70% of Japanese oppose restarting closed reactors: poll


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Weekend Hobby for Nikkei and my sympathies to 70% voters because govt will not listen to their voice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese people? They have no say in the matter. Even if 100% were against it, the greedy and corrupt politicians who receive fat donations to their "management funds" and promises of after-retirement jobs will continue to side with the power companies.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I say turn them all on just like I just turned on my 5 airconditioners set to 18C in my mansion in protest.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It would help if utilities detailed exactly what safety upgrades they had installed and what changes in procedures they had made; then allowed independent verification (not by nuclear inspectors) by both qualified outside experts and some unbribeable general public members; not politicians or local bureaucrats or utility staff, eliminating those with vested interests and previous histories of corruption and negligence.

Common sense and direct observation instead of reliance on utility promises might go a long way to check if these NPPs are indeed safer, or if is just BS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Polls like this are somewhat useless, because they do not list the costs of alternatives. A more useful poll would ask, "Would you support shutting down all nuclear reactors in Japan and using energy sources like oil, solar, thermal and wind power if it meant that the cost for electricity would double?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An excellent reality check. All this anti-nuclear push fails to take into full account that there are other impending issues that threaten human life with equal intensity. The key issue being global warming. And a secondary issue being the declining supplies of fossil fuels due to peak oil.

We all know that we want nuclear power gone eventually. But what we should be saying is that we want it gone with a clean and safe replacement package of solutions. Solutions must meet the criteria of maintaining supply to grow economies, while not contributing to carbon emissions.

70% of people saying they are not in favor of restarting plants is only a fraction of the question. Do those people know the cost/benefits? Do they know the alternatives? Do they know the downstream impact should Japan elect fossil fuels over nuclear? Unless you have a poll that is inclusive of these issues, then that number means nothing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People at home on the weekend with a wired to the wall phone are all probably over 60.

3 ( +4 / -1 )


Point being?

Before accident, I would say a majority of these people over 60 were in favor of Nuclear. If they changed their minds, it's news.

Also, the elderly is a big group of voters in this country so their opinion can not be easily ignored as you seem to suggest. In fact I suspect this age group is actually highly represented in the voting booths.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@legs, did the same thing here, newest party is watching the electric meter spin, it's only money after all, and a great form of amusement.

For me the alternative to nuclear electric power is feeding my caged gerbils steroids so they can stay in the wheel cages longer and longer and run for hours. Who needs nuclear power when you have rodents hooked up to the grid.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Whats the bet the government just does whatever they want to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What the respondents actually chose was 「対策は不十分でまだ運転再開すべきではない」which roughly means "there should be no restarts without serious additional (safety) measures".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 If you insist on a nuclear slice of the pie, then let's keep it less nasty and go Thorium wherever possible..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Serious safety measures are needed... like 2 X 18 meter high tsunami walls around each reactor. They cost a lot, but no more than the annul profit for one year of many of these electric companies.

They will also create jobs, which will get media attention. Politicians will be able to say they are enforcing safety and creating jobs, and get the media attention too. All will be happy and the money will still flow and plush, high paying jobs for all involved for years to come. A small price to pay for a few concrete walls.

1 ( +1 / -0 )


" An excellent reality check. All this anti-nuclear push fails to take into full account that there are other impending issues that threaten human life with equal intensity. The key issue being global warming. And a secondary issue being the declining supplies of fossil fuels due to peak oil. "

"Global warming" is another political scam. But on peak oil you are right. And if it is true that 70% of the population now wants to switch to burning more fossil fuel in the middle of peak oil, that speaks to the intelligence of the electorate. And not in a positive way.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Great. Now, what are you going to replace it with, exactly?

0 ( +0 / -0 )


The point is that the sample is hardly a representative sample of the population or do they not teach statistics where you grew up.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Beautiful. Wonderful. Politically dead, just like its supporters. No Boomer power and NO money for them either. Beautiful.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You don't ground cars whenever there are accidents. You don't ground ships whenever there are sea mishaps. You don't ground planes whenever there is a crash. You investigate, think on how to improve and how to avoid accidents. That is the reason why there is bachelors/masters/PhD degree of Science and technology.

I would rather live near a nuclear power plant with the 1990's technology rather than near a coal power plant.

One nuclear reactor can generate 2,300Megawatt of electricity. Is there any replacement for such gigantic output?

Obviously, the nearest replacement are coal, diesel, bunker-fuel and LNG power plant. The good-news though, it is ironic that, fossil fuel supplies may stay for centuries more.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fire em up! Ill help pay for the added electricity they generate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well, I reckon we ought to have lots more nucular power stations.

It's cheap energy and we need that!

Pachinko machines, TV sets, elevators and escalators would be useless without electricity.

The big earthquake has come and gone. There won't be another one for another 60 years, so what do we care.

And as for the spent nuculer fule, there's plenty of places to dump that.

They haven't a clue what it is and anyway, itl'l be a hundred years or so before the canisters rust through and none of us will be around to care about it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

johninnaha -- I'm aghast. I hope you are being sarcastic. It was that sort of flawed -- " The big one won't occur in our lifetime, so let's not worry about it" thinking that got Japan into its present predicament. How long will Japan simply push problems on to future generations?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

herefornow - Of course he was being sarcastic. It was exactly that kind of thinking that got us in the mess in the first place.

Nuclear reactors are a thing of the past and should be replaced be regenerative fuel. Thats the only kind that is actually useful in the long run...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan has no political system like Germany and Italy. These people in these countries actually went to poll and voted yes/no for Nuclear Energy option. Probably nothing will be done to make changes in Japan based on the record.. Japan really needs a political overhaul.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The argument for nuclear power is like the argument for yukke. You can have safe yukke and safe nuclear power if every possible possible precaution is taken and everyone down the line does things correctly. But can you really trust them to do that? So, perhaps it's best to keep the safest of the nuclear reactors and the yakiniku houses and sideline the rest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan has no political system like Germany and Italy. These people in these countries actually went to poll and voted yes/no for Nuclear Energy option.

I think it was Italy where the citizens actually voted for Nuclear Energy option. In Germany, it was a cabinet decision.

Italy has no nuclear plant so this wasn't such a big hurdle. As for Germany, I believe one of the plans Merkel instituted was more investment in power lines/grids so that they could import electricity from France which relies heavily on nuclear.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy, thanks for the correct info. My neighboring city people in US actually went to poll and voted down the issue; building a new Nuke Energy plant in May after learning what had happened in Fukushima Daiichi. That's how it should be.. FYI

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Yeah they taught statistics where I grew up. But only one thing stuck ....

There are three kinds of lies

Lies Damned Lies Statistics

Seriously, I think the people answering their phones in the time frame you specified is quite representative of the voters, even if not for the population

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites