Skip to content


Trickle of residents return to Fukushima’s last deserted town via France 24

Tokyo (AFP) – Five former residents of the last remaining uninhabited town near Japan’s stricken Fukushima nuclear plant returned on Thursday to live there for the first time since the 2011 disaster.

[…]

A local official told AFP that five people from four households are returning to live in Futaba on a trial basis, the first of just 15 people who have applied to a scheme, working towards a permanent return to the town.

The group had already been back to visit Futaba, but Thursday marks the first time they will stay overnight.

They can live there as part of the trial until at least June, when the wider cordon is expected to be lifted and their residence can become permanent, the official said.

The scheme “aims to ensure that residents will be able to live without problems, by, for example, checking if the sewers function well and there are facilities to support everyday life”, a cabinet office official in charge of supporting Fukushima residents told AFP.

More than 18,400 people died or remain missing after the 9.0-magnitude quake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 which sparked the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The government has undertaken an extensive decontamination programme in the region, literally scraping layers of topsoil, among other methods to remove radiation.

It has gradually declared areas safe for residents to return, with just 2.4 percent of the prefecture still covered by no-go orders as of last year.

But in some places, evacuees have been reluctant to return even after measures are lifted, worried about persistent radiation or fully resettled in other places.

Read more.

Posted in *English.

Tagged with .


小児甲状腺がん患者6人、東電提訴へ〜4人は再発患者 via OurPlanet-TV

原発事故から11年目。これまで固く口を閉ざしていた小児甲状腺がん患者が立ち上がった。自身の甲状腺がんは福島原発事故の影響だとして、今月27日にも、東京電力を訴える。原発事故の放射線被ばく影響について、同社を訴える集団訴訟は、本訴訟が初となる。

[…]

弁護団長の井戸謙一弁護士は、「何ミリシーベルトの被曝をしたというところまでは特定できないが、原告は相当量の被曝をしてい」とした上で、「甲状腺がんの危険因子は放射線被曝。甲状腺がんの発症数は、事故前と比較にならないぐらいの数になっており、原告の中には「過剰診断」によって見るかつようながんはない」と強調。「原因が被曝でないというならば、東京電力がそのことを立証すべきだ」と述べた。

動画と特集

Posted in *日本語.

Tagged with , .


「沈黙を余儀なくされてきた」東電甲状腺がん訴訟で弁護団が会見 27日に提訴 via Tokyo Shimbun

[…]

 事故から10年を経て訴訟を起こす理由として副団長の河合弘之弁護士は「原発事故が原因で甲状腺がんになったと声をあげると社会からバッシングを受ける雰囲気があり、6人は沈黙を余儀なくされてきた」と説明。「福島県では通常より数十倍も多くの子が甲状腺がんになっている。因果関係がないというのなら、東電側はそれ以外の原因を立証しなくてはならない」と主張した。 同じく副団長の海渡雄一弁護士は「結婚や就職など普通の人生の望みを奪われ、生涯苦しい治療を続けなくてはいけない人もいる」と述べ、「6人以外でも同様に苦しんでいる人は弁護団に相談してほしい」と呼び掛けた。 弁護団によると、原発事故による甲状腺がんの責任を問う訴訟は初。27日に東京地裁に提訴する。会見を受け、東電は「訴状が送達された場合、誠実に対応する」とコメントした。(小沢慧一)

全文

Posted in *日本語.

Tagged with , .


「クリーンエネ戦略」に原発新増設盛り込まず 政府、参院選影響懸念 via 毎日新聞

政府は、6月にも策定する脱炭素社会の実現に向けた「クリーンエネルギー戦略」に、国内原発の新増設やリプレース(建て替え)の明記を見送る方針を固めた。原発に対する世論の懸念は根強く、岸田政権として「原発維持」の方向性を打ち出した場合、今夏の参院選に影響しかねないと判断した。

 岸田文雄首相は18日、クリーンエネルギー戦略に関する有識者懇談会を首相官邸で開催。2050年に温室効果ガス排出を実質ゼロにする政府目標について、首相は「道のりはチャレンジングだ。(東京電力福島第1原発の)事故による原発不信が残り、再生可能エネルギーも島国ではコスト高にならざるを得ない」と指摘。同戦略では再生エネ投資の加速などの道筋を描きたいとの考えを強調した。

[…]

 政権内では同戦略で原発新増設などに踏み込む案もあったが、岸田首相が重視する参院選の争点になりかねないため見送る。首相側近は「安全運転だ。エネルギー政策も無理はしない」とし、方向性の検討は夏以降に事実上先送りされる。同戦略は再生エネや水素、アンモニアの活用、ライフスタイルの転換などを柱とし、原発関連は小型モジュール炉(SMR)の新技術開発推進などにとどめる方向だ。【李舜、藤渕志保】

全文

Posted in *日本語.

Tagged with , .


「結婚、出産、将来のこと。考えられない」甲状腺がん26歳、肺転移も 東電提訴「今できることを」via 東京新聞

福島第一原発事故後に甲状腺がんになった若者6人が、東京電力の責任を裁判で追及する。事故時に子どもだった約300人に甲状腺がんが見つかりながら、事故との因果関係が認められず、検査縮小を求める意見が出ていることへの強い疑問があるからだ。「このままなかったことにされたくない」。福島県中部の中通り地域に住む女性(26)は肺への転移が分かり、将来への不安が膨らむ。(片山夏子)

◆17歳「なんで私が」

 「肺の影以外にも、首にも怪しいのがあるって医師に言われていて。結婚とか出産とか先のことは考えられない」。11日朝、アルバイトに向かう前の女性が自宅で静かに語った。 通院は3カ月に1回。待合室に幼い子がいると胸が痛む。「私は無自覚の時に検査で見つかった。検査を縮小したら助かる命も助からないかもしれない」 甲状腺がんを告知されたのは2013年3月、17歳で高校3年生になる直前。「手術しないと23歳まで生きられないかもしれない」と言われ、「なんで私が」と思いながらも大丈夫だと信じこもうとした。

◆2度の手術、独房のような部屋

 母親(57)は告知される娘の姿に涙をこらえた。女性は原発事故直後の11年4月に高校に入学。当初は放射性物質を吸い込まないようにマスクをしていたが、すぐに着けなくなった。通学で片道40分歩き、外で体育もした。母親の脳裏に「もし避難していたら」と後悔が巡った。 女性は東京の大学に行きたかったが、体を心配した母親に止められ隣県の大学に。だが半年後、だるさや疲れ、生理不順がひどくなり、再び検査を受けた。 「残った片側に再発が見られる。肺にも影が認められる」と医師に告げられ「治っていなかったんだ」と母親と泣き崩れた。治療に専念するため退学した。19歳だった。 2度の手術や検査による身体的負担は大きかった。長い注射針を喉に刺す検査では針が喉の奥に入るほど痛みが増した。放射線治療は3度にわたり、入院では独房のような部屋に隔離され、鉛入りの窓から外を眺めてひたすら耐えた。

◆…でも今は前を向きたい

 母親は、明るく振る舞う娘が成人式の日、父親に「着物が着られてよかった」と言ったと聞き、死も考えたのかと衝撃を受けた。「がんだから長くは生きられない」と冗談めかして繰り返す娘の言葉に、胸がつぶされる思いもした。「1日たりとも娘の体を考えない日はない」 女性のがんを示す数値は手術前よりも悪い。再発や転移の不安から、希望する職で正社員になることを諦めてきた。でも、今は前を向きたい。「事故が関係ないなら、なぜこれほど甲状腺がんの子が出ているのか。今後もなる子がいるかもしれない。今できることをしなくてはと思っている」

原文

Posted in *日本語.

Tagged with , .


「福島第一原発事故の被ばくで甲状腺がんに」と主張 事故当時子どもだった6人が東電を提訴へ via 東京新聞

東京電力福島第一原発事故による放射線被ばくの影響で甲状腺がんになったとして、事故時に福島県内に住んでいた17~27歳の男女6人が27日、東電に対して総額6億1600万円の損害賠償を求める訴訟を東京地裁に起こす。弁護団によると、子どもの時に甲状腺がんになった患者が原発事故を起因として東電を訴えるのは初めて。(片山夏子)

◆弁護側「被ばく以外の原因は考えられない」

 提訴するのは、福島市や郡山市などに住んでいた4人と、県西部の会津地方と県東部の浜通りの両地域に住んでいた各1人。事故当時は6~16歳で、現在は県内や東京都内で高校生だったり、会社員やアルバイトとして働いていたりする。 6人は、福島県の県民健康調査などで甲状腺がんと診断された。2人は甲状腺の片側を切除、4人は再発により全摘し、放射線治療を実施または予定している。4回手術した人や肺に転移した人もいる。治療や手術で希望職種への就職を断念し、大学中退や退職を余儀なくされたりした。再発だけではなく、結婚や出産ができるかなど強い不安を抱えている。 弁護団は、6人を含む子どもたちに見つかった甲状腺がんの多くがチェルノブイリ原発事故で小児・若年層で確認された乳頭がんで、遺伝性ではなく被ばく以外の原因は考えられないと主張。井戸謙一弁護団長は「再発している人も多く、過剰診断は考えにくい。東電は原因が原発事故と認め、早急に救済すべきだ」と話した。

◆専門家会議は「因果関係認められない」との立場

 原発事故による被ばくと甲状腺がんの因果関係について、福島県の専門家会議は「現時点で認められない」という立場だ。 原発事故後、県は県民健康調査の一環として、事故当時おおむね18歳以下と事故後の2012年4月1日までに生まれた(県外避難者を含む)計約38万人を対象に、被ばくにより発症の可能性がある甲状腺がんの検査をしている。 通常、小児甲状腺がんの発症数は年間100万人に1~2人程度とされるが、調査などでは、昨年6月までに約300人が甲状腺がんまたはその疑いと診断された。医療費の全額は、国の財政支援や東電の賠償金で創設した「県民健康管理基金」から交付されている。 診断結果について専門家会議は「将来治療の必要のないがんを見つけている過剰診断の可能性が指摘されている」としつつ、調査を継続している。

原文

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , .


Why joint US-South Korean research on plutonium separation raises nuclear proliferation danger via Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

By Frank N. von HippelJungmin Kang | January 13, 2022

South Korea, like the United States, has long relied on nuclear power as a major source of electric power. As a result, it has amassed large stores of spent nuclear fuel and, as in the United States, has experienced political pushback from populations around proposed central sites for the spent fuel.

South Korea also has a history of interest in nuclear weapons to deter North Korean attack. The United States stationed nuclear weapons in South Korea during the Cold War but withdrew them in 1991. North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. US and South Korean policy is to seek the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and achieve a nuclear-weapon-free Korean peninsula. That goal currently appears distant, but South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons could make it even more distant.

South Korea’s interest in spent fuel disposal and in a nuclear-weapon option account for the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute’s dogged interest in the separation of plutonium from its spent fuel. Two US Energy Department nuclear laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory (outside of Chicago) and the Idaho National Laboratory (which originated as Argonne’s reactor test site), have encouraged that interest because of their own interests in plutonium separation. Now, a secret, leaked, joint South Korean-US report shows deliberate blindness to the economic and proliferation concerns associated with plutonium separation and lays the basis for policies that would put South Korea on the threshold of being a nuclear-weapon state.

The report was produced by the Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute at the end of 2021. It addresses their 10 years of collaborative research and development (R&D) on plutonium separation, using a “pyroprocessing” technology developed by Argonne.

South Korea’s government has accepted the report as a justification for continued joint R&D on pyroprocessing and sodium-cooled reactors, and the Biden administration is not seeking an independent review. The leaked pages raise serious concerns, however, about the completeness and quality of the analysis. With regard to costs, the enthusiasts who authored the report ignored the lessons of decades of failed efforts to commercialize these dangerous technologies. Their strategy appears to keep their collaboration alive until new administrations come into power in South Korea and the United States, which they hope will allow the Korea Atomic Energy Resrach Institute to actually build a prototype pyroprocessing plant and a plutonium-fueled reactor.

Plutonium’s nuclear-weapon background. Plutonium was originally separated during World War II to make nuclear weapons. The chain-reacting material in the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium and virtually all the world’s 10,000 nuclear weapons today contain miniaturized versions of the Nagasaki bomb.

After World War II, plutonium also was promoted as a nuclear fuel. Argonne National Lab was originally established to develop what were expected to be the reactors of the future—liquid-sodium-cooled plutonium “breeder” reactors that would be fueled by plutonium while transmuting uranium into more plutonium than they consumed.

The dream of a world fueled by plutonium became a nightmare in 1974, however, when India used some of the plutonium the US Atoms for Peace program had helped India separate to test its first nuclear-weapon design and the US discovered that four other countries, including South Korea, were going down the same track.[1]

Since 1974, the United States has mostly opposed the civilian separation of plutonium—especially in states that do not have nuclear weapons. Today, Japan is the only non-nuclear-armed state that separates plutonium. The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute has domestic political support, however, for its demand that South Korea have the same right to separate plutonium as Japan. This due largely to Japan’s persistence in separating plutonium and memories of Japan’s exploitive and sometimes brutal occupation of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945.

[…]

In 1974, however, India reminded the world that plutonium is a dual-use material. (See above.) In reaction to India’s nuclear test, US policy flipped under the Ford and Carter administrations to opposing plutonium separation for civilian purposes. In parallel, Congress, concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission was skewing national energy policy toward nuclear power and not taking nuclear power plant safety seriously enough, broke up the AEC into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and what became the Energy Department.

Then, in 1977, the new Carter administration decided that the US domestic plutonium program was neither necessary nor economic. Breeder advocates fought back. In 1983, however, after the estimated cost of the Energy Department’s demonstration breeder reactor had increased fivefold, Congress ended the program. US nuclear utilities agreed—on the condition that the Energy Department would build a deep repository for their spent fuel.

The Energy Department nevertheless allowed the nuclear power divisions of Argonne and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to continue their research and development work in Idaho, using the Experimental Breeder Reactor II and an adjoining compact spent fuel “pyroprocessing” plant built to recycle its fuel.

Instead of dissolving the spent fuel in nitric acid as the nuclear weapon states have done to recover plutonium for their nuclear weapons programs, “pyroprocessing” dissolves spent fuel in molten salt and then a current is run through the salt to deposit the dissolved uranium and plutonium on electrodes.

In 1994, the Clinton administration finally shut down research and development on breeder reactors. It agreed, however, that the Idaho National Laboratory could use its pyroprocessing facility to process the accumulated Experimental Breeder II spent fuel into stable waste forms for disposal. (One of the authors—von Hippel—was the responsible official in the White House when these decisions where taken.)

When the Clinton administration was succeeded by the George W. Bush administration, however, Argonne resumed lobbying for pyroprocessing and, in 2001, persuaded an energy-policy task force led by then-Vice President Dick Cheney that pyroprocessing is “proliferation resistant” because the extracted plutonium is impure and unsuitable for nuclear weapons. On that basis, Argonne and INL were allowed to launch a collaboration on pyroprocessing research and development with Korea.

The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute was enthusiastic. It had been blocked from pursuing reprocessing R&D since it had been discovered in 1974 that the institute was part of a nuclear-weapon program launched by South Korea’s then dictator, General Park Chung-hee.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , , , .


Small modular reactors offer no hope for nuclear energy via Advanced Science News

by M.V. Ramana | Jan 14, 2022

In December 2021, the government of Belgium joined an increasing number of countries expressing an interest in building what are called small modular reactors, which generate under 300 megawatts of electrical power — much smaller than the 1000 to 1700 megawatts typical of large reactors that dominate today’s nuclear power landscape.

Belgium’s interest in small modular reactors was paired with a decision to phase out the country’s operating nuclear power plants by 2025, with Prime Minister Alexander De Croo declaring that the decision amounted to bidding goodbye to the old nuclear reactors but looking to nuclear energy of the future.

Does replacing ageing nuclear capacity with these smaller reactors make economic sense and will it happen?

Belgium is hardly alone in being interested in small modular reactors. At the forefront of efforts to commercialize these designs are the governments of the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, all of which provide large amounts of taxpayer money to subsidize their development. These three countries have long histories in nuclear power and are influencing other countries to follow their lead.

Decline in nuclear power

The background to interest in small reactors is the consistently declining share of nuclear power in global electricity generation, from 17.5% in 1996 to around 10% in 2020. This decline reflects the steep falloff in orders for nuclear power from the mid-1980s onward.

Although often blamed on public opposition to nuclear power, especially resulting from the devastating accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the main cause for the drop in nuclear power’s importance has been the steadily rising cost of nuclear reactors and the almost invariable tendency for project construction costs and time to escalate dramatically.

An illustration is the Vogtle project in the U.S. state of Georgia, where two large 1100 megawatt AP1000 reactors are being constructed. These two reactors are among approximately 30 new reactor proposals announced after the U.S. government offered handsome financial incentives for nuclear power plant construction in 2005. Of these, only four reactors moved to the construction stage.

[…]

The economic challenges of small reactors

Advocates for small modular reactors claim that this strategy will lower costs in the long run. They blame rising costs and delays on the size and complexity of large reactors and on the difficulty in managing the large amount of work they need to construct on-site. Small modular reactors are expected to be cheaper because they will use production line-made modules that will require much less work at the site.

These arguments have superficial attractions and do not stand up to scrutiny. The main strategy for combating nuclear power’s historic lack of competitiveness has been to build ever-larger reactors because the expenses associated with constructing and operating a reactor should not increase in direct proportion to the power generated. Small modular reactors cannot defy this economic logic. The scale economies that will be lost cannot be compensated for by factory manufacturing, and they will cost more than large reactors for each unit (megawatt) of generation capacity.

Experience also suggests that factory manufacturing of modules will not be a panacea. The AP1000 design used at the Vogtle and Summer sites relied heavily on using modular factory-made components, but that reliance did not prevent the large cost and time overruns as well as quality problems that have bedeviled these projects.

There is also a “Catch 22”. The economics will only be tested when large numbers of reactors manufactured on production lines have been built and their cost known. Private industry is not going to take the risk of paying for production lines and buying large numbers of reactors that could well prove uneconomic. So, it will be public money, as it nearly always has been the case with nuclear power, that will be risked.

Renewables are a better alternative

Whether small modular reactors can beat large reactors in terms of economics is not the issue; it is their competitiveness with renewables. While nuclear costs have been relentlessly rising for decades, costs of renewables have plummeted and are now far lower than for nuclear. In its most recent estimate, the Wall Street firm, Lazard, estimated that a new nuclear plant will generate electricity at an average cost of $167 per megawatt hour, over four times the corresponding estimates of $38 and $34 per megawatt hour for new wind and solar energy plants, respectively.

Renewables can also be deployed much quicker and more reliably than nuclear — a key factor in dealing with a climate emergency. And the myth that electrical grids cannot be operated reliably with renewables because the Sun does not shine all the time and wind does not always blow is just that: a myth. In fact, renewables can be the basis of a reliable electricity system provided suitable and affordable options, such as energy efficiency, demand response, technological and geographic diversity, and some storage, are incorporated.

The economic problems associated with small reactors means that they will not be built in large numbers, and they will not halt the decline in nuclear power. The track record in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. so far suggests that the development efforts in these countries are unlikely to succeed. If even these countries, with their long history of exploiting nuclear power and large financial and skills resources cannot commercialize these technologies, then the prospects in other countries will also be bleak.

All of this can be ignored but for the “opportunity costs” of pursuing small modular reactors. Throughout nuclear power’s history, governments have continually believed that nuclear power would solve the energy problems of the day, whether it is dependence on hostile suppliers of oil and gas, acid rain, or now, climate change.

This belief has resulted in grossly over-optimistic and unfulfilled forecasts of nuclear expansion. The attempt has diverted money and resources away from the options that would have addressed these issues. If governments continue to pursue small reactors, this will jeopardize our attempts to mitigate climate change.

Written by: M. V. Ramana and Stephen Thomas

Reference: Stephen Thomas and M. V. Ramana, A Hopeless Pursuit? National Efforts to Promote Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and Revive Nuclear Power, WIRES Energy and Environment (2022). DOI: 10.1002/wene.429

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , .


France’s new-generation nuclear plant delayed again via Tech Explore

by Julien Mivielle, Tom Barfield

Electricity giant EDF on Wednesday announced a further delay and cost overruns for France’s flagship new-generation nuclear plant, in a blow to President Emmanuel Macron’s strategy of making atomic power a cornerstone of energy policy.

EDF said that the Flamanville plant on the Channel coast would not be loaded with fuel until the “second quarter of 2023”, instead of late 2022.

The statement came after Macron announced plans for new reactors to provide low-carbon energy and as France backs classing nuclear as a “green” technology under future EU rules.

Projected costs had increased by another 300 million euros ($340 million) to 12.7 billion euros, EDF said—around four times more than the initial forecast of 3.3 billion euros.

Construction on the new-generation EPR plant began in 2007, and was supposed to be finished in 2012.

In November, Macron had announced that “for the first time in decades, we will restart construction of nuclear reactors in our country”—as well as “developing renewable energy”.

The plans would “guarantee France’s energy independence” and help reach its goal of being carbon neutral by 2050, he added.

But the president, who has yet to officially confirm that he plans to stand for re-election in April, was short on details like where or when the new plants would be built.

The Flamanville overruns were “a fiasco at the French public’s expense”, said Greens presidential candidate Yannick Jadot.

Left-wing candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon called the news a “shipwreck for the nuclear sector”—long one of the crown jewels of French industry.

Brussels battle

With 56 reactors providing over 70 percent of France’s electricity, according to EDF, Paris has led the charge for nuclear power to be recognised by the European Union as a green technology eligible for carbon-neutral investment.

Allying with eastern EU member states like Poland and the Czech Republic, the push to include atomic energy in the so-called green “taxonomy” has set it at odds with traditional partner Germany.

Berlin is in the process of shutting all its nuclear plants by the end of this year and Germany’s governing coalition now includes the Green party, rooted in part in opposition to the technology going back to the 1970s.

Environment Minister Steffi Lemke has said it would be “absolutely wrong” to include nuclear energy on the list, as it “can lead to devastating environmental catastrophes”.

“We agree to disagree on the issue” with the French, German Europe Minister Anna Luehrmann told AFP last week.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , , .


「廃炉ごみ」輸出へ米と協議、何が問題か 識者の見解は via 毎日新聞

原発の廃炉などで生じる低レベル放射性廃棄物を巡り、米国が日本に対して国外処分を禁じた日本の法規制の見直しを求めていたことが毎日新聞の報道で明らかになった。実際、日本政府は米国との協議の後に廃炉で出る大型機器の一部に限って輸出できるように規制を見直す方針を固めたが、米国とのやり取りは一切公表されていない。政策の決定プロセスに問題はなかったのか。長崎大の鈴木達治郞教授(原子力行政)に聞いた。【岡大介】

米の働きかけで議論加速

 ――2020年4月、米エネルギー省幹部が電話で経済産業省幹部に米企業名を具体的に挙げて廃炉で使わなくなった大型機器の輸出実現を持ちかけ、その3カ月後に経産省側が電力業界に検討を要請して議論が本格化しました。

(略)

◆(エネルギー省幹部が電話協議で言及した)米企業「エナジーソリューションズ」は廃炉の経験が豊富で、日本の電力業界との交流もある。極論を言えば、何もなくてもいずれはエナジー社への委託が議論されたかもしれない。しかし、米政府からの働きかけによって、それまで表立ってしづらかった海外への処理委託の議論加速に向けて背中を押した可能性は十分にある。

 ――国際条約では無責任な運用を防いだり安全を徹底したりする理由から放射性廃棄物は発生した国で処分することが原則です。一方、相手国の承認などがあれば輸出ができるという例外規定もあります。

◆例外規定はあっても、日本はこれまで原則を尊重し、一切の輸出を禁じてきた。一部だけでも輸出を認めるなら大きな方針転換だ。透明性の高い、詳細な議論が必要だ。当面自国で処理できなければ、次善の策として海外企業に委託すること自体は合理的という意見もあるだろう。だが、放射性廃棄物が国をまたいで移動すれば社会問題になりうる。政府には丁寧な説明をする責任がある。

米との協議「伏せては困る」

 ――経産省の有識者会合では米国から働きかけがあったこと自体が公表されていません。政府は「外交上のやり取りに関わる話なのでコメントできない」としています。

 ◆放射性廃棄物のやり取りこそ、「外交上の秘密」で伏せては困る。むしろ積極的に説明する義務がある。輸出規制の見直しを議論する上で重要な情報だ。米国側でも、政府や企業は売り込んでいても地元の環境団体などは受け入れに反対するかもしれない。透明性に欠け、政策決定のあり方として問題だ。

(略)

――日本の原子力産業は黎明(れいめい)期から米国との関係が深いです。米国の都合で原発政策がゆがめられることはないでしょうか。

 ◆初期から米国の技術を使っているので、日本が米国に依存している部分もある。ただ、1990年代には成長した日本の原子炉メーカーが力を持つ時期もあった。一方的な主従関係ではないと思うが、いずれにせよ日米の「絆」は深い。今回明らかになった動きは、原子炉が建設から廃炉の段階に入っても、処分場を見つけられない日本側とビジネスの機会を求める米国側との間で「持ちつ持たれつ」の関係が続こうとしていることを示している。

全文は「廃炉ごみ」輸出へ米と協議、何が問題か 識者の見解は

Posted in *日本語.

Tagged with , .