【PART 2】 The Mystery of Fukushima: Why Japan Cannot Stop Nuclear Power Plants？
【22】 Radioactive substances remain excluded after revision of the law
One year and three months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the law containing the “exclusion of radioactive substances” clauses was revised, but nothing has changed. It seems to have changed, but essentially it hasn’t. To reveal the techniques of such bureaucrats more clearly, I will explain in detail.
First of all, according to “the greatest trick” mentioned above, Article 13 of the Environmental Basic Act was completely deleted on June 27, 2012. It stated that radioactive contamination is regulated under the Atomic Energy Basic Law. It might have been feared that someone would invoke the article, saying “Because such a huge disaster has happened, regulate by the Atomic Energy Basic Law to prevent contamination as it says in the article.”
At the same time, exclusion clauses covering radioactive substances in the Air Pollution Control Act and the Water Pollution Control Law were deleted too. (An exclusion clause in the Soil Contamination Countermeasures Act still exists, probably intentionally.)
The worst as a result of the deletion of Article 13 of the Environmental Basic Law, is “the government shall respectively establish environmental quality standards (Article 16)” and “the government shall take the following regulatory measures to prevent interference with environmental conservation. (Article 21)” to regulate radioactive contamination as same as other contaminants in the Environmental Basic Law, but crucial regulatory standards are not determined!
As far as other contaminants are concerned, a regulatory standard by MOE is clearly determined?for example, “maximum 0.1mg / 1 l for cadmium” or “alkyl mercury compound must not be detected.” But there are no such standards for radioactive substances.
Therefore, Yukio Yamamoto, member of the Hokkaido Bar Association, wrote in his blog of August 24, 2013, that “even if another accident happens and the government adopts a policy to have people live in areas with 100 mSv radiation, Japanese people can’t take any measure to stop it. We belong to such a legal system.”
Despite such a fact being openly publicized, the government hasn’t done anything. Doing nothing is legally permitted.
No lawsuits by citizens or lawyers seeking to redress these problems can succeed under the current legal structure — again, because the Atomic Energy Basic Act was revised (at the same time as the revision of the Environmental Basic Law on June 27, 2012) to add the policy of “ensuring security in using nuclear energy should contribute to national security” (Article 2-2).
As I have reiterated, legal rulings confirm that any matter covered by the Security Treaty is out of legal control because of the Sunagawa Case. To make it simple, before the earthquake disaster, air and water polluters were acquitted through “exclusion clauses of the pollution control laws,” and after the earthquake disaster, polluters were acquitted by the “governing act doctrine.” In this way, there is now a legal structure controlled by bureaucrats in Japan that legalizes the violation of human rights.