national

Decision on Oi nuclear plant faultline postponed

16 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

Other media reported that one of the panel members is convinced the fault is definately active while others are " not sure " so they want to ask Kepco to conduct more research.( one can of course safely predict the outcome of any Kepco "study" ) So once again Japan is plagued by one of its traits - its supposed decision makers unwillingness to actually make the call and be responsible for making a decision of public consequence. Postpone and pass the buck to someone else if at all possible.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Q. So will they make a decision before or after a major earthquake melts down the plant? Politics!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It is impossible to have 100% faith in the outcome of this enquiry because there are so many conflicting reports. This report should be as strict as a court's jury decision. If there is any doubt in the stability of this fault the reactors should be decommissioned and dismantled before there is another nuclear disaster in Japan. However, we all know economics will win over common sense and this fault will be determined stable, then they will start the other two reactors. I fear the delay in the decision is only to make sure all the money changes hands before the panel of experts (puppets) give the green light.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's a faultline. End of discussion. Decision easy.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It is easier for them all to follow KEPCO's line because when an event happens it will not be clear who was actually responsible, so everyone will be off the hook.

(again)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

HollisBrownNov. 05, 2012 - 09:55AM JST

It's a faultline. End of discussion. Decision easy.

This "postponing" isn't actually unexpected, since the professionals and professors that study this stuff will need time to give their opinions. They will probably try to figure out the exact distance moved and the source of the motion. It'll probably come back inconclusive anyway, since it seems the movement they found was relatively high up.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

HollisBrownNov. 05, 2012 - 09:55AM JST

It's a faultline. End of discussion. Decision easy.

Are you a professional or academic geologist or geophysicist? Did you also look at all the core samples and other readings to concoct YOUR HYPOTHESIS?

If you are, please do tell how you came to the conclusion, if not state the fact that it is your unsubstantiated opinion, as is supposed to be done here.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

The fact that there was a dissenting voice is a good healthy sign. Let's be thankful for small mercies.

As to putting off the decision until Wednesday, well, if Nature can wait 125,000 years, Humanity can surely wait another two days.

As KEPCO say, better to be safe than sorry!

(Wait. What... they don't say that?)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

In other words, they realized that it's active and could slide at ANY given time, so they need to make up excuses and agreements with government in order to keep the plants going despite the fault line being active, lest they have to give back the 'donations' given to them by the utility companies. It really is going to have to take the evacuations of Kyoto, Osaka, and other areas to make these people realize you DO NOT build on fault lines, period! Of course when it happens they'll just say, "ummm... we had no way of knowing!"

6 ( +7 / -1 )

One approach to argue against an active fault-line is to muddy the scientific waters by claiming there is not 100% conclusive evidence because some paid off pseudo-scientific apologist for the nuclear industry offers up counter arguments or challenges the findings. The same thing was done by climate change deniers when the abundance of evidence was clear.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Well, just in case there was an earthquake and a subsequent meltdown in that power plant and we have to relocate anyone, there is a lot of uninhabited land up in Tohoku. In Fukushima there are even empty houses that can be acquired at very reasonable prices.

(Sorry to the people in Fukushima! I am not very fond of cynisism but I can`t help it when I read the above article.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In 2003, the Fugen NPP was shut down due to its high costs. That's all they understand. If it impacts their profit than close it down.

You have to always remember. The Japanese power companies don't have a heart.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BernieKNov. 05, 2012 - 04:28PM JST

In 2003, the Fugen NPP was shut down due to its high costs. That's all they understand. If it impacts their profit than close it down.

Fugen was not a commercial nuclear power plant. Don't say it was because it was only a prototype test facility and never meant for electrical energy production. It did indeed produce more electrical energy in its lifetime than all of wind and solar plants in japan combined, but it wasn't commercial.

Fugen was also one of two JAEA reactors, which are government funded rather than private sector, so the only reason the plant was there in the first place was at the government's request. It was shut down because JAEA wanted to take another crack at both Monju FBR (basically failed breeder reactor in their case) and JT-60/ITER fusion experiments.

JAEA isn't a power company, so the entire post is voided.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I wish the decision making process could be delayed while the Oi reactors are all shut down.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Right, so the two days are up. What will they decide tomorrow?

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