected or threatened by the contamination… Given the confusion prevailing in the contaminated territories of Fukushima, she saw the applicability of this approach in the communities of the Prefecture.
This inspired Mrs. Ando to undertake a collaborative initiative: the creation of a blog called ‘ETHOS in Fukushima’ . The blog is a focal point for people who are looking for information to gain a better understanding of the situation in the contaminated territories. With time, the blog grew to report extensively on local initiatives and the outcomes of each meeting of the Fukushima Dialogue initiative in which ‘ETHOS in Fukushima’ participated, from the second seminar onwards. It also reported on visits to Belarus and Norway to share experiences with local farmers and reindeer herders they had met during previous Dialogue seminars. Today, it encompasses a variety of written and video sources, making it an unrivalled database on living conditions in Fukushima following the nuclear accident.
Ryoko Ando summarizes the spirit of the blog on the homepage: « This is about living in Fukushima after the nuclear disaster. More, it is about our ability to pass on a better future, as living here is a wonderful thing. In measuring, learning, thinking for ourselves, in finding a common language between you and me, we are slowly moving forward in Iwaki », she writes.
The web: an unmatched tool to reachand coalesce committed individuals
The swiftness with which contacts were made between Fukushima residents and Japanese experts in nuclear physics and radiation protection is a largely positive aspect of new communications technology. Social media such as Twitter played a major role in simplifying identification and fostering contact among individuals, wherever they are physically located. Ryugo Hayano, a world-renowned physicist specializing in antimatter, splits his time between his professorship at the University of Tokyo and his research work at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN ) near Geneva, Switzerland. Deeply concerned by the anxiety of Fukushima residents regarding exposure to ionizing radiation, Professor Hayano used his Twitter account to synthetize and disseminate information on the radiological situation in the Fukushima Prefecture.
March 12, 2011 14:22: Ryugo Hayano’s first “Fukushima NPP” tweet
March 13, 2011: his graph displaying the peak of dose rate subsequent to the explosion of unit 1 on March 12 at 15:36 was immediately shared with 90,000 followers.
The number of his followers increased from 2,500 to 150,000 within a few days and today stands at around 130,000.
Among them was Doctor Makoto Miyazaki, a radiologist from the Fukushima Medical University involved in deploying whole-body counts in the Fukushima prefecture. In parallel, through his exchanges with mothers worried about their children’s health, Professor Hayano realized that the lack of whole-body counters adapted to the measurement of infants – of little use from a sanitary perspective – was a source of concern. He therefore decided to launch the development of a bespoke whole-body counter, the BabyScan . His participation in the 5th and subsequent Dialogue seminars also prompted his involvement in joint work with Fukushima high school students regarding measurements and the acquisition of knowledge about radiation and radiation protection.
The Internet is another responsive tool for networking between individuals in Japan and abroad. Taking advantage of the web, the volume of day-to-day exchanges has increased rapidly among members of a new virtual community coalesced around one common objective: contributing actively to the rehabilitation of living conditions after the Fukushima accident.
Torn by a dilemma
For those who lived within a 20-kilometer radius of the damaged nuclear power plant, it was a moot question: by governmental decision, they had no choice but to leave for temporary housing further away from the plant. Nearly 90,000 inhabitants were concerned by this forced evacuation.
To return or not to return?
Among the 2,024,401 inhabitants of the Fukushima Prefecture (as of 1st March 2011), some 150,000 were evacuated after the mega quake, the tsunami and the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The six cities and villages above belong to the zones totally evacuated. A survey conducted between August 2013 and January 2015 provides indications on the evacuees’ readiness to return home.
Source: Nuclear Department, French Embassy in Japan.
Mayumi Ootsuki,
Ryozen village inhabitant
Date City
–On March 14th at noon, I was told it would be better to make some preparation for immediate evacuation. But at the same time, many people who wanted to leave were unable to do so. The first reason was, many just had no place to go.”
Sanae Ito,
Evacuee to Kyoto, formerly living in Minamisoma
–I come back to Minamisoma 2 to 3 times a year. And now, after four years, I feel like I would be glad to return, but the feeling that I could not return remains stronger.”
But for those who live outside the no-go zone, the situation was quite different: the decision was theirs to make. Stay or go? How can a sound decision be made when there is no way to deem whether it is safe or not? Staying means facing an invasive, invisible and ever-present enemy; it means being separated from relatives and neighbors who decide to leave. But staying also means a familiar setting, keeping one’s job, ensuring one’s livelihood. Going puts more distance between oneself and the radioactive hazard; it means having more confidence in food, regaining control over one’s life, finding a safe haven. But it also means leaving relatives, neighbors, friends and one’s entire history behind; it means feeling as though one has abandoned those who have stayed and being a stranger to those who already live in the “shelter territory”. It can also mean just finding a place to stay!
Wrenching decisions about children
Some stay, some go, but for all of them the decision is a heartbreaker. This is even truer when children are at stake. Mayumi Ootsuki, 39 at the time of the accident, lives in Ryozen, a rural area of Date City. Together with her husband and parents, she decided to stay in the family home with her two sons, Seiya, 8, a primary school pupil, and Shunya, 6, a kindergartner.
A member of the local Parent-Teacher Association, Mrs. Ootsuki is deeply committed to keeping the school and kindergarten running, which she regards as key to the future of her village: “The people from the district of Ishida, where our primary school is located, have long been committed to keeping customs alive, they care a lot about culture, they care a lot about our small school. It is the countryside here, the school has only a few pupils; the same goes for our kindergarten. Our customs are those of a hamlet, a little district, not of a city,” she explains.
Sanae Ito, 50 at the time of the accident, used to live in Minamisoma/Haranachi. Immediately after the accident, she decided to hit the road with her mother and daughter. “The accident occurred on the day my daughter graduated from junior high school,” she says. “The only thing I could think of was to protect her!” Following a nerve-racking car ride from Minamisoma with temporary stays in the Tokyo area, she finally arrived in Kyoto, where she still lives today. Her daughter, who did not share her views on the merits of leaving her hometown and classmates, showed her frustration through daily arguments with her mother and obstinate refusal to work at school. With time, things began to get better as she socialized with her new classmates and displayed a growing interest in foreign languages.
Maiko Momma,
Advisor, Assistance to population for radiation protection, Iwaki City
–I was really worried by the idea of coming back next to the coast. And also, my kids were still really so young. I was really scared.”
Family portrait. Drawing by Miori Momma who turned 5 in 2015.
Back home
Whereas Sanae Ito is considering staying in her new home, Maiko Momma, age 33 at the time of the accident, is now back in Yotsukura, a district of Iwaki City. Her house, just 300 meters from the coast, was fortunately spared by the tsunami. But the overpowering rage of the ocean invading the countryside as she and her children raced to high land remains etched in their memories, a vision of horror.
The mother of a then 11-month-old girl and a 2-year-old boy, Mrs. Momma, made the decision to evacuate Yotsukura with her children, leaving her husband behind, as evacuating would have meant giving up his occupation as the manager of a pharmacy and laying off his staff.
Guided by a sense of duty to protect her children, she headed for Koriyama, some 60 kilometers away, for a one-month stay with her husband’s parents. Urged by her own parents to put more distance between themselves and the damaged reactors, she continued to Sendai, the city of her birth. Located some 110 kilometers from Koriyama in the Prefecture of Miyagi, Sendai was a safe and familiar place where Mrs. Momma’s parents and younger sister live.
Life there might have seemed almost normal if Mr. Momma were staying with his wife and children. Their separation became increasingly painful, as they could not meet as often as they would like – far from it – due to the 3- to 4-hour detour between Minamisoma and Iwaki caused by the accident at the plant. “In the spring of 2013, I heard from an acquaintance that special permits could be obtained to drive directly from Minamisoma to Iwaki on Route 6. Well, if things have reached this point I thought, why not go back home? That is how I decided to return, in August,” Maiko Momma recalls.
From a dialogue of the deaf...
In a country used to planning every aspect of life minutely, down to the tiniest details, there is practically no room for the unexpected. When the unexpected nonetheless arises, planners are helpless. The aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster is an eloquent example of public authorities being overwhelmed by the complex and simultaneous challenges resulting from the accident.
For the Japanese citizen, used to flawless products and impeccable service, the perceived shortcomings and inability to cope with the emergency was a source of profound incomprehension which translated over days into pervasive suspicion and strong disapproval of the officials and experts in charge. Citizen resentment towards those who are expected to provide support and guidance and fail to do so was sharpened by a sense of lost control resulting from their lack of preparedness to deal, overnight, with a radically new aspect of their lives: protecting oneself against radioactivity.
Against such a backdrop, any attempt at discussion between citizens, experts and authorities was doomed to be a dialogue of the deaf.
...to a dialogue of the brave
As a radiation protection expert who moved to Fukushima to volunteer his time and experience, Junichiro Tada was especially worried by the growing gap and tensions between the stakeholders. A blend of unspoken anguish, doubts, misunderstandings, suspicions and desperation poisoned interpersonal relationships, hampering the action of those who were ready to help.
In the fall of 2011, he shared his concern with Ohtsura Niwa, a Japanese member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and Jacques Lochard, Vice Chair of the Commission, who brought his experience with dialogue between Belarusian stakeholders as part of the ETHOS project, in which he actively participated. Then, Mr. Lochard recommended a field-proven approach: sitting all of the parties involved around a table to listen to each other until the unspoken is exposed, releasing tension and facilitating mutual understanding.
Junichiro Tada,
Director. NPO, Radiation Safety Forum, Fukushima City
–I don’t think that the doses incorporated by the population in the Prefecture are likely to have an impact on health. I rather think that excessive worries regarding radioactivity might have an impact on health. We see for instance people who become depressed because they can’t go back home, or children who develop mental consequences from the excessively stringent discipline imposed by mothers worried by the impact from radioactivity on health.”
(Interview on September 11th, 2014 with Fukushima Minyu News)
Ohtsura Niwa,
Professor. Fukushima Medical University, Radiation Medical Science Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey
–I wanted to visit Belarus 25 years after the accident. I went to Bragin, a small town located in the south of Belarus, next to the no-go zone. When I arrived, I saw young people, lots of school students, I heard the price of land and of building land was going up because young people were moving in.
I found that very heartening. I thought Fukushima also might be OK after 25 years.”
Jacques Lochard,
Vice-Chairman, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
–In July 1990, I arrived in a village located near the 30-kilometer zone around Chernobyl. The mayor of this half- abandoned village told me he almost regretted the time of the accident, since being mayor at that time made sense to him, helping people leave the village, organizing the evacuation, etc. Conversely, four years later, he felt useless: no more children, a deserted infirmary, no more agriculture… nobody but elderly people. Suddenly, I was taking stock of the human dimension of the disaster, whereas, until then, I had regarded it merely as a matter of nuclear safety.”
Breaking the ice
A couple of weeks after this conversation, the first Dialogue on the Rehabilitation of Living Conditions after the Fukushima Accident was held in Fukushima on the topic of Lessons from Chernobyl and ICRP Recommendations. It was organized under the aegis of the ICRP and supported by OECD-NEA , ASN , IRSN and NRPA . During four years, experts from these organizations participated actively in this seminar and the eleven following ones.
The atmosphere at the first seminar was tense and heavy. Anger and tears often erupted around the room during the two-day Dialogue held on November 26th and 27th, 2011. Then, suddenly, eight months of restrained fear and frustration were released. The exercise was particularly challenging for the experts, as they were no longer expected to dispense knowledge by virtue of their positions. Slowly but steadily, Dialogue after Dialogue – some twelve in all between November 2011 and September 2015 – they had to listen to hurting individuals and try their best to put their knowledge and experience to work to answer their concerns. The process had been completely reversed. Jean-Christophe Gariel, head of the Environment Division at IRSN, the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety, described it later as “a change of glasses”, when he participated in the 5th Dialogue seminar in Date City in March 2013.
Over time, an atmosphere of mutual understanding took hold, with everyone around the table feeling empowered, able to share their own experience and benefit from the input of the other participants. The table was no longer populated with people in the know on one side and laymen on the other, but with equals driven by the common desire to rehabilitate the living conditions of people in Fukushima, and to restore the tarnished image of their beloved region.
Jean-Christophe Gariel,
Head, Environmental Protection Division, IRSN, France
–Beyond purely radiological issues, numerous social or economic problems have to be factored into the management of post-accident situations. Participating in the Dialogues as an expert raised my awareness of the importance of this approach.”
In fall, the season when the 1st Dialogue seminar was held, the countryside around Fukushima City turns fiery colors and mountaintops snow white.
In fall, the season when the 1st Dialogue seminar was held, the countryside around Fukushima City turns fiery colors and mountaintops snow white.
In fall, the season when the 1st Dialogue seminar was held, the countryside around Fukushima City turns fiery colors and mountaintops snow white.
Belarusian and Norwegian radiation protection experts partaking in the 1st Dialogue seminar were able to report about the situation in their respective countries and to answer the questions asked by the Fukushima stakeholders. Among them were Astrid Liland and Lavrans Skuterud (Norway), Iossif Bogdevich and Zoia Trafimchik (Belarus).
Belarusian and Norwegian radiation protection experts partaking in the 1st Dialogue seminar were able to report about the situation in their respective countries and to answer the questions asked by the Fukushima stakeholders. Among them were Astrid Liland and Lavrans Skuterud (Norway), Iossif Bogdevich and Zoia Trafimchik (Belarus).
Belarusian and Norwegian radiation protection experts partaking in the 1st Dialogue seminar were able to report about the situation in their respective countries and to answer the questions asked by the Fukushima stakeholders. Among them were Astrid Liland and Lavrans Skuterud (Norway), Iossif Bogdevich and Zoia Trafimchik (Belarus).
The 1st Dialogue seminar and the eleven following ones were moderated jointly by Jacques Lochard (ICRP) and Junichiro Tada (Radiation Safety Forum).
The 1st Dialogue seminar and the eleven following ones were moderated jointly by Jacques Lochard (ICRP) and Junichiro Tada (Radiation Safety Forum).
The 1st Dialogue seminar and the eleven following ones were moderated jointly by Jacques Lochard (ICRP) and Junichiro Tada (Radiation Safety Forum).
The Dialogue seminars created a network of Japanese and Western stakeholders from all walks of life, cemented by their dedication to improving the living conditions of people residing in areas contaminated by radioactivity. Ohtsura Niwa, a Japanese member of ICRP, is surrounded from left to right by Zoia Trafimchik (Belarus), François Rollinger (France) and Tamara Zhunussova (Norway).
The six principles
of the Fukushima Dialogue
- Invited participants
- Local and international observers (the audience)
- ICRP members as facilitators
- Use of common language
- Use of dialogue techniques:
- 1st step: in turn, stakeholders give their views for 5 minutes each. Interruptions are not allowed.
- 2nd step: after listening to his/her counterparts, each stakeholder gives his/her views in 3 minutes. The aim is to give everyone the opportunity to deepen his thinking, or even change his/her position in the light of that of others.
- 3rd step: the main lessons are summarized by a rapporteur followed by a general discussion.
- all Sessions open to media