This is an English translation of the key technical arguments of plaintiffs and defendant in the first court ruling to be handed down concerning the safety of Japanese operating nuclear power plants since the March 11th 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident.
The ruling is expected the week of 8 April. For an overview, arguments up to the closing of the case, and the implications of this lawsuit to nuclear power in Japan see:

Download：http://www.greenaction-japan.org/internal/130405_stop_the_operation_of_Ohi_en.pdf

[English translation issued by Mihama-no-Kai and Green Action / 5 April 2013]

[Notes concerning this translation: The text below describes the basic legal arguments of the plaintiffs and defendant. The verdict is expected the first part of April 2013. (The judge closed the case on 29 January and stated the decision would be handed down the end of March or beginning of April.)]

Original Japanese text: http://greenaction-japan.org/internal/121030_stop_the_operation_of_Ohi_jp.pdf

This translation is issued by:
Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
Tel: 075-701-7223 Fax 075-702-1952 E-mail: info@greenaction-japan.org
Osaka Citizens Against the Mihama, Oi and Takahama Nuclear Power Plants (Mihama-no-Kai)
Seiko Building 3rd Floor 4-3-3 Nishi Tenma Kita-ku Osaka 530-0047 Japan
Tel: 06-6367-6580 Fax: 06-6367-6581 E-mail: mihama@jca.apc.org

Will Japan Repeat the Fukushima Disaster?
Lawsuit* Verdict This Week May Provide Answer

Media Briefing Paper
For Immediate Release: 3 April 2013
Kyoto, Japan
Contact: Aileen Mioko Smith +81-90-3620-9251 (co-lead plaintiff)

Verdict to be Handed Down Early April
The judgment in the legal case against the only two nuclear power plants operating currently in Japan, Ohi Nuclear Power Station Units 3 and 4 owned and operated by Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. (KEPCO), is expected this week (4 April ~ 5 April.) It will be the first court ruling on nuclear power operation since the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident and could mark an important crossroads for nuclear power in Japan.

There are three active earthquake faults in close proximity to the Ohi nuclear power plant site and numerous shattered zones (earthquake faults) directly under the site. One of the shattered zones, the F-6 fault, is suspected of being active and is currently under investigation.

This lawsuit seeking a provisional disposition to shut Ohi Units 3 and 4 down was filed in Osaka District Court on 12 March 2012 by 262 residents of Fukui, Gifu and six other prefectures in the Kansai region. If the plaintiffs win, or, if the verdict indicates that the two reactors do not meet the government standard for reactor shutdown time in the event of an earthquake, it could have wide repercussions for restarts of reactors in Japan.

Background
Earthquake-plagued Japan built 54 nuclear power plants in spite of citizen opposition and warnings by scientists. The Chuetsu Oki Earthquake which hit Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Plant in Niigata in July 2007 may have been the last warning, but it was not heeded. Then on 11 March 2011, the Tohoku Region Pacific Coast Earthquake occurred, resulting in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident.

The Fukushima disaster re-defined nuclear power safety in Japan. The country’s nuclear power safety regulations had to be revamped and new regulations put in place. Reactors went offline for periodic maintenance and, without new safety standards in place, were not restarted. On 5 May 2012, the last operating plant was shut down and Japan had zero nuclear power plants in operation.

On 16 June 2012, the Noda Democratic Party government made an exception and approved restart of Kansai Electric’s Ohi Units 3 and 4 in Fukui Prefecture, stating that there would be a danger of electricity shortage (planned blackout) during the summer of 2012 in the Kansai region if the reactors were not put back on line. Prime Minister Noda stated that the restart was necessary to “protect the livelihood of the nation’s citizens, protect the economy.”

The government approved restart of the two reactors by having them pass stress tests (with significant exemptions) and by having four ministers of the government approve the restart. Prime Minister Noda stated, “I am doing this on my own responsibility.” Ohi Units 3 and 4 resumed commercial operation on 3 and 16 August 2012, respectively, without new post-Fukushima safety regulations in place.

Earlier, on 1 June 2012, when restart of Ohi Units 3 and 4 was being deliberated, Green Action and Mihama-no-Kai issued a paper stating that one of the shattered zones (earthquake faults) under the site, the F-6 shattered zone, may be an active fault and should be examined. Seismic safety guidance issued before the Fukushima accident on 20 December 2010 appended to revised seismic guidelines issued in 2006 do not allow a reactor site to operate if existence of an active fault is suspected under an important facility at the site. (The emergency coolant pipe for Units 3 and 4 crosses over F-6, the suspected active fault.) Later the same day (1 June), Mitsuhisa Watanabe of Toyo University in Tokyo, an expert on tectonic geomorphology issued a statement corroborating the two citizen organizations’ paper.

Citizens and NGOs including Green Action and Mihama-no-Kai petitioned the government for an investigation under the Ohi site to be undertaken, but the Noda government went ahead with restart approval. National protest continued. In the meantime, on 12 July, 108 members of the National Diet of Japan petitioned Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry minister Yukio Edano to initiate an investigation . On 19 July, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) instructed KEPCO to reinvestigate the site. Subsequently on 17 October, the newly formed Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) announced the members of the NRA investigation committee, and the first site investigation followed on 2 November. The committee is headed by Dr. Kunihiko Shimazaki, Deputy Chairman of the NRA and includes Dr. Mitsuhisa Watanabe. The investigation continues with KEPCO instructed to dig yet another trench to further investigate the F-6 fault..

It is worthy to note that although there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not the movement under the Ohi site might have been caused by a landslide (rather than an earthquake), none of the experts have concluded that F-6 is an inactive fault. A fault being active on site is significant because it is not just about earthquake oscillation, but the ground under the facility shifting and rupturing, resulting in breakage of the facility.

The current court case centers around the licensing permit for Ohi Units 3 and 4 which requires that the control rods be able to be inserted into the reactor fuel assembly within 2.2 seconds. There are three active faults very close to the Ohi power plant: Kumagawa, FoA and FoB. The current seismic design of the plant is based on an earthquake forecast assessment of 700 gal basic earthquake ground motion which would occur under the Ohi plant site if the two active faults FoA and FoB interact. The assessment time is 2.16 seconds, allowing only a 2% margin before the 2.2-second limit.

On 27 January 2012, as a result of the 11 March 2011 Tohoku Region Pacific Coast Earthquake , the government instructed KEPCO to look into the need for assessing the seismic motion if interconnection occurred between the three faults (Kumagawa, FoA and FoB). KEPCO submitted a seismic analysis on 29 February which it called a “just in case” analysis because, according to KEPCO, the interaction could not occur. KEPCO’s analysis stated that the maximum seismic motion obtained when 9 cases of a three-fault interaction were analyzed at 0.02 seconds frequency was 760 gals.

On 13 March 2012, NISA reported to the Nuclear Safety Commission’s committee deliberating the stress test for nuclear power plants that it had heard from KEPCO that, as a result of using a different analytical method, the control rod insertion time when the two faults FoB and FoA interconnect (causing 700 gal seismic motion) is not 2.16 seconds but rather, 1.88 seconds, even though this analysis had not been submitted formally to the government. NISA also stated, when reporting on KEPCO’s Ohi stress test results that control rods at Ohi could be inserted “within about 2.2 seconds” even at 1560 gals.

After the 11 March earthquake, the Kan Democratic government had issued a requirement that nuclear power plants pass stress tests before being able to restart. It is worthy to note that when KEPCO submitted its stress test report to the government in October 2011, it had excluded control rod insertion time in the category of items to undertake stress tests.

The Noda government allowed Ohi Units 3 and 4 to restart without properly addressing the issue of control rod insertion time if the three active earthquake faults close to the Ohi plant site interact.

Ohi Units 3 and 4 ― Current Status on Eve of Lawsuit Verdict
・On 19 March 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority announced Ohi Units 3 and 4 would be exempt during this operating period from meeting the requirements to apply for and pass the new safety regulations that will come into effect in July 2013. The reactors would be allowed to continue operation until they shut down for their periodic maintenance in September, if they pass certain NRA checks.
・Ohi Units 3 and 4 continue to operate in violation of seismic safety rules which were issued 20 December 2010 before the Fukushima accident.

The Key Legal Arguments of Plaintiffs and Defendant
Plaintiffs argue that Ohi Units 3 and 4 do not meet the government standard for control rod insertion time for shutting the reactors down in the event of an earthquake. Since they do not meet this requirement to assure safe shutdown of the reactors, government regulation requires that the reactors not be allowed to operate. Plaintiffs state, operating Ohi Units 3 and 4 in violation of the safety standard is a violation of the human rights of the plaintiffs because it could lead to a disastrous accident which could result in radiation damage to the plaintiffs.

In the court case, KEPCO is insisting there is no duty to comply with the 2.2 seconds in the first place because this value is not a “stipulation” but only an “analysis condition.”

Plaintiffs argue that according to the licensing permit, 2.2 seconds is stipulated as a specification of the control rod drive mechanism which is required to function when a reactor trip signal occurs. The licensing permit was granted using 2.2 seconds as a basis for calculating the overall safety of the plant.

Plaintiffs also point out that the government’s submission in the administrative lawsuit which plaintiffs have filed against the government clearly states that it contravenes government Technical Standards if control rod insertion time exceeds 2.2 seconds. (The government is also on record on 27 June 2011 stating that the licensing permit issued to KEPCO for Ohi Units 3 and 4 was given on the basis the plant met the 2.2 second standard. )

During the lawsuit, KEPCO not only argued that as a result of using a different analytical method, the control rod insertion time when FoB and FoA interconnect (causing 700 gal seismic motion) is not 2.16 seconds but 1.88 seconds, it went on to state that its analysis showed that the control rod insertion time for the three faults interlocking (FoB and FoA and Kumagawa) would be 1.83 seconds, making insertion time even shorter than when two faults interconnect.

The judge noted in court that these KEPCO analyses have not been officially submitted to the government.

The 2.2-second figure cannot be modified unless it is submitted to the government, the government examines it, and approves the modification.

Plaintiffs have submitted to the court the evaluation which had been submitted on 13 March 2012 by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) to the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) which states that control rod insertion time increases for the Ohi site in proportion to increased seismic motion.

KEPCO argues that there would be no harm to plaintiffs even if insertion time were to exceed 2.2 seconds, hence the plaintiffs have no standing. KEPCO asserts that up to 11 seconds will be safe. KEPCO states the 11-second figure is an “acceptance criterion” figure and 2.2 seconds corresponds to a “conservatively evaluated value”. This argument eliminates the safety margin. Moreover, the “accident” used for this analysis was damage to the steam generator tube where other facilities such as the diesel generator or secondary water supply system function fully even with loss of outside power. An earthquake resulting in control rods taking 11 seconds to insert would be a huge earthquake, resulting in extensive damage to the reactor facility. KEPCO’s use of the 11-second figure to argue safety of the Ohi plant indicates it has not learned the lessons of the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

KEPCO had originally told the presiding judge that the plant could not operate if the assumed insertion time exceeds 2.2 seconds. When asked by the judge about this, KEPCO responded that this 2.2-second insertion time requirement is for accidents and not earthquakes. It states that Article 5 rather than Article 24 of the government’s Technical Standards applies to emergency situations such as an earthquake. Article 5, however, states that insertion times must be considered taking into consideration earthquake and accident factors together, the accident factor’s calculation being based on the seismic design review guidelines. In fact, KEPCO’s figure of 2.16 seconds had been calculated in this way. Nowhere in the government documents does the 2.2-second insertion time stipulation exempt earthquakes.

KEPCO also argues that even if the three active faults move together resulting in approximately 1000 gal of seismic motion, it would not be a problem because it has been confirmed by experimentation that the fuel rods could be inserted “at around 2.2 seconds” at 1560 gal seismic motion. Plaintiffs reviewed the document KEPCO was referring to, a report issued by the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) in 2006, and found the actual figure in the report to be 3.26 seconds, substantively exceeding the 2.2-second requirement.

Concerning the burden of proof, plaintiffs argue that, according to judicial precedent, with KEPCO arguing that “it has become evident that insertion time within at least around 11 seconds does not cause any danger,” the burden of proof that up to 11 seconds would not cause material damage to the plaintiffs must be borne by KEPCO.

Concerning the issue of the three active faults interconnecting, it is worth noting that in the court hearing, the presiding judge did not raise the issue of whether or not the three active faults would interact, but rather asked KEPCO questions on the assumption that this interaction would occur.

Significance of the Case
It is not yet known how much Japan’s new Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA), created after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, will yield to the nuclear lobby and allow the restart of nuclear power plants in Japan. The Abe government has scrapped the nuclear phase-out debate that had been undertaken by the Democratic Party government administration in the summer of 2012. At the same time, citizens’ voices in support of learning from the lessons of Fukushima are stronger than ever. Today, we are at a crossroad. How effective the courts and citizens will be in this push-pull is now about to be seen.

Since the upcoming verdict will provide a decision on the first legal case challenging nuclear power plant operation safety since the Fukushima Daiichi accident of 11 March 2011, it will no doubt greatly influence the path Japan will take regarding nuclear power.

In spite of warnings by scientists as well as citizens and NGOs nationwide, the effects of earthquake faults in the vicinity of nuclear power plants and the resulting seismic motion to the power plant facilities had been under-estimated over the decades before the Fukushima accident by treating these earthquake faults, often in a line and clearly related, as separate faults that could not interconnect. The Fukushima Daiichi accident proved that it had been a mistake to treat these faults separately.

Inserting the control rods to safely shut down a reactor, cooling the reactor fuel, and containing the radiation are the key elements necessary to prevent disastrous releases of radiation into the environment. At Fukushima Daiichi, the first step of shutting down the reactors succeeded, yet there were disastrous releases of radiation into the environment. The accident would have been far worse had the reactors not been able to shut down. The ability of control rods to be inserted in time to shut the reactor down is crucial to safety.

This legal case for seeking an injunction to stop Ohi Unit 3 and 4 is addressing this first, critical initial step, the ability to stop the reactor in the event of an earthquake.

If plaintiffs win and succeed in shutting down Ohi Units 3 and 4, it will be a significant and historic indictment of Japan having moved forward with nuclear power when it is an earthquake-prone archipelago, and, on current nuclear power regulation in Japan. Even if the ruling does not recognize that plaintiffs’ human rights are violated (i.e. judges in favor of the plaintiffs), if the verdict text recognizes that KEPCO is in violation of the 2.2-second reactor shutdown control rod insertion time, it would also be a significant step toward shutting down Ohi Units 3 and 4, and thus helping to lead Japan out of nuclear power.

This briefing paper was compiled based on documents submitted to the court by the plaintiffs and the defendant (KEPCO).

See the following site in Japanese for plaintiff court submissions:
http://www.jca.apc.org/mihama/ooisaiban/ooisaiban_room.htm

Download: Will Japan Repeat the Fukushima Disaster? Lawsuit Verdict This Week May Provide Answer (PDF)

This is a follow-up letter to the letter we sent you on 5 March concerning an imminent plutonium shipment (MOX fuel) from France to Japan that may pass by your country.

The Japanese electric utility Kansai Electric announced in a press release yesterday, 21 March, that it plans to ship MOX fuel from France to Japan. They did not disclose the date. This Kansai Electric press release and the French company AREVA’s announcement on 20 March confirm that the shipment is indeed imminent.

Our information continues to be that the British flagged transport vessels Pacific Heron and Pacific Egret will arrive from the UK to Cherbourg the first part of April and that the MOX fuel will leave Cherbourg for Japan in April.

We checked with all the other 8 Japanese electric utilities that have nuclear power plants whether they will be shipping MOX fuel at this time. All clearly stated “no”. This therefore means the shipment will be only Kansai Electric MOX fuel.

Download: Letters sent to countries potentially on the route of the MOX fuel shipment (PDF)

Green Action Press Release

11 March 2013

For immediate release
Contact: Aileen Mioko Smith +81-90-3620-9251

150,000 people remain displaced as a result of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident which began on 11 March 2011, and the reality of this nuclear disaster is still reported daily in the news. In spite of this, on January 30th, the new Shinzo Abe administration announced that it would scrap the former government’s plans to phase out nuclear power during the 2030’s, and would deliberate on the issue “from scratch,” completely negating the public debate undertaken by the national government last summer.[1] The current national government must listen to the will of the Japanese people.

On November 26th last year, the Japanese government received a harsh warning concerning its handling of the Fukushima accident from the UN Special Rapporteur advising the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, concerning rights to physical and mental health.[2] Now, more than three months since the report, none of these serious concerns have been dealt with. The Japanese government must address these issues immediately before the final report is to be presented to the Human Rights Council in June 2013.

The national standard for radiation exposure is 1mSV/year. Citizens, especially families with young children, living in areas contaminated by radiation due to the Fukushima accident who are anticipated to receive levels of exposure beyond this national standard should have the right to evacuate, in other words, they should receive government support if they choose to relocate.[3]

A comprehensive compensation regime must be established immediately for those that have been displaced or who have suffered economic damage due to the accident.

In spite of the fact that the The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC), appointed by the national Diet, found that the accident was clearly man-made[4], there has as yet been no investigation or criminal prosecution of individuals who held official capacities in TEPCO, the government, and other institutes whose decisions lead to the Fukushima accident. This situation must be ameliorated immediately.

The Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) passed nuclear power accident evacuation guidelines on 27 February. Japan’s national broadcasting corporation NHK reported that whereas over 3155 public comments were submitted on the draft, they all went virtually unheeded. According to NHK, the comments addressed such issues as over-restricted distribution of potassium iodine, and the need to lower radiation levels set to trigger evacuation plans. Nuclear regulation continues to be opaque and/or not responsive to public input.

Emergency evacuation plans being prepared in Japan cannot cope with a serious nuclear power accident. On 31 March, Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the NRA, hinted that a legal framework should be put in place whereby nuclear power plants cannot operate without evacuation plans[5].

The government states categorically that MACCS2, the radiation dispersal model currently being used in the event of an accident, is inaccurate beyond 30 kilometers. However, at the same time, the NRA’s recently issued standards that would trigger distribution of stable iodine, food restrictions, and temporary evacuation if and when environmentally-monitored radiation levels exceed 20 microsieverts/hour. Areas of Fukushima City located 60 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi reached levels in excess of this standard during the Fukushima accident.

Local governments responsible for areas within 30-some kilometers of a nuclear power plan have been ordered by the Japanese national government to submit evacuation plans by March18th. The historic capital of Japan, Kyoto City, is one of them. Kyoto Prefecture officials admit that in the event of a large nuclear power accident emergency, some type of measures may need to be taken 50 to 60 kilometers from the plant. This would include areas in Kyoto including the Old Imperial Palace, the world-famous Golden Pavilion, the international conference hall where the Kyoto Protocol was signed, and Kyoto City Hall itself.

The emergency plans being formulated this month do not include countermeasures in the event of radioactive contamination of Lake Biwa ,which provides water to 14.5 million citizens in the Kansai region of Japan. The northern end of Lake Biwa is located 28 kilometers from nuclear power plants in Fukui Prefecture.[6]

The Ohi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 and 4 continue to operate without new post-Fukushima nuclear safety standards in place.[7] (These standards are to be put in place in July this year.) It is of great concern that reactors at Ohi are operating in violation of seismic safety guidelines that were put in place before Fukushima, on 20 December 2011. The guidelines state that if an active fault is suspected to exist under a nuclear power plant site, no important facility at the site could be located above it. (The emergency cooling pipes for Ohi Units 3 and 4 cross such a fault.) In July, NRA appointed an expert committee to investigate the site. None of the experts have stated the fault is not active. Has Japan really learned from the Fukushima accident if it does not even comply with its own seismic safety guidelines put in place before Fukushima? Ohi Units 3 and 4 should be shut down immediately.

The verdict on a lawsuit seeking a provisional injunction to shut down Ohi Units 3 and 4 filed against Kansai Electric by 262 citizens[8] will be handed down the end of March or beginning of April. Depending on the verdict, Ohi could be ordered shut before its scheduled outage in September.

[1]28 August 2012, Reuters.(In Japanese.) http://jp.reuters.com/article/topNews/idJPTYE87R05W20120828 Citizens were given a choice of zero, 15% and 30% nuclear power (percentage of total electricity production) by 2030, and 90% responded “zero.” The most recent poll indicates 68% want to phase out of nuclear power. http://www.kahoku.co.jp/spe/spe_sys1115/20130224_02.htm

[2]26, November 2011, UN Special Rapporteur’s Press Statement 
Press Release 12-058-E　26/11/2012. http://unic.or.jp/unic/press_release/2869/#entry-english

[3]20 August 2011, IPPNW statement, “International physicians’ recommendations for protecting health after the Fukushima nuclear disaster” states, “People living in contaminated regions should have access to full information on their likely radiation exposures and supported in all possible ways to minimize these. For those with anticipated annual exposure greater than 5 mSv, or more than 1mSv for children and women of child-bearing age, equitable and consistent access to health care, housing, employment and educational support and compensation should be provided if they choose to re-locate.”

[4]20 August 2011, IPPNW statement, “International physicians’ recommendations for protecting health after the Fukushima nuclear disaster” states, “People living in contaminated regions should have access to full information on their likely radiation exposures and supported in all possible ways to minimize these. For those with anticipated annual exposure greater than 5 mSv, or more than 1mSv for children and women of child-bearing age, equitable and consistent access to health care, housing, employment and educational support and compensation should be provided if they choose to re-locate.”

[5]1 November 2012, Sankei Shinbun (in Japanese) http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/121101/dst12110108240001-n1.htm

[6]Much closer if water sources flowing into Lake Biwa are taken into consideration.

[7]Kansai Electric’s nuclear power plant (PWR) located in Fukui Prefecture. Ohi Units 3 and 4 resumed commercial operation on 5 July and 21 July of 2011, respectively.

[8]The executive director of Green Action, Aileen Mioko Smith, is co-chief plaintiff along with Hideyuki Koyama of Mihama-no-Kai based in Osaka.

Download: Japan Must Learn from the Lessons of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident (PDF)

A plutonium fuel shipment from France to Japan is scheduled to depart early April 2013. If it takes place, it would be the first plutonium shipment from Europe to Japan since the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Many nations’ coastal waters could be on the route of the shipment. The route remains secret. Only two reactors are operating in Japan. None of the potential reactors the fuel is destined for have been granted permission to restart operations.

Download:
Letters sent to countries potentially on the route of the MOX fuel shipment (PDF)

Attachments:

MOX Fuel Shipment 2009: Issues and Controversies–Presented to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan 
by Aileen Mioko Smith (Executive Director of Green Action), 15 May 2009, page 8, “Japan Ignores International Calls for Shipment Safety”
http://www.greenaction-japan.org/modules/wordpress0/index.php?p=68

“Areva plans 1st nuclear fuel shipment to Japan since Fukushima”, Reuters, 4 March 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/04/japan-nuclear-mox-idUSL4N0BW3TV20130304

What are the health consequences of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident on children, power plant workers and the whole country. What measures are being taken in Fukushima in terms of health effect measures. What lessons must be learned from the processes after the accident. What measures should be taken now to prevent further health effects. In this context, what is the role of those within the medical field.

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), who received The Noble Peace Awarded in 1985, will hold their 20th IPPNW World Congress in Hiroshima will take place between August 24th – 26th.
In conjunction with the 20th IPPNW World Congress, the symposium will include doctors and those in the medical field. Key speakers from Japan will also present overviews of the public health situation and ongoing challenges of coping with the Fukushima disaster. The panelists from IPPNW will discuss the lessons to be learned and the issues we must face in the future with an international perspective.
———————————————————————-
■Date/Time: 27 August, 2012 (Door Opens 18:00) 18:15 – 20:30
■Place: Hibiya Tosho Bunkakan Hall, Hibiya Park, Tokyo
■Language: English/Japanese translations
■Participation Fee: 1,000 at the door for those who reside in Japan.
■Registration:
Please complete your registration by August 25th. Please send an email to the following account : fukushima.symposium@gmail.com.
——————————
■Programme
1. Current Issues and Reports
Speakers:
Ms. SAKIYAMA, Hisako
Medical Doctor, PhD; Former Chief of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS); Member of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (a commission of the Japanese National Diet)

TAKAOKA, Shigeru MD
Minamata Kyoritsu Hospital, Kyoritsu Neuorology and Rehabilitation Clinic (Minamata City, Kumamoto Prefecture) http://www.kyouritsu-cl.com/

Dr. Takaoka has researched health effect of methylmercury in Minamata.
He has compared the medical, psychological, and social situation between
Minamata disease and the Fukushima nuclear accident and has written a paper on this theme. “How should we assess the effects of environmental
pollution on people’s health?: The 2011 nuclear disaster has extensive parallels on Minamata disease affair.”
http://kyouritsu-cl.com/pdf/clinic_dayori.pdf

Mr. HOSOKAWA Komei
MA, PhD, Professor, School of Environmental and Social Research, Kyoto Seika University; Co-chair, Greenpeace Japan; Co-chair, Pacific-Asia Resource Center (PARC); Board Director, The Takagi Fund for Citizen Science. Member of an independent project of radiation monitoring and remediation trials.

Ms. TANIOKA Ikuko
Member of the House of Councillors. The Shigakkan University, Chair of the Board / President. After the severe accident at the Fukushima Nuclear power plant, she took a post in the DPJ’s project team dealing with the accident. She has coped with a lot of problems, for example supporting the victims, clearing up the cause of that accident, and the denuclearization. June this year, she and her colleagues made a new law that aim to support the victims (especially children). After that, in July, she left the DPJ, and established a new party with three female law makers, that is called the “Green Wind Party”.
——————————

2. Civil Activity Reports
IWATA Wataru, Citizens’ Radiation Measuring Station
MITSUTA Kanna, FoE-Japan
——————————

3. Panel Discussion

Speakers:
-Dr. Angelika CLAUSSEN, former IPPNW president Germany
Dr. Claussen has worked extensively in the field of the health
impact of radiation.

-Dr. Peter KARAMOSKOS, IPPNW Australia Nuclear radiologist; public representative, Australia’s national radiation regulator; written and spoken widely on Fukushima and other radiation health issues; MAPW Australia; ICAN treasurer

-Dr. Jeffrey PATTERSON, US, president-elect of Physicians for Social Responsiblity (PSR) Professor of Family Medicine at University of Wisconsin

-Ms. SAKIYAMA, Hisako
-Dr. TAKAOKA, Shigeru
-Mr. HOSOKAWA Komei
-Ms. TANIOKA Ikuko

Moderator(s)
– Dr. Tilman Ruff; Regional Vice President ― SOUTHEAST ASIA / PACIFIC Victoria, Australia
– Aileen Mioko Smith; Green Action
——————————
■Fukushima Inspection Tour (Hosted by PANW):
For Information regarding the Fukushima tour, please view the Fukushima Inspection Tour home page http://hodanren.doc-net.or.jp/ippnw/
*The deadline for this tour has been extended to July 31st
■The symposium is co-sponsored by：
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War-Germany Medical Association for Prevention of War
(IPPNW-Australia)
Indian Doctors for Peace and Development
(IPPNW-India)
Physicians for Social Responsibility
(IPPNW-Switzerland)
Medact (IPPNW-UK)
Physicians for Social Responsibility (IPPNW-USA)
■Along with
Green Action
Greenpeace Japan
Peace Boat
PANW
■Donations：
For the success of the symposium, we kindly ask for your donation
(individuals/organizations share in the donation starting from 10,000). The name of the individual or an organization will be noted on
our home page.
■Bank account information：
Account Number：００１８０－３－１７７４５８
Account Name： Peace Boat (ピースボート）
＊Please note “Fukushima Symposium” on the correspondence column
——————————
Contact：Peace Boat
B1, 3-13-1 Takadanobaba, Shinjuku, Tokyo
169-0075, Japan
TEL: 03-3362-6307
FAX: 03-3362-6309

*For detailed information please visit:
http://fukushimasymposium.wordpress.com/

An Appeal from Japan to worldwide civil organizations concerning stabilization of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel.

We ask your support for our appeal to Prime Minister of Japan Yoshihiko Noda and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

To civil organizations around the world:
Please support this effort by endorsing our letter to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dated 30 April 2012.
Deadline: 20 May 2012
Please send endorsement to: info@greenaction-japan.org
(Please include city and country of your organization.)

For full text of letter/endorsements/signatories, see: http://wp.me/p1FMPy-B6

We Japanese civil organizations* express our deepest concern that our government does not inform its citizens about the extent of risk of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool. Given the fact that collapse of this pool could potentially lead to catastrophic consequences with worldwide implications, what the Japanese government should be doing as a responsible member of the international community is to avoid any further disaster by mobilizing all the wisdom and the means available in order to stabilize this pool.
It is clearly evident that Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool is no longer a Japanese issue but an international issue with potentially serious consequences. Therefore, it is imperative for the Japanese government and the international community to work together on this crisis before it becomes too late. We are appealing to the United Nations to help Japan and the planet in order to prevent the irreversible consequences of a catastrophe that could affect generations to come. We are sending an urgent request to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Prime Minister of Japan Yoshihiko Noda as follows:

• The United Nations should organize a Nuclear Safety Summit to take up the crucial problem of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool.
• The United Nations should establish an independent assessment team on Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 and coordinate international assistance in order to stabilize the unit’s spent nuclear fuel pool and prevent radiological consequences with potentially catastrophic consequences.

30 April 2012
*72 Japanese civil organizations have signed this petition (as of 30 April 2012)

Contact:
Shut Tomari (Japan)
1-2, 6-4 Higashisapporo, Shiroishi-ku, Sapporo 003-0006 Japan
TEL: +81-90-26951937 FAX:+81-11-826-3796 email: kaori-izumi@ta3.so-net.ne.jp
Green Action (Japan)
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
Tel: +81-75-701-7223 Fax: +81-75-702-1952 email: info@greenaction-japan.org

Press Release——Fukushima

For immediate release: 2 May 2012

Kyoto, Japan―On 30 April, seventy-two Japanese NGO organizations lead by Shut Tomari and Green Action send an urgent request to the UN and Japanese government urging immediate action to stabilize the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel. The letter was endorsed by experts from Japan and abroad.

The letter warned that the seriously damaged Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool contains Cesium-137 (Cs-137) that is equivalent to 10 times the amount released at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain, this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire.

The letter urged the United Nations to organize a Nuclear Safety Summit to take up the crucial problem of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool. The letter stated that the United Nations should establish an independent assessment team on Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 and coordinate international assistance in order to stabilize the unit’s spent nuclear fuel and prevent radiological consequences with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Letters were sent to both UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, the latter asking that Japan ask immediately for the UN’s help.

Nearly all of the 10,893 spent fuel assemblies at the Fukushima Daiichi plant sit in pools vulnerable to future earthquakes, with roughly 85 times more long-lived radioactivity than released at Chernobyl.

Kaori Izumi of Shut Tomari stated, “Fukushima Daiichi is no longer a Japanese issue but is an international issue. It is imperative for the Japanese government and the international community to work together on this crisis before it becomes too late.”

Nuclear experts from the US and Japan such as Arnie Gundersen, Robert Alvarez, Hiroaki Koide, Masashi Goto, and Mitsuhei Murata, a former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland, and, Akio Matsumura, a former UN diplomat have continually warned against the high risk of the Fukushima Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool.

Shut Tomari and Green Action are seeking endorsements from civil organizations abroad (deadline 20 May). More Japanese civil organizations are expected to sign on in addition to the seventy-two organizations. (Deadline for signatures: 20 May.)

For full text of letter/endorsements/signatories, see: http://wp.me/p1FMPy-B6

Press release issued by:
Shut Tomari (Japan),
1-2, 6-4 Higashisapporo, Shiroishi-ku, Sapporo 003-0006 Japan
TEL: +81-90-2695-1937 FAX: +81-11-826-3796 email: kaori-izumi@ta3.so-net.ne.jp
Green Action (Japan),
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
Tel: +81-75-701-7223 Fax: +81-75-702-1952 email: info@greenaction-japan.org

October 31, 2011

While Fukushima nuclear accident is yet to be brought under control, the fallout of radioactive material continues to contaminate the earth, nature and sea of Japan. Countless number of people including those in Fukushima is suffering from the crisis and devastation of their lives. And yet, the causes of the accident have not been fully investigated.

At the moment, Japan-Vietnam nuclear cooperation agreement is being signed to take another steps further to promote Japan’s nuclear export.

Presently in Vietnam, Japanese taxpayer-funded feasibility studies are being carried out for nuclear power plant construction in Ninh Thuan Province. The outcome of these studies, however, has not been committed for a full disclosure to the citizens of Vietnam and taxpayers in Japan.

The planned site for the plant in Vietnam is a land of scenic beauty, where residents make their living by fishery, farming and tourism. Thus, the construction will unquestionably threaten the lives of those depend on this land.

In case of another accident, radioactive contamination will reach Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and other neighboring countries of Vietnam. Just as the Governments of Japan and Vietnam have not fulfilled their accountability to their respective citizens, they have not even begun to fulfill their accountability to those in these neighboring countries.

We, the women gathered at the Ministry of Economy traveling from Hokkaido in the north and Kyushu in the south as well as the citizens deeply concerned with nuclear export, are vehemently against Japanese government’s nuclear export. What must be exported instead is a critical learning through pain and suffering in Fukushima and NOT nuclear power plants.

Based on the above, we demand the following from the governments of Japan and Vietnam.

• The Japanese government must clearly state a policy of non-nuclear export.
• The Japanese government must not waste any more tax for the purpose of nuclear export.
• The Japanese and Vietnam governments must terminate feasibility studies currently being conducted.
• The Japanese and Vietnam governments must fulfill their accountability to the citizens of neighboring countries.

Women across Japan for No More Nuclear Power / Friends of the Earth Japan / Green Action / Mekong Watch / No Nukes Asia Forum Japan / e-shift (Association for Nuclear Power Phase-out and New Energy Policies) / SuiGenRen (National Coordinating Committee for Water Resources Development Issues) / NINDJA (Network for Indonesian Democracy, Japan) / Mihama-no-Kai (Osaka Citizens Against the Mihama, Oi, and Takahama Nuclear Power Plants) / Fukurou-no-Kai (The Citizens Against Fukushima Aging Nuclear Power Plants) / Fukushima Network for Saving Children from Radiation / Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Emergency Action Network / Tatebayashi Citizens’ network for Climate-Change / Action In Front Of TEPCO

Contact: Kanna Mitsuta / 090-6142-1807

Opposing Japan-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in Promotion of Nuclear Export (PDF)

From FCCJ’s site:
Nakate, Aoki, Smith & Iwata, Voice of Fukushima Citizens
http://www.fccj.or.jp/node/6874

Time: 2011 Sep 09 15:30 – 16:30
Summary:
Press Conference
Seiichi Nakate, Fukushima Network for Saving Children from Radiation
Kazumasa Aoki, Citizens Against Fukushima Aging Nuclear Power Plants
Aileen Mioko Smith, Green Action
Wataru Iwata, Executive Director, Project 47

Excerpt:
On Sept. 11-12, 30 radiation and health experts from 14 countries will gather in Fukushima Prefecture for a Nippon Foundation-sponsored symposium on the health risks faced by Fukushima residents. But the symposium has drawn fire from local residents who note Fukushima citizens will not be allowed to directly attend the proceedings, which are ostensibly being held for their benefit.

See below for materials distributed at the FCCJ press conference.

Open Letter of Inquiry to the Organizing Committee for the International Expert Symposium in Fukushima ― Radiation and Health Risks (PDF)
September 10, 2011

Agreement Between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization (PDF)

Urine Analysis Result of Fukushima Children (PDF)
Citizens Against Fukushima Aging Nuclear Power Plants
(Fukuro-no-Kai)
Radioactivity Monitoring Project
Kazumasa Aoki

Violation of the Human Rights of the Children of Fukushima (PDF)

PSR Statement on the Increase of Allowable Dose of Ionizing Radiation to Children in Fukushima Prefecture:

Fukushima Prefecture’s “Prefectural People’s Health Management Survey” (PDF)

The Fukushima-Daiichi Accident
-Questions of Motives of International Bodies Attending the Nippon Foundation Symposium (PDF)
Authors: Shaun Burnie and Frank Barnaby

Beyond Nuclear Press Release (PDF)
Japanese Fukushima eye-witnesses to speak in New York about disaster aftermath Delegation calls for an end to nuclear power in Japan and globally