【PART 2】 The Mystery of Fukushima: Why Japan Cannot Stop Nuclear Power Plants？
【4】 Fukushima mass evacuation lawsuit
Sadly, the prediction came true.
At present, what we who live in Kanto and Tohoku regions care most about is the exposure of children to radiation. The effects of radiation on children can be three to 10 times what it is on adults. The children are more likely to get ill, and we should have them evacuated as soon as possible.
If it is impossible to have them removed completely, they should at least regularly evacuate to places with a low radiation rate to prevent the weakening of their immune systems. It is reported from the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl that regular evacuation for a few weeks can measurably reduce radiation damage.
Meanwhile, the Fukushima mass evacuation lawsuit continues, led by attorney Toshio Yanagihara and others. During WW2, adults evacuated their children to places safe from aerial attack. We are in the same situation. Therefore, parents ask the administration to take measures and provide monetary support to have children leave Fukushima for safer refuge.
Let’s take into account the judgment on the mass evacuation lawsuit by the High Court in Sendai on April 24, 2013. The Court concluded that, considering the number of children who got ill after the Chernobyl disaster, it is feared that serious damages to life, body and health of people, especially children, living around the Fukushima No.1 NPP will progress.
The judgment clearly mentioned the danger to children living in proximity to the contaminated area. What this means is that in a few years a great number of children will probably have cancer of the thyroid. (There is already an obvious sign of this in the statistics.) The court has admitted as well that many future children can be predicted to suffer from congenital disease or heart disease, as was the case at Chernobyl.
The Court decided, however, that there is no need to take any administrative measures to protect the children. This is a defeat for the Fukushima residents. The suit failed partly because the Court could not admit the possibility of immediate, irreversible harm to the lives, bodies, and health of the people, including many children — despite, at the same time, the Court’s concern for harmful effects from a medium to long-term perspective.
What on earth is this “High” Court saying? The first half of the verdict and the second half are logically incompatible. This is the exact same structure as the case of noise pollution by U.S. Air Forces in Okinawa.