nuclear-news

The Second Oral Argument of the Appeal Court at the Sendai High Court – At the previous date, the representative of the plaintiffs said, “The Fukushima District Court should make a proper decision on the issue of radiation exposure.

February 14, 2022

The second oral session of the “Children’s De-exposure Trial” was held on February 14, 2012. This case squarely questioned the risk of radiation exposure in Fukushima Prefecture after the nuclear accident and the negligence of the government. The second oral argument will be held on the afternoon of February 14 in Courtroom 101 of the Sendai High Court (Presiding Judge Masako Ishiguri). In the first oral argument held in October last year, Sumio Konno, the representative of the plaintiffs, made a statement. Sumio Konno, the representative of the plaintiffs, made a statement at the first oral argument in October last year, saying, “I hope the court will make a bloody decision on the issue of radiation and safe education for children. Please make a proper decision on the issues that the Fukushima District Court has thoroughly evaded. This summer marks eight years since the lawsuit was filed. This summer marks eight years since the lawsuit was filed, and a series of lawsuits will continue to be filed in Sendai, accusing the government and local governments of negligence in dealing with radiation exposure caused by the nuclear accident, including the health risks of low-dose radiation exposure and the dangers of internal exposure to insoluble radioactive particles.

My son ate snow in Tsushima.
　The Fukushima District Court’s decision to deny the dangers and concerns of radiation and the future of our children, which we have been advocating, by simply following the arguments of the government and Fukushima Prefecture, filled us with frustration and emptiness.
　I want the court to make a bloody decision on the issue of radiation and children’s safety education. Please make a proper decision on the issues that the Fukushima District Court has thoroughly evaded.
　On behalf of the plaintiffs in the first trial, Ms. Konno made a statement in the courtroom of the Sendai High Court.
　More than seven years have passed since the lawsuit was filed, and many of the child plaintiffs have graduated from junior high school without having the opportunity to receive education in a safe place or compensation. The remaining child plaintiffs will be graduating in March of the next year. During this period, some of the plaintiffs had to withdraw their complaints due to various reasons. Some of the plaintiffs’ mothers, out of desperation, evacuated with their children to safer places where they could receive their education.
　At the time, I was working alone at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant (Miyagi Prefecture). He was working alone at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant in Miyagi Prefecture at the time, and his wife and children, who were living in Namie Town, evacuated to the Tsushima area like other townspeople. He later found out that the evacuation, which was supposed to be a way to escape the risk of radiation exposure, was actually a move to a more contaminated area.
　My son, who was five years old at the time of the nuclear accident, was evacuated from the early morning of March 12 to the early morning of March 15, 2011, to the gymnasium of Tsushima High School in the Tsushima district of Namie Town. The area was highly contaminated due to the flow of radioactive plumes and is still designated as a difficult-to-return area. My son told me that he rolled up snow and ate it as ice cream. When I heard that story, I was shocked.
　About half a year later, my son began to have a cold-like illness that lasted for about two years. I visited the hospital twice a month. The doctor said, ‘It’s a lowered immune system. If the town of Namie had been informed of the SPEEDI information at that time, they would have evacuated further away from the Tsushima area. I had exposed my son to radiation…. I am frustrated and angry with Fukushima Prefecture. Even now, only Fukushima residents are forced to be exposed to 20 millisieverts of radiation per year.
　Since the accident at the nuclear power plant, Ms. Konno has consistently said, “Children cannot protect themselves. The frustration of not being able to protect her own children from the risk of radiation exposure is a feeling shared by the plaintiffs in the first trial.
　It is up to us adults to protect our children. It’s our responsibility as adults. It is our minimum duty as adults.

(“We should avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.”)
　The lawyers outlined their reasons for the appeal.

　Lawyer Ido
　The “School Environmental Hygiene Standards” do not include any standards for radioactive materials. There should be a standard for radiation exposure, and the fact that there is not is negligence on the part of the government. Children should be protected from radiation exposure at the level of environmental standards. I would like the court to make a straightforward judgment. It is true that the air dose has gone down, but the concentration of soil contamination will not go down easily. Most of the radioactive cesium in the soil is made up of insoluble fine particles. If these particles are taken into the body and internal exposure occurs, the biological half-life is thought to be as long as several decades, posing a serious danger. Using children as guinea pigs is unacceptable. Unnecessary radiation exposure that can be avoided should be avoided. In its written reply, the government claims that ‘exposure to about 1 millisievert per year is not worthy of legal protection. We hope that the court will reaffirm the natural principle that radiation exposure should be avoided whenever possible.

　Koichi Mitsumae, Attorney at Law
　The main issue in this lawsuit is how to measure the amount of radiation that the people of Fukushima have been exposed to as a result of the nuclear accident, and how to consider the effects of low-dose internal exposure on their health. It is extremely important that the results of the prefectural health survey be verified based on fair science. The degree of nondisclosure of information regarding the results of the survey is appalling. We call for a full hearing, including the examination of expert witnesses.
　
　Attorney Kenzo Furukawa
　”Should we evacuate or stay indoors? What should we eat and what should we drink? What should we eat and drink? The most important thing to make the right decision is accurate information. However, the decision of the first instance court was based on abstract theory and made no decision, allowing the government and Fukushima prefecture to hide information. In Namie Town, neither the national government nor the Fukushima Prefecture provided SPEEDI information, which led to the evacuation of many townspeople to the Tsushima area, where radiation doses were high, forcing them to be exposed to unnecessary radiation. If only the government and Fukushima Prefecture had provided the SPEEDI information, there are still people who would not have been exposed to radiation. The decision of the first trial must be fundamentally revised.

　Yasuo Tanabe, Attorney at Law
　The ICRP’s 2007 recommendation of a reference level of up to 20 millisieverts per year is unacceptable from the perspective of protecting the lives and health of children. The fact that Fukushima Prefecture decided to reopen schools prior to the April 19, 2011 notice by the Ministry of Education clearly exposed children to radiation doses that were several times higher at the very least. I hope the court will decide whether the government and Fukushima Prefecture acted illegally from the perspective of protecting the residents from radiation exposure.

　Attorney Toshio Yanagihara
　Until March 11, 2011, the Japanese government and legal system were completely unprepared for the consequences of the nuclear accident. “The Japanese government and legal system were completely unprepared for the nuclear accident until March 11, 2011, and even after the nuclear accident, the case has been left unresolved.
　The court should make a correct judgment on the illegality of the orders and recommendations issued by the government, based on the basic premise that the plaintiffs in the first trial were sovereign citizens of this country and the subjects of human rights before and after the nuclear accident.

　Shin-Yi Choi, Attorney at Law
　After the nuclear power plant accident, the government’s policy has been based on ’20 millisieverts per year. The government has submitted a joint opinion as a theoretical basis that there is no proven health risk for radiation exposure of up to 100 millisieverts per year. On the other hand, the court of first instance did not take into account the risk of internal radiation exposure, especially insoluble radioactive particles. We hope that the appellate court will address this point head-on.

In the first trial, the court ruled that there was no danger of radiation exposure.
　The “Children’s De-exposure Trial” was filed on August 29, 2014, and two lawsuits have been heard together.
　One is an “administrative lawsuit” (commonly known as the Children’s Human Rights Lawsuit).
　The first is an “administrative lawsuit” (commonly known as the Children’s Rights Lawsuit), in which public elementary and junior high school children in Fukushima Prefecture (plaintiffs) demand that cities and towns in Fukushima Prefecture (defendants) provide education in facilities that are safe in terms of radiation exposure.
　The other is the “lawsuit for state compensation” (commonly known as the “parent-child lawsuit”).
　The parents and children who were living in Fukushima Prefecture on March 11, 2011 demanded that the government and Fukushima Prefecture implement “five unreasonable measures” (1) concealing necessary information such as SPEEDI and monitoring results, (2) not allowing the children to take stable iodine pills, (3) reopening schools under the standard of 20 mSv per year, which is 20 times the limit of radiation exposure for the general public, and (4) not allowing the children to go to school after the accident. (3) reopening schools at 20 mSv/year, which was 20 times the limit of radiation exposure for the general public, (4) not allowing children to evacuate en masse when they should have done so at the beginning of the accident, and (5) using Mr. Shunichi Yamashita and others to promote false safety information.
　On March 4, 2020, they realized the witness examination of Shunichi Yamashita (Professor at Nagasaki University and Vice President of Fukushima Medical University), who was appointed as the “Radiation Health Risk Management Advisor” for Fukushima Prefecture immediately after the nuclear accident.
　However, on March 1 last year, the Fukushima District Court (presiding judge: Toji Endo) dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in its entirety and handed down a judgment dismissing the case.
　Regarding the demand that education be conducted in facilities with a safe environment, Judge Endo ruled that “the 20 mSv/year standard cannot be considered immediately unreasonable,” that “it is not sufficient to find that the increase in cases of thyroid cancer discovered through thyroid examinations (Prefectural Health Survey) is due to the effects of radiation caused by the nuclear accident in question,” and that “the It is possible to carry out education at the public junior high schools attended by the plaintiffs while decontamination and remediation measures are taken,” and “It cannot be said that there is any illegality in deviating from or abusing the discretionary authority of the Board of Education, nor can it be said that there is any concrete risk of exposure to radiation to a degree that would adversely affect the maintenance of human health. The court dismissed the case, saying, “Since it is not recognized that there is a concrete risk of exposure to radiation to a degree that would adversely affect human health, it is not recognized that there is an illegal violation of the plaintiffs’ moral rights pertaining to their lives and bodies.
　Kenichi Ido, the head of the defense team, posted the following message on his website before the second oral argument.
　In this brief, we will present the criteria for abuse and derogation in the exercise of administrative power and argue that the exercise of discretionary power by the government and Fukushima Prefecture that exceeds these criteria is illegal and invalid beyond the permissible range. We will also present the method of interpretation of international human rights law that should serve as the standard for the exercise of discretionary power. In addition, I will argue against the claims of the State and Fukushima Prefecture, especially against the State’s claim that the benefit of not being exposed to 1 millisievert per year is not worthy of legal protection. The father, one of the appellants, is also scheduled to give an opinion. The argument will reach its climax. I ask for your attention.
http://taminokoeshimbun.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-595.html?fbclid=IwAR2MxmccoLNchTmjs-KEfAnUI-MO5LjYKhU4t1MfbmoNztymfNiFEHszhR8

February 17, 2022 - Posted by dunrenard | Fuk 2022 | Children's De-exposure Trial, Fukushima Radiation