From NHK (Translation courtesty of Herve Courtois)
No recognition of administrative negligence after nuclear accident The Fukushima District Court has ruled against the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by parents and children who lived in the prefecture at the time of the accident at Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, claiming that measures were not taken to avoid radiation exposure to their children.
One hundred and sixty parents and children who lived in the prefecture at the time of the nuclear accident were seeking 100,000 yen per person in damages from the government and the prefecture, claiming that they suffered mental anguish due to the lack of measures to avoid radiation exposure after the accident.
The plaintiffs, parents and children, claimed that they were exposed to unnecessary radiation and continue to suffer from health concerns, while the government and the prefecture countered that they were not exposed to unnecessary radiation.
In his ruling on March 1, Judge Toji Endo of the Fukushima District Court pointed out that the fact that the government did not immediately disclose the prediction of radioactive material diffusion calculated by the system called "SPEEDI" was "not unreasonable as it was in accordance with the operation method stipulated in the national guidelines at that time".
In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the government and the prefectural government did not immediately evacuate the children en masse, pointing out that "the indicators for evacuation in the disaster prevention guidelines at the time of the nuclear accident were standardized for children with high sensitivity to radiation and were reasonable in light of international standards".
This is the first time that a court has ruled on the government's response to a nuclear accident, while most of the cases involving nuclear accidents hold the government responsible for the occurrence of the accident.
After the verdict was handed down, Sumio Konno, the representative of the plaintiffs' group, said, "I am not convinced at all. What did the court examine? I thought it was an unfair judgment". For background on the trial, read here and here.
Point Beach Unit 1 & 2 atomic reactors, Two Rivers, WI on Lake Michigan shoreThanks to all who submitted comments. 1,288 were submitted via Regulations.gov by last night's (10:59pm Central) deadline. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's call-in/webinar is any indication, the vast majority were opposed to the twin reactors' "subsequent" 20-year extension: on February 17, 15 of 16 verbal comments were opposed to the license extension (the only one in favor was by a Point Beach V.P.). We submitted 14 sets of comments, including regarding embrittlement at Unit 2, the worst in the U.S. The next challenge is March 23's deadline for interventions at NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. We look forward to working with Physicians for Social Responsibility-Wisconsin and others to meet it.
March 5, 2021
