national

Kansai Electric appeals court injunction on reactor restarts

50 Comments

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

© 2014 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

“It was extremely regrettable that our company’s position could not be understood,” Kansai Electric Power said in a statement.

No! What is extremely regrettable is, the fact that you block headed jijis can't accept the fact that nobody can trust you to ensure the safety of these plants!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

If there were to be another nuclear disaster at Oi it would wipeout the Kansai region. Kobe city commissioned a study on the effects of a nuclear disaster in Fukui and is still withholding the results from the citizens of Kobe......

4 ( +6 / -2 )

“It was extremely regrettable that our company’s position could not be understood,” Kansai Electric Power said in a statement.

Sorry, KEPCO, but the rejection is clear evidence they DO understand the copany's stance! What you mean is, "it's regrettable they did not side with our company's position". Here's an idea, though... Meet safety standards first, THAeN apply for restar!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

“It was extremely regrettable that our company’s position could not be understood,” Kansai Electric Power said

Equally & extremely regrettable is that Kansai Electric could not understand the court / people`s position - *"The reactors should not be restarted because they pose “specific risks” to residents in the event of a major earthquake."

Personally I and lots of others find it extremely regrettable that not a single individual from the Nuclear village was held in any way responsible for the Fukushima Dai ichi fiasco and the industry is back to its old ways. Regrets all around.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

50 of these things are not producing a spark? And the lights are on, companies still making a profit... It's regrettable the facts tell us we just don't need so many if any dangerous long term environmental doom factories.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Time for some G E O T H E R M A L !

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Dazed and confused sorry, the policy seem clear to me, December 2011 a advisory committee was set up. July 2013 an enforcement procedure was published, May 2104 can anything be more bent out of shape. Kansai Electric has either complied with the revised Reactor Regulation Act or not!! This is an outrageous!

Recommendation from Advisory Committee for Prevention of Nuclear Accident - 13th December 2011. Preface -

A public trust of nuclear safety policy has completely lost as a result of the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations.

The overconfidence of the government and the licensee in their safety measures could not prevent severe accident, which causes massive discharge of radioactive materials to the environment and destroys communities of local citizens.

The government needs to reconstruct nuclear safety regulation organisation and regulation rapidly, so as to prevent severe accident

http://www.nsr.go.jp/nra/gaiyou/data/recommendation.pdf

Enforcement of the New Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - July 8, 2013

Under the revised Reactor Regulation Act, operators applying for such an extension are required to implement special inspections to assess whether their facilities meet or not the latest technical standards and properly maintain or not their operation from the viewpoints of any expected wear/tear and deterioration of facilities and equipment in the 20-year time

http://www.nsr.go.jp/english/e_news/data/13/0912.pdf

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In the face of widespread public unease about nuclear power, the Nuclear Regulation Authority in July last year introduced new safety standards. These oblige plant operators to put in place specific countermeasures against serious accidents like meltdowns or tsunamis.

KEPCO and the other utilities could inform the public about the updating to the safety standards at its nuclear plants because it appears it has failed to update them according to the new standards set by the NRA, which has also happened at other nuclear plants too?

There are a number of issues with this KEPCO plant, like the plant can only be reached via a single road which also passes through a tunnel. If that access was lost in an earthquake there would be no emergency access to the plant.

In addition, the evacuation procedures for residents living near the nuclear plant haven't been updated to include the lessons leant from Fukushima, except the residents were told, in a nuclear emergency not to use the road which would be needed for emergency services.

The 1&2 reactors were commissioned in 1979 making them 35 years old?

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Keeping these reactors offline for so many years is really dangerous because when they restart (and they will restart), all the engineers and people who run these plants will not remember how to do their jobs correctly after so many years of not doing it. We need the plants to restart as soon as possible so save our economy and create a safer country.

-12 ( +2 / -13 )

sengoku38: Devil's advocate?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's times like this when the slow moving wheels of justice are a good thing. I hope it takes them at least a year to get their appeal heard.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

JT Do us a favor and find out how we can contribute to the citizens' legal fee fund, so we can support them. 1000 yen from each JT reader will help, and it will help them psychologically too to know we support them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I would like to express my deepest respect to the Fukui District Court justices who stood up against the Kansai Electric Power (JAPAN INC),

I will continue my personal commitment and support against the nuke plant restart for the best interest of Japanese people.

As I said many times on JT, the nuke energy plants are standing on soft "tofu" islands. The geological study has revealed that Japan is in "Ring of Fire and within 5 years, more than likely, the big earthquake like Fukushima will hit Japan again.

If safety and humanity are not that important, then what else is? Profit? National interest?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The Power Stations that don't comply with the revised regulations, must remain off line. It is a waste of tax pays money to use the justice system to attempt to circumvent the new safety regulation process.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

regrettable? Please stop using this word, or stop translating it as this. KEPCO does not control the courts

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As I said many times on JT, the nuke energy plants are standing on soft "tofu" islands. The geological study has revealed that Japan is in "Ring of Fire and within 5 years, more than likely, the big earthquake like Fukushima will hit Japan again.

It wasn't the earthquake that damaged fukushima, it was the tsunami.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Fine, Strangerland-sama. The bigger picture here, which I believe everyone gets except you, is that all those other NPPs could be terrifically damaged by earthquakes.........and the tsunami that may follow won't help.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Strangerland

It wasn't the earthquake that damaged fukushima, it was the tsunami.

...and tsunamis are the result of what ??? Wouldn't that be earthquakes ???

2 ( +3 / -1 )

no, there is much reason to believe that the earthquake caused damage to the plant before the tsunami...such testimony has been heard from some insude the plant who documented pipes etc coming loose before the tsunami. not picked up by mainstream corporate media (kisha club, complIant). Watch videonews.com and other reliAble (not scaremongering by the way) alternative media to learn things not on NHK or Kyodo/jiji.

re the appeals court, i fear they could reverse the first court's decison...such things happen frequently here where the status quo often prevails. Let's hope for an impartial group of judges.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

JT Do us a favor and find out how we can contribute to the citizens' legal fee fund, so we can support them. 1000 yen from each JT reader will help, and it will help them psychologically too to know we support them.

TEPCO already gets my extra ¥1,000 a month to pay for the last far cup!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The bigger picture here, which I believe everyone gets except you, is that all those other NPPs could be terrifically damaged by earthquakes

And the world could spontaneously explode tomorrow. But why don't we stick to scenarios for which we have evidence that they could come about?

...and tsunamis are the result of what ??? Wouldn't that be earthquakes ???

A result of, but not the same as. I haven't checked the geographical location of the various nuclear facilities in Japan, but if they are not near a coastline, then there isn't the same risk as there was with Fukushima. Because Fukushima was damaged as a result of the tsunami, not the earthquake.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"But why don't we stick to scenarios for which we have evidence that they could come about? "

Indeed , then Fukushima Dai ichi mess provides us with all the evidence we need then. Case closed.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The Fukushima nuclear disaster which was caused by the meltdown and melt throughs of three reactors wasn't caused by the earthquake and tsunami alone which was revealed in various official investigations, including the one by the Special Commission of the Diet.

The earthquake caused extensive damage to the nuclear plant including the loss of offsite main power supplies and the loss of mains water supply needed to cool the reactors. The earthquake created tsunami further managed the nuclear plant leading to the loss of emergency power generators needed to cool the reactors.

The investigations also revealed design flaws in the reactors and the plant design layout, the location of the emergency generators being one example.

Just has important there was a lack of safety standards required to ensure the safety of the plant. There was also a lack of safety management culture which can be shown by the example that the so called TEPCO safety manual in the event of a major nuclear event was in fact nothing more than a single side of one A4 sheet.

TEPCO, regardless of the warnings and advice it received, the company too frequently put profits before safety.

Prior to the 3/11 nuclear disaster, I had wrongly assumed that safety standards and management at nuclear power plants would be of the highest levels. Unfortunately, investigations into nuclear power plants in this country reveals that many of the faults at the Fukushima nuclear plant was also present at other nuclear plants.

Some nuclear power plants might be on active fault lines and at least 3 nuclear plants are in danger from active volcanos. It not only nuclear plants which are located on coast lines which can experience a disaster.

The nuclear disaster also happened because the way the nuclear village was run which included the atomic safety agencies. There are too many faults to list in a single comment?

The nuclear disaster will take more than 100 years to clean up and will cost more than ¥50 trillion.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The public hostility and distrust for the Nuclear Regulatory Authority was apparent in political polling in the Tokyo elections. The NRA was never afforded the power and independence of new agency, it was formed out of the discredited Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency and the Nuclear Safety Commission.

Abenomics Achilles heel could prove to be the failure of the NRA to enforce the new regulatory safety requirements, energy security and the restart programme are key features of that illusive third arrow.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

sengoku38May. 22, 2014 - 06:15PM JST

Keeping these reactors offline for so many years is really dangerous because when they restart (and they will restart), all the engineers and people who run these plants will not remember how to do their jobs correctly after so many years of not doing it. We need the plants to restart as soon as possible so save our economy and create a safer country.

These plants will not remember how to do their job correctly after many years of not doing it? Where are these written manual and safety procedures? Where are the adequately trained engineers? Are you telling me that these engineers were doing operations without safety manual every time they run it? Do you know the flying pilots need to use flying manual and verify every operation before taking off?

You are advocating why the nuke plants should not be restarted in Japan. Thank you. You prove my point why I am advocating against the nuke energy plants restart. They are not safe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing says it has improved safety beyond more cashola to the nuclear industry.

This is pretty serious cognitive dissonance and I wish it could end without another disaster happening first. The first step is not voting in pro-nuke politicians. Instead, the public vote for disaster and are now basically waiting for more. It makes no sense. So why should anyone be surprised if what they want finally happens?

After another one goes, global sanctions against Japan ever owning nuclear power again will probably be one way to stop. Preferably though I hope Japan wakes up and votes their way to change instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k May. 23, 2014 - 04:32AM JST After another one goes, global sanctions against Japan ever owning nuclear power again will probably be one way to stop. Preferably though I hope Japan wakes up and votes their way to change instead.

How ridiculous. Japan's is the third largest economy in thw world and they need for energy to keep the civilization going. And sadly, no conceivable renewables is going to provide enough energy to keep that civilization going. Japan needs nuclear as part of the mix and the more you eliminate coal and natural gas then the more nuclear your going to have to use. If you notice, why do you think China will be adding close to 30 nuclear plants within a decade or two? In Germany, the country that has spent the most and had the largest build up of renewables in the world, but they are not replacing them with yet more wind or solar renewables.They’re opening new coal plants and depending on grid from France's nuclear energy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

sfjp330

you don't seem to get that it doesn't really matter if another reactor should go boom. So let's build them on earthquake fault lines and place them inside one of the most earthquake prone countries in the world. It's madness

Let's just focus on Japan, not other countries. Japan is on the ring of fire (geothermal) and is an island nation (hydrothermal) and with it's TV production capacity can flip even 1/3 of it's output to solar panels. Focus

If the least Japan can do it can't even do then feel free to compare. But there's nothing to compare nothing to

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@sf2k

Then what is your solution to alternative energy for Japan, the third largest economy?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan is not suffering a shortage of electricity even with all the nuclear reactors shut down. Electrical appliances here are much more efficient than anywhere else. For example, after the Fukushima disaster there was a rapid and ubiquitous shift to LED lighting instead of florescent light, which is more efficient than incandescent lighting. There has also been a massive expansion of solar panel installations throughout Japan. While solar and other renewable energy maybe not supply the base-load requirements, natural gas fired plants can. Japan's current deficit reflects the import of natural gas and that's the motivation for restarting the reactors. With a declining population and industrial capacity a longterm investment in nuclear power is a short-sighted and dangerous solution to solve the deficit. There's also the overly cosy relationship of the nuclear industry, the LDP and the bureaucrats http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/world/asia/after-fukushima-fighting-the-power-of-tepco.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry680%23%2Ftepco.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Interesting to note that Zichi has finally stopped claiming that the reactors were damaged in the earthquake.

It's just a shame that he's still not accepting that the limited damage from the initial earthquake would have been repaired before there was a serious issue had it not been for the tsunami. Clearly there were design issues but had the plant been looked after properly (see Onagawa) this would never have happened.

TEPCO are most culpable for this incident. And it's beyond tragic that they haven't been brought to justice over this.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Heda_Madness

Interesting to note that Zichi has finally stopped claiming that the reactors were damaged in the earthquake.

?? There are major cracks in the reactor containment vessels and suppression chamber rings which now leak cooling water which adds to the water accumulation problem. A major valve system in the No3 reactor which controls cooling water was damaged. If these were not caused by the earthquake can you offer any other explanation how it happened?

It's just a shame that he's still not accepting that the limited damage from the initial earthquake would have been repaired before there was a serious issue had it not been for the tsunami.

It's clear you haven't read any of the major reports and causes of the nuclear disaster, otherwise you wouldn't make this kind of comment? For instance, the earthquake destroyed the towers or pylons carrying the high voltage offsite power cables because TEPCO had installed them on a dry river bed even though it was advised against doing that. It took workers more than two weeks to restore some limited offsite power which involved during km of cables to the nearest transformer station. Even today, more then three years after the disaster, full power has not been restored. There were similar problems with offsite mains water supply because the earthquake destroyed the pipes in the ground. The site still only has a limited water supply.

Similar damage happened at the second nuclear plant, which according to the plant manager on 3/11 the plant came within 60 minutes of having its own meltdowns which was only avoided because the workers were able to run km of water hose to a mountain site and maintain the water to the reactors.

Certainly, part of the cause for the nuclear disaster was the lack of safety culture by TEPCO and the workers. Recent documents obtained from the Office of the Prime Minister reveal that after the 3/11 disasters, 90% of the TEPCO workers, including senior managers fled the nuclear power plant. This was denied by TEPCO? There were about 750 workers on the day.

There are/were serious design faults in the reactors. When the firemen were told to connect their fire pumps to the reactors to pump water into the containment vessels to try and cool the melting nuclear fuel, it took days before TEPCO actually discovered the water was going into the isolation condensers and not the containment vessels.

We don't know what would have happened at the plant if hadn't been hit by the tsunami, but it clearly does not matter because it happened?

Clearly there were design issues but had the plant been looked after properly (see Onagawa) this would never have happened.

Just because the Onagawa survived the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami disasters does not mean it will again sometime in the future nor does it mean, at least from a point of safety standards that all the other reactors in the country are also safe. One important revelations from the nuclear disaster is the lack of safety standards at nearly all of the atomic plants.

I have frequently stated that no reactor or nuclear plant should be restarted that does not at least meet the new safety standards by the NRA? Clearly, this isn't happening and the power utilities are "trying it on" to see what they can get away with, like the one in Tokai where the reactor is now 35 years old and impossible to update it with fireproof electrical cables, a requirement of the new safety standards, but the utility has applied to restart the reactor anyway?

You frequently quote about the Onagawa nuclear power plant but it hasn't been free of its own problems like in 2006 METI and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency determined that the plant's performance was not satisfactory. A 7 April 2011 aftershock damaged 2 of the 3 power lines connecting to the plant, but it did not damage any of the backup cooling system. If it was the only operating nuclear plant it would only be generating about 850-1500MW of power. Not even a drop in the power ocean needed by the country.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The report criticized TEPCO's argument that the nuclear accident was due to a tsunami of an unimaginable, unpredictable scale. It stated, "The reason the accident was beyond assumptions was because no attempt was made to make assumptions due to a safety myth that had no basis in fact."

And THAT is still the fact of the approach taken.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

?? There are major cracks in the reactor containment vessels and suppression chamber rings which now leak cooling water which adds to the water accumulation problem. A major valve system in the No3 reactor which controls cooling water was damaged. If these were not caused by the earthquake can you offer any other explanation how it happened?

So just to confirm, despite everything to the contrary - you believe that had there been no tsunami then Dai Ichi would still have suffered these issues. Do you have a single shred of evidence to say, that categorically, it was the earthquake and not the tsunami.

And clearly I have been reading the reports and not reading into them what I want to read.

Some kind of explosion perhaps? No one else seems to indicate that - certainly the official report hasn't.

Reactors were not damaged in the earthquake.

A 7 April 2011 aftershock damaged 2 of the 3 power lines connecting to the plant, but it did not damage any of the backup cooling system.

So it did it's job then? And yes, I frequently quote Onagawa because, well, as I've just said - it did it's job.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

So just to confirm, despite everything to the contrary - you believe that had there been no tsunami then Dai Ichi would still have suffered these issues. Do you have a single shred of evidence to say, that categorically, it was the earthquake and not the tsunami.

Does it matter? Tsunamis are triggered by earthquakes, and earthquakes are accompanied by pre shocks and aftershocks. It's not like the electricity companies or the politicians or the businessmen can agree to have one without the other, like you can order a salad but hold the dressing. It's meaningless to argue whether it was the earthquake of the tsunami or the aftershocks that did the damage, and looking at the state of Fukushima Daiichi today, no one can seriously argue that everything would be hunky-dory if only the basements hadn't gotten wet.

Bottom line, they weren't ready for a natural disaster that had happened more than once in the past and was waiting to happen again. And will happen again in the future.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

if you are replying to a comment I've posted and you want a further reply could you at least add my name at the opening of your comment which is procedure on JT.

I seriously doubt that the cracks in the containment vessels, the suppression chambers and the cooling valve control in the No3 reactor were done by the tsunami, since by the time the water reached those areas the force of the water would have been much lower than when it first hit the plant. More of a case of flooding. Only some kind of powerful force would be able to crack the steel and concrete containment vessels more than one meter thick?

I don't think anyone would be able to state 100% about what would have happened if there were only the earthquake and not the tsunami but anyway it's a fact that the tsunami did happen. What matters is what happened and not your conjecture about what might have been.

As for explosions, there were at least two steam explosions, especially from inside the No3 reactor. If you knew about steam explosions and from the video released there were in fact three explosions. Hydrogen, steam and some other kind of explosion which has never be explained. Steam explosions are very different from gas explosions.

Did these cause the cracks in the containment vessels and suppression rings? No one can really say until engineers can get inside those reactor buildings and carry out an extensive investigation which won't be happening for many decades because of the lethal levels of radiation present, about 10 SIEVERT per hour?

In your comment you avoided the design faults in the reactors, which are also present in reactors of the same type?

Can you say that if a 9+ earthquake happened directly under the Onagawa nuclear power plant that it would survive even though in that case it would be unlikely that it would also generate a tsunami.

Some of the safety features at the Fukushima nuclear power plant were actually more advanced than at the other NPP's. Like having an emergency control centre where the plant manager and other workers, at least the ones who remained, evacuated to. These are not present at every plant. There are many other examples. Unfortunately, the earthquake damaged the door to the emergency control centre and the workers were unable to shut it to try and keep out the very high levels of radiation, which very quickly reached more than 500 MILLISIEVERTS per hour. They try to use lead shielding to block the entrance and windows.

There are many serious safety problems at all the nuclear power plants which led the NRA to issue new safety standards, and in many of the plants that is still not happening or can't be done, like at the one I stated in Tokai?

No comment from you on 90% of the work force fleeing the nuclear disaster. Can anyone really be sure that wouldn't happen again, even at the Onagawa plant.

The plaintiffs in the court case are not opposed to restarting the reactors. They just don't want it to happen until the safety is increased even beyond a level of the new standards.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@Heda, as has been WIDELY reported radiation alarms on the perimeter fencing at Dai-Ichi were sounding before, as in preceding, the tsunami(s) hit.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Within 250km of the plant??!?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company concluded in its final report stated that measures taken by TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear regulator to prepare the Fukushima nuclear plant for earthquakes and tsunamies were "insufficient".

Officials ignored the risks of an atomic accident because they believed in the 'myth of nuclear safety'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_Committee_on_the_Accident_at_the_Fukushima_Nuclear_Power_Stations_of_Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company#Final_investigation_report

Did you even read it? https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf

The major conclusion and accepted by TEPCO is that the nuclear disaster was a manmade one and given there's been no real change since 3/11, there remains the possibility that it will happen again especially since the country expects very powerful earthquakes in the near future. If the plant wasn't damaged by the earthquake when did the report state the TEPCO didn't take sufficient measures against them?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Falla, yes. Hopefully 25,000 km from the plant too.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The best the advocates can do is lie, distort facts and attack anyone who doubts the path of the Nuclear sunshine that we are too blinded to see, 3 years of excuses and distortion have taught me that, the sunshine they talk of is actually a train rushing towards me.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

1) a nuclear disaster of equal or worse magnitude could happen again

Basic risk assessment. Something, which hasn't killed anyone and will at worst kill a couple of hundred people (UN/WHO) as opposed to the alternative. An increase in the use of fossil fuels which is guaranteed to lead thousands of extra deaths a year.

Still, facts and science such as that will be regarded as being distortion or conjecture or even lies.

Wipeout - not entirely sure of your point. Had the tsunami not happened, there wouldn't have been the disaster that happened. One of the posters, who I'm not allowed to name by the moderators, has claimed that the reactor was damaged in the earthquake.

Now, that is a distortion, it is conjecture and it's also grossly incorrect. Still, I'll get marked down for it. Doesn't change the fact that plant would have survived had it not been for the tsunami. Had there been a bigger wall, better design etc it wouldn't have happened. What is needed to prevent another Fukushima is relatively simple to do. What is needed to prevent the deaths from fossil fuels (the current alternative) is, well, impossible.

Still, there's no nuclear so let's all celebrate those extra deaths that are caused as a result of it

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Heda_Madness

The use of nuclear energy in this country over the past 50 years or more has been an enormous failure economically, environmentally and politically. It has failed to live up to the original promise of providing cheap, clean and safe energy.

Trillions of money from the public purse have been poured into an industry which after many decades was only capable of building about 54 reactors in 18 nuclear energy plants which at its peak only achieved 27% of total power needs. The industry and the gov't still haven't resolved the problem of the long term storage of the spent nuclear fuel.

Trillions were pumped into the Monju Fast Breeder Reactor which is another massive failure of the nuclear industry, and the project has finally been abandoned but it will take billions to decommission the reactor.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster will take more than 100 years to try and clean, eventually costing more than ¥50 trillion. To date, TEPCO have already received more than ¥10 trillion and will need another ¥25 trillion over the next 10 years.

Something, which hasn't killed anyone and will at worst kill a couple of hundred people (UN/WHO) as opposed to the alternative.

The nuclear disaster forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes, communities, schools, friends and family, business has collapsed and trillions lost. The nuclear refugee's are receiving monthly support but too many continue to live in temporary buildings. More than 60% of the evacuated households are living in separate places or have divorced. Many will never be able to return to their former homes even though they must continue to pay the monthly mortgage payments.

There are 75 cases of thyroid cancers in children under 18 years but like most radiation cancers its impossible to make the link?

You claim the reactors weren't damaged by the earthquake but offer no explanation to how the reactor containment vessels, suppression chambers and the No3 cooling valve were damaged. Certainly not from the tsunami? Highly irradiated water, hundreds of tons per day pours out through those cracks and into the reactor basements.

Doesn't change the fact that plant would have survived had it not been for the tsunami. Had there been a bigger wall, better design etc it wouldn't have happened. What is needed to prevent another Fukushima is relatively simple to do.

Why don't you just take your conjecture back to the further point and state if they hadn't built an atomic plant there wouldn't have been a nuclear disaster. You certainly seem to lack some understanding of the complex engineering involved in a nuclear plant, which is shown by your statement, "What is needed to prevent another Fukushima is relatively simple to do."

Some of the nuclear power plants, like the one in Tokai, can't be retrofitted to even reach the new safety standards set by the NRA. The cost of the safety updates runs into ¥trillions.

You are fond of stating that the Onagawa atomic plant which is owned by the Tohoku Power Co. did its job and survived the 3/11 disasters but the same company built its other nuclear plant on an active fault line and the NRA have refused to restart the reactor there.

Following the 3/11 nuclear disaster, it became clear, more of the country's nuclear power plants are like the ones in Fukushima and not the one at Onagawa.

The future for nuclear energy in this country don't look so good when the NRA stated that its unlikely that nuclear energy will be able to generate more than 15% of total power needed?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's hillarious that you accuse others of conjecture. The claim that the reactor was damaged in the earthquake (despite no evidence) is nothing but conjecture. As are most of your regular posts.

I am fond of saying that Onagawa was a success because, well it was. I've also constantly criticised Tepco.

I do find it wonderfully ironic that you constantly try and lecture me on the suffering of the people of Fukushima yet all you've done for them is donate a bit to the red cross. You know what they say about action and words.

It's interesting that you've stopped claiming that thousands died in the evacuation. It's also interesting that you claim that nuclear has been a failure. Over the past 50 years it has saved tens of thousands of lives. It has made a drastic difference in the amount of C02 pollution generated from Japan.

Still, it's apparently the pro-nuclear supporters who spread the lies and misinformation isn't it?

Despite all facts pointing to the opposite.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Readers, no bickering please.

@zichi

You're obviously very well-informed and very intelligent.

My question to you is:

What the heck should Japan do to ensure a safe, economically viable future when it comes to the generation of electricity? Help!!

0 ( +1 / -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