Largest antinuclear rally held in Tokyo since Fukushima crisis

TOKYO (Kyodo) — Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in downtown Tokyo on Monday to call for the shutdown of all nuclear power plants in Japan, in the largest protest rally in the country since the Fukushima Daiichi plant catastrophe.

Nobel Prize-winning novelist Kenzaburo Oe, journalist Satoshi Kamata and actor Taro Yamamoto were among the speakers to address the crowd, which organizers put at 60,000 people. Tokyo police estimated the crowd at half that size, or 30,000 people.

“We need to let leaders of major parties and the Japan Business Federation know our intention to resist” nuclear power generation, Oe, a leading organizer of the event, told the gathering at Tokyo’s Meiji Park.

Ruiko Muto, a 58-year-old activist who leads a movement to dismantle nuclear reactors in Fukushima Prefecture, delivered a more personal message.

“To escape or not to escape? To eat or not to eat? I was forced to make such choices every day” since the March earthquake and tsunami crippled the plant, said Muto.

Muto urged people not to forget that a nuclear power plant is behind any power outlet.

“Each of us has to decide and act in order to achieve a life at the opposite extreme of nuclear power generation.”

Yamamoto as a guest speaker said, “We already have sufficient electricity (even without nuclear plants). If we do nothing now, Japan will be a disposal site of nuclear waste.”

Later participants split into three groups and marched in Tokyo, including through the fashionable district of Omotesando to protest against nuclear power generation.

Kyodo, September 19, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/09/19/20110919p2g00m0dm065000c.html

---

Tens of thousands join anti-nuclear protest

An estimated 60,000 people massed in Tokyo’s Meiji Park on Sept. 19 to demand an end to Japan’s reliance on nuclear power, according to the event’s organizers.

The Nobel Prize winning writer Kenzaburo Oe, one of the leaders of the protest, said: “We need to let executives of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan know we are opposing nuclear power.”

After the gathering at the park, which straddles Tokyo’s Shinjuku and Shibuya wards, the protesters divided into three marches through the capital.

The protest was part of the “Sayonara Genpatsu 1,000 mannin Action” (Good-bye to nuclear power through action by 10 million people) campaign, which is collecting signatures of people requesting a phasing-out of nuclear power.

Asahi Shimbun , September 21, 2011
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109200318.html

---

 65 percent of Japanese prefer to cut electricity use even if living standards drop

Sixty-five percent of Japanese people think that they should reduce their use of electricity even if their living standards have to be lowered in the wake of the outbreak of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, according to a recent survey conducted by the Mainichi Shimbun.

A survey of 2,413 people, conducted in an interview format by the Mainichi from Sept. 2 to 4, shows 65 percent of the respondents prefer to cut electricity use even if they have to lower their standards of living. The survey did not cover people in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures hit hard by the March 11 disasters. Thirty-two percent of the people polled said power supply should be increased in order to maintain their standard of living.

The survey also shows that most people want to see nuclear power being phased out, with 60 percent of the respondents preferring to gradually reduce the number of nuclear reactors while halting the operations of high-risk reactors.

By gender, 60 percent of male respondents and 70 percent of female respondents said the use of electricity should be reduced even if the standards of living have to be lowered. By age groups, relatively young people tend to think the use of electricity should be cut at the expense of living standards, with 71 percent of those in their 30s and 67 percent of those in their 20s sharing such views. Of those respondents who put priority on cutting electricity consumption rather than on maintaining current living standards, 66 percent of them said the number of nuclear reactors should be gradually reduced.

On the question of what should be done to the nuclear reactors in the future, 60 percent of those surveyed said the number of reactors should be reduced gradually, while 20 percent said the nuclear reactors should be operated without increasing the number of reactors. Twelve percent of the respondents said all reactors should be stopped as soon as possible, while 6 percent said the existing reactors should be operated and new reactors should be built. The survey shows 70 percent of people seeking an end to the country’s reliance on nuclear power generation.

On a plan to have a backup of Tokyo’s capital functions to prepare for large-scale natural disasters, only 10 percent of the respondents said no backup would be necessary, while 43 percent said a backup should be created in Kansai, followed by 18 percent for Kanto outside of the metropolitan area and 9 percent for Tokai. Because of the widespread impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake, many people prefer to have a backup of the capital’s functions in Kansai rather than in Kanto and Tokai. Osaka Gov. Toru Hashimoto told Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara in July that he would try to make Osaka a backup for Tokyo’s capital functions.

Mainichi Shimbun , September 20, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/09/20/20110920p2a00m0na017000c.html

---

 Residents furious over 60-page application, 160-page manual for TEPCO compensation

Residents affected by the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant are furious after learning they will have to wade through a 60-page application form — accompanied by a 160-page manual — to seek compensation from the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO).

The company, which on Sept. 12 started sending out documents for individual compensation claims for the period between March and August, says its careful explanation of the process resulted in a large amount of documentation. However, this hasn’t appeased residents.

“One can only assume it’s to prevent people from billing them,” one resident commented.

Before the company started sending out the application forms, it was receiving about 1000 inquiries a day, but that figure has now jumped to about 3,000 a day.

“The application forms arrived a few days ago, but I can’t understand them at all, so I haven’t started on them yet,” said one man in his 60s who is living in a temporary housing unit in Tamura, Fukushima Prefecture. “Unless I hear an explanation of the process directly at a meeting, it’ll be impossible.”

Fifty-nine-year-old Shigeru Sugioka, who attended an explanatory meeting for residents of the village of Iitate — part of the evacuation zone around the plant — on Sept. 20, commented, “We came the previous day as well, but there were too many people there so we came again today. We’re worried about whether we’ll get the amount we’ve claimed. But more than that, we’re unhappy with TEPCO’s attitude.”

TEPCO now has 280 people handling explanatory meetings for residents in Fukushima Prefecture, but from October it will boost this number to 900. However, other residents who have ended up scattered across Japan in the wake of the disaster are unable to have the process explained to them directly, and have no option but to phone TEPCO.

Yoshio Suzuki, 44, took refuge in Kitakyushu in southern Japan after being forced out of his home about a dozen kilometers from the Fukushima nuclear complex, and he’s angered by the lack of assistance.

“I don’t know what to do. There’s no way I can settle a problem that will determine the course of my future over the phone. TEPCO should visit each person and explain the process to them,” he said.

Katsutaka Idogawa, mayor of the Fukushima Prefecture town of Futaba — just north of the nuclear plant — lambasted TEPCO over the application process.

“I’m angered at the company’s high-handed approach in which it won’t pay compensation unless people fill in a wad of forms,” he said. On Sept. 17, he demanded that the company cease its explanatory meetings, and none have been held for the town since Sept. 18.

It has emerged that any claims for the period from September onwards will have to be filed every three months, and residents have called for simplification of subsequent applications, but as the situation stands, that seems unlikely.

“At the present stage we do not plan any alterations,” a TEPCO representative said.

Mainichi Shimbun , September 20, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/09/20/20110920p2a00m0na011000c.html

---

 Judge, experts in nuclear plant case show changes of attitude after Fukushima disaster

After the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, the presiding judge and nuclear experts who testified in a case involving the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant have shown shifts in their attitudes on nuclear plant safety and how it should be handled by courts.

Court cases surrounding the safety of nuclear plants require referral to high-level expert knowledge to make a ruling, and are sometimes referred to as “science trials.” In a still-ongoing case where residents are seeking a shut down of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant, 11 experts have appeared in court and given their opinions.

Among them was University of Tokyo professor Haruki Madarame, currently head of the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan. In February 2007 he said, “I don’t think it is likely that two emergency power generators will fail at once,” denying the likelihood of one disaster scenario. “If plant designers considered every small possibility, they couldn’t design anything.”

Akira Tokuyama, former president of Fuji Tokoha University and a geological researcher, testified in the trial that, “Even for the predicted Tokai Earthquake (a large, cyclical quake that is expected to one day hit the area), I can declare the plant safe on scientific grounds.”

Another expert, University of Tokyo professor emeritus Motohiko Hakuno, a researcher in earthquake engineering, testified that, “The bedrock underneath the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant is part of the hard rock of the Sagara Stratum (a local region of bedrock) and is safe enough.”

All three were witnesses for the defendant, the Chubu Electric Power Co., which owns the plant. In October 2007, based on such testimony, the Shizuoka District Court ruled a complete defeat for the residents who filed the suit, saying, “There is no problem with the safety evaluation of the plant, and safety margins have been sufficiently secured.”

The trial went to appeal with Koji Okahisa, presiding justice at the appeal trial, showing last year that he was not enthusiastic about giving a ruling on the safety of a nuclear power plant.

“It is not appropriate for courts to give rulings directly on whether nuclear plants are safe or not,” he said in April 2010. “The deliberation needed for the ruling is all but over.”

After hearing this, representative for the plaintiffs Yoshika Shiratori complained that Okahisa’s attitude was “essentially the same as an abandonment of the case.”

Following the Fukushima disaster, however, the judge’s attitude changed. At arguments on July 6 this year, opened for the first time in about a year, Okahisa said that “if a nuclear plant’s safety can not be proven, it should of course be shut down.” Applause erupted from the observers’ gallery.

The experts who testified in the case have also shown shifts in their stances since the March disasters. At a House of Councillors budget committee meeting on March 22, when Madarame was asked about his previous testimony in the case, he said, “I realize now that the way I simplified the issue in my testimony was not correct. A fundamental review of nuclear plants must be undertaken.”

Speaking to the Mainichi, Tokuyama said, “I feel that tsunami have not been sufficiently considered in safety evaluations of nuclear plants,” and Hakuno said, “Looking at what became of (the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant), we have to build more sturdy plants.”

Hiroyuki Kawai, lawyer for the plaintiffs, is seeking to have possible tsunami damage to the Hamaoka plant brought up as a point of discussion again in the appeal trial.

“People will no longer think we’re raising false alarms,” said Kawai.

Mainichi Shimbun , September 20, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/09/20/20110920p2a00m0na006000c.html

---

 Members of nuclear academic society voice repentance over Fukushima disaster

KITAKYUSHU — Nuclear experts voiced regret over their failure to prevent the Fukushima nuclear disaster at the first convention of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ) held since the disaster began in March.

About 500 people, including some 60 members of the general public, participated in the first day of the meeting, held in Kitakyushu, Fukuoka Prefecture, on Sept. 19.

Criticism has been leveled at nuclear experts for promoting complacency regarding the safety of nuclear power, and researchers at the meeting expressed repentance one after the other.

“Our society is very concerned about the nuclear disaster and the tremendous effects and worries it has inflicted to the general public,” said University of Tokyo professor Satoru Tanaka, chairman of the AESJ, at the outset of the convention.

Hisashi Ninokata, a professor with the Tokyo Institute of Technology, said, “A myth that nuclear plants were completely safe took on a life of its own and delayed efforts to improve their safety. We experts, too, were overconfident that a nuclear disaster of such magnitude would never happen.”

Afterwards, 11 researchers took the podium to hold discussions and answer questions from the audience. One audience member asked, “Does it take a disaster like this to make you notice problems?” In reply, Hosei University visiting professor Hiroshi Miyano said, “We need to reflect on our lack of imagination (regarding possible dangers to nuclear plants).”

Osaka University professor Akira Yamaguchi said, “I think we were in an environment that did not encourage us to exercise our imaginations.”

There was no debate, however, on the pros and cons of nuclear power generation itself, and the researchers’ discussion throughout the meeting was premised on nuclear power being necessary. Chairman Tanaka declared, “Nuclear energy is indispensable.”

“Attention has been focused only on the risk of radiation. We should educate young people about how our energy resources could be constrained (if nuclear power is done away with),” Hokkaido University professor Kenichiro Sugiyama said.

The AESJ convention will run through Sept. 22.

Mainichi Shimbun , September 20, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/09/20/20110920p2a00m0na001000c.html

---

 Experts say courts will judge safety standards more strictly following Fukushima crisis

Courts will judge the safety of nuclear power more strictly in anti-nuclear power station lawsuits in the wake of the Fukushima crisis, legal experts say.

One of the experts, lawyer Hiroshi Kaiho, who as a judge dismissed a lawsuit demanding that operations at a nuclear power plant be stopped 18 years ago, admits that he underestimated the risks involving nuclear power plants at the time.

“I noticed my awareness of the danger of nuclear power plants wasn’t severe enough after seeing an actual nuclear plant accident,” says Kaiho.

The 74-year-old lawyer recalls that he was left speechless after seeing the tsunami-hit the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant on TV.

As a presiding judge at the Osaka District Court, Kaiho dismissed a lawsuit by citizens demanding that Kansai Electric Power Co. stop operations at its Takahama Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture in December 1993.

During the trial, Kaiho read numerous books on overseas nuclear power plant accidents.

In his ruling, however, he dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that if aging pipes in the steam generators of the plant’s reactors were ruptured, it could cause the reactor cores to melt and lead to a leak of radioactive substances.

“It cannot be recognized that the rupture of pipes could lead to a meltdown,” said the ruling he handed down on the plaintiffs as he sided with the defendant.

Most of the fuel in the stricken No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima plant is believed to have melted within 16 hours after the plant was hit by a tsunami triggered by the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake.

Even though the situation is different from what was argued about during the Takahama power plant suit, Kaiho was shocked at the seriousness of the Fukushima crisis.

“I knew that the consequences of a nuclear power plant accident would be serious, but I didn’t think nuclear power plants were so vulnerable,” Kaiho says.

Many lawyers who were involved in anti-nuclear plant lawsuits said the Fukushima nuclear crisis will largely influence rulings on similar lawsuits that are being tried now.

“As the government is set to stiffen regulations on the safety of operations at nuclear power plants, it’s inevitable for courts to evaluate more severely the danger of such plants,” says Sueo Kito. He headed a legal team for plaintiffs in the appeal trial of a lawsuit demanding that operations at the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant be shut down. The suit was dismissed by a high court.

Tomokatsu Tsukahara, 66, who was involved in the lawsuit against the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, points to the difficulties in trying suits on the ongoing Fukushima crisis due to the difficulties in predicting such a massive tsunami.

“The question is how ’a massive tsunami that occurs only once in 1,000 years’ should be evaluated. Trials of lawsuits on the crisis will be extremely difficult,” he says.

Some legal experts are calling for measures to help judges, who are not experts in nuclear power, respond to such lawsuits.

In lawsuits on taxes and intellectual property that require advanced expertise, experts in ministries and agencies concerned are temporarily loaned to the courts trying such cases to support the judges in charge.

“Nuclear power experts should help judges trying nuclear power plant lawsuits,” says lawyer Mikio Kihara, 72, who was involved in an appeal trial of a suit against the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant.

Akira Rokusha, 59, professor at Keio University’s law school who as a judge had tried a lawsuit against the Onagawa nuclear plant in Miyagi Prefecture, urges that those with better knowledge of nuclear plants be appointed as judges. “I think more people who majored in science and engineering should be appointed as judges.”

Rokusha also proposes that lectures on nuclear power plants be given during seminars for judges.

A plaintiff in the suit against the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 2 power plant, who has been taking shelter since the disaster, urges judges to take the opportunity of the crisis to recognize their role to protect the lives of all members of the public.

“Frankly speaking, I feel like suing the courts that failed to fulfill their responsibility as part of the judicial branch of the government,” says Atsuo Hayakawa, 71. “I’d like them to be aware of their role as the guardian of the Constitution and to protect our lives,” he says.

Masaaki Iwabuchi, who led plaintiffs to win their suit against the No. 2 reactor at the Shika Nuclear Power Plant in Ishikawa Prefecture as head of their legal team, warns courts against clearing utilities of their responsibility for nuclear accidents on the grounds that the accidents were “beyond the scope of their assumption.”

“Will courts say the Fukushima crisis is inevitable because a tsunami of that scale was beyond the scope of the plant operator’s assumption, or that it’s not tolerable even though it was beyond of the scope of its assumption?” Iwabuchi asks. “Court must look directly at the damage caused by the accident.”

Mainichi Shimbun , September 22, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/09/22/20110922p2a00m0na024000c.html

---