Ian Thomas Ash@DocumentingIan · Feb 28The day after schools in Japan ordered closed due to coronavirus concerns, panic buying of toilet paper and tissues ensues. Having flashbacks of the 3.11 triple disasters 9 years ago next month.
Hard to believe, right? This is the first video I made, a couple of days after the earthquake.
Last week, the Department of Energy gave a commercial company the green light to test fuel made from spent uranium.
Idaho National Laboratory sprawls across nearly 900 square miles in the southeastern corner of its namesake state. Home to America’s first nuclear power plant, INL has served as the proving grounds for the future of nuclear energy technology for decades. Along the way, the lab has generated hundreds of tons of uranium waste that is no longer efficient at producing electricity. The spent fuel resides in temporary storage facilities while politicians duke it out over where to bury it.
Most of this spent fuel will probably end up underground, although where and when are open questions. As it turns out, a lot of people aren’t thrilledby the idea of having nuclear waste buried in their backyards. But at least some of the spent fuel may have a second chance at life feeding advanced nuclear reactors that will be smaller and safer than their predecessors. For the past year, scientists at INL have started recycling spent uranium to meet the fuel needs of a new generation of small commercial reactors.
[…]
In nature, uranium ore mostly consists of the isotope uranium-238 and a sprinkling of uranium-235. Only uranium-235 can sustain the fission reaction that makes nuclear reactors tick, so turning the ore into usable fuel requires separating the uranium-238 out in a process called enrichment. Today, all the nuclear reactors in the US only use fuel enriched to less than 5 percent, but Haleu fuel is enriched to anywhere from 5 to 20 percent. According to Jacob DeWitte, the co-founder and CEO of Oklo, the fuel used in Aurora will be at the higher end of that range.
[…]
INL is using spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, a nuclear power station that provided electricity for much of the lab for nearly 30 years and also used recycled fuel. To turn the reactor’s spent fuel into Haleu, INL scientists first separate the uranium-235 from unwanted elements, such as plutonium, produced during the reactor’s operation. This involves soaking the spent fuel in a bath of molten salt and then zapping the concoction with a big dose of electricity to heat it to nearly 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Since the uranium-235 used in the Experimental Breeder Reactor was enriched to 67 percent, it must also be blended to bring it to enrichment levels below 20 percent by mixing the uranium-235 with other isotopes that can’t be used as fuel. Finally, the downblended uranium-235 is converted into small pucks just a few centimeters across that can be used as feedstock for the fuel fabrication process.
[…]Last year, Department of Energy officials announced they had awarded the nuclear energy company Centrus a $115 million contract to kickstart the commercial production of Haleu fuel at the Centrus uranium enrichment plant in Ohio. Earlier this month, the department gave another nuclear energy company, BWX Technologies, a $3.6 million contract to produce the fuel, which BWX plans to deliver by 2024.
Read more at Recycled Nuclear Waste Will Power a New Reactor
東京五輪の国内聖火リレー出発地となる福島県のサッカー施設「Ｊヴィレッジ」（楢葉町、広野町）周辺で２９日、政府が大会の理念として掲げる「復興五輪」に抗議する市民らがデモ行進を行った。
（略）
デモには東京電力福島第１原発事故の県外避難者や、被害者団体メンバーら約５０人が参加。午前１１時ごろから「福島は五輪どころじゃない」などと英語やフランス語、韓国語など計８カ国語で書かれた横断幕やプラカードを持って練り歩いた。
The Supreme Court on Feb. 25 set stricter certification standards concerning atomic-bomb related diseases, thereby rejecting bids by three hibakusha plaintiffs for special monthly allowances and dwindling the hopes of future applicants.
The elderly plaintiffs sued the health ministry after it rejected their applications for the special monthly assistance for treatment of illnesses related to radiation exposure from the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The main issue of the lawsuit was the definition of “periodic evaluations” that are required for certification and eligibility for the allowances.
The Supreme Court laid out guidelines for certifying those under periodic medical observation for atomic-bomb related illnesses in line with the ministry’s stricter rules.
Under the government’s multitiered certification system, those who were within a certain distance from ground zero when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and Nagasaki three days later are certified as hibakusha and eligible for free medical care.
The certification also applies to people who entered the two cities within two weeks of the bombings as well as those in the wombs of their mothers in the two cities during the blasts.
Additionally, a monthly allowance of 34,770 yen ($315) is paid for further medical care if the hibakusha develop illnesses recognized by the government as likely to have arisen from radiation exposure.
And those certified as having an atomic bomb-related disease requiring more advance medical treatment receive the special monthly allowance of 141,300 yen.
To become eligible for this top-level certification and the special monthly allowance, the hibakusha must have a recognized atomic bomb-related illness that requires regular medical observation or treatment.
Various high courts have made different interpretations on what constitutes regular medical observation.
The Feb. 25 ruling by the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court settled matters by saying that a number of special circumstances must be established for such certification.
Under the court’s guidelines, the bomb-related illnesses must have a high risk of worsening or returning that require regular visits to the doctor for observation or aggressive medical treatment that goes beyond preventive care.
The top court rejected the lawsuit of the three plaintiffs because their symptoms had been stable for a long period and they no longer required regular medical treatment.
[…]
Masanori Okada, a professor of administrative law at Waseda University in Tokyo, said the ruling was a very severe one for hibakusha because it was made from the standpoint of the government implementing the program.
“There are many aspects about the effects of the atomic bombings on humans that are still unknown,” Okada said. “There is a high need not only for the hibakusha but also the medical institutions for an extended period of observation of such individuals.”
He added that although the ruling did not totally slam the door on hibakusha seeking the special monthly allowances, certification could become extremely difficult to obtain if the central government uses the ruling in a mechanical manner to make its decisions.
In 2014, the central government issued a directive to local governments to appropriately reassess individuals with atomic bomb-related diseases conducted every three years. A health ministry committee raised the point that the reassessments had been made “for many years in a vague manner.”
The health ministry set its own standards on recognizing an individual as continuing to require periodic medical observation, saying certification should be denied for those with cancers that have been in remission five years since surgery.
The new standard led to a sharp increase in rejections of certification renewal applications.
Previously, only a few cases were rejected, but the rejection rate has now risen to about 20 percent.
Some hibakusha organizations said a number of individuals have given up seeking certification because of the amount of time that has passed since their surgery.
[…]
Read more.
※各期日の詳細はリンク先をご覧下さい。
| 日 | 曜 | 時間 | 裁判所 | 訴訟名 | 問合せ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 火 | 14：30 | 京都地裁 | 大飯原発運転差止請求訴訟⇒期日取消 | 京都脱原発訴訟原告団 |
| 3 | 火 | 14：30 | 東京地裁 | 東電株主代表訴訟 | 東電株主代表訴訟 |
| 4 | 水 | 10：30 | 東京地裁 | 福島原発被害東京訴訟（第2陣） | 福島原発被害首都圏弁護団 |
| 4 | 水 | 13：30 | 福島地裁 | 子ども脱被ばく裁判 | 子ども脱被ばく裁判 |
| 4 | 水 | 14：30 | 広島地裁 | 伊方原発運転差止請求訴訟 | 伊方原発運転差止広島裁判 |
| 4 | 水 | 14：00 | 富山地裁 | 志賀原発株主差止請求訴訟 | 志賀原発を廃炉に！訴訟 |
| 5 | 木 | 14：00 | 金沢地裁 | 志賀原発運転差止請求訴訟 | 志賀原発を廃炉に！訴訟 |
| 5 | 木 | 14：00 | 神戸地裁 | 福島原発事故ひょうご訴訟 | 原発賠償ひょうご訴訟ぽかぽかサポートチーム |
| 6 | 金 | 13：30 | 青森地裁 | 六ヶ所「高レベルガラス固化体貯蔵施設」廃棄物管理事業許可処分取消請求訴訟 | 核燃サイクル阻止1万人訴訟原告団 |
| 6 | 金 | 11：00 | 山形地裁 | 米沢追い出し訴訟（雇用促進住宅明け渡し訴訟） | |
| 9 | 月 | 11：00 | 静岡地裁 浜松支部 | 浜岡原発永久停止裁判 | 浜岡原発永久停止裁判原告団・弁護団・支援組織 |
| 9 | 月 | 東京地裁 | 宗教者が核燃料サイクル事業廃止を求める訴訟 | 宗教者が核燃料サイクル事業廃止を求める裁判 | |
| 10 | 火 | 10：00 | 札幌地裁 | 原発事故損害賠償北海道訴訟（判決） | 原発事故被災者支援北海道弁護団 |
| 10 | 火 | 14：30 | 大津地裁 | 美浜、大飯、高浜原発運転差止請求訴訟 | 福井原発訴訟（滋賀）支援サイト |
| 12 | 木 | 福島地裁 郡山支部 | ふるさとを返せ津島原発訴訟 | 津島原発訴訟弁護団 | |
| 12 | 木 | 14：00 | 仙台高裁 | 福島原発いわき避難者訴訟（第1陣）（判決） | なのはな生協 |
| 13 | 金 | 14：00 | 東京高裁 | 福島原発かながわ訴訟 | 福島原発かながわ訴訟を支援する会 |
| 13 | 金 | 14：00 | 佐賀地裁 | 原発なくそう九州玄海訴訟（玄海原発操業差止等請求訴訟） | 原発なくそう！九州玄海訴訟 |
| 16 | 月 | 15：00 | 大阪地裁 | 国相手の大飯原発止めよう裁判（設置変更許可処分取消請求訴訟） | 美浜の会 |
| 16 | 月 | 10：00 | 福島地裁 いわき支部 | いわき市民訴訟 | 福島原発被害弁護団 |
| 17 | 火 | 東京高裁 | 小高に生きる訴訟（判決） | ふくかな通信 | |
| 25 | 水 | 14：00 | さいたま 地裁 | 埼玉原発事故責任追及訴訟 | ふくかな通信 |
| 25 | 水 | 福島地裁 いわき支部 | 福島原発被害南相馬訴訟 |
DEFENCE Secretary Ben Wallace issued a written statement late on Tuesday afternoon, asserting: “To ensure the government maintains an effective deterrent throughout the commission of the Dreadnought class ballistic missile submarine we are replacing our existing nuclear warhead to respond to future threats and the security environment.”
This followed an exclusive in Sunday’s Observer that broke probably the most important news story of the week, although for reasons hard to fathom, the editor placed it on page 20.
Broken by investigative reporter Jamie Doward — who has a track record of breaking nuclear stories governments don’t want the media to report — it concerned the long-expected development, now confirmed by the MoD, of Britain collaborating with the US to replace the ageing Trident nuclear warheads — jointly designed by Aldermaston and Los Alamos weapons labs scientists — in its stockpile.
Wallace added: “We will continue to work closely with the US to ensure our warhead remains compatible with the Trident Strategic Weapon System.
[…]
Read more.
[…]
原爆症の認定要件は二つある。病気が放射線の影響であるという「放射線起因性」と、現時点で医療を必要とする「要医療性」だ。
このうち放射線起因性は、国が６年前に認定基準を改め、一定の条件を満たせば積極的に認められるようになった。長年にわたる訴訟によって原爆症を幅広く認める司法判断が積み重なった結果だ。被爆者に寄り添ってきた司法の姿勢が、行政の重い腰を上げさせたと言える。
今回の訴訟で争点となったのは、もう一つの認定要件である要医療性だ。これまでは医師の診断書があれば、大半が認定されていた。医師が関わっているのだから医療が必要な状態と判断するのが自然だろう。
ところが最高裁は、経過観察中の被爆者が原爆症と認められるには「経過観察自体が治療のために不可欠な行為で、積極的な治療行為の一環と評価できる特別な事情が必要だ」との初判断を示した。
これまでは例えば白内障の場合、医師の処方で点眼をしている被爆者でも被爆距離などの一定の条件を満たせば原爆症と認められるケースがあった。要医療性の今後の認定は、行政の裁量がより強まりかねない。
[…]
原爆症を定めた被爆者援護法は、前文で「たとい一命をとりとめた被爆者にも、生涯いやすことのできない傷跡と後遺症を残し、不安の中での生活をもたらした」と記している。
その法の理念に基づけば、原爆症の認定は「被爆者」として戦後を生きていかなければならなかった人たちの救済が前提になる。どこかで線引きが必要だとしても、積極的に認定していく姿勢が行政にはもちろん、司法にも求められるはずだ。
被爆者の全国団体である日本被団協と政府は２００９年、訴訟の終結に向けて合意書を交わしている。その中には「今後、訴訟の場で争う必要のないよう、定期協議の場を通じて解決を図る」との一文がある。どれだけ尊重してきただろうか。
定期協議は、厚生労働相と被団協などが直接話し合う場だったはずだ。しかし、厚労省が「時間が取れない」などと消極的で年に１回も開かれていない。開催しても、官僚が用意した紙を大臣が読み上げるだけの形式的な場になりつつある。
年を重ねた被爆者に残された時間は多くはない。最高裁の判決は残念だが、行政がやり残している課題はある。合意を放置することは許されない。
By Victor Gilinsky, February 26, 2020
The Japan Center for Economic Research, a source sympathetic to nuclear power, recently put the long-term costs of the 2011 Fukushima accident as about $750 billion. Contrast that with the maximum of $13 billion that could be available after a catastrophic US nuclear accident under the plant owners’ self-insurance scheme defined by the Price-Anderson Act. The Act will have to be renewed before 2025; Congress should seize the opportunity not only to reflect on the lack of insurance in the event of a catastrophic accident, but also to reconsider our approach to nuclear power plant safety altogether.
Price-Anderson frees nuclear plant operators and all firms involved in nuclear construction and maintenance of any liability for offsite accident damage. The only chance for additional compensation lies in the act’s declaration that if accident damages exceed the legal limit “Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident” and will “take whatever action is determined to be necessary” to provide full compensation to the public. In short, a Fukushima-level accident would toss the costs of compensation and cleanup unto the lap of Congress.
[…]
The cost of, say, additional equipment, is a comparatively firm figure; but the dollar benefit of risk reduction is a very soft number, which means the cost-benefit balance is suspect.
There is a more fundamental problem. Consider the NRC’s metric for risk, which underlies its approach to nuclear safety. For an agency so devoted to “risk-informed” decision making, the NRC is strangely vague about its a definition of risk. It says merely that risk has to do with three questions: “What can go wrong? How likely is it? What are the consequences?” The key question is how to combine the probability of an accident and the consequences that would ensue. In practice, the NRC analysts take risk to be the probable, or average, loss per year—that is, the product of the probability of a particular accident and the consequences (computer-estimated radiologically caused deaths and contaminated land, expressed in dollars). (This is by no means the only possible way to express a risk goal. One may, for example, choose a figure of merit that puts more emphasis on reducing consequences, which the NRC leaves open-ended.)
[…]
The NRC staff studied the possibility of a fire in US nuclear plants similar to the ones that suffered the Fukushima accident. (The United States operates about two dozen such reactors, all over 40 years old.) The staff told the commissioners that such a fire could produce a radiological release 25 times as great as the release during the Fukushima accident (and this was not the absolutely worst case). But the staff also estimated the probability of such an occurrence to be so infinitesimally small that, even multiplied by the dollar value of the harm and damage caused by a release 25 times greater than at Fukushima, the annual risk was far below the added cost of removing spent fuel from cooling pools earlier than is now required. In other words, there was no need to do anything, which was music to the ears of the NRC commissioners, who resist imposing any additional costs on the financially shaky nuclear industry.
What happened was that the NRC staff multiplied a very large number by a very small number—each a more-or-less educated guess—to get a highly uncertain result, which the commissioners then took at face value. One of the probability figures on the staff table of results (the chance of a cancer fatality within 10 miles of the plant) for a particular configuration is presented as 2 trillionths per year (2×10-12). Or, to put it another way, if a plant kept operating forever in that configuration, the accident might happen about once in 500 billion years. That’s once in 30 lifetimes of the universe. Do such numbers mean anything?
[…]Curiously, from the chairman on down, the NRC misstates the legal standard for its safety decisions. The NRC and its staff claim their job is to provide “reasonable assurance of adequate protection,” whereas the standard in the Atomic Energy Act is “adequate protection.” Under the law, their job is to provide adequate protection, period. Do the commissioners think the extra cushion of “reasonable assurance” justifies weaker regulation?
Read more.
広島、長崎で被爆した３人がそれぞれ原爆症に認定するよう国に求めた３件の訴訟の上告審判決が２５日、最高裁第３小法廷であった。宇賀克也裁判長は白内障や慢性甲状腺炎の経過観察について、原爆症認定の要件である「要医療性」に当たらないとの統一判断を示し３人の訴えを退けた。原告側敗訴が確定した。
判決は、要医療性の要件を満たすには「経過観察自体が疾病を治療するために必要不可欠な行為であり、かつ積極的治療行為の一環と評価できる特別の事情があること」が必要とした。経過観察にとどまるとの理由で申請を却下される被爆者も多い中、病状次第では認定される余地は残した。
[…]
原告は、広島で被爆した広島市安佐南区の内藤淑子さん（７５）、ともに長崎で被爆した名古屋市緑区の高井ツタエさん（８４）と佐賀県の８０代女性の計３人。
患っている白内障や慢性甲状腺炎を医師が経過観察と診断したことなどから、国は原爆症への認定申請を却下。３人は２０１１～１６年、却下処分の取り消しを求めてそれぞれ提訴した。
判決は３人が受けている医師の診察や血液検査、エコー検査について「積極的治療行為の一環として必要不可欠であるとまではいえない」などと指摘し、「要医療性が認められるとはいえない」と判断した。
二審は、内藤さんが広島高裁、高井さんが名古屋高裁で、経過観察も治療に不可欠な行為などとして要医療性が認められ勝訴。佐賀県の女性は福岡高裁で敗訴していた。
最高裁が原爆症認定訴訟で判決を下すのは、長崎市の女性が国に勝訴した２０００年の「長崎原爆松谷訴訟」以来２例目。厚生労働省健康局は「国の主張が認められたと認識している」とコメントした。一方、日本被団協と原告団、弁護団は「被爆者の救済に背を向けたことは最高裁として恥ずべき態度であり、厳しく抗議する」との声明を出した。（河野揚）
＜クリック＞原爆症認定制度 米国が投下した原爆の放射線が原因で病気やけがを患っていると国が認めた被爆者に月１４万１３６０円の医療特別手当を支給。認定されるには原爆放射線と病気の関連性である「放射性起因性」と、治療が必要な状態である「要医療性」の要件を満たさなければならない。
A nuclear power plant in Byron, Illinois. Taken by photographer Joseph Pobereskin (http://pobereskin.com).
