national

Demonstrators rally against restarting nuclear plants

20 Comments

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

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

Star-viking wrote: "... And yet naturally-occuring polonium 210 is deadlier..." Yes it occurs naturally in uranium ores. You do know where that is found and what it is used for don't you?

So why would anyone what to build around uranium tailings from uranium mining?

Or live like a troll sixty meters underground the shallowest depth uranium is found.

Radon is more dangerous! More is subjective, just like your polonium 210/ uranium story. So it is also out of context and a flawed line of logic, this is just disinformation.

It reads like something based on a Dr. Oz sell more stuff we don't need infomercial.

Why would anyone build a home over a radon deposit exposing themselves to radon gas?

That would be just as stupid as building in a tornado corridor, or on the banks of a river that floods every three to five years.

What is interesting though, is no nuclear energy plant on the planet can get underwritten by an insurer for public liability.

Why is that?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@kitzrow Unfortunately, it's entirely imaginable. It's even demonstrable.

Many of the areas with nuclear power plants have a significant portion of residents who support restarting the plants for the sake of locals who need the work, for the local economy which benefits from both local and imported workers' spending in local businesses, for the government incentive (bribe, if you prefer the word) payments to the local government, and for the increased tax revenue to be gleaned from the workers, which can also help fund public services.

This is in spite of the risks, and some of the people interviewed (one can see/read such interviews quite often) are very upfront about accepting the risk of yet another accident as a desirable tradeoff for the alternative, which in many cases is trying to live in a town/area which would not be economically viable without the plant(s).

It's monetary bird in the hand vs. possible nuclear accident in the bush thinking, and I don't think it's sensible in the long run, but it's not difficult to understand the thinking, given the economic conditions of many of the areas with nuclear plants. I don't think that anyone seriously believes that the placement of many/most of the plants was made without consideration of how the economic benefits would produce supporters, even in the face of risks.

I don't think it's a wise or terribly responsible view, especially after what were previously only potential risks have been shown to be terrifyingly real, and after neither the plant management, the regulators, nor the government have shown ability to deal competently and expeditiously with the problem (not to mention the now expanded problem of where/how to store nuclear waste). I do understand--although I can't accept or agree with--the thinking of the locals who want the plants restarted.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Good luck getting consent in local communities there .... can't imagine people agreeing with it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Warnerbro

There was a broadcast media blackout on this demonstration.

Rubbish. It was on the news. I don't watch NHK, but they're even quoted in the story.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Hear! Hear! to these protesters! Many may have missed work, sacrificed plans with friends because this meant more to them.

And enough of Yuko Obuchi. She took the seat right after her father died, who got the seat in office because of his father and she bounced around from Minister of State for Social Affairs and Gender Equality (and we all know how Gender Equality has gone: nowhere) when she was appointed by Aso, who's now got some power from Abe, then when the party was out of office for a few years she wasn't active in the community or trying to spearhead anything, then in 2012 she became the Vice Minister of Finance (and we all know Japan has the largest debt in the world) and now she became the minister responsible for the nuclear industry in Japan and is involved in the clean up of Fukushima (and we all know how that quagmire is going). She goes from position to position with no real qualifications for the role she's in. She's a puppet at best.

I'm not saying these problems are her fault, but she holds positions for a year or two and I've never seen any progress made and she moves on to the next post before anything substantial can even be done.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There was a broadcast media blackout on this demonstration.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There's a reason that not too many new nuclear plants have been built or planned worldwide in the past few decades.

Well, the reason would be that it's enormously expensive. But at this time there are some 400 proposed, planned or under construction nuclear power plants across the world. With China and India, along with new plants in Europe, demand has only really increased for new nuclear capacity.

While I'm pro-nuclear - even I can see that it's only a solution for the next 10-20 years. The real problem here is the complete lack of vision from the government - Japan need a coherent energy policy not for the next 10 years but the next 100. For me, switch on the plants now, but start work on those renewables before its too late.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

naturally-occuring polonium 210 is deadlier.

There are lots of naturally-occuring hazards out there. All the more reason surely not to make even more potentially catastrophically hazardous materials and put tons of them in seismically active areas, or close to human habitation. (In Japan, that covers the whole country; it's crowded, and the place shakes to a greater or lesser extent almost daily).

Naturally-occurring poison mushrooms, to take a 'natural' example, pose little to no threat in their natural environment, assuming people leave them alone; that doesn't mean we want them deliberately farmed and mixed in with our daily diet because it's cheaper. It's what people do with the hazardous stuff for the sake of a quick buck/because it's easier/because they don't know or care what they're doing, that's the problem.

have I critically looked at both sides of nuclear energy?

I've looked at the side that says let's create tons and tons and more tons of stuff that's highly radioactive and will remain so for tens of thousands of years, with no plans for how to dispose of it safely. 'Stick it under a mountain somewhere and let our grandchildren and their grandchildren worry about it' is not a solution. Until this problem is resolved, as far as I can see there is no other 'side of nuclear energy' to look at.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Paul Richards,

Because the highly concentrated hot radioactive particles contaminating Japan are man made.

And yet naturally-occuring polonium 210 is deadlier.

So the exposure at Fukushima was not from natural radiation in equilibrium with the planet's ecosystem.

Naturally occurring radon, despite being in equilibrium with the planet's ecosystem, is a major hazard. 'Natural' does not mean 'More Hazardous' than 'man made'.

The order of magnitude of difference in aggregating this man made radiation you and others fail to grasp is just naive.

Well, Professor Ken O. Buessler would disagree with you, with global nuclear tests dumping near 20 times more radiocesium in the oceans than Fukushima.

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_buesseler.pdf

The 16,000 who people rallied in Tokyo have done their due diligence by critically looking at both sides of the debate.

They consulted the works of experts in field of radioprotection, marine science, atmospheric science, nuclear engineering, and other associated fields?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

hkitagawa wrote: "I am sure majority of people approve it and nuclear energy is clean. The radiation exists naturally anywhere in the planet and high attitude place"

You may very well be right about the political centre of gravity or 'approval' in Japan.

But the questions are:

Which people approve of nuclear energy and why?

Is this approval out of a depth of understanding or out of compliance with reactionary* values?

These questions need analysis, as the 1950s Disney Generation weasel words were used - 'radiation exists naturally'.

Right there this is a false premise.

Is this what you are framing the Japanese future on?

Because the highly concentrated hot radioactive particles contaminating Japan are man made.

So the exposure at Fukushima was not from natural radiation in equilibrium with the planet's ecosystem.

The order of magnitude of difference in aggregating this man made radiation you and others fail to grasp is just naive.

That fact alone should make you question those you are deferring too on this issue.

The 16,000 who people rallied in Tokyo have done their due diligence by critically looking at both sides of the debate.

The interior question is; "have I critically looked at both sides of nuclear energy?"

http://goo.gl/Q0RMEc
1 ( +3 / -2 )

Reactivate these power plants need to be done for the future of our children and the Earth. If global warming advances even further, there will be no food or no longer humanity and we also wi have disruption in the ocean food chain if there will be no glacial poles. Do it properly and fast.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The general feelings against using nuclear energy remain strong.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

well, japan has all that it needs for renewables, it does have land for space or it can create reclaimed lands for purposes like hosting solar power, etc. as far as i know, some or most airports (like kansai international), are built mostly out of reclaimed lands. if they think there is no land because japan is very mountainous, why not trying reclaimed ones. engineering here is not a problem as well.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Brilliant. THEY all get the majority's thumbs up, support and thanks. No to nuclear!
4 ( +4 / -0 )

It's great to see so many people standing up against the restart, but we all know the J-Gov is gonna ahead regardless of public opinion. There was large anti-fascism rally in Chiba city on Sunday too. Heaps of people walking around wearing Abe masks with little Hitler moustaches painted on them.

I'm still laughing about Abe's comments at the summit stating no reactors would be restarted without 100% safety and that Japan intends to introduce renewable energies as soon as possible. It's all BS! He is a right-wing fascist that is only driven by economics.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Nuclear is better than oil and coal and best solution until wind and solar get going.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Farmboy,

Nukes at their highest point were fulfilling only one third of Japan's energy needs, and that shouldn't be that hard to replace, though it will take a little time.

They have been replaced - with fossil fuels.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I am sure majority of people approve it and nuclear energy is clean. The radiation exists naturally anywhere in the planet and high attitude places from space. Just turn on since global warm may extinct human race and nuclear power may save it.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

The added costs of importing passed gas and oil for thermal generation is expensive, but probably manageable, since it's been going on for three years now and the population is in decline anyway. The consumer bears the costs of generating electricity, but the companies can't monetize the investment anymore.

The nuclear industry (Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba and GNF and others) and the government nuclear minions (Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Nuclear Safety Commission, J Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Industrial nantoka nantoka) are the only the only entities that benefit from returning to nuclear power.

There's a reason that not too many new nuclear plants have been built or planned worldwide in the past few decades.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

“The government is going ahead with the plan to resume operation at the Sendai plant without compiling sufficient anti-disaster plans,” Oe said.

Yes, because the government just views anti-nuclear views as an indication that they need better salespeople. They haven't really absorbed the point that nuke plants in earthquake country is a bad idea overall.

Nukes at their highest point were fulfilling only one third of Japan's energy needs, and that shouldn't be that hard to replace, though it will take a little time. They've wasted time pushing forward with the nukes when they could have boosted hydro-power and other sources. Japan already has the tech to make it work.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

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