The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOCourt rejects call to revoke approval for nuclear reactor restarts
FUKUOKA©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
22 Comments
Login to comment
Kazuaki Shimazaki
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.
Patricia Yarrow
Chernobyl. Not even with earthquakes, volcanoes, and gigantic tsunami from any direction and any time.
juminRhee
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.
Dom Palmer
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.
No, they weren't.
smithinjapan
Anyone surprised? I think these judges need to be held accountable when the next disaster hits.
kurisupisu
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.
Do the hustle
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.
Yubaru
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!
nandakandamanda
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.
zones2surf
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!!
sf2k
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
Wakarimasen
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.
Unamused
The older nuclear power plants such as the one in Sendai should be decommissioned, these are very old reactors working and relying on obsolete technology. The Fukushima plant was operating a decade above it's planned operational lifetime. The older reactors could be replaced with current generation IV nuclear reactors, these are much more efficient, cannot 'melt-down' and cannot leak radioactive waste, the amount of waste produced is also far less and even the unspent fuel is safe enough to hold in one's bare hand.
papigiulio
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.
Aly Rustom
couldn't have said it better myself.
YUP!!
Do the hustle
Stupid is as stupid does.
dbsaiya
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.
Chip Star
Unfortunate. When Japan gets clobbered by another earthquake and tsunami like they did in 2012, maybe they'll give up on nuclear power.