Japan Today

Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant


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

© 2015 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Bwahahahhaa. Japan never learns.

4 ( +18 / -14 )

What's the biggest risk? The volcano or the media.

If the Volcano is capable and likely of sending rocks 50km away and or spewing pyroclastic flows that go up and down mountain s then it's the volcano.

If not, it's the media.

The 600000 or so people who live in the area are under far more threat from the volcano than thr nuclear plant and it's ridiculous to bring the two together. As has been punlisted elsewhere, the biggest health risk to the nuclear evacuees is mental...the media are a large reason for that.

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

The eruption can cause huge earthquakes, this is the main problem and the government obviously knows it. It's like they don't care about another disaster at all. Absolute idiocy or what? There's more than we know behind these crazy choices?

4 ( +15 / -11 )

Do politicians in this country have any sense of responsibily to their country people and the rest of the world? Hasn't building a Nuclear Power Plant on a major fault area in Fukushima which is destroying the ecosystem of the pacific enough to say 'Um guys, perhaps we shouldn't start this plant so close to an active volcano'

7 ( +16 / -9 )

people need any reason to complain, japan always takes care of its people

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

I have flown over this nasty open sore they call a volcano a few times when flying from Naha or Amami Ōshima up to Kumamoto and every time I have noticed constant steam rising up from it. Each fly over always has me crossing my fingers that it doesn't go Krakatau on us as we approach. I can only imagine the stress the locals must live with constantly only made worse by every earthquake.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

People should not be afraid of nature. It is part of life. As someone up above wrote, it is the media and the fake hype that is more scary. Saying this volcano is going to blow and wipe out thousands if they do not evacuate is the same frenzy right now with the media and sharks. No story here folks, the Weather agency is up on it and ready.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

grabs popcorn

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Sakurajima is one of Japan's most regularly active volcanoes. I think there is concern this volcano could erupt almost like the huge eruption from 101 years ago--an eruption that changed the land around the volcano (and turned what used to be an island to a peninsula). I wouldn't be surprised that there would be serious consideration of evacuating several towns along Kagoshima Bay--especially Kagoshima itself.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

"What's the biggest risk? The volcano or the media...If not, it's the media."

And the seismologists/nuclear experts commenting here.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

how long has japan been using nuclear power?. weigh the benefits to the risk as responsible government does. not as the media sensationalises and the do gooders lap it up. grow up people. more people die from suicide and murder in japan every year than have died from nuclear accidents ever.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Ah, yes! Wait for it! "We deeply regret another 'unprecedented' natural disaster!" - in a country that has a long history of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Pure genius!

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Worth noting that the old people who decided to remain living near Chernobyl have been outliving those who relocated to safer areas by as much as 10 years.

I'm not a fan of nuclear energy - I see it as a dirty stop-gap technology. But Sakurajima is virtually no threat to a facility so far away. The biggest worry would be excessive ash clogging the vents and machinery.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

For those of you worried abut a volcanic earthquake causing severe damage to a building 50km away. Could you perhaps give an example of when a volcanic earthquake has produced sufficient energy to cause the level of damage that you expect.

I was going to ask when one could generate a tsunami but even you should now realise that this couldn't possibly happen in this case.

So...volcanic earthquake. ..intensity of say 7.5 plus or Japanese scale upper 6. Are there any examples?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Actually it is situated between two active volcanoes. There are only 3 bridges to escape, rescue or deal with a nuclear disaster. The emergency evacuation plan has not been completed, but currently a recent practice included an area of 3 km. Fukushima reached Shizoka, Gumma, Tokyo... The ash from any of the 7 active volcanoes can block backup generator, close roads, stop transportation. Insane is not a word related to amagudari or money.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Well Sakurajima has had many eruptions. Just look at youtube videos of them. Hardly an uncommon occurrence.

Last time I visited the volcano museum there they had over 360 eruptions that year (minor, but all classified still as eruptions). There's smoke coming out of that volcano year round.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Wait, Japan built nuclear power plants near active volcanoes as well as near tsunami prone coastlines - what were they thinking?!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Wow looks like we have a few here who cant see the obvious problems of an eruption having possible disastrous effects on a nuke plant nearby, you all should apply for safety departments at nuke plants near you, you all seem "qualified"!!!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Unless the bay of Kagoshima(which by the way is a large volcano crater that erupted in prehistoric times) itself explodes then there is no worries.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Its to bad but considering its an Island nation they don't have much choice and coal or oil would cripple the economy and put them back where they where in WW2. Japan lately has had no break when it comes to natural disaster but they are a hardy people they will do just fine.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Krakatoa's explosion zone was 50k in every direction although, it was an island and most of the zone was sea. The resulting tsunami was estimated to be 15-20 meters high. There is a small possibility of direct damage to the plant 50k away in the event of an explosive eruption, but the real danger comes from severe earthquakes that coincide with explosive eruptions. Danger maybe minimal, but it is real!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Japan is swimming in geothermal energy, why diddle with nuclear energy?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

If Sakurajima throws rocks and has a pyroclastic flow that reaches 50km it is not just the nuclear plant that will be affected, it will be global event.

The last time Sakurajima had a proper eruption was n the 1980s. Then is threw 2m sized rocks about 2km. 50km is not in the danger zone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wondering the relevance of Krakatoa. There was a tsunami but it was caused by the pyroclastic flows and a similar tsunami in this case won't effect the nuclear plant. Unless the waves go back on themselves and turn right.

but the real danger comes from severe earthquakes that coincide with explosive eruptions.

Do you have any evidence of these? I mean the largest earthquake recorded under mount st helens for example is 5.5. I haven't been able to find any significant earthquakes caused by volcanoes hence my question before.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Heda_Madness: "What's the biggest risk? The volcano or the media."

As the first poster said, some people never learn. You probably would have said the same thing if warnings given to TEPCO preceding the 3/11 disasters were given to the media as well, then after you'd be part of the nuclear crowd saying, "We could not have possibly known!".

Obviously the biggest risk is the volcano -- well, combined with the stupidity of the nuclear village. But of course, you WOULD need to ask, eh?

2 ( +9 / -7 )


What is the risk? It's not the earthquakes, not the pyroclastic flow and it's not the tsunamis.

So what precisely is the risk to the nuclear plant from Sakurajima volcano. I'm genuinely interested in a scientific possibility (based on previous events) to suggest that there is any risk.

Because all there has been so far is nuclear is bad mkay.

And as numerous posters have said above. There is a town of over 600,000 people that will be wiped off the map before anything could happen to the nuclear facility.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

ooops! here we go again

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Heda_Madness: "What is the risk?"

I believe TEPCO said similar things before. The risk is that Kyushu electric has admitted they have no contingency plans in the event of natural disasters, save increased safety measures -- which would still not do the trick for a big one -- against tsunami. They rolling the dice and betting on the chances of one happening. Then literally the WEEK that they restart the first reactor in two years a MAJOR volcano, just 50km away, shows signs of a possibly MAJOR eruption. It's a wake-up call, Heda, that you guys never want to hear until you are literally running away and looking for someone else to blame.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

grabs a beer

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sakurajima is basically an island surrounded by waters which are surrounded by land. There is no risk of tsunami except to those living around Kagoshima bay. The Sendai plant in Kagoshima is not on the shores of Kagoshima Bay, but rather, opposite a wide strip of land and situated on the East China Sea.

And its too far to worry about hurled rocks or magma.

If there were any natural danger, it would be from earthquakes as I don't see that ash alone would really be such a problem.

Even so, fooling around with uranium and plutonium in the ring of fire is for the greedy and the foolish.

Sakurajima last erupted in 1914. It was Japan's most powerful known eruption ever. Before the actual eruption it cause a very large earthquake which killed 35 people. Only the supremely over-confident would gamble that an even larger eruption could never happen or that nothing could possibly go wrong even if it did.

1 ( +3 / -2 )


Perhaps I'm not being clear. What is the risk to the nuclear power plant from the volcano that is situated 50 km away. The fact that an active volcano is located 50 km away, is not in itself a risk. There needs to be consequences of that volcano and so far nobody has been able to provide a single scientific fact as to why they think that

The pyroclastic flow will go across a sea, up a mountain and down a mountain. Or that the subsequent tsunami will go back on itself and turn right. Or that the volcano will explode rocks 50 km away.

It's called risk assessment. It's a simple science.

You look at the risk and so far the only one that anyone has put forward so far is there is a volcano 50km away from a nuclear power plant. But nobody has presented a single risk associated with that.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Who cares about the Nuclear power station. If that volcano erupts (and is a major eruption) it will devastate Kagoshima. For example , catch the ferry to Sakurajima , ride or drive on Highway 26 to Futamata then up the access road to Mt.Ontake and the distance is about 18 klms. That isn't even in a straight line, check some of the sites with details of major eruptions in Japan, Phillipines and Indonesia and you will get some idea of the damage that can be done. Volcanic ash, pyroclastic flows and volcanic bombs will cause all sorts of damage. The logistics of moving all of those people out or away from Kagoshima would be a nightmare. Highways 10 (around the bay) , 220 (east side of the bay ), 225 (southern route on the west side below Kagoshima) would be as good as closed leaving probably only a western escape route to Satsumasendai ( where the nuclear power station is located), that would make peak hour traffic in L.A. look like a walk in the park. Pretty much the entire North ,south and east could be blocked off, depending on the season and the prevailing winds. Worst case scenario.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Ask the Prime minister Abe he will tell you ,The Reactor is safe . The Volcano is just venting off .That's quite expected Happens In Japans fault zones. Well was it safe to build a nuclear Reactor their in the first place . So the Question that needs answering is why has is not been decommissioned and moved to a safe zone if any in Japan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Nuclear plants should not be constructed in a country especially like Japan, which has series of active volcanoes and is tsunami-and-earthquake-prone.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am sure most people growing up wonder why people live right beside volcanoes when they read or hear of a major eruption and evacuation of the residents.

Sure, I understand there is rich agricultural soil, but in the case of the city of Kagoshima, it des not really seem the brightest place to build a major city,does it?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For those who think geothermal is the answer; it simply isn't economical. It's the same reason China and India are building nuclear plants - they produce energy more cheaply than anything else. Except if there is a major disaster. It's a gamble.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Lmao they never learn

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hero77 and mytimeisyourtime: I'm not totally against nuclear power but do you not live in Japan? Did you not see how many people died on Mt.Ontake? Which might I add was not being monitored due to budget cuts. Or are you the same politicians/fat cats that will benefit financially by starting the plants? The people of Fukushima will show you the reality. Take a trip there. Look at the vegetation. Speak to the children who have playgrounds indoors, etc, etc, etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The risk is that there are nuclear power plants on top of myriad earthquake faults-that is the reality in Japan Fukushima would not have been damaged had there not been a tsunami generated by ....an earthquake. Earthquake scientific prediction ? We do not have the capability to do this....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm not worried about the people at the Sendai nuclear power plant, which is a long way away from Sakurajima. I do worry about the people in Kagoshima itself, since if we have an eruption anything close to the 1914 eruption, the city will suffer a major ash fall (and all the attendant problems that go with such a calamity).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's called risk assessment. It's a simple science.

It would also be quite simple for those who claim that volcanic ash could cause a nuclear power plant to go into meltdown to provide an explanation of how this would happen. I've still never seen one.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Hi guy,

It's like Kurisupuisu said. There is no risk to the nuclear power plant from the Sakurajima volcano. Just a lot of paranoia with no science base.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I wonder, have these people, who built these nuclear power plants ever thought abt their fellow Japanese living in the areas where they had built the plants ???. Maybe, We should move the families of these planners to kagoshima or to where , these deciding comittees have decided and built the plants. Just 3different families of these comittees will do. Then, they will understand more abt their actions.

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