桜島警戒レベル４：５２キロ離れた川内原発…日程変更なし via 毎日新聞

Posted on 2015/08/15 by yukimiyamotodepaul

桜島（鹿児島市）の噴火警戒レベルが引き上げられた１５日、九州電力は再稼働したばかりの川 内（せんだい）原発１号機（同県薩摩川内市）について、「桜島から約５２キロ離れており、噴火しても影響は少ない。現時点で９月上旬の営業運転開始に向け たスケジュールに変更はない」との見方を示した。

東京電力福島第１原発事故の教訓を踏まえた国の新規制基準は、地震や津波のほか、近隣の火山噴火についても電力会社に安全対策を義務付けた。原子 力規制委員会による安全審査で、九電は桜島を巨大噴火を起こす可能性がある五つのカルデラ（陥没地形）の一つに含まれる火山と分類した。

（略）

兆候を把握できた際は核燃料を移送するとしているが、移送先や移送手 順は定まっていない。

九電の計画によると、１４日に発送電を始めた川内１号機は、フル稼働を目指して段階的に発電機の出力を上げている。１５日午前１０時現在の出力は３０％で、１６日までに５０％まで上昇させる方針だ。【鳥井真平】

全文は桜島警戒レベル４：５２キロ離れた川内原発…日程変更なし

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 桜島警戒レベル４：５２キロ離れた川内原発…日程変更なし via 毎日新聞

［Japan In-depth 編集部］【募る危機感、減る一方の被爆一世】～刻め、過去の悲惨な教訓～ via Japan in Depth

Posted on 2015/08/15 by yukimiyamotodepaul

(抜粋）

原爆による被害は、熱線や爆風による爆発的なものだけではない。後から広島市内に入った人々も残留放射能の影響を受け、次々に倒れた。いわゆる原爆 症の問題だ。髪の毛が抜けたり、歯茎から血が出たり、体に紫斑が出たりといった放射線による急性症状をそれとは知らず、人々は恐れ、被爆者への差別にもつ ながった。

更に、次の世代への影響も無視することは出来ない。被爆から数年経って子どもを産んだ女性に聞いた話がある。女性の子どもは生後まもなく亡くなった が、その時体には被爆直後に女性の体に出たのと同じような紫斑が出ていた。当時、病院に連れて行くと「これは原爆病だ」と言われたという。

もちろん被爆の状況などによって体への影響は大きく異なる。ほとんど何も影響のない被爆者もいる。しかし、近距離被爆であったり、肉親を探して爆心 地近くを直後から何日も歩いたり、というような人々の中には確かに、なんらかの症状を訴える人は多い。それが多くの被爆者を取材して体感することであり、 原爆を知る多くの広島の人々があまり口には出さないが感じていることだ。

危機感にも似た思いがある。この先、広島、長崎の被爆者が全員亡くなれば、原爆による被害者は本当にいなくなるのかということだ。２世、３世といった被爆者の次の世代への影響は、今も科学的に証明されていない。だからと言って、切り捨てて終わってしまっていい問題なのか。

安保法制や原発再稼働など多くの問題に直面する中で迎えた戦後７０年の８月。

私たちは過去の教訓を胸に刻んで、前に進んでいかなければならないはずだ。

全文は［Japan In-depth 編集部］【募る危機感、減る一方の被爆一世】～刻め、過去の悲惨な教訓～

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on ［Japan In-depth 編集部］【募る危機感、減る一方の被爆一世】～刻め、過去の悲惨な教訓～ via Japan in Depth

A Wedge for Nuclear Disarmament via Huffington Post

Posted on 2015/08/14 by

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith…”

What if words like this actually meant something?

This is Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which the United States signed in 1970. It continues: “… on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Please read it again, slowly, understanding that 190 nations have signed onto these words: “a treaty on general and complete (nuclear) disarmament.” Here’s a wild thought. What if they were recited aloud every Sunday in churches and other public spaces across the nation, the way congregants at my parents’ church recited the Apostle’s Creed when I was a boy? Each word, slowly uttered, welled up from the soul. The words were sacred. Isn’t a world free of nuclear weapons — and beyond that, free of war itself — worth believing in?

The treaty’s preamble also calls for “the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery . . .”

What if these words could stand up to the geopolitics of cynicism and military-industrial profit? What if the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — the NPT — weren’t simply a verbal coffin in which hope for humanity’s future lay interred? What if it could come to life and help reorganize global culture?

I ask such questions only because I suddenly believe it’s possible, thanks to an unlikely player in the geopolitical realm: a nation with a population of about 70,000 people. Last week I wrote about the fact that the Republic of the Marshall Islands has filed suit in both the International Court of Justice in the Hague and U.S. federal court against the five NPT signatories — the United States, the U.K., China, Russia and France — that possess nuclear weapons, demanding that they comply with the treaty they signed. For good measure, the lawsuit demands compliance from the other four nuclear nations as well — Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea — on the grounds of international law and, well, sanity.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

17 comments 1909 treaty could force Canada to rethink Lake Huron nuclear waste dump via mlive.com

Posted on 2015/08/14 by

GRAND RAPIDS, MI — A 100-plus year old treaty could act as the legal basis for stopping a proposed nuclear waste repository on the Canadian side of Lake Huron, according to one of Michigan’s two Democratic U.S. senators.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow said provisions within a 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada require countries on each side of the international border to review the risks of storing radioactive waste so close to the Great Lakes.

“I think it’s important we activate that treaty and make it clear we’ll have a joint agreement that protects everybody,” Stabenow said at an Aug. 12 Grand Rapids stop to talk about Great Lakes threats like oil pipelines and Asian carp.

Stabenow plans to introduce legislation next month called the Stop Nuclear Waste by Our Lakes Act that would be built around the 1909 treaty. It would mandate the U.S. State Department act to review the facility’s risk and compel the Canadian government review alternative locations.
[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on 17 comments 1909 treaty could force Canada to rethink Lake Huron nuclear waste dump via mlive.com

Japan split over restart of first nuclear reactor since Fukushima disaster via The Guardian

Posted on 2015/08/14 by yukimiyamotodepaul

Rising costs from gas and oil are sited by supporters of a programme to bring reactors back on line, but ageing plant and risks raise widespread concern

[…]

Just over four years since Fukushima Daiichi had a triple meltdown, triggering the world’s worst nuclear crisis for 25 years, Japan remains deeply divided over its future energy mix.

The 2011 disaster forced the evacuation of 160,000 people and the closure of all the country’s 48 working reactors for safety checks.

Opinions among the 100,000 residents of Satsumasendai range from anxiety to relief.

[…]

A survey by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper found that only two of 85 medical institutes and 15 of 159 nursing and other care facilities within a 30 km radius of the Sendai plant had proper evacuation plans.

About 220,000 people live within a 30km radius – the size of the Fukushima no-go zone – of the Sendai plant; a 50km radius would draw in Kagoshima city and raise the number of affected people to 900,000. “I can’t begin to imagine how chaotic that would be,” Mukohara said.

Massive earthquakes of the kind that sparked the Fukushima meltdown are not the only potential hazard. The Sendai facility is surrounded by a group of five calderas, and Sakurajima, one of Japan’s most active volcanoes, is just 50km away, leaving the plant exposed to volcanic ash fallout, and, in the most extreme scenario, lava flows.

There are doubts, too, about the reliability of an ageing reactor that has not been used since it was shut down for safety checks in 2011. “You wouldn’t have much faith in a car that’s been on the road for more than 30 years,” said Mukohara. “So why are we so willing to trust a nuclear reactor?”

Shaun Burnie, a nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, accused Japan’s government and nuclear industry of cutting corners in its desperation to put reactors back online.

“They are disregarding fundamental principles of nuclear safety and public health protection,” Burnie said. “The same players in the ‘nuclear village’ that delivered Japan the Fukushima Daiichi tragedy in 2011 are attempting to kick-start nuclear power again.”

[…]

With national polls showing that most Japanese oppose nuclear restarts, the town’s council is reluctant to gauge local opinion, said Ryoko Torihara, a Satsumasendai resident who is campaigning to the keep the reactors idle.

“They won’t conduct a poll of local people because they’re scared of the result,” she said. “They’re aware that Japan has fared perfectly well without nuclear power for almost two years.”

A nationwide Kyodo News poll last October found that 60% of respondents opposed an immediate return to nuclear energy, while 31% were in favour. But supporters of the restarts say the long hiatus in nuclear energy production has taken its toll on Satsumasendai’s population.

When in operation, the plant contributes up to 3bn yen (£16m) a year to the local economy, according to the local chamber of industry and commerce, much of it via 3,000 workers who descend on the town twice a year to conduct lengthy safety checks.

Satsumasendai continues to receive more than 1bn yen in annual government subsidies for hosting the reactors, but some residents complain keeping the plant shuttered for so long has sucked the life out of local commerce, with hotels, restaurants and other service industries reporting a dramatic drop in trade.

[…]

At a tent village set up on a windswept beach just along the coast, anti-nuclear activists refuse to accept that Japan’s imminent nuclear reboot is inevitable.

“We will do all we can to stop it,” said Yoshiharu Ogawa, who has travelled from his home near Tokyo. “The local authorities may have approved the restart, but they are completely out of touch with public opinion.”

Read more at Japan split over restart of first nuclear reactor since Fukushima disaster

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Japan split over restart of first nuclear reactor since Fukushima disaster via The Guardian

泉田氏、田中委員長と会談へ　原子力規制委、異例の容認 via 東京新聞

Posted on 2015/08/14 by yukimiyamotodepaul

　全国知事会の危機管理・防災特別委員長を務める泉田裕彦新潟県知事は、来週にも原子力規制委員会の田中俊一委員長と会談し、原発事故時に住民の被 ばくリスクを減らすため緊急時迅速放射能影響予測ネットワークシステム（ＳＰＥＥＤＩ）を活用することなど原子力防災対策を求める方向で調整していること が１４日、分かった。

規制委は「独立した意思決定」を掲げており、委員長が政治家と個別に会うのは異例。

続きは 泉田氏、田中委員長と会談へ　原子力規制委、異例の容認

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 泉田氏、田中委員長と会談へ　原子力規制委、異例の容認 via 東京新聞

Why was the Sendai nuclear power plant restarted? via Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Posted on 2015/08/14 by yukimiyamotodepaul

Two of Japan’s reactors—Units 1 and 2 of the Kyushu Electric Power Company’s Sendai nuclear power plant—have just restarted, and Unit 1 should begin generating electricity on August 14. Like all other Japanese nuclear power plants, Sendai was shut down after the events at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011, in which an earthquake, a tsunami, egregious design mistakes, and a poor safety culture combined to form “a cascade of stupid errors” that led to a triple meltdown.

This is the first restart of any of Japan’s 43 operable commercial reactors since Fukushima, and it is happening despite many unresolved questions concerning nuclear safety regulations. When it comes to safety, the Sendai nuclear power plant is definitely not at the head of the class: The utility owning the power plant was given a pass despite a very problematic history. (At one point, a regulatory commissioner called the plan to restart Sendai “wishful thinking”.)

There is certainly no nationwide re-emergence of nuclear power in Japan. Indeed, there have been vocal public protests against the Sendai restart. One of the protestors even included a former prime minister of Japan.

So, why is it happening? What are the ostensible reasons for a restart? Were they valid?

A three-pointed rationalization. The justification for a restart was based upon three key points: the type of reactors to be used at Sendai were considered inherently “safer;” the chance of a similar natural disaster(s) was considered to be minimal; and the concerns of the local communities were dismissed as inconsequential.

[…]

Concerns of the local communities were dismissed. After the Nuclear Regulation Authority granted its approval in regards to the safety requirements, the final hurdle was to secure approval from two of the local governments: Kagoshima prefecture and Satsumasendai city. If they agreed, then the Sendai facility could restart.

Other neighboring communities, including six cities and two towns, had asked that the prefecture and the city include them in the list of “local governments of the nuclear power plant site.” They based their request on the fact that they would likely be affected by any radioactive contamination—after all, the plume caused by the Fukushima accident spread over 250 kilometers (155 miles) from the reactor site. But only those communities within 8 to 10 kilometers (about 5 to 6 miles) from the Sendai nuclear power plant were allowed to participate.

[…]

Satsumasendai city receives more than $12 million in grants annually from the nuclear industry, which it uses to pay for its public and educational facilities, receiving about $270 million over the years. According to the Satsumasendai Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the overall economic benefit of the restart of the Sendai nuclear power plant is approximately $25 million to the local economy yearly.

There are also questions of transparency in the dealings of local government authorities with Kyushu Electric Power. According to an article published this January by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, construction companies run by members of the Kagoshima prefectural assembly received 26 orders for construction work at Sendai, representing $2.5 million of work, in the three years since the Fukushima accident. Not surprisingly, these members of the prefectural assembly endorsed the restart of the Sendai nuclear power plant.

According to a survey conducted this May by a major local newspaper, Minami–Nippon Shimbun, 59.9 percent of those polled were against a restart of the Sendai nuclear power plant. But their opinions may not be regarded as important because they have no economic significance. In this way, strict regulations are not being applied to nuclear decisions, even after the Fukushima accident. Economics was considered more important than human life: That is why the Sendai nuclear power plant was able to restart.

Read more at Why was the Sendai nuclear power plant restarted?

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Why was the Sendai nuclear power plant restarted? via Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’re on the brink of self annihilation via The Baltimore Sun

Posted on 2015/08/14 by yukimiyamotodepaul

On Aug. 6 and 9 in 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no idea atomic explosions were imminent. Now, 70 years later, Homo sapiens has known its fate for a long time, but as Albert Einstein observed, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything, save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Most Americans know almost nothing of the devastating blast, heat, radiation and electro-magnetic effects of nuclear devices. Most don’t know how many there are, or where. Most have little concept of how even a limited, regional war could end civilization. And most don’t know how close that terrible end has come. As recently as 1995, a Russian military radar mistook a Norwegian-U.S. scientific rocket for a possible attack on Moscow. It was a very close call, only barely avoided because there was no international tension at the time. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis is a faded memory. There have been several near-death events, and hundreds of weapons accidents and malfunctions, mostly covered up. Moreover, serious threats to use nuclear weapons have been made time and again. They are always “on the table.”

[…]

There are still nearly 16,000 nuclear weapons on the planet, some 1,800 on Cold War-era hair-trigger alert on land, in the air and under the seas, ready to destroy all human past and future achievements in a few minutes. We’ve been on the brink of self-annihilation for 70 years. Our children and their descendants may get healthy food and exercise, our scientists publish papers, people chart family histories and plan for the future — but all that is at risk. Everything — Mozart, Rembrandt, Super Bowls, ukuleles, the Beatles — could be gone forever.

Few would dispute that good medical care can only come from fully informed decision and consent. Good politics is the same. In both arenas, luck and hope can never be foundations for planning of life and death matters.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki call out for Americans — all humans — to have informed consent, including the knowledge that they have every right and power to remove the artificial, man-made, expensive demons whose existence can lead to human species extinction.

Read more at As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’re on the brink of self annihilation

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

ＷＣＣ訪問団も献花、長崎・平和公園で朝鮮人被爆者を追悼　在外被爆者の援護拡充求める声も via Christian Today

Posted on 2015/08/14 by yukimiyamotodepaul

長崎原爆の日の９日、朝７時半から平和公園（長崎市）の長崎原爆朝鮮人犠牲者追悼碑前で、原爆で犠牲となった朝鮮半島出身者を追悼する集会が行わ れ、国内外から約３５０人が参加した。広島・長崎を巡礼していた世界教会協議会（ＷＣＣ）の代表団も参加し、祈りと献花を行った。参加者からは、在外被爆 者の援護拡充を求める声などが上がった。

集会を主催した「長崎在日朝鮮人の人権を守る会」によると、長崎で被爆した朝鮮半島出身者は推定で約２万人に上り、１９４５年末までに約１万人が亡 くなった。韓国や帰国事業で北朝鮮に帰国した人々など、現在約４３００人の在外被爆者がいるが、国籍条項などにより被爆者援護法の医療費支給が適用されて いないという。

この集会は、長崎で被爆した朝鮮人の実態調査・援護活動に生涯をささげた岡正治牧師（日本福音ルーテル長崎教会、１９１８～９４）が中心となり、１９７９年に始まり、今年で３７回目になる。

学徒動員で働いていた三菱の工場で被爆した父を９年前に亡くしたという、韓国原爆被害者２世会の李太宰（イ・テジェ）会長はこの日、「昨日の夜、平 和公園を歩いたが、平和公園にはたくさんの人が集まっていたが、この朝鮮人犠牲者追悼碑の周りには暗い中、誰も人がいなくてとても心が痛かったです」と話 した。ここ１０年以上、韓国の高校生を被爆地の広島と長崎に引率し、在日韓国人の被爆者の話を聞いてもらう活動をしてきたが、今年は話をできる被爆者がお らず、「戦後７０年の時を感じました」と語った。

（略）

「長崎在日朝鮮人の人権を守る会」の高實康稔（たかざね・やすのり）代表（岡まさはる記念長崎平和資料館館長）は、「戦後７０年の節目の年といわれ ながら、日本の植民地支配と加害責任が真剣に問われているとは思われず、それどころか歴史修正主義がはびこり、戦後レジームからの脱却を唱える政治がまか り通っていることを黙認できない」と語った。

また、多数の朝鮮人が被爆したのは、日本の植民地支配と侵略戦争に原因があることが明らだとして、「それにもかかわらず、その責任を痛感することも なく、被爆者援護行政において（在外被爆者を）差別排除してきた歴史は、倫理感の欠如以外の何ものでもありません。今なお医療費の支給に内外の差別があ る」と批判。在外被爆者にも国内被爆者と平等に医療費を全額支給することや、北朝鮮の被爆者にも被爆者援護法を適用する道を開くことなどを訴えた。

（略）

国内の報道などによると、厚生労働省の調べでは被爆者健康手帳を持つ在外被爆者は、約４３００人（今年３月末時点）。これまで国は、在外被爆者が海外で受 けた治療費は適正かどうか担保できないという理由で被爆者援護法の対象から外してきたが、広島で被爆し韓国に帰国した被爆者や死亡した被爆者の遺族らが提 訴し、昨年６月の大阪高裁判決では、「国の責任で被爆者の救済を図る国家補償の性格があり、国外での医療を支給対象から除外することは合理的ではない」と 認定された。現在、最高裁で上告審が行われてり、９月８日に判決が出される予定だ。

全文はＷＣＣ訪問団も献花、長崎・平和公園で朝鮮人被爆者を追悼　在外被爆者の援護拡充求める声も

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on ＷＣＣ訪問団も献花、長崎・平和公園で朝鮮人被爆者を追悼　在外被爆者の援護拡充求める声も via Christian Today

Japan’s nuclear revival won’t lower carbon emissions enough via Nature

Posted on 2015/08/13 by

The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant on the island of Kyushu broke a four-year lull on 11 August when it switched one of its reactors back on. The restart is the first since Japan’s nuclear-power industry ground to a halt two years ago following safety concerns in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster.

It will help the world’s third-largest economy to lower its carbon emissions. But the government energy plan that includes this shift in policy is much too modest if Japan is to help keep global temperatures from rising by more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, say analysts.
[…]
But fossil fuels would still account for more than half the power generated in 2030. Nuclear and renewables would help keep carbon dioxide emissions in check, but overall emissions would be cut by only 18% from 1990 levels. The European Union, by comparison, pledged 40% cuts from 1990. “I think that the government understands and acknowledges the climate goal and tries to make its target consistent with it, but industrial and economic criteria such as lowering electricity costs are given higher priority,” says Seita Emori, who heads a climate risk-assessment team at Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba. The 2030 emissions target “doesn’t look really sufficient for the climate goal”.

The government sees an especially modest role for wind, projected to contribute only 1.7% of electricity generation by 2030. (Germany, by comparison, already derives around 8–9% of its power from wind.) Iida says there is an “irrational bias” against wind that is deep-rooted in Japan’s energy industry.

Moreover, the way Japan’s energy market is structured, with a few de facto regional monopolies, is stacked against wind, favouring instead sources that are established, such as nuclear and fossil fuels. “Power companies control both the grid and existing power plants,” says Tomas Kåberger, head of the Tokyo-based Japan Renewable Energy Foundation. Wind would take a share of the market away from the utilities’ power plants, but the same utilities could deny wind-power companies access to the grid, says Ali Izadi-Najafabadi, who heads the Tokyo office of the consulting company Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The utilities must cite “technical grounds” for such a refusal, but “there is no independent grid operator, so it’s hard to judge those technical grounds”, he says.[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments