Their basic rights to health, housing, and environment are being violated. The government is desperately trying to minimize the disaster at the expense of survivors in an attempt to revive the dying nuclear industry and suffocate other cleaner energy sources. We must say no!
Disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima remind the world how dangerous nuclear power is. But right now, the nuclear industry is trying to downplay the risks of a nuclear disaster. In Fukushima radiation exposure is still a very real threat despite failed “decontamination”. The Japanese government is set to lift evacuation orders in heavily contaminated areas around Fukushima. It will cut compensation and housing support to survivors, who are still struggling six years later.
Ms. Fukushima, who evacuated from Fukushima to Kyoto Prefecture with her two young children, is the co-coordinator of a plaintiffs’ group in a lawsuit demanding fair compensation.
The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe may feel like ancient history in world constantly bombarded with news of the another tragedy or disaster. But for those who were impacted by the worst nuclear disaster in a generation, the crisis is far from over. And it is women and children that have borne the brunt of human rights violations resulting from it, both in the immediate aftermath and as a result of the Japan government’s nuclear resettlement policy.
Japan has ratified multiple international treaties that recognise the right to health as a fundamental human right. It is defined as the “enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” and includes the right to information and participation as integral tenets of upholding this right. Individuals must be able to make informed choices about their health and influence policy decisions that affect them.
But in the wake of the accident, unaddressed issues with Japan’s nuclear policy and emergency planning, which the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had warned the government about in 2001, led to the direct violation of women's and children’s rights.
And while the injustices faced by women and children in the immediate aftermath of the disaster were the result of policy failure and legislative inaction for a decade prior, the violations of their human rights resulting from the resettlement policy that has been rolled under current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are calculated and deliberate.
Following the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Greenpeace USA released a new report Tuesday on the 166 near misses at U.S. nuclear power plants over the past decade. Of the incidents identified in Nuclear Near Misses: A Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S. Nuclear Plants, 10 are considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to be important precursors to a meltdown.
“Contrary to NRC commissioners’ claims, there is nothing safe about the nuclear reactors in the United States,” Greenpeace Nuclear Policy Analyst Jim Riccio said. “Thirty years after Chernobyl and five years after Fukushima, it is clear that these kinds of disasters could absolutely happen here. It is time for the NRC to listen to the whistleblowers within its own ranks and address these longstanding issues and vulnerabilities...”
the abandoned city of Pripyat / Chernobyl nuclear plant in the back
(Greenpeace)
In the early morning of April 26th, 1986, reactor four of the Chernobyl nuclear station exploded. It caused what the United Nations has called "the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of humanity."
Chernobyl was the accident that the nuclear industry said would never happen.
Twenty-five years later the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan reminded us that the risk of another Chernobyl remains wherever nuclear power is used.
The long-lived radionuclides released by Chernobyl means the disaster continues 30 years later. It still affects the lives of millions of people. Here are 15 facts you may not know about the disaster
It is 30 years since the beginning of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. It is also five years since the Fukushima disaster began. To mark these anniversaries, Greenpeace has commissioned substantial reviews of scientific studies examining the continued radioactive contamination in the affected areas, and the health and social effects on the impacted populations. We have also carried out radiation field work to expose the unrelenting crises in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Japan that thousands of people still live with on a daily basis.
Hinkley nuclear plant has suffered a further blow. The finance director for EDF, the French energy firm that plans to build the nuclear reactor, has resigned amid rumours that going ahead with the new nuclear plant could leave the company in ruins.
For almost a decade, Hinkley nuclear plant has suffered delay after delay. It's a project that is not only stands to suck up huge amounts of cash, it's directing valuable time and resources away from where the UK should be investing -- renewable energy and energy efficiency.
That's why we've launched a new petition calling on George Osborne to do what he should have done years ago and scrap the project. Here's the email I just sent out to Greenpeace's list.
Hi there,
George Osborne could be about to make a huge mistake.
He's preparing to spend billions on a new nuclear plant at Hinkley in Somerset. If it goes ahead, Hinkley is set to be the most expensive object on Earth [1] – sucking up huge amounts of money that could be spent on renewable energy instead.
But right now we’ve got a chance to stop him. The finance director of EDF -- the energy firm that plans to build the reactor -- just resigned amid concerns that Hinkley could plunge the company into a financial black hole.
It’s going to be pretty embarrassing for George Osborne if he ploughs on when Hinkley’s cost could bankrupt the company building it. So let's seize this moment to turn up the pressure on the chancellor. Let's tell him now’s the time to scrap Hinkley -- and spend consumers’ cash on renewable energy instead.
If George Osborne pushes ahead, Hinkley will be the first nuclear plant built in the UK in two decades. But the chancellor's plans are going nowhere fast. The reactor design is so complicated that no one's sure if it will even work. One nuclear expert went so far as to call it "unconstructable" [2]. And three other power stations -- in France, Finland and China -- that are trying to use the same type of reactor are suffering from huge delays too.
The cost of the project is staggering. Best guesses say Hinkley could pass £24 billion -- easily making it the most expensive power station in world history.
Personally I'm shocked that George 'Austerity' Osborne can keep on backing Hinkley, even as the cost keeps going up and up. Can you help tell him that thousands of us think that backing renewable energy is a better use of our cash? Sign the petition here: https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/stop-hinkley
While Hinkley nuclear plant has spent almost a decade in limbo, renewable power projects have been far quicker to build. The London Array -- the world's biggest offshore wind farm -- took less than three years to construct. And even if building Hinkley was to begin tomorrow, by the time it's up and running the cost of renewable energy will have dropped even further.
Though George Osborne might tell us we need Hinkley to keep the lights on, we know this is far from the truth. Recent research showed that as soon as 2030, the UK could be powered almost entirely by renewables [3]. The UK is one of the windiest places in Europe, we’ve got huge untapped potential in solar power, and we're surrounded by sea too. If you agree that natural sources of energy like these should top government investment, not more risky and expensive nuclear power, please sign the petition now: https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/stop-hinkley
“If the government really wants to boost the Australian economy, how about making us a world leader in solar power and the renewables industry?
...The environmental group [GREENPEACE] turned up to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s electorate office in Sydney on Thursday equipped with a truck, white suits and six yellow barrels painted with radioactive symbols to deliver a message that nuclear waste is everyone’s problem.
On Wednesday, Mr Turnbull said Australia could plausibly mine uranium, sell it overseas for use in nuclear power stations, then take it back as waste.
This proposition was abhorrent to Greenpeace, who said the waste would impact Australia for “literally thousands of years...”
The new Prime Minister has given some significant signals that his government is more interested in science and good policy than his predecessor, but the nuclear thought bubble is just plain wrong headed,” said Emma Gibson, Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s head of program. “If the government really wants to boost the Australian economy, how about making us a world leader in solar power and the renewables industry? “Mr Turnbull has indicated that he wants to lead a government focused on innovation, but nuclear power is heavy old tech. We need to move towards clean, modern solutions to our energy needs, like solar power and other renewables," she said.
Nuclear option nonsensical, given Australia’s abundant renewable energy
Sydney, 28 October 2015 - Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed a call from Australia’s next Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, for a renewed debate on the option of nuclear power as part of the country’s energy future.
“While we welcome government discussions on alternative energy sources, it's completely nonsensical to even pose the idea of building nuclear power stations in Australia when we have such an abundance of truly clean and renewable energy on our doorstep,” said Emma Gibson, Head of Program for Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
“If we used just 1 percent of land in Australia, we could produce enough electricity to power the whole country. [1]
“Nuclear power, on the other hand, is expensive, dirty and unreliable. It leaves a legacy of radioactive waste which remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.
“We only have to look at the Fukushima disaster in Japan to be reminded of the health, social and economic impacts of a nuclear accident, and to see that this is not a safe option for Australians.
“No nuclear reactor has ever been built to deadline or within budget. Nuclear power is an expensive distraction from the real solutions to climate change, like solar and wind power.
“Any government seriously considering the nuclear option needs its head testing,” said Ms Gibson.
“Nobody knows how much radiation citizens were exposed to in the immediate days following the disaster. If you don’t know the doses, then you can’t conclude there won’t be any consequences. To say otherwise is political rhetoric, not science,” said Kendra Ulrich, senior global energy campaigner with Greenpeace Japan.
Greenpeace has lashed out against the conclusions of IAEA’s latest report on the Fukushima disaster, calling the claim that radioactive exposure is “unlikely” to result in increased thyroid cancer risk in children a political rhetoric rather than science.
On Monday, IAEA said that despite uncertainties about the radiation doses incurred by children immediately after the accident, “an increase in childhood thyroid cancer attributable to the accident is unlikely.”
"The IAEA report actively supports the Abe government’s and the global nuclear industry’s agenda to make it appear that things can return to normal after a nuclear disaster."
"The IAEA concludes that no discernible health consequences are expected as a result of the Fukushima disaster, but admits important uncertainties in both radiation dose and long-term effects," said Kendra Ulrich, senior global energy campaigner with Greenpeace Japan. "Nobody knows how much radiation citizens were exposed to in the immediate days following the disaster. If you don’t know the doses, then you can’t conclude there won’t be any consequences. To say otherwise is political rhetoric, not science."
"The IAEA report actively supports the Abe government’s and the global nuclear industry’s agenda to make it appear that things can return to normal after a nuclear disaster," Ulrich said. "But there is nothing normal about the lifestyle and exposure rates that the victims are being asked to return to."
In July, Greenpeace Japan charged that the IAEA "has sought to downplay the radiological risks to the population since the early days in 2011. In fact, it produced two documents that can be said to have laid the foundation and justification for Abe’s current policy of de facto forced resettlement."
Exploring the political dynamics further, Ulrich wrote at the time:
Over four years after the triple reactor core meltdowns and exploded containment buildings at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the majority of the Japanese public has remained opposed to any nuclear restart. The country has been completely nuclear-free for nearly two years, thanks in large part to significant public opposition, in spite of the massive pressure from nuclear utilities and the Abe government on local city governments.
However, these utilities are massively powerful and the Abe government is wholly in bed with them.
In an effort to reduce public opposition, Abe has been pushing forward the pro-nuclear agenda to 'normalize' a nuclear disaster. If the public can be convinced that less than five years after the worst nuclear disaster in a generation, citizens can go home and return to life the way it was before the disaster – with no additional health risks – then that is a powerful argument against the majority of Japanese citizens who oppose nuclear reactor restarts...
NO NUCLEAR!
South Africans deserve to know the details of a disastrous nuclear deal that will bankrupt the country!
This is why, right now Greenpeace activists are confronting the Minister of Energy by locking themselves down to a four metre high wooden nuclear ‘Trojan Horse’ outside the Department of Energy headquarters in Pretoria.
The activists are there to publicly protest against the Department’s lack of transparency around proposed investments in nuclear, and to remind the Minister that the nuclear plan is nothing less than a trap - a Trojan horse with a price tag South Africans cannot afford.
“Greenpeace strongly believes that nuclear is an expensive dead-end road to nowhere, and that renewable energy is the solution to our current electricity crisis. We have tried repeatedly to engage with the Department of Energy regarding the country’s electricity future, but the Department has continued to pursue an increasingly opaque and baseless process to invest in nuclear. Rosatom and other unscrupulous nuclear companies such as Areva and Westinghouse are vying to develop nuclear for South Africa with complete disregard of what the country’s real and urgent energy needs are. We believe that a process that is so steeped in secrecy presents a ticking time bomb for South Africa. If the Department of Energy has nothing to hide, then full transparency would be the basis of the nuclear deal, and we challenge the Minister to make all nuclear information publicly available”
Pretoria 25 August 2015: Today, Greenpeace activists confronted the Minister of Energy by locking themselves down to a four metre high wooden nuclear ‘Trojan Horse’[1] outside the Department of Energy headquarters in Pretoria. The activists are protesting against the Department’s lack of transparency around proposed investments in nuclear, and to remind the Minister that the nuclear plan is nothing less than a trap - a Trojan horse with a price tag South Africans cannot afford.
– On the 17thof August a Greenpeace delegation hand-delivered a letter written by Greenpeace Africa’s Executive Director, Michael O’Brien-Onyeka, to the Minister of Energy giving her one week to respond to and address the key issues that the organisation raised[2] and make key nuclear information publicly available. By midnight on the 24thof August no response had been forthcoming from the Minister or her office, leading to the protest action by the Greenpeace activists...
As Fukushima Anniversary Nears, Interactive Video at www.MakeNuclearHistory.org Allows Visitors to Experience 3 Very Different Energy Futures, Get Involved in Groups' Pushes on Nuclear, Wind Power Initiatives.
Nuke Your Guts Out (MakeNuclearHistory.org) - YouTube – There is a way to power our lives without dirty energy. There is a solution to climate change without nuclear reactors. We can solve the climate crisis and power our lives with 100% renewable sources and energy efficiency.
"Our Epic Future: Create It With Clean Energy" is a project of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club.
WASHINGTON, March 4, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A week ahead of the fourth anniversary of the Fukushima reactor disaster, five leading organizations fighting for America's clean-energy future – Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen, and the Sierra Club – are unveiling an interactive online video, "Our Epic Future: Create It With Clean Energy."
Available at www.MakeNuclearHistory.org, the entertaining, fact-filled video allows visitors to explore three scenarios in the "Epic Energy Labs" with very different future outcomes: one dominated by fossil fuels, another in which nuclear power is the focus, and a third relying on renewable energy.
After viewing the video, visitors can get involved in clean energy campaigns of the five groups, including urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to put in place post-Fukushima safety measures at U.S. reactors and petitioning Congress to reinstate the Production Tax Credit support for the wind energy.
The Make Nuclear History Web site explains: "There is a better way. There is a way to power our lives without fossil fuels. There is a solution to climate change without nuclear energy. There is a future where we can solve the climate crisis and power our lives from 100 percent renewable sources and energy efficiency. Now is the time to create our fossil and nuclear-free future … A fossil and nuclear-free future powered by renewable sources is possible and the transition is happening now. The benefits of clean, affordable and renewable energy compared with the dirty, expensive legacy of fossil fuels and nuclear reactors are obvious."
"The Fukushima disaster shows us exactly why we cannot and should not try to rely on nuclear energy to solve the climate crisis," said Tim Judson, Executive Director of NIRS. "Japan's decision to invest in nuclear rather than renewables left the country totally unprepared when calamity struck. Clean, renewable energy sources are abundant, affordable, and ready to go. They can replace nuclear and fossil fuels, which are two sides of the dirty, extreme energy coin."
"We no longer need to be shackled to dirty and dangerous energy," said Robert Weissman, Executive Director of Public Citizen, "A sustainable energy economy is not only possible but necessary if we are to avoid irreversible climate disruption and safeguard our communities against radioactive contamination."
"While the nuclear industry continues to grasp at straws for relevance, it is more apparent than ever that the clean energy revolution has taken hold in communities across the country," said Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard. "The Fukushima disaster is a constant reminder that nuclear energy is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real solutions like wind and solar. We should commit to rejecting costly nuclear pipe dreams and supporting the renewable efforts that can help avert our climate crisis."
"Choosing between clean energy and dangerous fuels like coal and nuclear isn't difficult. Nuclear has proven time and time again to be too expensive, too slow to build, and far too dangerous. Meanwhile, burning fossil fuels is making our families sick and making the climate crisis worse. That's a huge part of the reason our clean energy economy is growing by leaps and bounds, creating jobs while keeping pollution out of our air, our water, and our communities." - Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club.
"Fukushima was a global water shed moment illustrating the potential for catastrophic nuclear accidents to occur," said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. "This video contributes to a growing people's movement demanding a fossil free, nuclear free future."
ABOUT THE GROUPS
Friends of the Earth strives for a more healthy and just world. We understand that the challenges facing our planet call for more than half measures, so we push for the reforms that are needed, not merely the ones that are politically easy. Sometimes, this involves speaking uncomfortable truths to power and demanding more than people think is possible. It's hard work. But the pressures facing our planet and its people are too important for us to compromise. http://www.foe.org/
Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful direct action and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. www.greenpeace.org
2014 marked the 36th anniversary of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. We were founded to be the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues. www.nirs.org
Public Citizen serves as the people's voice in the nation's capital. Since our founding in 1971, we have delved into an array of areas, but our work on each issue shares an overarching goal: To ensure that all citizens are represented in the halls of power. www.citizen.org
The Sierra Club is America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 2.4 million members and supporters. In addition to helping people from all backgrounds explore nature and our outdoor heritage, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. www.sierraclub.org
SOURCE Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Greenpeace, Washington, D.C.; Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C.; Public Citizen, Washington, D.C.; Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD
It is now three years since the Fukushima nuclear disaster began in March 2011. Here are the stories of five of the victims who have struggled over these three long years to rebuild their lives. Like tens of thousands forced to flee the second biggest release of radioactive particles in history, they have been ignored and abandoned by their government and TEPCO, owner of the disaster site. They fear being forgotten and that life will get even worse if they are forgotten. Greenpeace brought six activists to Japan to meet them to help spread their stories and keep them in peoples’ minds.
Greenpeace experts examine fish samples on the Rainbow Warrior to monitor radiation levels as the ship sails up the eastern coast of Japan on her way to Fukushima in May 2011.(Credit: Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert / Greenpeace.)
Hundreds of tons of radioactively contaminated water leak from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors every day. That water has to go somewhere and the operator of the plant is running out of places to store it. So the suggestion has been made that it be dumped in the sea.
At the scene of the Fukushima nuclear disaster they can’t clean anything without getting something else dirty.
The plant’s operator TEPCO has a decontamination system at Fukushima called ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System). It takes the contaminated water and filters out most of the radioactivity except for tritium. This “tritiated” water is then stored in tanks.
The problem is that ALPS hasn’t been the most reliable of systems at Fukushima. Of the three systems in use, two had to be shut down for repairs earlier this year when it was found they were being corroded by the very water they were supposed to decontaminate. Last week one of them was found to be leaking hydrochloric and was shut down again.
It’s estimated it will take at least seven years to partially decontaminate the water already being stored.
So what’s to be done about Fukushima’s water crisis?
Japan’s nuclear watchdog the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) and the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have both suggested in the last few days that the water be dumped in the ocean.
The problem is, TEPCO and the NRA are not to be trusted. They have betrayed people’s trust too many times since the nuclear crisis began.
And what about the IAEA? It’s difficult to trust them either. It’s a pro-nuclear organization whose job it is to protect the nuclear industry not the environment or people’s health.
This is what we’ve come to because both TEPCO and the Japanese government have continued to fail at bringing the Fukushima disaster under control. Now they’re taking the easy way out – an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to the radioactive contamination their cover-ups and incompetence caused.
Dumping massive amounts of radioactively contaminated water into the ocean is unacceptable. Although the ocean covers nearly two-thirds of the surface of the Earth, it is still vulnerable to human influences, including dumping of waste. These contaminates can have a serious impact on marine life and ecosystems. Toxins and contaminants in the ocean find their way into the food chain, and into our bodies.
Because the water is partially decontaminated, doesn’t mean it’s safe.
In 1995, the Global Waste Survey Final Report concluded that the dumping of waste anywhere in the ocean is the same as dumping it anywhere on land. The difference between industrial wastes and nuclear materials is that nuclear waste remains radioactive for decades. Although nuclear proponents claim the risk to human health is small, the long-term effects of nuclear dumping are still unknown. If we wouldn’t dump it on our lands, why should we dump it in our oceans?
And after they’ve done it once, they’ll do it again and again until dumping contaminated water into the ocean will become standard operating procedure at Fukushima.
Cargo ships at sea, found to be deliberately dumping waste overboard, are banned from doing business in many major international markets. It’s about time those laws applied to the likes of TEPCO.
Calls from international assistance in dealing with the Fukushima crisis came too late from the Japanese government and such help has yet to appear in any meaningful way.
Why isn’t the international community making more of a noise about Fukushima? Is it because the big voices on the international stage are all pro-nuclear power themselves?
Sooner or later, for all our sakes, our leaders are going to have to get their hands dirty at Fukushima.
Einstein said,
"The splitting
of the atom
changed everything
save man's mode
of thinking;
thus we drift towards
unparalleled catastrophe."
He also said,
"Nuclear power is a hell of a way
to boil water!"
