The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
Court rejects case opposing restart of Miyagi Prefecture nuclear plant
SENDAI©2023 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
Moonraker
Much the same reasoning that ended up with 2011. Where do they get these judges?
Precautions? Who needs them?
Meiyouwenti
Faced with rising electricity bills, people need to be realistic. The court’s decision reflected the people’s will and needs.
Capuchin
History repeats itself.
Moonraker
Then why not replace the courts with a poll?
Aly Rustom
Yeah no surprise there
Sanjinosebleed
Japanese judiciary.....may as well be in Nth Korea with how one sided their decisions are!
Just toeing the line on this decision as per usual!
u_s__reamer
Judges in Japan, as elsewhere, are only human and must think of their future career and pension, hence human "justice" is always adulterated by ears cocked to HMV. As for the people's will, that's far from the minds of most justices who would never presume or want to know such an inscrutable abstraction.
WA4TKG
Was there any question?
Lindsay
All this is a bit odd. The reactors are still running. You can’t just switch them off. It’s only the production of electricity that is turned off.
Looking at that photo this plant is another Fukushima in the making with a tsunami.
Bofington
These plants need to be started up ASAP. They don't even light up the insides of the highway tunnels anymore, stating it's to save "power" not money.
Of course, safety and precautions are important, and need to be in place, but they're better off buying those 17 people and starting the reactors now. I'm sure they're all over 75 and need a bit of spending money for fresh fruit.
GillislowTier
Realistically Japan should get it’s atomic energy plants back online. Fukushima was a mind boggling disaster, no one denies that. But that was an act of nature, should have been insanely eye opening to normal citizens how incompetent their government officials were with how slow to act and evacuate they were, AND just plain old brutality unlucky.
The energy companies are cleaning up with prices and got allowed to increase price’s despite being caught weeks ago rigging the system for profit, yet are being allowed to raise prices anyway.
Theres been a lot of feet dragging on this issue and everyone is jumpy that they will be the next Fukushima, but the alternatives are just not viable long term
Phillip bear
A risk assessment is based on both consequence and likelihood. The risk is still high, even with an unlikely accident, because the consequences can be catastrophic.
Such catastrophic events, though unlikely, have been happening and events of lesser consequence have been happening quite frequently.
A typical 5x5 Risk Matrix has likelihood categories of:
Almost Certain
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Rare
The court, by saying, it cannot be assumed to be Likely, rather than directly saying it is Unlikely, is essentially saying, in risk assessment terms, that it is more likely to occur than not. That may not have been the intent, but it does raise concerns.
Clay
Rapdily shrinking demographics can't afford to invest in safe clean energy. Opposite would be Australia, shutting down dirty coal, using renewables & commercial battery storage to transition.
Economics also GOOD, Wind and Sun = FREE, thus Rich get Richer, while Poor get Poorer & TAKE MORE RISK, as earthquakes prefer older steel and concrete structures.
kazungu
@Phillip bear ... Yup. I used to live in Sendai years ago. And I do a lot of risk analysis for my work. So, yeah, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's not super dangerous. Unlikely occurance combined with catastrophic consequence typically means a really high risk factor. If the court/judge had actually used a standard risk assessment or analysis tool, he would have realized just how dangerous it is to run a nuclear reactor on the coast. But then again, we do need affordable electricity. So ...
Phillip bear
Thanks kazungu,... yes, that would have been better.
I too, did a lot of risk analysis during my working life, especially in relation to EH&S.
Sadly, though understandably, many lawyers do not tend to have a good understanding of technical matters.
Once, we had a lawyer doing an audit of X-Ray emitting devices across the company to fulfil a legal requirement. He sent out a survey asking each site about the number of electrical devices that emit electromagnetic radiation we had. I responded, indicating that we had lots of torches and other devices that fitted his description, that he probably wasn't interested in. He appreciated the response and reissued a better worded survey.
Phillip bear
There have been terrible consequences associated with the Fukushima nuclear disaster, particularly the very sad human, environmental and social tragedies.
Additionally, it has also been reported that the financial cost, so far, has already been more than three times all of the profits TEPCO has ever made from nuclear power generation since it started in 1970. The clean up costs will continue to soar way into future.
TEPCO'S decisions were obviously not prudent, economically as well.
irreconcilable
This is the will of the Court and the government policies. Not getting the will of the people is unforgivable. Getting the will of the people would mean holding a referendum where the reactors will be starting, not just having the commissioner's rubber stamp and say that they speak for the people. Not getting incredible consent of the people is unforgivable.
irreconcilable
If we use this kind of logic maybe it will be better to reappropriate defense spending to pay part of our electricity bills. Why should we assume that other governments militaries will be a threat?
albaleo
But it already survived the same earthquake and tsunami that damaged the Fukushima plant, despite being closer to the quake's epicenter. The nearby town of Onagawa was badly destroyed yet the power plant survived.
CruisinJapan
Perhaps they could have amassed more than 17 residents to sign on as plaintiffs if they want to be taken seriously.
kurisupisu
Just approaching 40 years of operations.
Not as old as some of the older ones in Japan
voiceofokinawa
Take the Fukushima nuclear disaster, for example. Who ever imagined a tsunami of that magnitude would hit the nuclear power plants and destroy their reactors.
The court cannot say as confidently as an almighty that a serious disaster is unlikely when geographical conditions of location for Onagawa seems almost the same.