1. The nature of the nuclear power plant accident and the reasons to step away from nuclear energy
The Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant accident is creating new hibakusha (exposed persons), nuclear refugees, and uninhabitable areas. The horrors of the enormous　and unprecedented damage are caused by radiation, which human beings lack the knowledge and technology to control. Nuclear power generation uses energy produced by nuclear fission, which produces entirely unnatural radioactive byproducts. In fact, the hazards begin with mining and refining uranium and continue through the lack of any adequate technique for disposing of the radioactive waste. Another hazard, of course, is nuclear terrorism. Nuclear power generation is inherently dangerous from the start to the end of the nuclear fuel chain.

2. The “logic” of nuclear energy
The official reasons for promoting nuclear power generation include: 1) a stable supply of electric energy; 2) environmental benefits; 3) economic benefits; and 4) complete safety with no possibility of serious accident. These arguments have been used even after Fukushima. They completely ignore the obvious and inescapable dangers of nuclear power generation, stressing only convenience and profits for the industry. The logic of subordinating safety to profit is equally evident in the export of nuclear power plants.

3. Nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons
The hidden reason for the promotion of nuclear energy is that the possession of plutonium produced by nuclear power plants makes Japan able at any time to manufacture nuclear weapons that would supposedly be a “trump card for national security.” The nuclear weapon states and Japan still cling to this fantasy. The introduction of nuclear power generation and the impulse to possess nuclear weapons have always been two sides of the same coin.　Given this background, any approach to the nuclear power accident must take into account not only the need to completely compensate for the damage done and the need to abolish nuclear reactors but also the implications for nuclear weapons.

4. The “peaceful use” lie and the movement to abolish nuclear weapons
Those who introduced nuclear power plants began by trivializing the damage resulting from the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By selling the public on the “peaceful atom,” they sought to disrupt the anti-nuclear movement, offer a new business opportunity to electric power companies, and open the way toward possession of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, nuclear weapons have not been used in actual combat since Nagasaki. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) obligates nuclear weapon states to engage in good-faith negotiations relating to general and complete disarmament (Article 6). The International Court of Justice concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would “generally be contrary to the rules of international law” and there exists an obligation to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. A Model Nuclear Weapon Convention has been proposed and is an official United Nations document. Furthermore, a movement to ban nuclear weapons because of their “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” is spreading and getting stronger worldwide.

5. The status of nuclear power plants
According to the text of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the peaceful use of nuclear energy is an “inalienable right” of the State Parties (Article 4). Nuclear power generation holds a completely different status from nuclear weapons, whose abolition is already a requirement. Under current international law, the peaceful use of nuclear weapons is a right that almost no country is thinking about prohibiting. Although there are some treaties regarding nuclear accidents (Emergency Conventions for nuclear accidents) and the Convention on Nuclear Safety, these instruments do not prohibit the use of nuclear energy itself. Thus, the inherent danger of nuclear energy is not even recognized in legal regulations. Here we see a clear difference in the legal and social status of nuclear weapons versus nuclear power plants.

6. Our challenge
We need to keep this difference in mind as we seek the abolition of nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants in the belief that human beings cannot coexist with nuclear energy or weapons. In the international community, where the use of nuclear energy is not “illegal” but an “inalienable right,” what kinds of values or logic must we introduce to achieve the abolition of nuclear energy? In addition, we cannot convince those who believe that electricity is necessary the social development without demonstrating that it is feasible to step away from nuclear energy and still supply continuous, adequate electric power. Our challenge is to obtain electricity while simultaneously eliminating the dangerous use of nuclear energy and global warming caused by the use of fossil fuels.

A Summary Our Break-out Session
We held our session based on the issues raised above.
Toshinori Yamada, a lecturer of Meiji University, surveyed current international law (the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)) related to nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation (peaceful use of nuclear energy).
Steven Leeper, former chairman of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, addressed the dangers of nuclear weapons and power generation, and their inter-relations, the logic of rejecting nuclear power, and campaign organization.
We also referred to the experience of nations that have actually stepped away from nuclear energy. Butch Pongos, an activist in the Philippines, reported on the experience of the Philippines, while Tsunehisa Chiba, a lawyer, reported the experience of Germany.
Finally Kazuko Ito, a lawyer, reported on how the international community sees the Fukushima accident and potential approaches to building the movement that will eliminate nuclear energy around the world.

April 6, 2014