national

Kyushu Electric to start loading fuel rods into Sendai plant on Tuesday

29 Comments

Kyushu Electric Power plans to start loading fuel into the No. 1 reactor at its Sendai nuclear plant in Kagoshima Prefecture on Tuesday.

The utility informed the Nuclear Regulation Authority of its schedule on Friday.

Kyushu Electric said 157 nuclear fuel rods will be inserted into the reactor by crane over a four-day period.

Barring any problems, the Sendai nuclear plant is scheduled to be brought back online in mid-August. A restart of the 890-megawatt No. 1 reactor following stringent safety checks would mark the first resumption of nuclear power generation in nearly two years.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said rebooting the country's nuclear sector is needed to cut the cost of using fossil fuels for power generation, but he faces a deeply skeptical public after the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Kyushu Electric initially planned to restart the No. 1 reactor in July but operational checks took two weeks longer than previously announced.

The company made no changes to the planned restart of the 890-megawatt Sendai No. 2 reactor in late September.

All 43 of Japan's operable nuclear reactors are currently offline. However, five of them have received basic clearance and are at varying stages of the review process.

© Japan Today/Thomson Reuters

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

Excellent.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

About time, but turning on a few plants will never come close to compensating for the insane environmental damage done over the last 4+ years (and which will continue for decades), allegedly to protect people from "danger", but in reality to line a lot of pockets. Textbook disaster capitalism, and criminal.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

Pollution from fossil fuel plants is a danger as well.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

@Guy_Jean_Dailleult

About time, but turning on a few plants will never come close to compensating for the insane environmental damage done over the last 4+ years (and which will continue for decades)

Care to provide figures instead of emotionally charged statements? The three big polluters from coal burning are China, India, USA and those are followed by Australia. Coal, gas and oil account for 90% of the global energy consumption. China accounts for half of the world's coal consumption.

Air Pollution In Japan:Real-Time Air Quality Index Visual Map http://aqicn.org/map/japan/#@g/35.5956/132.7627/6z

The 2011 nuclear disaster also caused pollution and contamination of the environment and the displacement of 150,000 people with the lost of so many communities. To date, the cost of the nuclear disaster is more than ¥10 trillion but before its over will cost more than ¥50 trillion.

The cost of decommissioning the current fleet of reactors will be ¥5 trillion and will produce more than 150,000 tons of nuclear waste requiring safe storage, along with the current 20,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in pools at the NPP's.

There's also the cost of the Aomori reprocessing plant which now won't even be operational until sometime 2018-2020.

The failed Monju fast breeder reactor costing more than ¥1 trillion. The safe storage of 150 tons of plutonium. 50 tons inside the country.

The costs to build and maintain a very long term storage for spent fuel and other high grade nuclear waste.

By 2030 most of the current fleet of reactors will have reached the end of their life cycle or about to in the 2030's. The cost of building 40 new reactors will be ¥30 trillion to ¥50 trillion even if local permissions can be obtained.

Prior to the nuclear disaster, nuclear energy from 54 reactors generated 27% of total power demand and without the disaster probably by 2050 that would have increased to 40%, but now that's very unlikely. The NRA have decided that not all of the current 48 reactors are safe to restart without expensive critical updates. The power utilities have decided that with reactors reaching the end of life cycles the cost of the critical updates are not possible.

So we have a situation with the NRA deciding about 20-25 reactors could be restarted but will in future only generate 15% of total power demand. That 15% of power from nuclear energy will not reduce the level of air borne pollution by very much.

The country needs to increase the use of renewable energy and according to a recent report from the Ministry of Environment, by 2030, the country could generate 30% of its power from renewables which would reduce the current level of air borne pollution.

Pollution from fossil fuels isn't just a problem for a country, it's a global problem needing a global solution and nuclear energy isn't the solution since it currently only generates about 10% of total global power demand.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Just because the gun is loaded doesn't mean it will be fired. There are legal hurdles yet to be climbed and moral, ethical and common sense components to be considered. No to nuclear.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

When the big cities have to be abandoned after the next major quake on a fault line (on which one of these NPPs sits), they'll STILL insist it's safe, couldn't have seen it coming, was no one's fault, shouldn't jump to conclusions on the safety of nuclear power, etc. They'll never learn.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"When the big cities have to be abandoned after the next major quake on a fault line (on which one of these NPPs sits), they'll STILL insist it's safe, couldn't have seen it coming, was no one's fault, shouldn't jump to conclusions on the safety of nuclear power, etc. They'll never learn."

They will force what they want, regardless of consequences. Unknowingly "the old foundation is being setup for removal", cant stop it, just flee in time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As usual, Zichi (above) comes through with a well-thought out piece on nuclear power. And "smithinjapan" brings home another moot point about what is happening. The only thing I can say at this point is that I agree with them ...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Care to provide figures instead of emotionally charged statements?

Facts are not "emotionally charged statements". Japan is the only industrialized country in the world currently INCREASING its coal-generated electricity capacity. Most are actively working to decrease it.

From Bloomberg, April 9th, 2015: "New coal power projects planned for Japan could emit carbon dioxide equal to about a 10th of the country’s total emissions, an environmental group said in a statement Thursday. Japan has 43 coal power projects either under construction or planned, representing combined capacity of 21,200 megawatts, according to a statement from the Kyoto-based Kiko Network. “These projects, which may still be operating in 2050, run counter to Japan’s efforts to tackle climate change and should be quickly reviewed or stopped,” the group said."

That's right, there are 43 new coal power plants under construction or planned in Japan right now. Each of which will add to the pollution and CO2 released by the increased use of coal over the last 4 years. And each of which will individually cause far more deaths and negative health effects through normal operation than radiation from the DaiIchi accident itself caused (the health effects of coal, and in particular the health effects of living close to a coal power plant have all been scientifically and medically documented). An accident that by the way has caused ZERO deaths from radiation (fact) and never will (fact). And it's an accident that led to a "solution" that has, by some bizarre coincidence, led to trillions of yen / hundreds of billions of dollars finding their way to corporations in the coal and natural gas businesses. So everybody can just keep dreaming about the wonderful world of renewable energy that they know is just around the corner, but the big boys are quite happy to do their own thing.

The 2011 nuclear disaster also caused pollution and contamination of the environment and the displacement of 150,000 people with the lost of so many communities

There was no "contamination" of the environment in Fukushima anywhere outside of the plant itself, and no scientific justification for the displacement of 150,000 people for 4 years and 4 months. You are welcome to go and try to find any qualified radiation expert who will say otherwise. And by that I mean actually "qualified" not one of the many charlatans and fraudsters endlessly paraded out by the media.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

"There was no "contamination" of the environment in Fukushima anywhere outside of the plant "

really? http://netc.com/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Guy, you have to remember that Zichi is of the belief that Japanese coal is different. Fossil fuels from other countries are dangerous but Japanese ones aren't. He also seems to be of the opinion that people don't die in Japan from fossil fuels. Therefore an increase in fossil fuels hasn't let to an increase in deaths. obviously this is different to the rest of the world but Japan is different. Apparently

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Guy_Jean_Dailleult

Japan currently generates around 1,000 TWh per year with about 25% of that being generated from coal fired plants and its correct the country plants to build a further 6 coal fired plants using technology which removes 90% of the pollutants and particles. I would prefer zero use of coal, at least for power generation but unfortunately the price of it makes it attractive to the power utilities. http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-continues-to-re-embrace-coal-1426162227

PM Abe spoke about increasing the baseload to 60% by using nuclear, renewables and coal which I think would increase coal to 30% of total power generated.

There are currently 18 coal fired plants in Japan so your quoted statement of 43 coal fired plants under construction or planned seems a misguided figure, since that would mean something like a threefold increase of those plants.

Your statement about the new coal fired plants does not back up your statement "compensating for the insane environmental damage done over the last 4+ years (and which will continue for decades)," since those power plants haven't been built to date.

"Japan has 43 coal power projects either under construction or planned," that is incorrect.

On the Kiko Network website there's no statement about 43 coal fired plants? http://www.kikonet.org/category/eng/

There are several government press releases, one dated Oct. 23, 2014 about the proposal to construct 25 coal fired plants. I can find no reports about 43 new coal fired plants. Do you have a direct link to a government statement?

http://www.kikonet.org/eng/press-release-en/2014-10-23/coal-power-plants-plans

China is building about one new coal fired power plant every week and using only basic technology. Coal fired power plants account for 40% of global power demand. Japan is incorporating new technology into the new and old plants.

http://www.jpower.co.jp/english/company_info/environment/pdf/er2014pdf/14-05.pdf

Are you unable to provide any figure for the increased levels of pollution since the shutdown of all the nuclear reactors two years ago?

And each of which will individually cause far more deaths and negative health effects through normal operation than radiation from the DaiIchi accident itself caused (the health effects of coal, and in particular the health effects of living close to a coal power plant have all been scientifically and medically documented).

The documentation on the number of deaths caused by air borne pollution from the various types of fuel used is very much generalised and takes no account the electricity saves millions of lives every year, much more than those who maybe associated with premature deaths. The majority of premature deaths from air borne pollution is greatest among those people without any form of electricity because they are forced to cook indoors on smokey fires. More of the women suffer premature death than the men. Electricity from solar energy and other renewables could reduce that premature death rate quick and cheaper than nuclear power which can only be afforded by the rich nations.

So everybody can just keep dreaming about the wonderful world of renewable energy that they know is just around the corner, but the big boys are quite happy to do their own thing.

Did you fail to understand that between the next couple of years and until the 2030's when we see the restart of a limited number of reactors generating only 15% of total power demand, the remaining 85% of total demand will have to be generated from other fuels and the more renewables are developed the lower the cost until we reach the day when coal becomes more expensive than renewables which is the only way to encourage the power utilities to stop using it. The use of renewable energy in Japan as increased greatly since the nuclear disaster and will continue to grow especially since the power utilities have lost their monopoly over both power generation and power supply.

There was no "contamination" of the environment in Fukushima anywhere outside of the plant itself, and no scientific justification for the displacement of 150,000 people for 4 years and 4 months.

Then how do you explain the radiation reading and the soil analysis all showing very high levels of contamination in both soil and water and the tens billions being spent to remove the contaminated soil. The nuclear disaster contaminated the air, soil and ocean and got into the foodstuffs also discovered from analysis? How do you explain that some areas outside of ground zero have radiation levels greater than 50 millisieverts/year and according to the government its unlikely the people from those areas will ever be allowed to return to them?

You didn't attempt to address a single issue of nuclear energy which I stated in my previous comment?

@Heda_Madness

your personal attack is on par from you but always incorrect. I don' support the use of coal or nuclear energy but unfortunately your support for nuclear energy will only provide 15% of the total power demand, and by the 2030's the use of nuclear energy here will end by default. What are your solutions for generating the other 85% of power demand now, and the 100% come 2030?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Zichi...not a person attack at all.

Just whenever anyone highlights fossil fuels in Japan. You talk about every other countries use of fossil fuels. Which is irrelevant and designed to deflect from the death and destruction that the switch to coal in Japan has caused. Not once have you said it's unacceptable that this happens. Ybut you do constantly claim that it doesn't happen in Japan.

The nuclear accident got into the ground. The ai and food. But at what levels. At what risl to health. Your statements are sweeping. Yes it's in the Pacific but it's 1 percent of the total radiation in that ocean. It's in the food but as has been proven numerous times before not at levels that are hazardous to health. And substantially lower than that is from your home country.

Your argument is nuclear is bad. It's on a par with saying per die when they fly.

Safest form of travel. Safest form of power.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Fools

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@zichi The figure of 43 new coal plants has been reported by a number of media sources, the one I referred to was from Bloomberg. If you don't trust them to give you the correct information about coal, then why do you think they are giving you the correct information about nuclear (and yes I know that works both ways)

As for contamination, I have learned since my last comment that the definition of "contamination" as used in nuclear safety is stretched so far from its actual meaning in the English language that the use of the word is useless and meaningless. But I have to go now, I just spilled coffee on my shirt, it is contaminated and I have to go burn it.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@Heda_Madness

Zichi...not a person attack at all.

Oh! but it was, when your comment contained no actual facts or info and just a personal insult.

Just whenever anyone highlights fossil fuels in Japan. You talk about every other countries use of fossil fuels.

Probably because I see that air borne pollution is a global problem which needs to be tackled on a global level.

Which is irrelevant and designed to deflect from the death and destruction that the switch to coal in Japan has caused. Not once have you said it's unacceptable that this happens. Ybut you do constantly claim that it doesn't happen in Japan.

No its not irrelevant to see the problem on a global level and just what death and destruction has been caused in Japan since the reactor shut downs two years ago, with the greatest increase in fossil fuels being LNG and not coal?

The nuclear accident got into the ground. The air and food. But at what levels.

At levels Tokyo was required to take actions to prevent the foodstuffs reaching market, action costing billions to decontaminate the soil and waters. At levels not permitted under Japanese laws even allowing for higher levels of radiation in Fukushima than is allowed in all the other prefectures.

It's in the food but as has been proven numerous times before not at levels that are hazardous to health. And substantially lower than that is from your home country.

Following the nuclear disaster the contamination of food was higher than allowed under law. Most of the food stuff from Fukushima is now lower, but still not 100% and still not from within the exclusion zone. If and when people return to their former communities we will have to see what happens when they also grow crops again.

Your argument is nuclear is bad.

Gee not much of of an educated reply? No and you didn't even attempt to address a single issue about nuclear energy which I made in my first comment nor did you make any attempt to answer now even when the reactors are restarted and only able to generate 15% of total power demand, how the other 85% can be generated without the use of fossil fuels. You have no answers when in the 2030's nuclear energy will end by default?

In America there are over 600 coal fired power plants used to generate 40% of total power demand, or 2,000TWh. That's equal to about 7 times the total generated by Japan from coal which is 300TWh. In the period from 2000, America built 34 new coal fired plants compared with 91 plants in the 1990's. Many of the current coal fired power plants are old and lack the technology now available for cleaner coal. I'm opposed to coal burning but if its to be allowed, it should be at least in new technology plants. In Japan since the shut down of the reactors the greatest increase in fossil fuel is LNG.

I'm opposed to the use of nuclear energy, too expensive and elitist and not a global solution and I'm also opposed to fossil fuels, especially coal.

The future is about renewable energy.

Guy_Jean_Dailleult

@zichi The figure of 43 new coal plants has been reported by a number of media sources, the one I referred to was from Bloomberg.

The Bloomberg article only quoted from the Kiko Net site, which I visited and read much of what was there but could find no direct link, press release or article showing that currently 43 new coal fired plants are under construction or planned. So again, if you have a direct link to a government statement I would like to have it.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

On Jun.1 2015, Greenpeace released a confidential IAEA report on the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster.

"Yukiya Amano, the IAEA Director General says the report is 'an authoritative, factual and balanced assessment, addressing the causes and consequences of the accident, as well as lessons learned.'"

Yet our experts find it to be full of inaccuracies, uncertainties, and that it fails to address several highly important issues. We've sent our findings to Mr Amano.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/IAEA-Fukushima-Daiichi-accident-report/blog/53055/

In the IAEA report, it admits that radiation monitoring was not working properly in the days immediately after the Fukushima disaster began. Meaning estimates of the levels of radiation the people of Fukushima were exposed to cannot be trusted.

Greenpeace preliminary analysis http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/japan/pdf/IAEA%20analysis%20by%20GP%2020150528.pdf

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So again, if you have a direct link to a government statement I would like to have it.

No idea why you think the Japanese government would be issuing any statements on this topic or have any interest in it being publicized. If you choose to question the accuracy of Kiko Networks' research and findings regarding what is actually going on (as opposed to what is being promoted as going on) then that is your prerogative. However in my experience, those who oppose nuclear power never actually question anything that supports their worldview, as can be seen above in your citing of Greenpeace and ListenToTruth's recitation of the standard anti-nuclear talking points. But not surprised to see that the accuracy of information that does NOT support that worldview suddenly must be questioned and its accuracy verified.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Guy_Jean_Dailleult

No idea why you think the Japanese government would be issuing any statements on this topic or have any interest in it being publicized.

Your comment is a little strange? Before a company can build a power plant it must apply for permission from the Tokyo and also local governments. Under environmental laws, Tokyo will make an investigation on the impact of building a power plant and on completion will issue a report and statement.

If you choose to question the accuracy of Kiko Networks' research and findings regarding what is actually going on (as opposed to what is being promoted as going on) then that is your prerogative.

The point, the source of your quote that here in Japan 43 new coal fired power plants are under construction or being planned is from the KikoNetwork in Kyoto. But I searched the site for an article about just that but couldn't find any, so again do you have an actual link to an article on that topic?

However in my experience, those who oppose nuclear power never actually question anything that supports their worldview, as can be seen above in your citing of Greenpeace and ListenToTruth's recitation of the standard anti-nuclear talking points.

I read the IAEA reports about Japan/Fukushima, the NRA and many pro nuclear organisations and I also read a few anti nuclear sites, like Greenpeace, but actually not many of those because I can make my own conclusions based on the real facts.

But not surprised to see that the accuracy of information that does NOT support that worldview suddenly must be questioned and its accuracy verified.

You have only provided a link to a Bloomberg article which sourced the KikoNetwork and even major publishers can make errors.

But you didn't even attempt to address any of the real issues of using nuclear energy which I stated in my first comment so it looks like you are the one avoiding the questions that really matter.

On the KikoNetwork I made a site search for "coal fired power plants" and this came up,

http://www.kikonet.org/?s=coal+fired+power+plants

I just couldn't find any article on your claim of 43 new coal plants. I did find one for 25 new ones and only 2 of those are actually under construction. The article does not mention that many of the older coal plants are being decommissioned or replaced with more modern plants which is the intention of Kobe Steel for instance.

http://www.kikonet.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/141017coalpowerplant_plansbidsshutdown_en.pdf

But we both agree we are against the use of coal for power generation and I'm also opposed to nuclear energy since its use can only be very limited. The KikoNetwork is also about phasing out nuclear power.

One of the five aims of the KikoNetwork,

Promote a sustainable energy system that doesn’t depend on either fossil fuels or nuclear power

http://www.kikonet.org/eng/about-us-en/our-mission

So I'm happy to see you supporting that! Good man!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@zichi - Again, if you have a problem or doubts about the accuracy of the Kiko Network's research or Bloomberg's reporting of the research, take it up with them. If I have reason to doubt that a report is accurate I will attempt to get more information, but I really don't spend my time personally verifying the accuracy of every piece of information I come across when I have no reason to question it. And I have no intention to.

Before a company can build a power plant it must apply for permission from the Tokyo and also local governments. Under environmental laws, Tokyo will make an investigation on the impact of building a power plant and on completion will issue a report and statement.

Possibly the reason you don't hear about it is that the environmental laws have been changed. Again, not something you will likely see in Japanese media, but it was covered by the Australian media a couple of years ago and the information can be easily found. Basically the environmental assessment process for new coal plants has been fast-tracked (aka gutted) and the time reduced by, I believe, 80%. A safe bet would be that the reports and statements you mentioned were among the things cut.

Promote a sustainable energy system that doesn’t depend on either fossil fuels or nuclear power

I would be more than happy if this objective can be reached. However it looks much more like a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The worst case scenario risks of this vision of the future being a pipe-dream are magnitudes of order greater than the alleged worst case scenario of the risks of nuclear. They don't belong even remotely in the same conversation. It is basically an insane bet and gamble, and we can only hope it wins.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Guy_Jean_Dailleult

In all your comments on this post you failed to answer or address any of the real issues concerning nuclear energy but I suppose I should expect just that. Your previous comment is 100% incorrect.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@zichi - I have been respectful and stated my position quite clearly all along, but seriously, your refusal to deal with the questions raised about the increased use of coal in Japan is getting very boring. As for the alleged "real issues" of nuclear power well I didn't raise them, but I can only assume you are referring to the usual anti-nuclear propaganda talking points about waste, cost, time etc. Well, you know what Goebbels said about saying the same things over and over don't you?

Nothing I said in the previous comment was incorrect. It is not my job to verify the accuracy of reporting, and if you can find contrary evidence go ahead and send it along and I will then change my opinion. The environmental assessment process for coal power plants in Japan was changed so that plants can be built much more quickly, that is fact. And the worst case risk scenario of not using nuclear power is infinitely greater than the worst case risk scenario of using nuclear power. That is also a fact. Whatever people agree about the probabilities of those scenarios and the weight they give them is their business, but it doesn't change the scenarios. Your preferred option in the worst case is far more dangerous than mine. Have fun with your gambling.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You fail To understand and accept that I'm equally against the use of coal as I am with nuclear energy. When the limited numbers of reactors are restarted will reduce the level of LNG currently used but the amount of coal will continue and according to PM Abe that level of coal use will increase.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What I understand is that you, and many other people, want to have your cake and eat it too. You also don't want to consider the possibility that you won't be having your cake and eating it too, or the possible consequences of what that will mean. You also don't want to acknowledge that the Japanese government and Japan Inc. are actively working to make sure you don't.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

More idiocy

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

you, and many other people, want to have your cake and eat it too.

Uranium yellow cake-ugh! no thanks!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Zichi,

Pollution from fossil fuels isn't just a problem for a country, it's a global problem needing a global solution and nuclear energy isn't the solution since it currently only generates about 10% of total global power demand.

A global power generation level which "Green" activists try to keep low through litigation, protest and misinformation.

That 15% of power from nuclear energy will not reduce the level of air borne pollution by very much.

PLUS

by 2030, the country could generate 30% of its power from renewables which would reduce the current level of air borne pollution.

Equals 45% low-carbon power, which would reduce the airborne pollution even more. Why stop at that though?

I'm opposed to the use of nuclear energy, too expensive and elitist and not a global solution and I'm also opposed to fossil fuels, especially coal.

Elitist? That's a new one! How about the well-off getting subsidies to put solar panels on their rooves and getting paid premium prices for the electricity they produce...something that the poorer off cannot do, but have to subsidize.

The future is about renewable energy.

Dogma.

In the IAEA report, it admits that radiation monitoring was not working properly in the days immediately after the Fukushima disaster began. Meaning estimates of the levels of radiation the people of Fukushima were exposed to cannot be trusted.

From the IAEA report:

"The early assessments of radiation doses used environmental monitoring and dose estimation models, resulting in some overestimations. For the estimates in this report, personal monitoring data provided by the local authorities were also included to provide more robust information on the actual individual doses incurred and their distribution. These estimates indicate that the effective doses incurred by members of the public were low, and generally comparable to the range of effective doses incurred due to global levels of natural background radiation. "

AND

"After the accident, monitoring was carried out on more than 200 000 residents in various locations within Fukushima Prefecture. The levels were generally lower than the very low detection limits of the whole body counters, indicating little or no intake of radionuclides into the body. As a result, it was neither possible nor necessary to undertake detailed statistical analysis of these data."

So, there were initial overestimations, but this was corrected using personal data. Residents were monitored using whole body counters, and little or no radionuclide intake was observed.

Greenpeace trying to spin things their way again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guy_Jean_Dailleult and other educated guys, Glad to hear the rational voice here. Nuclear power is not prefect yet it's thousand time better than the fossil fuel. The fact is that no one died as a consequence of radiation in Fukushima.

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