U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands still affects Marshallese during the Covid pandemic via Red Green and Blue

Posted on 2021/06/28 by nfield

By Lovely Umayam

“I would rest on his arm and he would sing me Marshallese lullabies,” Maddison said.

Springdale, a landlocked town in the Ozark Mountain region of northwest Arkansas, is a far cry from the oceanside and clear skies of Majuro, but this is where Maddison, now 26, moved in 2001 and has come to call home. Maddison is among 12,000 Marshallese in Springdale today, making it the largest enclave of Marshallese in the United States.

Once a sundown town during the Jim Crow era, it is now home to Latino, Marshallese, and Asian people drawn to the agriculture and poultry industries. While Springdale is still predominantly white, it defies the archetype of rugged, old time-y America: It boasts taco spots and specialty Marshallese stores. One prominent building downtown is a gold-tipped Buddhist temple.

“I was culture-shocked by my own culture!” 25-year-old Marcina Langrine laughed as she recalled moving to Springdale with her family when she was 16 years old after growing up in Hawaii and Missouri. She has never visited the Marshall Islands. “It wasn’t until [living] here that I learned more, especially speaking the Marshallese language.”

Trina Marty, also 25, added that meeting Marshallese elders in Arkansas connected her to the islands since she left when she was only 1, and has no memories of the islands of her own. Maddison, Langrine, and Marty are part of an emerging group of young Marshallese in Springdale reclaiming native histories to tackle the present and prepare for the future. Learning about that history reveals the complexity and depth of the relationship between the islands and their adopted home in the U.S., and how it’s connected to their community’s interlinked hardships: nuclear violence, land displacement, climate crisis, and now the COVID-19 pandemic.

Located 5,000 miles from the California coast, the Marshall Islands are atolls—ringlets of Pacific islands made of coral. Today, an estimated 22,000 Marshallese, equivalent to one-third of the country’s population, live in the United States. Pasifika scholars highlight how this geographic in-betweenness as Indigenous peoples rooted to a singular home but routed to foreign lands by forces beyond their control make this migration experience unique. But the strong bonds within Marshallese resettlements create a microcosm of island life. In Springdale, community events like kemem (first birthday celebrations) and multiday funerals serve as intergenerational mixers where young Marshallese practice the native language and “talk story” with elders.

“When we think about losing culture, we think it’s a loss due to nuclear weapons or climate change. But there’s also loss just from being away from our homeland,” Maddison said. “We [as young people] should carry their knowledge into the future.”

But the pandemic turned these beloved gatherings into superspreader events. By June 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded over 600 Marshallese COVID-19 cases in northwest Arkansas, accounting for 19% of cases in the region even though this demographic represents only 2.4% of the population. In the area, 52 Marshallese have died of COVID-19, many of whom suffered from chronic illness.

After taking control of the Marshall Islands from the Japanese at the end of World War II, the United States designated two atolls for nuclear weapons testing, which led to the forced relocation of Marshallese to other neighboring islands. The United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958. Nuclear experimentation left an indelible scar on the land; it vaporized three atolls and rendered four uninhabitable. Many Marshallese developed cancers linked to radiation exposure. While the Marshall Islands gained national independence in 1986, they struggled to rebuild while shouldering the impact of nuclear testing.

Along with neighboring countries Palau and Micronesia, the Marshall Islands signed the Compact of Free Association (COFA) agreement, which allowed the United States to maintain military installations in the area in exchange for a special migration agreement and financial assistance, including nuclear-related compensation for the Marshallese. As COFA migrants, many Marshallese move to the United States for better economic opportunities and access to health care. Due to intensifying storms and sea level rise, organizations are also now studying how climate change could impact migration from the islands. But with the onset of the pandemic, the consequences of decades of U.S. nuclear testing are still taking their toll on the generations who no longer live in the Pacific.

“There is no direct way to connect nuclear testing, radiation, and chronic conditions. But if you really think beyond it, nuclear testing destroyed ways of living,” said Dr. Sheldon Riklon, a community clinician who is part of the Arkansas Marshallese COVID-19 Task Force. He believes that decades of destruction leaves the Marshallese at a disadvantage. Many of them have health issues, lead sedentary lifestyles, and work essential jobs. Earlier in the pandemic, the high rates of infection across 35 meatpacking plants in Arkansas compelled Consul General Alik to write a letter on behalf of the state’s Marshallese residents, asking companies to stop work temporarily.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands still affects Marshallese during the Covid pandemic via Red Green and Blue

Nuclear legacy is a costly headache for the future via Climate News Network

Posted on 2021/06/28 by nfield

June 28th, 2021, by Paul Brown

How do you safely store spent nuclear waste? No-one knows. It’ll be a costly headache for our descendants.

LONDON, 28 June, 2021 − Many states are leaving future generations an unsolved and costly headache: how to deal with highly dangerous nuclear waste.

The decision to start closing down the United Kingdom’s second generation of nuclear power stations earlier than originally planned has highlighted the failure of governments to resolve the increasingly expensive problem of the waste they leave behind them.

Heat-producing radioactive spent fuel needs constant cooling for decades to avoid catastrophic accidents, so future generations in countries that have embraced nuclear power will all be paying billions of dollars a year, every year, for at least the next century or two to deal with this highly dangerous legacy.

A report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its Nuclear Energy Agency looks at 12 member countries facing the problem: Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US.

The report shows that none of the 12 has yet got to grips with the legacy bequeathed by producing nuclear waste. None has any means yet of disposing of it. It says every country must quickly realise that the money the industry has put aside to deal with the problem is inadequate, leaving successive future generations with the bill for keeping themselves safe.

Failure to progress

Finland is closest to dealing with the internationally preferred route for making spent nuclear fuel safe: building an underground repository in rocks deep underground to store and ultimately seal up the waste in this final burial place.

The Finns have actually started building such a facility and regard it as the complete solution to the problem, even though it is still decades away from completion.

Finland’s progress is a shining example to the rest of the nuclear world. International rules require countries that create nuclear waste to deal with it within their own borders − yet most governments have failed to make progress on doing so. Some have spent decades looking for a suitable site and have failed to find one.

This has often been because local opposition has forced governments to abandon a chosen location, or because scientists judge the site too dangerous to store wastes for the required 100,000 years or so, because of poor geology. They may suspect a risk that the radioactivity could leak into water supplies, or rise to the surface and kill unwary future generations.

The funding shortfall has become much more problematic because of low inflation and the current Covid pandemic. Governments previously put money aside on the assumption that economies would constantly grow and positive interest rates would create massive long-term investments.

The UK, one of the pioneer nuclear states because of its race to develop a nuclear bomb, is a classic example of leaving the grandchildren to pay for nuclear wastes.

But the current low or negative return on government bonds means investments made in the past and designed to pay huge future bills will no longer be enough to deal with the cost of spent fuel and other high-level wastes.

The report says governments’ assumptions have proved optimistic. It is not directly critical of governments, but points out that “the polluter pays” principle is not being applied. New funding needs to be found, it says, if future generations are not to be saddled with this generation’s expensive and life-threatening legacy.

The UK, one of the pioneer nuclear states because of its race to develop a nuclear bomb, is a classic example of leaving the grandchildren to pay for past and present nuclear wastes.

As early as 1976, in the Flowers Report on nuclear power and the environment, the UK was warned that it should not build any more nuclear power stations until it had found a way of getting rid of the waste. The government agreed.

Since then, for more than 40 years, successive governments have been looking for a repository to make good on their promise. But none has yet been found, and none is expected until the current target date of 2045.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged | Comments Off on Nuclear legacy is a costly headache for the future via Climate News Network

Dangerous Decisions about Advanced Nuclear Reactors Could Lead to New Threats via Portside (The National Interest)

Posted on 2021/06/28 by nfield

By Victor Gilinsky and Henry Sokolsky

The Department of Energy’s recently launched Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) is slipping by without any close Congressional oversight, which is unfortunate as there are some serious questions that should be answered, including ones related to national security. The program was launched with an award of $160 million to TerraPower for its Natrium design and X-energy for its Xe-100. Each is to build a full-scale nuclear reactor within the next seven years, one that could be duplicated and sold commercially. While not a huge sum, it is intended to be the down payment on over $3 billion, a sum that is supposed to be cost-shared by the companies, with more for other projects.

[…]

They got an enthusiastic reception from both sides of the aisle, summed up by Chairman Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) final observation that while wind and solar power were OK, “nuclear really does the job.” No one asked how the reactors will be fueled. Will they be fueled with nearly highly enriched uranium, or with plutonium? And what will be the security consequences of selling and encouraging reactors fueled with such fuels around the world?

Despite the enthusiasm for new technology, the “advanced” label is misplaced. These are re-engineered versions of old designs, some over fifty years old

They got an enthusiastic reception from both sides of the aisle, summed up by Chairman Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) final observation that while wind and solar power were OK, “nuclear really does the job.” No one asked how the reactors will be fueled. Will they be fueled with nearly highly enriched uranium, or with plutonium? And what will be the security consequences of selling and encouraging reactors fueled with such fuels around the world?

Despite the enthusiasm for new technology, the “advanced” label is misplaced. These are re-engineered versions of old designs, some over fifty years old.

[…]

It also made no sense to flood the world with untold tons of plutonium when a few kilograms is enough for a bomb. That’s why Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter made it U.S. policy to discourage commercializing of plutonium-fueled reactors. Enthusiasts tried but failed to revive fast reactors as part of the second Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. It appears they are trying again. 

[…]

TerraPower’s CEO told the senate hearing that the Natrium reactor would be fueled with uranium enriched to just short of 20 percent U-235 (a level that America is trying to prevent Iran from enriching to). It’s the borderline between low and highly enriched uranium. That choice seems to be related to DOE’s interest in developing a large enrichment market for the DOE-created Centrus Corporation, which is a story in itself.   

Widespread use of reactors in this mode would dramatically increase demand for enriched uranium. Will 20 percent enriched uranium remain the preferred fuel for Natrium, or will it revert to plutonium with reprocessing to meet foreign customer interest? (The original GE design included an onsite reprocessing plant.) So configured, the reactor would make and reuse massive quantities of material that could be used to create a bomb. Recently, the Senate armed Services Committee raised this worry with regard to China’s fast reactor program. Congress should nail down the answer to this key question with regard to DoE’s programs.

[…]

[moderator: see alsoBill Gates’ Bad Bet on Plutonium-Fueled Reactors. By Frank N. von Hippel, “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better. Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors. By Edwin Lyman, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Are Building a $1 Billion Next-Generation Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming. By Kate Duffy]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | 28 Comments

Nuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world–here’s why via The Conversation

Posted on 2021/06/28 by nfield

The overwhelming majority of nuclear power stations active today entered service long before the science of climate change was well-established. Two in five nuclear plants operate on the coast and at least 100 have been built just a few metres above sea level. Nuclear energy is, quite literally, on the frontline of climate change – and not in a good way.

Recent scientific data indicates sea levels globally will rise further and faster than earlier predictions suggested. Even over the next couple of decades, as extreme weather events become more frequent and destructive, strong winds and low atmospheric pressure will drive bigger storm surges that could threaten coastal installations.

Nuclear power plants must draw from large sources of water to cool their reactors, hence why they’re often built near the sea. But nuclear plants further inland will face similar problems with flooding in a warming world. Higher water temperatures in lakes, and rivers and reservoirs would make it harder to keep reactors cool and avert meltdowns. Increasingly severe droughts and wildfire only ramp up the threat.

Around 516 million people worldwide live within a 50-mile (80km) radius of at least one operating nuclear power plant, and 20 million live within a ten-mile (16km) radius. These people bear the health and safety risks of any future nuclear accident. Efforts to build plants resistant to climate change will significantly increase the already considerable expense involved in building, operating and decommissioning nuclear plants, not to mention maintaining their stockpiles of nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is often credited with offering energy security in an increasingly turbulent world, but climate change will rewrite these old certainties. Extreme floods, droughts and storms which were once rare are becoming far more common, making industry protection measures, drafted in an earlier age, increasingly obsolete. Climate risks to nuclear power plants won’t be linear or predictable. As rising seas, storm surges and heavy rainfall erodes coastal and inland flood defences, natural and built barriers will reach their limits.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission concludes the vast majority of its nuclear sites were never designed to withstand the future climate impacts they face, and many have already experienced some flooding. A recent US Army War College report also states that nuclear power facilities are at high risk of temporary or permanent closure due to climate threats – with 60% of US nuclear capacity at risk from future sea-level rise, severe storms, and cooling water shortages.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | Comments Off on Nuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world–here’s why via The Conversation

We sliced open radioactive particles from soil in South Australia and found they may be leaking plutonium via The Conversation

Posted on 2021/06/26 by nfield

Almost 60 years after British nuclear tests ended, radioactive particles containing plutonium and uranium still contaminate the landscape around Maralinga in outback South Australia.

These “hot particles” are not as stable as we once assumed. Our research shows they are likely releasing tiny chunks of plutonium and uranium which can be easily transported in dust and water, inhaled by humans and wildlife and taken up by plants.

A British nuclear playground

After the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, other nations raced to build their own nuclear weapons. Britain was looking for locations to conduct its tests. When it approached the Australian government in the early 1950s, Australia was only too eager to agree.

Between 1952 and 1963, Britain detonated 12 nuclear bombs in Australia. There were three in the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, but most were in outback South Australia: two at Emu Field and seven at Maralinga.

Besides the full-scale nuclear detonations, there were hundreds of “subcritical” trials designed to test the performance and safety of nuclear weapons and their components. These trials usually involved blowing up nuclear devices with conventional explosives, or setting them on fire.

The subcritical tests released radioactive materials. The Vixen B trials alone (at the Taranaki test site at Maralinga) spread 22.2 kilograms of plutonium and more than 40 kilograms of uranium across the arid landscape. For comparison, the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, while the one dropped on Hiroshima held 64 kilograms of uranium.

[…]

In their original state, the plutonium and uranium particles are rather inactive. However, over time, when exposed to atmosphere, water, or microbes, they may weather and release plutonium and uranium in dust or rainstorms.

Until recently, we knew little about the internal makeup of these hot particles. This makes it very hard to accurately assess the environmental and health risks they pose.

Monash PhD student Megan Cook (the lead author on our new paper) took on this challenge. Her research aimed to identify how plutonium was deposited as it was carried by atmospheric currents following the nuclear tests (some of it travelled as far as Queensland!), the characteristics of the plutonium hot particles when they landed, and potential movement within the soil.

[…]

Much of the plutonium and uranium is distributed in tiny particles sized between a few micrometres and a few nanometres, or dissolved in iron-aluminium alloys. We also discovered a plutonium-uranium-carbon compound that would be destroyed quickly in the presence of air, but which was held stable by the metallic alloy.

This complex physical and chemical structure of the particles suggests the particles formed by the cooling of droplets of molten metal from the explosion cloud.

In the end, it took a multidisciplinary team across three continents — including soil scientists, mineralogists, physicists, mineral engineers, synchrotron scientists, microscopists, and radiochemists — to reveal the nature of the Maralinga hot particles.

From fire to dust

Our results suggest natural chemical and physical processes in the outback environment may cause the slow release of plutonium from the hot particles over the long term. This release of plutonium is likely to be contributing to ongoing uptake of plutonium by wildlife at Maralinga.

Even under the semi-arid conditions of Maralinga, the hot particles slowly break down, liberating their deadly cargo. The lessons from the Maralinga particles are not limited to outback Australia. They are also useful in understanding particles generated from dirty bombs or released during subcritical nuclear incidents.

There have been a few documented instances of such incidents. These include the B-52 accidents that resulted in the conventional detonation of thermonuclear weapons near Palomares in Spain in 1966, and Thule in Greenland in 1968, and the explosion of an armed nuclear missile and subsequent fire at the McGuire Air Force Base in the USA in 1960.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 21 Comments

Biden should end the launch-on-warning option　via Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Posted on 2021/06/24 by nfield

By Frank N. von Hippel | June 22, 2021

Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama came into office proposing to take US intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) off their “hair-trigger alert” status, which keeps them ready at all times to launch within minutes. The time is so short for a president to have to decide to launch in response to Strategic Command’s assessment of an incoming attack that President Bush reportedly complained it might not even be enough time for him to get off the “crapper.”

While in office, Bush failed to act on his concerns. President Obama pursued the issue but retreated in the face of opposition from Strategic Command. The most he could get in the 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States was a promise to look into the matter:

Recognizing the significantly diminished possibility of a disarming surprise nuclear attack, the guidance directs [the Defense Department] to examine further options to reduce the role of Launch Under Attack plays in US planning, while retaining the ability to Launch Under Attack if directed.

Strategic Command prefers to use the term “launch under attack” because a launch would only occur if there were high confidence in the warning that an actual attack was on its way. Strategic Command has never explained how high such confidence would need to be for a decision capable of causing directly and indirectly the deaths of at least a hundred million humans.

Launch on warning is controversial for two reasons: First, history has shown that false warnings do occur due to equipment failure and human error, and today there is the additional danger of hackers. Second, a launch-on-warning posture is indistinguishable from being constantly poised to mount a first strike, which pressures Russia and China to put their missiles on hair trigger as well. The United States would be on the receiving end for any mistaken launch one of them makes.

President Biden has indicated he does not support first use of US nuclear weapons. He should end the launch-on-warning option and the danger it entails of an unintended nuclear Armageddon. He could order Strategic Command to plan the US nuclear posture on the assumption that he will not launch on warning. US nuclear planners would have to assume a delayed response and revise their contingency plans accordingly.

Fifty years on hair trigger. The launch-on-warning option has been debated within the US government since the Kennedy Administration but was adopted during the 1970s. In the 1980s, because of his concern about accidental nuclear war, President Reagan wanted to negotiate an agreement with the Soviet Union to eliminate ballistic missiles in favor of bombers, which can be recalled after launch.

Today, US Strategic Command keeps launch ready virtually all of its 400 single-warhead Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) plus about as many warheads on its submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at sea. It wants to be able to launch the ICBMs before they and the US nuclear command and control system can be partially destroyed by an incoming Russian attack. […]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | Comments Off on Biden should end the launch-on-warning option　via Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

【独自】韓国の月城原発の使用済み核燃料プール、地下水面より低く「流出の恐れ」via yahoo.co.jp (the Hankyoreh)

Posted on 2021/06/24 by yukimiyamotodepaul

韓国水力原子力が作成した「月城原発敷地等水位線図」　豊水期の1、2号機の地下水位、プールの底に比べ最大2.6m上に　放射性物質がプールから漏れ、地下水に流入する可能性高い

韓国の月城(ウォルソン)原発1、2号機の地下にある使用済み核燃料プールの下を流れる地下水の水位が、豊水期にはプールの底より2メートルほど高くなることが、韓国水力原子力の作成した資料から確認された。このような状態では、プールから漏れ出す放射性物質が地下水に混じって環境に広がる可能性が高い。通常の地下水遮断や排水対策を超えた特別な対策の必要性が指摘される。 　

本紙が入手した韓水原の「月城原発敷地等水位線図」によると、月城1、2号機の使用済み核燃料プール周辺の地下水は、降水量の多い豊水期(2014年8月現在)には海水面から約5～6mの高さに形成される。使用済み核燃料プールは横12メートル、縦20メートル、深さ7.8メートルの水槽型の構造物で、その底は地表から8.61メートル下の海抜3.39メートルに位置する。豊水期には地下水の水位がプールの底から1.6～2.6メートルの高さにまで上昇することになる。

重水炉である月城原発の使用済み核燃料プールの内部は、プラスチック樹脂のエポキシコーティングで仕上げられている。このため、エポキシ塗膜が熱や放射線などの影響で劣化して損傷した場合は、使用済み燃料棒をひたしてある冷却水内のトリチウム(三重水素)がコンクリートの壁と床から外へ染み出す可能性があるというのが専門家の説明だ。しかもプールのエポキシ塗膜の劣化損傷は珍しくない。韓水原の文書「月城原発敷地内の地下水のトリチウム管理の現状および措置計画」によると、韓水原が月城原発で使用済み核燃料プール、使用済み樹脂貯蔵タンク、液体廃棄物貯蔵タンクのエポキシ塗膜を補修した回数は、2018年以降だけでも10回を超える。 　

使用済み核燃料プールの下部には、このように漏れ出す放射性物質が地下水と混ざって環境に流出することを防ぐ遮水膜が設置されている。しかし、月城1号機のプール地下の遮水膜は、日本の福島第一原発事故後の安全補強工事(2012年)の過程で損傷したことが明らかとなっている。施工社が格納建屋のろ過排気設備を設置するために基礎を打ち込んだ際に、0.5ミリの厚さのあるビニールの遮水膜にまで穴を開けてしまったのだ。環境団体側の原子力専門家たちは、プールから漏れ出た放射性物質がこうして損傷した遮水膜を通り抜け、環境に流出していると主張してきた。 　

実際に、韓水原の「措置計画」と題する文書には、2019年8月から2020年5月にかけて月城1号機プール下の遮水膜の上に溜まった水を集めた集水槽から、1リットル当たり最高で35万4000ベクレルのトリチウムが検出されたと記されている。このような高濃度はプールからの漏れ以外には説明が困難だ。同じ時期に、遮水膜の下の地下水からも1リットル当たり最高3万9700ベクレルが検出されている。海へと流れるこの地下水の濃度も、2014～17年の月城1、2号機からの通常の排水の最大濃度平均(1リットル当たり39.52ベクレル)の1000倍を超える。

（略）

韓水原は、問題はないという立場だ。韓水原は本紙に対し「原発の構造物が地下水位より高い場所に位置しなければならないという要件はない。原発の主要構造物は地下水流入遮断施設または永久排水施設を外部に設置し、地下水位が上昇しても構造物に直接水が当たらないように設計、施工されている」と述べた。 　

しかし、遮水膜のような地下水流入遮断施設はすでに破損している状態であり、地下水の水位がプールの底から2メートルほど高くなっている状況においても排水施設が本来の機能を果たしているかどうかは疑問だというのが専門家たちの指摘だ。原子力安全委員会のパク・チャングン専門委員(カトリック関東大学土木工学科教授)は、「コンクリートは水の中では老朽化が早く進むため、地下水が上がってくる場所にプールのような原発構造物を造ってはならないというのは、基準以前に常識の問題」と指摘した。

全文は【独自】韓国の月城原発の使用済み核燃料プール、地下水面より低く「流出の恐れ」

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , | 19 Comments

生かせなかった12年前の大津波警告 原発訴訟で再注目 via 朝日新聞

Posted on 2021/06/24 by yukimiyamotodepaul

編集委員・佐々木英輔

福島第一原発事故を起こした東京電力や国の責任をめぐり、平安時代に東北地方を襲った大津波が改めて注目されている。東電旧経営陣の経営責任が争われている株主代表訴訟では今年、12年前の国の会合で想定を求める発言をしていた研究者が証言。当時、相談に来た東電の担当者に「対策を取るべきだと言った」と明かした。警告は、なぜ生かされなかったのか。

「津波対策を考えたほうがいい」東電に助言

　「今から調査しても無駄ですよ、対策を考えたほうがいいですよと伝えた」。5月27日、東京地裁に証人として呼ばれた岡村行信・産業技術総合研究所名誉リサーチャーはこう証言した。東電の旧経営陣5人を被告に22兆円の賠償を求めた株主代表訴訟。岡村氏が法廷に立つのは原告側の尋問があった2月以来で、この日は被告側の代理人による尋問があった。

　「必ずしも対応をとるべきだと考えていなかったのでは」と問う被告側に対し、岡村氏は「そんなことはない」と否定。「考慮すべきものだと私は考えていた」と語った。

　焦点になっているのは、869年に起きた貞観（じょうがん）地震による津波を想定に入れなかった東電の対応だ。被害は平安時代の歴史書「日本三代実録」にも記され、2011年の東日本大震災は、その再来とも言われた。岡村氏は震災前から、過去の津波で運ばれた砂などの津波堆積（たいせき）物の研究に地質学の専門家として携わってきた。

　原発事故の発生直後から注目を集めたのが、今から12年前、09年6月24日の岡村氏の発言だ。

　「非常にでかいものが来ている。全く触れられていないのは納得できない」。福島第一原発の地震想定の見直しをチェックする経済産業省原子力安全・保安院の公開会合で、東電の想定に疑問を投げかけていた。

当時は、産総研や東北大によって各地の地層に残る津波堆積物の調査が進んできていた。従来知られていた宮城県の仙台平野や石巻平野、さらには福島県沿岸にも貞観津波の痕跡が広がっていることがわかり、これをもとに震源（波源）の位置や規模を推定した研究論文も出ていた。原発の地震や津波の想定では、最新の知見を反映するルールになっている。それなのになぜ考慮しないのか、との指摘だった。

（略）

その後、東電の担当者は岡村氏を訪問。福島県内の津波堆積物を独自に調査してから貞観津波の扱いを検討する方針を説明した。岡村氏が「調査は今さらやるものではない」と、対策に進むよう求めたのはこのときだったという。

　すでに産総研などが200カ所以上を調べ、宮城沖から福島沖に及ぶ巨大な震源域を推定していた。これは確かなデータをもとにした「最低限のモデル」。もうかなりのことがわかっていて、東電の調査でデータが増えても小さくはならないとの考えからだった。津波堆積物の調査が先行した北海道では、太平洋岸を大津波が襲う「500年間隔地震」が国の防災想定に反映されていた。

（略）

「今までと違う」反応には、理由があった。実は、東電はこの前年の08年後半から、ひそかに貞観津波の影響を計算していた。

　「最大影響の場合10メートル級の津波となる」。担当者のメールにはこんな記述も残されていた。福島第一原発での高さは8・9メートル（条件を変えると9・2メートル）。従来想定の5・7メートルを超え、原子炉がある10メートルの敷地に迫る数値だった。

　東電の担当者は、女川原発（宮城県）を持つ東北電力にも根回しをしていた。08年11月、貞観津波を想定に入れる意向だった東北電力の担当者に対し、「東電スタンスとの整合で、あくまでも『参考』として提示できないか」とのメールを送り、正式な想定にしないよう持ちかけていたことが刑事裁判の証拠から明らかになっている。

　当時は、保安院が全国の原発の地震・津波想定の見直し（耐震バックチェック）を求め、審査していた。東電の担当部門は、研究課題の残る貞観津波は「時期尚早」として想定の対象外にする方針だった。隣県の女川原発で貞観津波を想定すれば、福島第一原発、第二原発の津波の審査に影響しかねなかった。

（略）

　保安院は、岡村氏の発言をきっかけに東電に貞観津波の説明を求め、09年9月には8.9メートルの計算結果を把握した。東電は、津波堆積物を独自に調べたうえで、津波の計算手法をまとめていた土木学会にどう扱えばいいかを検討してもらう方針も説明。複数の専門家に相談した結果を箇条書きの一覧表にして示した。一覧表には「津波評価方針に特段コメントなし」との言葉が並ぶ一方で、岡村氏の欄に「対策を考えたほうがいい」とのコメントは載っていない。

　結局、1年半後に東日本大震災が起こるまで津波の報告書は提出されず、対策は手つかずのままだった。保安院も「報告待ち」に終始し、福島第一原発の津波リスクが公開の場で審議されることはなかった。

（略）

これに対し、貞観津波は実際に起きた大津波だ。保安院のルールでも「既往の津波」は当然、考慮することになっていた。東電が計算した数値は敷地の高さの10メートルを下回るが、実際に想定するときは不確かさを考えて敷地を超える高さになった可能性がある。実際、震災直前に東電が作成した資料には「2～3割程度、津波水位が大きくなる可能性あり」との注記があった。

　これまでの裁判での証言や資料からは、東電の担当者が長期評価と貞観津波のどちらも気にしていたことがうかがえる。株主代表訴訟の原告代理人の海渡雄一弁護士は「2本立てで貞観津波もメインの争点にしている」と話す。

　各地で争われている原発避難者らの損害賠償訴訟では、貞観津波に着目して東電だけでなく国の責任も認めた判決も出ている（東電は、過失の有無にかかわらず賠償責任を負う）。

　19年の横浜地裁判決は、長期評価だけでは抽象的だった大津波の到来可能性が、貞観津波の計算結果が伝えられた09年9月の段階で具体的になったととらえ、10メートル以上を想定した対策を国が取らせるべきだったとした。今年3月の福島地裁いわき支部の判決も、貞観津波を「実証的なエビデンス」と重視し、長期評価にもとづく対策を取らせるべきだった時期を09年8月ごろとした。

　もっとも、国の責任を認めた判決の多くは、もっと早い段階で長期評価を踏まえた対策を取らせるべきだったと認定している。長期評価は複数の専門家がまとめた公的な見解で、これをもとに津波を計算する手段もあったからだ。早いもので長期評価が公表された02年。保安院が津波による炉心溶融の可能性を検討した06年とするものもある。

事故責任めぐる裁判のゆくえ

　国の責任が争われた訴訟で地裁判決が出たのは、今年6月2日の新潟地裁までで16件ある。国の責任を認めたのは8件、認めなかったのも8件。高裁判決でもそれぞれ2件、1件と、判断が分かれている。

（略）

東電の株主代表訴訟は年内に結審する見通しで、7月から10月にかけて被告の旧経営陣5人に対する尋問が続く。先行して5月にあった尋問で武藤栄・元副社長は「過去に記録のないところに想定するのは難しい」と述べ、長期評価に信頼性がなかったとする従来の主張を繰り返した。貞観津波については、09年6月の株主総会の前に担当者とやり取りしたものの、その後については「検討が進んでいるんだろうと思っていた」と答えた。

　被告側は貞観津波について、当時の再現モデルは未成熟で論文でもさらなる調査が必要とされていたことなどから「不確定要素が多数残され、取り入れるだけの合理性を備えた知見とはいえない」と主張している。長期評価や貞観津波のほか、事故を防ぐ対策を取れたかどうかも争点で、今秋には裁判官が福島第一原発の敷地に入って、津波が浸入した建屋の搬入口などを確認する予定だ。

その後の調査は

　東電による津波堆積物調査には、後日談がある。震災から2カ月後の2011年5月に千葉市であった学会「日本地球惑星科学連合大会」で、東電の担当者が貞観地震による福島県内の津波は4メートル未満だったと推定する調査結果を発表した。

　この学会発表は震災前に申し込んでいた。福島第一原発より北の南相馬市では高さ3メートルの地層までに津波堆積物が分布、南の富岡町からいわき市にかけては見つからなかったとする内容だった。東電の担当者は予定通り、調査の概要を記したポスターの前に説明に立ち、テレビカメラや東電の広報担当者、学会に参加した地震や津波の研究者に囲まれた。高い津波想定が必要ないとの主張につながりかねない内容に、「見つからなかったからといって、津波が来なかったといえるのか」と研究者から追及される一幕もあった。

（略）

わからないから想定は難しいと考えるか、わからないなりに最低限の対策だけでも取っておこうと考えるか。どちらが正しい選択だったのかは、事故を経験した今となっては明らかだろう。（

全文は生かせなかった12年前の大津波警告 原発訴訟で再注目

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , , | 14 Comments

Exelon Sees No Future in Nuclear Power — Why Should Anyone Else? via NIRS

Posted on 2021/06/23 by nfield

The largest nuclear power company in the country is ready to cash out.  Exelon Corp. owns 23 operating reactors across five states, as well as five closed reactors. It is also the largest utility company in the nation, with over 10 million customers across 6 states and Washington, DC. But in February, Exelon announced that it wants to split itself into two completely separate companies. 

What Exelon is proposing is much more than just another self-serving corporate business deal: it is a statement of no confidence in nuclear power by the most powerful company in the business.

Here’s what the company wants to do: 

  • Create an entirely new, completely separate company that does not exist yet, currently called “SpinCo.”
  • Transfer all of Exelon’s nuclear power plants and “power marketing” businesses to SpinCo.
  • The existing company (“Exelon”) keeps its conglomerate of very profitable electric and gas utilities. 

In reality, around 90% of SpinCo will be made up of Exelon’s nuclear power reactors and the $14 billion in trust funds set aside to pay for decommissioning the reactors. 

What is really going on here? And what does it mean for nuclear energy in the US?

In the bigger picture, the answer is simple. Exelon is saying it does not see a future in nuclear energy. It does not see a way to make enough money to justify the financial risks of continuing to own and operate an aging fleet of nuclear reactors, despite all of the market power and political power it has enjoyed by doing so. 

Running electric utilities with guaranteed, state-mandated profits is where the money is. That’s why Exelon is keeping the utilities, and “SpinCo” gets all of the nuclear reactors that Exelon has spent the last seven years telling the world can’t make a profit without massive public subsidies.

For over two decades, Exelon has used its size, scale, and political capital to cut costs, maximize revenue, and win subsidies as much as it can.  And if the largest and most powerful company in the industry can’t make it work, then it’s a sure bet no one else can. 

That is also why Exelon decided to spin off its nuclear business: there is no company that would be willing to buy its reactors, or even just take them over. Exelon knows this first-hand because it has been on the receiving end of just such a deal: in 2016, when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was pushing for a state bailout for four reactors.

Initial projections pegged the cost of a nuclear subsidy at anywhere from $277 million to $4.8 billion by 2030. But negotiations reached an impasse. Exelon owned three of the four reactors. The other reactor, FitzPatrick, was owned by Entergy, which wanted to close FitzPatrick because it was reportedly losing $60-$100 million/year. Gov. Cuomo had to get Exelon to take over a massively unprofitable nuke which had not performed well for years—a massive financial risk. In order to make it worth Exelon’s while, the cost of the bailout ballooned dramatically: a total of $7.6 billion in subsidies over 12 years, plus $1.5 billion in decommissioning funds from the state. Gov. Cuomo was able to stick New York consumers with the subsidy bill, but Exelon does not have that option now. 

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | 44 Comments

How Far Did the Black Rain Fall? Meteorologist Masuda Yoshinobu’s Promise via “Black Rain” Video Production Team

Posted on 2021/06/23 by nfield

Japanese meteorologist Masuda Yoshinobu spent 30 years investigating the extent of the radioactive black rainfall in and around Hiroshima City after the US military dropped an atomic bomb there on August 6, 1945. The Japanese government has not acknowledged the health impact on people outside of the officially designated rainfall zone. Masuda discovered that the black rain had covered a much larger area than previously understood. His data helped win a historical court ruling in 2020 that the Japanese government is now appealing. Masuda, now 97 years old, continues his fight for the end of nuclear power and the abolishment of nuclear weapons. This is his story.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 16 Comments