「ほっ」と。キャンペーン

原発停止命令 国民の不安を直視せよ

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 27
EDITORIAL: Nuclear power proponents still scoffing at public safety concerns
(社説)原発停止命令 国民の不安を直視せよ

An Otsu District Court injunction has suspended operations of two reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture, one of which was online.
Again, the significance of that development should be taken to heart.
 大津地裁の仮処分決定で、関西電力高浜原発(福井県)の運転が差し止められた意義をいま一度しっかり考えたい。

Proponents of nuclear power, in particular, should squarely face up to the public anxiety that lies in the backdrop of the court decision.
とりわけ原発を推進する立場の人たちは、司法判断の背後にある国民の不安を直視すべきだ。

But instead they are boiling with disgruntlement.
 推進側では不満が渦巻く。

“Why is a single district court judge allowed to trip up the government’s energy policy?” Kazuo Sumi, a vice chairman of the Kansai Economic Federation, said resentfully.
“We could demand damages (from the residents who requested the injunction) if we were to win the case at a higher court,” Kansai Electric President Makoto Yagi said, although he prefaced his remark with a proviso that he is arguing only in general terms.
関西経済連合会の角和夫副会長は「なぜ一地裁の裁判官によって国のエネルギー政策に支障をきたすことが起こるのか」と憤り、関電の八木誠社長は一般論と前置きしつつ、「逆転勝訴すれば(住民側への)損害賠償請求は考えうる」と発言した。

The government is maintaining a wait-and-see attitude.
 一方、国は静観を続ける。

The decision called into question the appropriateness of the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s new regulation standards and government-approved plans for evacuations in case of an emergency.
 決定は、原子力規制委員会の新規制基準や、政府が了承した住民避難計画の妥当性に疑問を投げかけた。

But NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka argued, “Our standards are nearing the world’s top level.”
だが田中俊一規制委員長は「基準は世界最高レベルに近づいている」と反論。

And the government has no plans to review its emergency evacuation plans. It has only reiterated that it will “proceed with restarts of nuclear reactors in paying respect to NRA decisions.”
政府も避難計画は見直さず、「規制委の判断を尊重して再稼働を進める」と繰り返すばかりだ。

The Otsu decision is the third court order issued against the operation of nuclear reactors since the meltdowns five years ago at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
 5年前の東京電力福島第一原発事故後、裁判所が原発の運転停止を命じたのは大津で3件目だ。

There has, in fact, been no fixed trend in court decisions. Another court rejected residents’ request last year for an injunction against reactor restarts at Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai nuclear plant in Kagoshima Prefecture.
But courts appear to be playing a more active role now than before the Fukushima disaster.
九州電力川内原発では昨年、住民側の申し立てが却下されるなど、司法判断も一様とはいえないものの、事故前に比べ、より積極的な役割を果たそうとする傾向は明らかだ。

The nuclear proponents’ reactions reveal an underlying thinking: “The use of nuclear power is indispensable for Japan, which does not abound in energy resources. The government set up the NRA following the Fukushima disaster to increase expert control. Regional utilities have also taken safety enhancement measures. Courts are therefore asked not to meddle.”
 エネルギー資源が乏しい日本に原発は欠かせず、事故後、国は規制委をつくって専門的なチェックを強めた。電力各社も安全性向上に取り組んできた。だから裁判所の口出しは余計だ――。推進側の反応からはそんな考え方が透けて見える。

But they should have a deeper understanding that this argument is no longer convincing to the public and court judges.
 だがそれでは、国民も裁判官も納得しない時代になっていることをもっと理解すべきだ。

Some critics say the latest decision deviated from the 1992 Supreme Court ruling saying that decisions on the safety of nuclear plants should be made by administrative organs on the basis of expert opinions. But that argument is also off the mark.
 「原発の安全性は専門家の意見を踏まえた行政の判断に委ねるべきだ」という92年の最高裁判決を逸脱している、との批判もあたらない。

The ruling, given in a case over Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata nuclear plant, certainly presented that point of view. But it also stated that the objective of safety regulations based on the Law on the Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material and Reactors is to “make sure that no serious disaster will happen by any chance.”
四国電力伊方原発をめぐるこの判決はそういう考えを示す一方で、原子炉等規制法に基づく安全規制の目的について「深刻な災害が万が一にも起こらないようにするため」としている。

A safety net, left in the hands of experts, collapsed all too easily during the Fukushima disaster, turning the phrase “by any chance” into reality.
 福島では、専門家任せの安全網がもろくも崩れ、「万が一」が現実になった。

Courts, which are the guardians of law, should rather be commended for trying to find out independently, to the extent that they can, if there is enough preparedness when a nuclear reactor will be restarted.
再び原発を動かすとき、備えは十分か。法の番人である裁判所が、できる限り独自に確かめるのはむしろ望ましい姿勢といえよう。

The latest alarm bell sounded by the judiciary sector provides an opportunity to ask once again why all the safety measures taken after the Fukushima nuclear disaster are still struggling to win the trust of the public.
 なぜ事故後に積み重ねた対策でも国民の信頼が得られないのか。司法からの警鐘は、それを問い直すきっかけにすべきだ。

The Fukushima disaster changed the awareness of the public. The judiciary sector was also affected.
 原発事故を経て、国民の意識は変わった。司法もその影響を受けている。

It is high time for a change among nuclear proponents.
原発を推進してきた側も、変わるべき時だ。
[PR]

by kiyoshimat | 2016-03-29 09:41 | 英字新聞

<< 安全保障法制の施行 「違憲」の... 香山リカのココロの万華鏡: 「... >>