Court rejects call to halt nuclear reactor in western Japan

Sits on a fault line and near a volcano! That's crazy

The plaintiffs pointed out that pyroclastic flows from possible catastrophic eruptions could reach the plant.

HMMMM, if a catastrophic eruption big enough to drive pyroclastic flow 130km, the plant is the least of their worries.

In the decision, Presiding Judge Akira Onose said the possibility that a large-scale eruption might occur during the reactor's operating life is low, and the regulatory authority's safety standards are adequate.

Sort of like the possibility of a large tsunami at the Fukushima nuclear power plant was deemed low by TEPCO, right?!

What an arrogant foolish judge to imagine that he has the ability to predict an earthquake!

To date, nobody has proven their ability in predicting eartquakes, anywhere!

One should expect such a ruling in a fascist state run by bureaucrats with yen signs in their eyes. This was the same court that allowed this reactor to start up again. How many nuclear disasters will it take for Japan to realize that, nuclear poser is not safe or cheap?

Everyone remember that name, Judge Akira Onose.

No surprises here, nor will it be a surprise when the politicians and authorities involved in this and similar décisions say "Who could have known?" as they evacuate the area after a disaster. I will say again what I have said before, judges and politicians, and needless to say the companies who run the reactors, should be held on the record for their views and accountable for their permissions when an accident/incident occurs.

Japanese court is a joke. The court doesn't protect Japanese people, the court doesn't protect Japanese lands, the court doesn't protect Japanese rights.

@Kurisupisu...yes...an interesting ruling...I would like to add to your post (if you do not mind)

In the decision, Presiding Judge Akira Onose said the possibility that a large-scale eruption might occur during the reactor's operating life is low, and the regulatory authority's safety standards are adequate.

As an engineer with nearly 4 decades of experience performing various types of risk assessments (including assessing risks at NPP's) I would like to ask Judge Onose what his credentials are for making such a statement. Also, is the judge qualified to determine if the safety standards are adequate and I would also like to humbly ask which international standards these safety standards have been compared to.

Finally, and the most important question; if the Judge wishes to make the above statement, is the judge qualified to assess risk to the aforementioned safety standards and has the esteemed Judge reviewed the required design documents and calculations to ensure required risk reduction is met to ensure safe shutdown during an earthquake, volcano eruption, and various other external and internal events which may occur in such plant?

-------No....I did not think so....

So yes...Kurisupisu....I agree with you in full.

@Tokyo-Engr - Risk assessment is not part of the equation. It is purely based on profit assessment. If a formal risk assessment was done, there would be no reactors in a country that sits on the cusp of three tectonic plates and has a long history of severe volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis.

As an engineer with nearly 4 decades of experience performing various types of risk assessments (including assessing risks at NPP's) I would like to ask Judge Onose what his credentials are for making such a statement

I think you're asking the wrong question. The judge hear arguments and evidence from both sides, he doesn't have to be an expert risk assessment specialist. In this instance, I am guessing the plant's experts were more convincing.

The one thing I do wonder about though is, how does Japan replace nuke, coal? Solar? (island nation, cloudy days) Wind? again fluctuation. Hydro? (environmental problems as well). All alternatives are exposed to earthquake risks.

I'm not arguing a case for neither sides, just interested. Because, this decoupling from nukes could turn into another Brexit, ie leave but no solution planned.

I am also constantly reminded that James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia Hypothesis, is now an advocate for nukes.

Eathquake and tsunami is something Japanese local government can not control. All the time Jp prelude to ww2 is also about gaining raws materials either by force or diplomacy. That is the need to industralized a nation. Now jp need nuclear reactor to dp so on 21st century, but people deprived the nation to stay on top of economy. Its not their right. If they want to stop please vote out government. Until then they do as they please for country.not for people.

@ Sh1mon M4sada

Geothermal energy.

Before Abe there were renewables.

sf2k:

Sits on a fault line and near a volcano! That's crazy

Which volcano? There is no volcano near the plant.

kurisupisu:

What an arrogant foolish judge to imagine that he has the ability to predict an earthquake!

There is no volcano in Shikoku. The nearest is Aso Mountain in Kyushu, 130 km away. The last time it erupted in such scale to reach that distance was 90,000 years ago! I tend to agree with the judge about the probability of happening within the lifespan of the plant.

People visit the mountain every day.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%BF%E8%98%87%E5%B1%B1#/media/File:MountAsoRopeway.jpg

Just googled 'the median tectonic line'.. and then blurted out an expletive here in London. Putting a nuclear power plant directly on top of that bad boy is mental! Tick tock..tick tock...

Geothermal energy.

I was under the impression there was a huge cultural resistance to geothermal exploitation (possibly even bigger than nuke) in Japan. There is currently very strict framework as to how geothermal can be used in onsen towns with reported knockbacks for even just for home heating proposals.