COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
national

Fukushima residents say 'no' to nuclear energy

69 Comments
By Kiyoshi Takenaka

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Japan is the most dangerous country in the world regarding reactors and nuclear power plants lacking sufficient safety standards and have been in the hands of safety officials who colluded with the nuclear industry more concerned about profits than protecting the country and its people. The international community needs to tell Japan to shut down all the reactors, permanently.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

basroil

When the media started reporting on the Oi reactors, which we discussed on this forum, you stated several times, that only the local communities which have atomic power plants should decide if a plant is restarted, since probably the majority in Fukui supported it.

When it was reported that probably the majority of the people, and the prefecture governor no longer supported any use of nuclear energy, which given the nuclear disaster is understandable, you flip-flopped and stated that the governor and the people of Fukushima should have no say in the matter of restarting atomic plants, which again according to you, is best left to the nuclear experts.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Basroil,

in your opinion, and also the opinion of Nigelboy, the nuclear plants are safe enough as they are to operate.

My opinion is that they are not safe enough to operate.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

basroil,

Really? First I've heard of Japan using 50% coal since nuclear power began. Perhaps you're referring to some off-topic place?

Thought you had previously stated you are an American?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

This is why we should cut massive fundings on nuclear right away and invest everything into renewables. Hey, it has always been the reverse, right? Nuclear has somehow gotten 70%+ of the energy budgets even though in reality they power very little of Japan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

TEPCO has increased their CO2 emissions by only 13%.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2012/1211333_1870.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichiAug. 03, 2012 - 12:00PM JST

what of your own country which uses coal to generate nearly 50% of it's power,, uses a third more power per capita and almost 4 times the amount of oil per capita?

Really? First I've heard of Japan using 50% coal since nuclear power began. Perhaps you're referring to some off-topic place?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

zichiAug. 03, 2012 - 12:00PM JST

what of your own country which uses coal to generate nearly 50% of it's power,, uses a third more power per capita and almost 4 times the amount of oil per capita?

Really? First I've heard of Japan using 50% coal since nuclear power began. Perhaps you're referring to some off-topic place?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I would prefer the country didn't use any nuclear plants unless they meet the safety standards outlined in the report by Dr Kenichi Ohmae.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Basroil, and what of your own country which uses coal to generate nearly 50% of it's power,, uses a third more power per capita and almost 4 times the amount of oil per capita?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

basroil,

But you always attempt to attack the use of nuclear power regardless, and too often ignore the safety work planned and legal considerations.

What year were the emergency backup generators installed? I have many years of industrial experience has a hands on electrical engineer and from just reading the various reports I'm amazed by some ofthe stuff I've discovered. I had assumed that a plant, like an atomic one, would be designed, built and updated to the highest safety standards possible.

But the failure of the nuclear village seems to stem from the head-in-the-sand attitude over safety based on probabilities rather than possibilities.

I have worked at many highly dangerous heavy chemical plants and seen lives lost because of the lack of proper safety and lives saved with it.

It wouldn''t have taken rocket science or trillions of yen to ensure a nuclear disaster didn't happen at Fukushima.

But the lack of safety does not stop just at the Fukushima plant and includes many others too, like the KEPCO Oi plant.

In plain speak, it would have been so easy to avoid the nuclear disaster which the people of Fukushima and the rest of the country must live with for many many decades and will cost trillions and trillions and trillions.

Just so stupid!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

zichiAug. 03, 2012 - 04:20AM JST

You and basroil would jump on my statement if I said something like millions of tons of radiation released at Fukushima.

Yes, because that would be almost tens and hundreds of millions of times more than released. In the case of Cs-137, there was only about 4kg released, for iodine and xenon, much less. The total release was small enough to pack into a (probably disintegrating) suitcase. I'm sure that the people of Fukushima never actually bothered to check how much was released, and if they were given numbers of 4kg of Cs-137 was released, mostly into the ocean rather than 13 million billion Bq, they would never have panicked.

From the article: "But commentators said it would be hard for the government to ignore the findings as 17 months after the nuclear accident, many still live in fear "

But as you have shown, their fear is irrational, artificially made by a mixture of false by omission information (millions of tons of radioactive materials should be millions of tons of material containing just a few mg of radioactive materials) and using larger numbers whenever possible, even if there is no reason to without explaining what normal is.

Prior to 3/11 nuclear generated about 25% and at the moment less than 2% and in the future probably less than 20% so the other power must be generated by other means.

~24.5% of capacity was nuclear, but over 30% of generation, and those numbers don't include pumped hydro for capacity either. Tepco generally had a good margin for generation, but without new nuclear plants they were forced to use coal to supplement (as well as keep stations open years longer than designed for). Less reactors will mean more coal in the medium term, and far more deaths even with protections in place.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

zichiAug. 03, 2012 - 07:45AM JST

The nuclear disaster happened because TEPCO didn't use the correct safety standards which should have been at the Fukushima atomic plant, like locating emergency backup generators on the sea front and below sea level in a non water tight power room. Building the pylons carrying the five offsite incoming power cables on a dried river bed which collapsed from the earthquake.

Both NISA and anyone who ever cared enough before the accident could read the reports, including the one released four days before the accident detailing the feasibility studies for upgrades. While there was no immediate work done, the plans were being formulated. But you always attempt to attack the use of nuclear power regardless, and too often ignore the safety work planned and legal considerations.

The information was all available before and none of these people cared to advocate immediate solutions. Ignorance is the same as compliant support when the information was readily available.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Interesting to see how strong the Japanese "black or white" thinking is still strong. Why on earth would non-nuclear power generation would have to mean coal?

Even the chief executive of General Electric has said that nuclear power is hard to justify in the world of cheap gas (http://tinyurl.com/c93uenm), at least in countries where economics decide. And we are talking about geothermally active Japan here, there are numerous options available that have no negative side effects of nuclear, coal or oil.

There is absolutely no need for centralized maximization of electric power. It is just plain stupid to increase elecric production and consumption 1000% so that one could be 10% more efficient. Japan is so old-fashioned, even locals are losing faith in it.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Nigelboy,

Even with these counter arguments, you post the same thing over and over again crying "nuclear is not safe!!"

The nuclear disaster happened because TEPCO didn't use the correct safety standards which should have been at the Fukushima atomic plant, like locating emergency backup generators on the sea front and below sea level in a non water tight power room. Building the pylons carrying the five offsite incoming power cables on a dried river bed which collapsed from the earthquake.

All the major investigations and reoprts but especially the one by the nuclear scientist, Dr Kenichi Ohmae, and the Diet Commission revealed that nuclear energy in the hands of this country's nuclear village is indeed not safe. I have found it shocking no little common sense safety standards are lacking from most of the atomic power plants.

You can choose to ignore that fact, but it won't make the plants safer nor will it create a situation to prevent another nuclear disaster.

The KEPCO Oi plant didn't even have emergency backup power, and even though it lacks an earthquake and radiation proof offsite emergency control center, was given permission to restart two reactors, and even though some experts have stated there might be an active fault line under the plant.

I'm sure, even you would not want to see another major nuclear disaster happening.

The lessons from Fukushima must be understood by all those involved in the nuclear dicision making chain.

Until safety standards advised by the likes of Dr Kenichi Ohmae are applied to the atomic power plants, the use of many of them is indeed unsafe.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Nigelboy

This is a classic example of the double standard I'm talking about. You have no problem posting "XXXX mSV which is XX times than normal" and yet you never follow through with what this figure actually means from a health perspective by experts. It's only people like Basroil who puts those figures into perspective taking consideration of the exposure amount on a long term basis which pretty much result into marginally insignificant negative health effects

I have only quoted radiation levels given by TEPCO or the gov't and I don't state whether it's a health issue because at doses less than 100 millisieverts there are experts for and against if there would be a health problem. Basroil attempts to defend the use of nuclear power regardless and too often attempts to play down the safety and even the legal position.

TEPCO never states if it's a health problem or not.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Changing the current electrical supply setup, whether it’s by cleaning up the emissions from coal or nuclear or the impacts of other sources is difficult because energy is so big that any appreciable change will take a very long time. The sheer amount of power generated by coal and fission cannot be rivaled by any current system of renewable energy.The simple truth is that there are so many people in the world are so downright wasteful that the global balance is being destroyed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I would like to see more meaningful figures for coal and gas fired plants when it comes to pollution released and not just general or averaged out figures.

This is a classic example of the double standard I'm talking about. You have no problem posting "XXXX mSV which is XX times than normal" and yet you never follow through with what this figure actually means from a health perspective by experts. It's only people like Basroil who puts those figures into perspective taking consideration of the exposure amount on a long term basis which pretty much result into marginally insignificant negative health effects. Even with these counter arguments, you post the same thing over and over again crying "nuclear is not safe!!" and when people post such data as "XX deaths per Twh" which indicates nuclear having the lowest by far among the major electrical sources, you not only dismiss it completely, you have the nerve to state and I repeat "Meaningless"

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

nigelboy

??? Personal insults? I was merely attacking your double standards when it comes to safety issues. You go lengths and lengths to post the inherent dangers when it comes to NPP but you completely dismiss other sources like you did with the coal plants response you gave to me.

What I have commented on are the JT posts taken from the media and added DATA from TEPCO when available. I have praised TEPCO and criticised it. I have stated many times I am not totally opposed to nuclear energy but think its needs to wait until safety standards are improved. I have concerns about using coal and oil, oil being the countries greatest primary energy.

You and basroil would jump on my statement if I said something like millions of tons of radiation released at Fukushima. Prior to 3/11 nuclear generated about 25% and at the moment less than 2% and in the future probably less than 20% so the other power must be generated by other means.

It's the power companies which like coal because it's the cheapest, cheaper than nuclear energy and it does not need expensive plants like nuclear.

I would like to see more meaningful figures for coal and gas fired plants when it comes to pollution released and not just general or averaged out figures.

You can't point out just the dangers of coal mining without mentioning the dangers of all types of mining. Someone died so you could type on your PC.

I have mentioned coal many times especially the three biggest polluters, America, India and China.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

there's no need for personal insults especially since my original comment was directed at basroil and not you.

??? Personal insults? I was merely attacking your double standards when it comes to safety issues. You go lengths and lengths to post the inherent dangers when it comes to NPP but you completely dismiss other sources like you did with the coal plants response you gave to me.

And are you concerned about the deaths and cancers in uranium miners?

Of course I am. But do you really want to get into total deaths comparison of coal mining to uranium mining?

All mining carries health and other dangers whether it's coal, uranium, gold, diamonds, rare earth.......

You're basically doing exactly what I stated you would. "sh+t happens" type response.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

zichiAug. 03, 2012 - 02:51AM JST

I read the sources too but the articles are just too simple and general. We would have to look at each story case by case rather than arriving at some average figures. There's a big difference between a coal fired plant in a country like China and the ones operating here.

Doesn't sound like you did, I would consider Sweden/Denmark to be very similar to Japan. http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf

Meaningless unless you actually provide real figures and from which plant. I would be interested to know.

Some values are not given, and therefore I can only repeat what professors that I had in college had stated. Of course, the professor was one of the foremost specialists on clean coal, and received over a million dollars a year from coal companies... So I think he may have intentionally underestimated the particulate release of clean coal.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Nigelboy,

there's no need for personal insults especially since my original comment was directed at basroil and not you.

or fatalities inherent in the coal mining industry doesn't concern you apparently.

And are you concerned about the deaths and cancers in uranium miners? All mining carries health and other dangers whether it's coal, uranium, gold, diamonds, rare earth.......

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

basroil

I read the sources too but the articles are just too simple and general. We would have to look at each story case by case rather than arriving at some average figures. There's a big difference between a coal fired plant in a country like China and the ones operating here.

Where are the plants located, what are the populations around them, what are the health standards compared with areas without the plants.

I'm not saying gas, oil and coal don't have any pollution.

Sadly, even CSS, air filtering, and fly ash management still release significant amounts of fine particulates that are the main source of problems, as well as tons (thousands of kilograms) of mercury each year. Not to mention of course, radioactive elements from radon daughters to uranium itself.

Meaningless unless you actually provide real figures and from which plant. I would be interested to know.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

read both your links. There are 2 coal fired stations and 1 Oil/LNG and some coal in Fukushima. All three have advanced systems for collecting bi-products and pollutions.

Structual integrity, explosion risk assessment, or fatalities inherent in the coal mining industry doesn't concern you apparently. Oh well. Your "standards" on NPP versus fossil fuel base power plants are like night and day. But then again, it's predictable.

Sorry the second artticle wasn't much use really.

Yeah. I predicted this too. Deaths from "other sources other than NPP" is just a meaningless statistic something along the lines of "sh+t happens" among the anti-nuclear crowd.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

billyshearsAug. 03, 2012 - 02:10AM JST

That's very caring of you, but maybe she's worried about her grandchildren.

So she would rather risk poisoning them with mercury and other known carcinogens released by the coal plants that will be brought back online (have been brought online) because nuclear is offline? I don't think she really cares about anything enough to actually see what is best for her grandchildren.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

zichiAug. 03, 2012 - 01:29AM JST

read both your links. There are 2 coal fired stations and 1 Oil/LNG and some coal in Fukushima. All three have advanced systems for collecting bi-products and pollutions.

Sadly, even CSS, air filtering, and fly ash management still release significant amounts of fine particulates that are the main source of problems, as well as tons (thousands of kilograms) of mercury each year. Not to mention of course, radioactive elements from radon daughters to uranium itself.

Sorry the second artticle wasn't much use really.

Read the sources for it then. The link below has proper source links embedded throughout: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Sadly, the people of Fukushima chose to poison themselves quickly rather than have a medically insignificant increase in cancer rates that might actually be canceled out by the alternatives anyway.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

She'll die of old age long before she has to worry about long term risks

That's very caring of you, but maybe she's worried about her grandchildren.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nigelboy,

read both your links. There are 2 coal fired stations and 1 Oil/LNG and some coal in Fukushima. All three have advanced systems for collecting bi-products and pollutions.

The Shinchi Power Plant was heavily damaged by last year's earthquake and won't reach full power again until this summer?

Sorry the second artticle wasn't much use really.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

These public meetings are a ridiculous farce. The government has no intention of abolishing the cash cow that keeps bureaucrats, academics, and local demagogues swimming in funds. They will claim to have chosen the middle road and in a short few years work themselves back to 30% or more by pouring more of our money into this lunacy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is much easier to track the death toll due to coal. However, the death toll due to nukes is far more stochastical in nature. If a cancer occurs after 20 years, it is nearly impossible to track it down to some extent of ionizing radiation which had happened in the past without a proper protocol. Naturally, it is much easier if grill a plant worker with loads of gamma rays, because that can be easily checked on his dosimeter. Coal has much more immediate health effects.

Naturally, one can attribute the deaths of dumb people falling down from a dam to hydro plants. Nevertheless, such statistics doesn't make very much sense due to the limited time scale. If there is a significant death rate due to an incident with nuclear devices, this death rate must be integrated over a few millenia to get a realistic rate. Simply put, it is much easier to measure poinsoning from coal exhaust fumes in contrast to genetic defects and cancers due to ionizing radiation.

Finally, the death rate is not the major cost factor (see India or China or Japan's nuclear gypsies). But cost is the most powerful argument against nuclear power. Nuke plants are expensive.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

nigelboyAug. 03, 2012 - 12:13AM JST

Thanks for the links

0 ( +5 / -5 )

basroil

Well, coal plants like those in the Fukushima prefecture are estimated at 160 deaths per TWh, compared to about 1 for other fossil fuels.

which Fukushima coal fired power plants are you referring to?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Democracy only works during election time.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Johannes WeberAug. 02, 2012 - 07:25PM JST

While coal plants have severe detrimental health effects, nuke plants are not harmless either. The exact number of causalities for each of the accidents will be very hard to calculate on a sound scientific basis, but I'd bet my right hand that any result will be skewed by the bias of those who created the study.

Well, coal plants like those in the Fukushima prefecture are estimated at 160 deaths per TWh, compared to about 1 for other fossil fuels. Nuclear and hydro are down at about .04 deaths per TWh, including Chernobyl, probably 0.05 including Fukushima. Even if we assume it's 100 times more dangerous than previously estimated, the coal plants they restarted in Fukushima are still 50 times more dangerous (death wise, much, much more if you include non-fatal issues). Residents saying no to nuclear is the same as them saying yes to coal.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Too late for that Fukushima folks. You should have been saying this 40+ years ago. Sadly the lesson is still not learned by all even now.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@basroil:

While coal plants have severe detrimental health effects, nuke plants are not harmless either. The exact number of causalities for each of the accidents will be very hard to calculate on a sound scientific basis, but I'd bet my right hand that any result will be skewed by the bias of those who created the study. Nuclear engineering is not science, but quasi-religion.

However, nuclear power is not cheap. There is very nice statement from about 40 years ago, uttered by the German minister for economy and energy, that nuclear power will never, ever be capable of competing with coal in terms of its price. And that is a long time before any severe accident became to be known (which shifts the price tag of nuclear power). A long time, before nuclear safety issues were even considered. A long time, before people considered the danger of nuke plants being used in terrorist attackls. It is not safe. It is neither cheap. Including mining, enrichment and decommisioning, it doesn't make any sense concerning the carbon balance.

Furthermore, the typical decades old risk analysis is wrong. Just google "Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear reactor accidents" by Lelieveld, Kunkel and Lawrence, which is the most recent SOTA risk analysis of nuclear disasters. You'll be easily convinced why the former risk analysis is almost complete nonsense and the true risk exceeds the official numbers by a few orders of magnitude.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

billyshearsAug. 02, 2012 - 04:30PM JST

“Many people are now aware that the government’s talking of ‘no immediate risk to health’ is tantamount to ‘long-term health risk,’” she said to the applause of about 200 residents packed in a small concert hall.

She'll die of old age long before she has to worry about long term risks, which have been covered before. Like the others there, they highly overestimate the effects of radiation on the human body. I doubt they ever thought about how many people died of cancer back when they had coal plants right there in their towns instead of nuclear plants.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

He was far more rational than the senseless obasans there,

“Many people are now aware that the government’s talking of ‘no immediate risk to health’ is tantamount to ‘long-term health risk,’” she said to the applause of about 200 residents packed in a small concert hall.

For someone who is living and farming 65 kms from the site of a major nuclear disaster, are you so sure that remark is senseless? I'm not.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

With a near addiction to probabilistic risk analysis, the nuclear plant operators are gambling with public safety and, complicit in this approach, so are the nuclear safety regulators. How can they be deserving of the public confidence that they seek?

Some seem to think there are rods to extracted... there aren't. Not from Units 1, 2 or 3. The 'reactors' aren't there, they are Corium masses heaped on concrete mats... one hopes anyway.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you think all the japanese all of a sudden turned anti-nuclear I got some prime ocean-property in Utah going cheap.

My country faced a similar problem they build a reactor less than 100km from the capital. Than held a referendum to start which was voted down as the promised nuclear waste storage was not ready.

In the end the reactor was sold to Russia and we are still nuclear free besides a few small test reactors at Universities, etc which everyone has.

Very little solar power, mostly water-dams.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Zichi.

We are in agreement. But even a reactor in cold shutdown is at risk from quakes, etc till all the fuel is removed.

Hence the disputes about the walls being build.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It"S ME

Decommissioning a nuclear power plant which hasn't experienced a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima is very different but still takes many decades. It's very easy to remove the fuel from the reactors and spent fuel pools so the plant can be made safe within a few years.

The dismantling of the plant will take much longer and there could be a case for just leaving them like that.

Reactors in cold shut down are safer than reactors operating. Reactors without any fuel are safe.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Good.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bogva.

You are aware the decommissioning a nuke plant takes decades. Even if you bury them in concrete as chernobyl has shown don't work that well.

So all the anti-nuke crowd needs to take a chill-pill as it will take decades to get rid of the reactors.

BTW, apply the same rules to the USA, etc who also extended their reactors beyond the 40yrs life-span and many are also build on fault-lines. Manhattan(example) is along 2 major fault lines.

Seen the recent power-outage in india and they plan to increase nuclear power as does china, etc.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bogva,

according to your comment, I think the number of reactors would be reduced to about 20?

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Emotions aside the solution is somewhere in the middle. I mean the closer to plan "Zero" middle !

No new nuke plants should be build. All reactors approaching their 40 year lifespan or in hazard locations should be decommissioned. For all other reactors strict safety measures and case by case discussions if possible to decommission early or can be operated longer.

Its impossible to trow the towel on everything. We should be realistic but firm!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SchopenhauerAug. 02, 2012 - 07:54AM JST

They welcomed the nuclear plant in Fukushima until the accident happened. Cities, towns and villages around the plant enjoyed the money the nuclear plant brought.

remember many people welcomed hitler in the beginning too, by the end his own "supporters" were trying to kill him.

All current nukes in Japan should be killed off asap.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Since the "editing function" didn't work, the mods have felt justified to leave the part of my post mentioning this fact (maybe like for "Alan" ?) but not the main part - which is NOT impolite to anyone - I, for example, have been told outright that (for instance) "I know nothing about dogs" but that post was left in - making me feel there's a little tad of "discrimination" among the mods and I am writing this especially for them because I know it won't appear... I am NOT the only one to be exhausted by basroil's comments... He is "pro-nuke" but Japan is the wrong country for nuclear energy. Only the truth hurts...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If the so called "nuclear energy tax" which is billions paid to those prefectures with atomic plants were stopped, how many of those would continue to support having a nuclear plant in their backyards?

1 ( +10 / -9 )

All should be aware of the profession of aiding in the siting of facilities like a nuclear power plant. More than geological considerations, experts evaluate the citizenry for their behavior, religion, and the propensity to believe "establishment" promises. In the US, the perfect citizenry is middle to moderate income, conservative and family oriented, an older community where young people having migrated from their parents homes. It is my bet TEPCO hired consultants to aid them in "selling" facilities, a group of professionals like a match between an Olympic athlete and an average citizen. Their "art" also notes the least desirable opponent is a single mother and strong-minded women. When they have an opponent who questions details, they are attacked in a personal way. When people question their actions after an incident, they have an apologist who reminds all that they were once welcomed into the community - when in fact "welcomed" may be a word that could interchange with overwhelmed by propaganda making it all seem too good to be true.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The "editing" function does not work very well - I wanted to "highlight the "you" but it went to the wrong place...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@basroil

Some of us are getting very tired of your "pro-nuke" remarks... Japan is NOT suited for nuclear energy, even if YOU don't mind getting irradiated...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

He was far more rational than the senseless obasans there, and perhaps because he was rational everyone ignored his very well delivered address.

Yes it's so rational to risk yet another nuclear accident even though we're doing absolutely fine without nuclear.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

if people can say no in summer, then you know they are really fed up with lies around nuke electricity.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

So nobody cares to write about the one old guy who lost everything, yet perfectly understands the role of nuclear power for the betterment of Japan. He was far more rational than the senseless obasans there, and perhaps because he was rational everyone ignored his very well delivered address.

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

Nobody is listening anymore, they barely were a year ago.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

openhauerAug. 02, 2012 - 07:54AM JST

They welcomed the nuclear plant in Fukushima until the accident happened. Cities, towns and villages around the plant enjoyed the money the nuclear plant brought.

So, what's your point? Because they enjoyed money from the plants in the past, they have no right to protect themselves now? Are you a moron? By the way, do some research before you post idiotic comments. The reason they accepted the plants was because they were lied to. They were assured that the plants were safe. Just like in the USA, the government approaches poor, rural communities who are desperate for economic help with the promise of jobs and lower-cost energy. Combine this with its promise of the plants' being safe, and I'm sure even a dolt like you could understand why such communities in the past allowed these plants to be built in their backyards.

4 ( +13 / -10 )

@ Schopenhauer - Actually, they didn't welcome the plants in Fukushima, there were protests, but not on the scale of the recent ones. The residents were brainwashed into believing that nuclear power was Japan's future (they were also paid to accept it), which is strange to me cos of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and all the Japanese horror movies based on radiation deformities. Even the mighty Godzilla and Gamera were created as a result of a nuclear accident. I see no option for Japan other than to decommission all the nuclear power plants ASAP, but it will still take decades to achieve. And, they still have to find affordable alternatives. Unfortunately, the amount of money the Fukushima kaffufle has cost them has left them near broke and unable to afford to pursue alternatives, so for now, they (we) are stuck under the nuclear energy cloud.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

The Fukushima residents will be ignored. The government does not, and will not listen.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

“Many people are now aware that the government’s talking of ‘no immediate risk to health’ is tantamount to ‘long-term health risk,’”

I'm glad this info is out there now.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Pro-nukes on the warpath again... Why can they not understand that Japan is not éstable" enough for nuclear reactors ?

2 ( +12 / -10 )

Overwhelmingly,the people of Fukushima have spoken-this is a democratic decision-why should it be ignored by the government?

4 ( +11 / -8 )

They welcomed the nuclear plant in Fukushima until the accident happened. Cities, towns and villages around the plant enjoyed the money the nuclear plant brought.

They weren't told the truth about the nuclear power plants. Instead, they were told nuclear energy was,

clean, safe and cheap.

More than most, the people of Fukushima now know that was a lie and is another busted urban myth.

The governor has stated that no reactor will ever operate in the prefecture again.

Shunichi Tanaka, the nominated head of the new atomic safety agency and a native of Fukushima City stated, the standards for the restart of the reactors needs to be reassessed because the existing regime are insufficient when taking into account the technical issues. He also stated he will impose very strict regulations.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

They welcomed it because they were blatantly lied at. People now say "no" because now they know better. Now they know the people who run it.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

Schopenhauer, people can't learn from their mistakes? Seems a some of them also feel they were a bit duped by gov't doublespeak.

“Many people are now aware that the government’s talking of ‘no immediate risk to health’ is tantamount to ‘long-term health risk,’” she said...

Get this lady on the ballot next election.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

Schopenhauer, yes but that was over forty years ago! Back then there was only seasonal work in Fukushima. Now the economy and communications are vastly different and it would not be too difficult to encourage other businesses and industries to set up shop in the area. I'm not anti-nuclear power per se (very much pro-safety though), but the way Japan oversees safety, I wouldn't want it in my back yard either.

5 ( +14 / -9 )

They welcomed the nuclear plant in Fukushima until the accident happened. Cities, towns and villages around the plant enjoyed the money the nuclear plant brought.

-8 ( +13 / -21 )

Really!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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