nuclear-news

The second court of appeal in the Children’s De-exposure Trial

February 15, 2022

The “Children’s De-exposure Trial” for the Fukushima nuclear accident was held at the Sendai High Court on February 14. This is the second time the court has heard the case since the appeal trial began in October last year.

In order to protect their children from radiation exposure, parents and children in Fukushima are suing the government, Fukushima Prefecture, Fukushima City and other local governments. In March last year, the Fukushima District Court ruled that the parents and children lost the case. The case has been moved to the Sendai High Court. The related article on this site is at the end of this article.

Imagine how unbearable it must be!

　At the second court session held on the 14th, what attracted me (Uneri) the most was the statement by Mr. A, the plaintiff (who was living in Fukushima at the time of the accident). The words of people who lived in Fukushima at the time of the accident have a strong appeal to the listeners. It is a long text, but I am hesitant to cut it down, so I will introduce it in a slightly abbreviated form.

Statement of Opinion by Plaintiff Male A

My name is A. I am a plaintiff. I would like to talk about a basic misconception about the nuclear accident.
There is a common misconception that an unprecedented earthquake and unexpected tsunami caused an unexpected nuclear accident. But this is a big misunderstanding. Accidents at nuclear power plants caused by earthquakes and tsunamis were predicted, and because of this, seismic reinforcement and work to raise the seawalls were carried out, and accidents at some plants were avoided (Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Plant, for example).
Because nuclear accidents were anticipated, the measures to be taken in the event of an accident were also determined in detail. After the JCO accident in 1999, these measures were compiled into a series of laws called "nuclear disaster prevention," which culminated in the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness.
What I would like to argue is the fact that the government and Fukushima Prefecture did not follow these procedures and forced us, the residents, to be exposed to radiation. The SPEEDI (System for Prediction of the Effects of Emergency Radioactivity) data, which was up and running less than two hours after the earthquake and should have been used for emergency evacuation, was not made public until March 23, 2011, more than 10 days after the nuclear accident. The Nuclear Safety Technology Center (NSTC), which was managing SPEEDI at the time, sent more than 30 faxes to the Fukushima prefectural government in the morning of March 13, 2011, as well as email attachments from late at night on March 11, but the prefecture still did not release this data either. Fukushima Prefecture explained that they could not release the data because they did not have information on the source of the emissions, but this explanation is completely unreasonable. This is because the guidelines for dealing with the accident ("Guidelines for Environmental Radiation Monitoring in Emergencies") included a response plan for cases where there was no source information.
It is not only about predicting the diffusion of radioactive materials. In terms of actual measurements, information was concealed and data acquisition was obstructed. From the morning of the day after the earthquake, the staff of the Fukushima Nuclear Energy Center went to the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant to take actual measurements of radioactive materials released into the environment, following the "guidelines" mentioned above. On March 12, five monitoring sites were monitored, and on March 13, ten sites were monitored, but then the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology stopped the monitoring, according to a person who was involved in the monitoring at the time. As a result, the actual measurements from March 14 to 17, when the contamination caused by the nuclear accident was most serious, are missing.
As a result, the residents of the affected areas were left without being informed of the massive spread of radioactive materials, the fact that the plant had melted down, or how to evacuate. In other words, the purpose of nuclear disaster prevention, which is to protect the residents from radiation exposure, could not be achieved due to the inaction and interference of the government. This is why we claim that we were forced to suffer unnecessary radiation exposure.
At the end of March 2011, the Fukushima Prefectural Board of Education decided to start classes at schools in the prefecture from April 6 to 8 without measuring radiation levels, and in early April, the Nuclear Safety Commission began to consider whether the exposure limit for residents in areas with high radiation levels should be raised from 1 millisievert to 20 millisievert per year. On April 10, it was reported that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is planning to set the annual exposure limit for students at 20 millisieverts. On April 10, it was reported that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is planning to set an annual exposure limit of 20 millisieverts for children, which means that this standard will be applied even to children in order to prevent the expansion of the evacuation zone.
In this way, the government and Fukushima Prefecture hid information and prevented residents from evacuating at the beginning of the nuclear accident, and later, when it became clear how serious the contamination was, they raised the radiation dose limits for residents (instead of expanding the evacuation zone). Needless to say, all of these actions were against the law, against justice, against international common sense, and against humanism.
As a result, everyone in the disaster area, myself included, did not know how much radiation we had been exposed to, and thus we spent the first ten years of the accident with health concerns. Whenever I had a prolonged cold, a sore throat, or a lumpy feeling, I would think, "What if this is ......? You can imagine how unbearable these days are. In the affected areas, there are many people who are sincerely worried about the health and future of their children, but are unable to speak out about it. Who has created such a society? Wasn't it created by those who turn a blind eye to acts that are against the law, against justice, against international common sense, and against humanism?
In response to this situation, isn't it time to remove the unreasonable things that have been imposed on the disaster area and change the injustice? I sincerely and earnestly hope that the court will make an appropriate decision.
Plaintiff A's statement of opinion

　It was a very impressive statement. To “imagine” the unbearable suffering of people. It is something that we all need to keep in mind.

At the meeting after the trial

　At a meeting held in Sendai City after the court session, there was a briefing on the “3/11 Children’s Thyroid Cancer Trial,” which was filed in the Tokyo District Court last month. Ken’ichi Ido, a lawyer for “De-exposure of Children” is also involved in this trial.

On January 27th, six young men between the ages of 17 and 27 who were living in Fukushima Prefecture at the time of the accident filed a lawsuit against TEPCO, claiming damages. The reason for their claim is that their thyroid cancer was caused by radiation exposure. They were between 6 and 16 years old at the time of the accident. All of them have undergone surgery. Four of them had recurrences and had to have surgery again. Four of them have had their thyroid glands completely removed and have been forced to take hormones for the rest of their lives. Four of them have had total thyroidectomies and will have to take hormones for the rest of their lives. One of them has also been diagnosed with metastasis to the lungs, and we don't know what will happen to him. This is the situation. Since nearly 300 cases of thyroid cancer have already been found in Fukushima Prefecture, which should have been one or two cases per one million people per year, we will fight the case on the grounds that the only possible cause is radiation exposure.

The theory of over-diagnosis and various other arguments have been used to say that there is no causal relationship between cancer and exposure. （The prefectural residents' health survey review committee and UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) have issued such opinions. In response to this, there has already been a bashing movement, saying, "Don't file a lawsuit if exposure is not the cause. However, if the causal relationship is denied here, all of the various cancers and health hazards that are actually occurring will be denied. The fiction that the government is trying to create, that "there was no health damage at all" despite the fact that so much radiation was released by the nuclear accident, will be accepted. I believe that this is a trial that we cannot lose.

It takes a lot of courage to go to court now, and the six young people took their time and consulted with their families before making their decision. The reason for their decision is partly because they are worried about their own future, but also because nearly 300 young people are living with the same kind of suffering and anxiety. These people are being torn apart, so they have a strong desire to give courage and encouragement to these people. I think that's where he made his decision in the end.
Attorney Ido

The “Thyroid Cancer Trial” is a trial in which people who have unfortunately been diagnosed with thyroid cancer hold Tokyo Electric Power Company responsible for their condition. The “Children’s De-exposure” is an appeal for the right to protect children to the maximum extent possible to prevent them from getting such diseases. Both are very important. We need to pay attention to them.

　At the meeting, the lawyers also pointed out the recent “very unconscionable thing” that happened. I have not been able to introduce it on this site, so I will write about it here.

Former Prime Ministers’ EU letter issue

In a letter to the European Commission, five former prime ministers, including Junichiro Koizumi, Naoto Kan, and Tomiichi Murayama, wrote that “many children are suffering from thyroid cancer (due to the nuclear accident). The government and Fukushima Prefecture are protesting vehemently against this.

In a letter to the European Commission, he wrote, "Many children are suffering from thyroid cancer (due to the nuclear accident). It is not appropriate."
Reconstruction Minister Nishimei

The prefectural government and Fukushima Prefecture are fiercely protesting against the report. We have written to you to request that you provide us with objective information based on scientific findings."
Governor Uchibori

How do you see this trend? At the post-court meeting, Mr. Ido said

It reminded me of the attack on "Yummy Shinbo". In the end, by bashing the "nosebleeds" in "Yummy Shinbo," people couldn't talk about the fact that many children had nosebleeds. Such a social atmosphere was created to erase the nosebleeds as a fact. I think that the powers that be want to make the thyroid cancer case a success story like the one they had at that time. However, it is inconceivable that there is no health hazard after such a huge accident. We need to appeal this fact at every opportunity. We must not allow the facts to disappear.

　I agree. Uneri Unera also strongly protests. In the prefectural health survey, thyroid cancer was found in more than 250 people, and more than 200 operations were performed to remove it. It must be true that “many children are suffering from thyroid cancer. The only basis for Uchibori’s opinion that “the prefectural health survey shows no link between cancer and radiation exposure” is that “we have not been able to find a clear link between the two at this time. The only basis for the view that “there is no link between cancer and radiation exposure” is that “we have not been able to find a clear link between the two at this time.” In my opinion, it is much more factual to point out that “many people are suffering” rather than to argue forcefully that there is no link.

　There are many people for whom it is more convenient to say that there were no health problems caused by the Fukushima accident. There are many people who would be better off if it were stated that there were no health problems caused by the Fukushima accident. Even ordinary people who have lived in the Tokyo metropolitan area, such as myself, might feel more comfortable if they knew that there was no such thing. This is because the responsibility of living in a society that has been promoting nuclear power plants without actively resisting them would be lessened.

　However, in the case of the sensitive subject of low-dose exposure, the moment we give in to the temptation to say that there was no damage, we will lose sight of all the actual damage. Until the day comes when we can say, “There really was no damage to our health” (unfortunately, I don’t think that day will ever come), I think we should focus on the fact that there are people who are actually suffering and worried.

It’s OK to be scared, to cry, to be angry

　At the end of the meeting, a different plaintiff from the one who gave an opinion in court took the microphone. She is a woman who has raised two children in Fukushima. I would like to end this report with her words.

When we filed the lawsuit in August 2014, my second son said, "Mom, I want to take a day off from school to say something," and spoke at the meeting. The son who spoke at that time is now 15 years old. He has been sick since he was in the fifth grade and is now in the third grade. He will take the entrance exam this year, but he only went to junior high school for the first semester. I don't know if it was because of the radiation. I don't know if it is because of the radiation or not, but he used to be fine, but now he is like that. As I mentioned earlier about the nosebleeds, both my first and second sons had many nosebleeds at that time, and I had to move left and right. I was really scared and didn't know what to do. I was really frustrated when we lost the case in Fukushima, and I am determined not to lose in Sendai. It's okay to be scared, to cry, to be angry. So that one day we can laugh at the end. I would like to make this happen.
One of the plaintiffs

　The next court date has been set for May 18.

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

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 | Leave a comment