THIS ENTIRE SITE TRANSLATES INTO 100 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, TRY IT,--upper left                                                       
       



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drop Content Here
FIGHTING NUCLEAR POWER
  • [Safecast Jpn] nice to meet you‏

To: safecast-japan@googlegroups.com
Picture of shirakawa chihiro
nice to meet you.
my name is chihiro.this is my first mail so, i'm nervous...
 
Please let me tell my story.

my hometown is Futaba town in Fukushima Prefecture

where is near the nuclear plant.

I was born in Futaba town but I grew up in Tokyo,

so I'm not refugee of this accident.

I heard from my grandmother who is refugee when

the accident happened, local authorities

 like government, police, prevented their from imforming

what happnend there and how 
 situation they were
Authorities said them, "In order to avoid confusion,
Don't inform of outside what happened "
Was this really  "In order to avoid confusion"?
I don't think so.
Everyone needed information about people who
lived in near the nuclear plant and nuclear 
 plant' s state. we wanted know only truth.
 
To avoid confusion is for us ? I don't think so.
I think this country go to the miss-road.
 
i knew this group from my favorite teacher. i was glad
to know exist of this group.
 
i'm sorry my English is not good.
 
thank you for looking my mail !!
 
 
 
***************************************************
 Chihiro
 
 
***************************************************
 

-- 
DR DAVID CLEVELAND 508-487-1956  or  508-487-1981
CLEVELAND78@LIVE.COM

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=FIGHTING+NUCLEAR+POWER&ei=UTF-8&fr=clearspringff
CLICK ON PICTURE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR BELOW

File:Calderhall.jpeg
CIVIL DEFENSE FILMS FROM 1940-1950 ABOUR 49 DIFFERENT APPROACHES 
 TO HIDING UNDER YOUR SCHOOL DESK. FUN TO WATCH

Read recent news that Sec Clinton, for President Obama, pressured 
Japanese to keep their Nuclear Power plants up and working 
because it would effect U.S. Nuclear Plans, if they started shutting 
their plants down. Click on date below. . . . 
October 2, 2012

OUR PLANET EARTH
U.S. court victories show how to get rid of nuclear plants

By STEPHEN HESSE
Lawyer Tom Twomey knows far more than most of us about the 
importance of citizen participation in making energy policy. That's 
because Twomey has spent four decades keeping a watchful eye
 on electric power suppliers in New York — and he's learned
that what we don't know can hurt us.


 
Certainly, what he's learned about the hubris and underhand 
dealings of the U.S. nuclear power industry offers some valuable
 lessons for Japan. But the most important thing he says he's 
come to realize is that the participation of public-interest lawyer 
and the media is critical to ensure that energy providers prioritize 
safety. And that applies just as much to Japan as the United States, 
he insists, even though Japan is a far less litigious society in which 
citizens shy away from challenging government and big business.

In the following recent interview with The Japan Times, Twomey 
shares some insights and experiences from his years helping 
farmers to challenge the U.S. nuclear power industry — and win.

What was the situation you faced in 1974?

In the 1970s, the local utility on Long Island decided that, rather 
than simply supplying electricity to homeowners and businesses in 
the area, they would get into the wholesale production of electricity 
and produce enough power for the entire northeast region of the 
United States.

Unlike the other coastal areas from Boston to Washington D.C., 
which are heavily populated, the east end of Long Island is a rural
 farming area with a relatively small population. It also has easy 
access to the cooling waters of the Atlantic, since a nuclear plant
 requires massive amounts of water to keep its reactors from 
overheating.

The local utility decided to build 19 nuclear reactors there in 
Jamesport, and it planned to turn our rural area into "A Nuclear 
Power Park."

As a lawyer, how did you get involved?

I was retained by farmers in the area to find out what the utility 
was planning. We didn't realize it at the time, but we were 
beginning the only successful trial of the nuclear industry in 
America. Prior to these proceedings, virtually all applications in 
America were given rubberstamp approvals. Thanks to New York 
State regulations, we were able to intervene in the legal 
proceedings and — once we were a party to the proceedings — 
we were able to force the industry to answer questions under oath 
about the need for and the safety of nuclear power.

In short, what happened?

When the farmers began their battle, local elected officials were 
initially bemused. But as the legal fight intensified, these officials 
took more and more interest in the issue. With thorough reporting 
in three newspapers, the public began to realize that if even a 
small accident occurred at the reactor, they might have to evacuate 
their homes permanently. They might forever lose their businesses. 
They might suffer untold numbers of cancers.

All of a sudden, the truthfulness of the utility executives become a 
critical issue. And those utility experts had to repeatedly admit 
under oath that they were exaggerating the safety of the reactor.

After 80 full days of trial over the course of several years, we 
finally succeeded in securing a denial of the application, but only 
after extraordinary efforts by dozens of scientific and engineering 
witnesses whom my clients retained to testify against the proposal, 
and only after direct intervention by our governor who, at the 
request of all the local elected officials, stood up to the powerful 
nuclear industry.

What did the utility experts reveal in court?

With straight faces, the utility scientists testified that there would 
never be an accident that would exceed the radiation limits in the 
regulations. On cross-examination, they were forced to admit that 
during an accident, maximum radiation safety limits are suspended. 
In other words, during an accident, an unlimited amount of 
radiation could spew from a plant but the utility could accurately 
assure the public the emissions did not exceed safety limits.

The utility scientists also testified that no released radiation would 
be immediately harmful to the residents living in the vicinity of a 
nuclear plant. On cross-examination, they were forced to admit 
that few people die immediately from cancer and leukemia; it takes 
a period of time for these "health effects," as they euphemistically 
called them, to occur. In other words, the utility could accurately 
say, as they are doing now in Japan, that there would be no 
immediate danger to the residents of the area.

The utility scientists further testified that the Jamesport plants 
would not kill any fish — even though 10 percent of the waters of 
Long Island Sound would be sucked through an 8-foot (240-cm) 
diameter pipe each year to cool the nuclear core.

On cross-examination, they were forced to admit that the water 
would be heated to 32 degrees, thereby killing billions of fish eggs 
each year, decimating the number of fish that would spawn in the 
Sound from then on. They defended their statement that no fish 
would be killed by sheepishly admitting that there would end up 
being no fish to be killed.

With these shocking revelations, it became clear that the nuclear 
industry was built upon an elaborate deception of the public and 
of public officials who were making energy decisions. The nuclear 
industry simply could not be trusted.

What were the most convincing arguments you made against the 
plants?

We concentrated on three arguments: Compared to existing 
alternatives, the reactors were not needed, they were unsafe, 
and they were too expensive.

First, we had plenty of natural gas available to boil water to turn 
the turbines to make the electricity. Second, the pumps and piping 
supplying water to cool the reactor were so huge that metal fatigue 
would eventually occur and cause a release of radioactivity into an 
area that could not be safely evacuated since we are on an island. 
Third, the industry admitted that massive taxpayer subsidies 
would be needed to operate the plants.

You are also familiar with the decommissioning of another reactor, 
at Shoreham, New York. How did the decommissioning come 
about?

Through civil disobedience and political action, residents convinced 
the governor of New York to initiate a takeover of the utility 
company, which had brazenly ignored the wishes of elected 
officials in the region by starting up the reactor. In the end, the 
utility was put out of business. A state agency took over the 
reactor, shut it down, and began tearing it down and 
decommissioning the radioactive parts.

You also worked as a trustee to the Long Island Power Authority 
during the decommissioning. What did you learn from that 
experience?

I was appointed to that $1-a-year job by Gov. Mario Cuomo 
(father of the current governor) to represent the residents of the 
area. I volunteered over six years to help oversee the dismantling 
of the Shoreham reactor and install gas turbines at the site. 
I learned that after 40 years of talk and study by the nuclear 
industry about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste from these 
reactors, there is no way of doing it. That is why the nuclear rods 
are still stored on the roof of reactor buildings.

From what I learned, I believe there never will be a safe way of 
storing this waste. Just as there will never be a way to prevent a 
tsunami.

Do you have any thoughts on what citizens in Japan should be 
doing?

Citizens in the areas around nuclear plants should form a coalition. 
They should engage law firms to participate in all administrative 
proceedings that are scheduled to license or extend the life spans 
of nuclear plants in the country. The lawyers should cross-examine 
all utility experts under oath. Highly qualified experts should be 
engaged to testify on behalf of the residents. Local residents and 
elected officials should be informed every step of the way through 
the media. Email addresses should be collected. Databases should 
be created to quickly disseminate information collected at the 
hearings.

Eventually, with a lot of hard work, the citizens will prevail.

Stephen Hesse teaches in the Chuo University Law Faculty and is 
Director of the Chuo International Center. He can be reached 
atstevehesse@hotmail.com