国連の報告： この報告は、4月30日に、発表されましたが、正式な議事録が、存在せず、内容は、主要メデイアに、報道されませんでした。 Ｎｕｃｌｅａｒ ＮｅｗｓのＡｒｃｌｉｇｈｔさんが、掘り出してくれた以下のリンクにある、英文のみです。 そして、アラビア語のページにしか、見られず、日本語訳がない。 その会議のなかで、Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim氏 が、レポーター担当、日本の政府団が、質問に答えるという形式で、行われました。 内容は、人権に関するいろいろなことが取り上げられ、福島事故以後の被災者についても、述べられています。 しかしながら、残念なことに、現実とかなり、かけ離れた報告になっています。
…On a more technical point, it was explained that annual exposure to radiation was at the level advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. …より専門的観点から説明すると、国際放射能防護基準が提唱する年間の被爆限度に従っていると解釈している。。。。
On another point, the delegation said there was financial support available for refugees as they waited for their file to be processed. もうひとつ指摘したいことは、代表団が、次のように発言した点です。「避難者は,異議の申し立ての書類が処理されるのを、待つことにつれて、経済援助が得られることになる
The committee may assess the action taken, or not taken, based on the state’s available resources and can decide if a violation has occurred. It is then up to the state to enforce and implement any recommendations made by the Committee. 人権侵害に触れると思われる事態に遭遇した時にこれを是正する何らかの措置がその国ができ得る範囲においてとられたのか、とられたとすればそれは適切だったのか、ということを踏まえて人権侵害として扱うかを決定することができる。 この社会権規約委員会によって、勧告された事項について、実際に施行するかしないかは、各国に、任せられている。
同じ国連から、派遣されたメンバーなのに、Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim氏 と、Annan Grover氏は、なぜ、こんなに、違うのか、疑問です。 Annan Grover氏のように、被災地に住んで、苦しんでいる人たちに会って、現地で、活動をしている人たちの意見を取り入れないと、真実が見えてきません。 いくら、社会権規約の委員会からの拘束力がないとはいえ、全 く、日本の現状を把握していない報告を、基にして、採択されるのであれば、私たちの人権を守ってくれることにはならず、その社会権規約の意義を意味するも のでもなくなります。
〒150-0001 東京都渋谷区神宮前5-53-70 UNハウス8F
Tel : 03-5467-4451／FAX : 03-5467-4455
14 May 2013
Published by nuclear-news.net
This short video shows the real situation on the ground that the Japanese delegation is not responding too! http://www.a2documentary.com/
In response to Mr Anand Grovers comments the Japanese Government sent a delegation to reassure the UN that the points Mr Anand Grover brought up were being tackled or that clarification on issues could be made.
The document to this response has been oddly placed on the Arabic section of the UN website, though it was listed in the media section that deals with press releases. It is not available in the Japanese language. No mention of this meeting nor any of the statements have been covered or commented on by the main stream media.
The petition for the evacuation of the children of Fukushima was given to the UN in New York in September 2011, the special rapporteur made his visit in November 2012 and extracts of the Japanese delegations responses are below with some background info to help you see the bigger picture.
The Japanese delegation prevaricated and outright lied concerning the present situation on the ground in the most contaminated areas downwind of the stricken nuclear plant Daichi 1 where 3 meltdowns occurred and a MOX Plutonium reactor exploded with devastating results, creating a mile high mushroom cloud!
10 Curies of PU 241 was released PER TON of MOX fuel ejected.. no figures have been done to ascertain the actual quantity of Pu241 that was ejected. In fact the Japanese can only refer to plutonium as “Alpha” (hinting at the type of energy released by plutonium 241).
…..Tepco was not just seeking approval to install 32 MOX fuel assemblies into the core of Reactor 3 at Fukushima – I. It appears that they were intentional about taking it a step further and in fact seeking approval for a quick transition to a 1/3 MOX core at the NPP in question…...(July 31, 2010 http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=1734 )…
UN Report April 2013 – Japanese delegation to The UN spreads Lies and Deception!
Regarding those that survived the atomic bombing, their medical needs related to their exposure was subsidised and this would allow them to maintain a suitable level of living. ( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
…I would like to recall that in Chernobyl the threshold limit for obligatory resettlement was 5 mSv/year or above, apart from soil contamination levels. There are also a significant number of epidemiological studies, which indicate that cancer and other diseases could occur in low dose radiation below the accumulated does of 100 mSv. According to these studies, there is no low threshold limit for the occurrence of diseases… (Annan Grover UN Japanese rapporteur statement of26 November 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangID=E )…
……Prime Minister, I know many of your advisors claim that the amount of radiation released at Fukushima No. 1 was far less than at Chernobyl. However, a report released by the U.K.-based nonprofit Institute of Science in Society in November 2012 said: “Analysis based on the most inclusive data sets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach.” That conclusion was reached based on work with state-of-the-art atmospheric dispersion models by an international team led by Andreas Stohl at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research… http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/04/09/voices/rosy-fukushima-health-report-faulted-by-experts/#.UZJHFddx0xA )…
More “rosy” reports here…
…..There will be an increased risk on the health of the children of Koriyama City due to the effects of radiation…. Statement by the Court… 26 April 2013 (...http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/26/breaking-japanese-government-found-responsible-for-the-evacuation-of-koriyama-city-children/)…
On a more technical point, it was explained that annual exposure to radiation was at the level advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection..…
.( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
…The threshold level of 20 mSv/year is in contrast to the statutory legal limit imposed by the 1972 industrial safety regulation for the nuclear industry. For workers at a nuclear power plant, the maximum limit of exposure (in the controlled area) prescribed by law is 20 mSv/year (not exceeding 50 mSv/year) and a cumulative dose of 100 mSv in five years. The law prohibits the entry of ordinary citizens into the controlled area with radiation dose of 1.3 mSv/quarter and further prohibits workers to eat, drink or sleep in that area.
It also prohibits pregnant women to be exposed to radiation dose in a controlled area of over 2mSv/year….. (Annan Grover UN Japanese rapporteur statement of26 November 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangID=E )…
[Editors note ] i should point out that residents have been forced to live with more than 5mSv/y zone ,in fact as high as 20msv/y also another isotope not mentioned but has been recorded in high amounts was Pb (Lead) 210. And here are some UK findings on that, looking at MOX pollution from the processing end…
Shocking findings on effects of MOX processes on miscarriage and respiratory illness in the UK
29 April 2013
….“In women lead poisoning can cause stillbirth, miscarriage, premature birth and foetal development problems”
“We postulate that chronic low-level ecological and professional ionizing radiation exposure were causal for haemostasiological imbalance and impaired the cell-cell communication”….( 30 April 2013 http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/30/shocking-findings-on-effects-of-mox-processes-on-miscarriage-and-respiratory-illness-in-th-uk/ )…
On another point, the delegation said there was financial support available for refugees as they waited for their file to be processed..….( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
…The conditions that come with the compensation money are not clear to the Fukushima evacuees, causing confusion and adding to their stress. While they fill out a 60 page compensation claim form, and wait to see how much their former lives destroyed by the disaster are ‘worth’ – the profits of the nuclear companies involved, like General Electric, Hitachi and Toshiba, remain intact….(February 28, 2013 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/four-things-you-should-know-about-the-fukushi/blog/44098/ )...
…At the Fukushima court, the petitioners demanded restoration of the region where they lived to its condition before radioactive materials contaminated the area. They also sought 50,000 yen ($520) a month for each resident in damage payments. Total compensation being sought through the courts was about $55 million.
TEPCO refused to comment as it had not yet seen details of the cases. The Industry Ministry, which oversaw the nuclear regulatory body at the time of the accident, also declined to comment.
The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that unleashed a powerful tsunami on March 11, 2011 knocked out the Fukushima nuke plant sending out radiation that contaminated food and water, and forced the evacuation of more than 160,000 residents around a 30-kilometer radius of the stricken plant. Most of the evacuees were still living in makeshift shelters as decontamination work is at a slow pace…(12 March 2013 http://www.rttnews.com/2074876/residents-move-courts-seeking-compensation-for-fukushima-nuke-damage.aspx.)…
Another Expert said that a previous Japanese delegation had said the comments of this Committee were not binding.….( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
…It is therefore important that the chair and commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority are not only independent but are also seen to be independent. In this respect, it is well established to disclose any conflict of interest by potential incumbents. I recommend the Government to adopt such a procedure at the earliest, which will facilitate the building of confidence in the independence of the scrutinizing process…..(Annan Grover UN Japanese rapporteur statement of 26 November 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangID=E )…
Concluding Remarks of the optional Protocol meeting of 30 April 2013
MOHAMED EZZELDIN ABDEL-MONEIM, Committee Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, said that at the time of reporting Japan was one of the largest world economies, and inflation in the economy had led to large debt levels. This had made spending cuts attractive but, in the face of economic recession, this approach had failed time and again. He also mentioned that in relation to the need to comply with obligations, the Covenant noted the need to comply with other elements of international law.
HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Japan, expressed his gratitude for a vibrant and comprehensive discussion of economic, social and cultural rights. This was a valuable opportunity for review and Japan would continue with its efforts to improve access to these rights.
ZDZISLAW KEDZIA, Committee Chairperson, thanked all members of the delegation for the fruitful and friendly dialogue. There remained differences in the evaluation of some points though a better understanding had been reached. The concluding remarks of the Committee would be adopted on 17 May 2013, and as a group they looked forward to the follow-up.
Full UN source document for the reply by the Japanese delegation on the 30 April 2013 here..
[Editors note] It is interesting that Anand Gover is not the rapporteur in this meeting and it is Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim (Egypt).
Egypt is a small place and the new administration has excessive powers. Also, the Egyptian Government have made a big deal of the other powers (USA) not complying with the arms reduction treaty in recent statements and have actually withdrawn from talks in protest.I think these are smoke and mirrors to enable Egypt to develop nuclear weapons in the future. As a side note, where will Egypt place these new reactors? On the ever shrinking Nile river or the Mediterranean Sea?...........
Comment by Mr. Daisuke Shirane, staff at Geneva office of IMADR(The International Movement Against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism)
The Japanese Government Delegation often apply a so-called “official bureaucrats style of talking” when they speak at UN committees when answering questions. It means that they sometime talk vaguely or answer the questions only partly or repeat the same sort of things from a single aspect from the whole situation. As a member of NGO I got an impression that they didn’t want to deliver their clear answers.
Also, in relation to the Japanese government’s report and their answers to committees’ questions, there had been comments such as that there were no honest answers, not appropriate answers to questions and also that international standard hadn’t been applied correctly in Japan.