Introduction On 11 March 2011 an earthquake occurred near Honshu Island, the main island of Japan. This triggered a 15-metre tsunami, which caused damage to coolant sys- tems of nuclear reactors in Fukushima and eventually led to nuclear meltdowns and release of radioactive material. Although more people died from the earthquake and the tsunami (more than 15,000 deaths as of February 2014), there was some radiation in the area and children from the contaminated areas had increased risk of getting thyroid cancer. Radioactive material found its way into drinking water and food supply. In Tokyo it was announced that safety limits for infants were exceeded. Radioactivity also entered the Pacific Ocean. Pollution on the coast and near the plant might persist. Many people living in the area near the power plant – hundreds of thousands – were evacuated. Many emergency workers were exposed to high levels of radiation; they risked their present and future health. Later an investigation found that direct causes of the accident were foreseeable and the power company admitted that it failed to take better measures to present disasters. A power plant closer to the epicentre of the earthquake withstood the disaster. Japanese authorities admitted poor oversight. An investigation committee concluded that there was poor crisis management. Following the disaster there was more public discussion about nuclear energy, inside and outside Japan. Some called for phasing out nuclear power. Germany accelerated plans to close and phase out its reactors (Strickland 2011; for an overview see also the Wikipedia entry on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster). Accidents and disasters such as Fukushima raise interesting questions for the ethics and philosophy of environmental health risk. For instance, were these risks and this disaster ‘natural’ or not? Is there an ‘objective’ way of measuring this kind of risk? How should we respond to such risks? What is good risk management? What is left out in the narrative about causes, management and measures? What is the place of personal experience and cultural wisdom in narratives like this and, more generally, in responses to risk? I discuss a case from the nuclear industry here, but similar questions could be asked about the chemical industry, about modern health care, about modern agri- culture and so on. These are questions that are relevant to all environmental health risks and hence to those human activities that create these risks. 7 The phenomenology of environmental health risk Vulnerability to modern technological risk, risk alienation and risk politics Mark Coeckelbergh