Search
JOIN OUR NETWORK

     

     

 

 

ARTICLE ARCHIVE
Friday
Mar052021

PT. BEACH COMMENTS: 30 MORE years of risk to Lake Michigan?!

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.
Wednesday
Mar032021

Former Japan prime ministers tell country to drop nukes

Former Japan prime ministers Naoto Kan and Junichiro Koizumi are urging the current Japanese government to abandon plans to reopen nuclear power plants or build new ones, as the tenth anniversary of the March 2011 Fukushima disaster approaches. At a joint press conference, Koizumi pointed to Japan’s more than adequate solar, wind and hydropower resources. “Why should we use something that's more expensive and less safe?” he asked, referring to nuclear power. Kan, who was prime minister when the triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns first struck, criticized the entrenched “nuclear village” of utility companies, government agencies and academics, who have a vested interest in perpetuating nuclear, literally at any cost. (Photo: Remy Steinegger/World Economic Forum/Wikimedia Commons) More

Tuesday
Mar022021

Children's Fukushima trial claims against radiation exposure loses in court 

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.

Thursday
Feb252021

HOLTEC AT PALISADES?! Environmental Coalition Intervenes

The age-degraded Palisades atomic reactor, its radioactively contaminated site, and the Lake Michigan shoreline and Van Buren County countryside it has long put at risk.Beyond Nuclear, joined by Don't Waste Michigan and Michigan Safe Energy Future, have requested a hearing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in opposition to the Entergy-to-Holtec license transfers at the Palisades atomic reactor (photo, left) and the decommissioned Big Rock Point nuclear plant site, both on the Lake Michigan shore in West Michigan. See the press release, and the petition, filed by Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, the coalition's legal counsel. Environmental Law & Policy Center, as well as the Office of Michigan's Attorney General, Dana Nessel, have also intervened. In December, we warned AG Nessel, and many other MI officials, about the many risks and high stakes, and urged them to intervene. We are thankful they have.
Thursday
Feb252021

PORT HOPE, ONTARIO: A Case Study in Radioactive Risk

Lake Huron's shorelineProtect Our Waterways/No Nuclear Waste has announced a webinar on Wed., March 17, at 7:30pm Eastern, featuring Faye More, Chair, Port Hope Community Health Concerns, and Theresa McClenaghan, Senior Counsel and Executive Director, Canadian Environmental Law Association. It will look at Port Hope, east of Toronto on the Lake Ontario shore, its legacy of radioactive wastes the community is burdened with, and community concerns, particularly in light of a recent proposal to relax environmental cleanup criteria that many felt were already too lax. Beyond Nuclear was featured on a recent previous webinar in this series, dedicated to fending off a national high-level radioactive waste dump targeted at South Bruce, Ontario, near the Lake Huron shore. Register here.