Court rejects call to revoke approval for nuclear reactor restarts

Unfortunate. When Japan gets clobbered by another earthquake and tsunami like they did in 2012, maybe they'll give up on nuclear power.

Just replace the word volcanic eruption with tsunami in the ruling and one can see the fallacy of the judge's ruling. Nothing learned from Fukushima. Judge Moriharu Kurasawa, remember that name.

"Japanese laws on nuclear power do not go so far as requiring (regulators) to consider the impact of a catastrophic volcanic eruption that is impossible to predict and highly unlikely to occur,"

Stupid is as stupid does.

"It is regrettable," Ryoko Torihara, a 70-year-old plaintiff from Kagoshima Prefecture, said after the ruling, adding, "The lessons of the nuclear accident (in Fukushima) have not been learned."

couldn't have said it better myself.

Stupid is as stupid does.

YUP!!

Perhaps the district court should watch the new drama 'Chernobyl' and see if they would still think it's a good idea to restart the reactor.

Nuclear - while flawed - is the ONLY way to currenty contribute to the war on climate change.  and to give the economy a boost by not buying oil and gas.

If Japan bothered to clean up after nuclear it would have to burn the waste products for a few hundred years instead of letting it sit around for a few hundred thousand years. Which do you think they'll do?

Nuclear waste should be classified as a crime

A reasonable ruling but not a reasonable situation.

The problem in Japan, in this issue and other issues??

Bad laws!!

Which ties the hands of judges!!

Judges have to rule on the law!!

And Japan has too many laws that must be overturned!!

At the ballot box!!

By getting politicians to adopt new laws that reflect the right policy!!

Ah, so no-one actually mentioned the caldera and super volcano there, as at Yellowstone.

They merely confined themselves to questions regarding nearby volcanoes then.

"Japanese laws on nuclear power do not go so far as requiring (regulators) to consider the impact of a catastrophic volcanic eruption that is impossible to predict and highly unlikely to occur," Presiding Judge Moriharu Kurasawa said.

Japan has 110 active volcanoes, so the argument by the "Presiding Judge" is off the mark. While eruptions may be impossible to predict with any accuracy, they are VERY liekly to occur and occur quite often!

"Japanese laws on nuclear power do not go so far as requiring (regulators) to consider the impact of a catastrophic volcanic eruption that is impossible to predict and highly unlikely to occur,"

So, they have built over 50 nuclear reactors on one of the most volcanically active chains of islands in the world with a long history of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis, but omitted any legislation for safety limits due to the unpredictability of these events. That is Japanese logic. True logic would tell you that the legislation was necessary because of the unpredictability, not unnecessary. Japan has had one major nuclear disaster caused by one of these natural events in the forty odd years since they decided to go with nuclear power. Perhaps they consider one disaster every forty years to be acceptable.

Unless Presiding Judge Moriharu Kurasawa is omniscient, in which case he would be a god and not a judge then he has no business being in the prediction business.

Anyone surprised? I think these judges need to be held accountable when the next disaster hits.

Another plaintiff said, "The frequency of a catastrophic eruption may be low, but it could happen tomorrow.

If they are such a potential threat then for 'safety' reasons, which is what the plaintiffs are claiming, shouldn't there be laws keeping ANY building from being built or inhabited within lets say 30 km of any volcano? I mean we just want to keep people safe.

The Fukushima plant was operating a decade above it's planned operational lifetime.

No, they weren't.

Wakarimasen:

I actually did some research on this as i used to believe that nuclear power was the only way for such energy use.

Geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, offshore wind, and wave can deliver...just use 3-5 of the above. The Netherlands even runs their entire electric train systems off wind power. Machines and lights are getting more energy efficient too. Solar panels designed as roof panels are also taking off. Planes and helicopters can be powered by liquid hydrogen with exhaust being water. Cars...well, electric, fuel cell, running on an electric wire system like trains, etc.

Chernobyl. Not even with earthquakes, volcanoes, and gigantic tsunami from any direction and any time.

Here are some consequences (legally) of the reverse decision:

1) Permanent reduction of Administrative and Legislative discretion, which is to say, the courts get more powerful, the more democratically elected parts of government get less powerful.

2) Non-specialist (which is a judge) will substitute specialists in the decision of technical subjects.

3) Companies cannot confidently rely on the regulations, guidance and rulings of administrative authorities.

4) Companies' actions can be blocked (=they lose their economic shirts) on unquantified (in the dimension of probability) risks mentioned by random people.

If you consider these long term consequences, it is quite obvious why the court cannot reasonably rule in this direction. Judicial acts differ from administrative or even legislative acts in that they cannot be aimed at concrete circumstances, but most consider the long-term "tail" of their acts across the sphere of law.