national

Kyushu town rallies for nuclear plant restart

53 Comments
By Mari Saito

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

"a construction crew is laying down asphalt to widen the evacuation route in the event of a future disaster."Why? If these plants are so safe ..... And Instead of bowing down to the old staus quo of nuclear artificially supporting the local rural economy, why not build up the local economy by introducing new cash crops to make use of all the vacant rice fileds that are all over the country and a government program to get young people back to the land - many easy schemes and systems for a responsible government to choose from.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

"Why? If these plants are so safe!"

Now one is claiming anything is ever 100% risk free. Common sense says plan for the worst while working to ensure risks are constantly evaluated and minimized.

If these people vote to restart, it can't be said that they don't know the risks.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Yep! And there you have it folks! Economics overpowering common sense!

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Disillusioned Well said . It s the way nuclear is sold . Always been and will be .

Taj If these people vote to start the only reason is to make a few bucks . Has nothing to do with safety , i think it s easy to see from the text of this article .

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

many easy schemes and systems for a responsible government to choose from.

Take a look around the world and name me a "responsible government."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

For the love of god, turn them back on!!!! The country is suffering... Turn them on, develop a plan to replace them, and become the world leader in energy that you could be, Japan!!!!!

4 ( +10 / -6 )

“I know it was a horrible accident, but right now I’m more concerned about the economy and my job,” said Hiroya Komatsu, 28. “We saw it on TV, but it could very well have been the Philippines. It didn’t feel like it was Japan.”

Well believe me, it wasn't in the Philippines and we certainly felt it here in Yokohama... Maybe next time it will be YOUR turn...?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Kiss1969 - Turning them back on us not the problem. Everyone knows that they will do whatever they can to get ALL the reactors running again regardless of the dangers and public opinion. They have no intention of doing anything about phasing them out it investing in alternatives because the government makes too much money from them and at present, the government is not making money from fossil fuels

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It's 2014 not 1984, get a grip Japan...all of the/your "Leaders" are generations behind, they are still focussed on WW2 , nebular power gives them junk in their pants. They don't care about the future at all. The Hebivores will inherit a guilt free poisoned "suprising" future.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The illegal Drug economy as well as Drug Addicted People have many things in common with the Nuclear friendly Society, i mean it not in a bad way but i think their Arguments are very similar!

For a/the restart of nuclear Power Stations here in Japan we need a different Contract Model for the Worker, there should be no restart with "Nuclear Gypsies", we need educated People who know what is going on inside of this type of Plants!

Contractor who are able to get contracts from NPS must be responsible for their Workers, this means safety Training, Health-checks in a Long Terms and proper Supervision by the Plant Owner!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Kyushu town rallies for nuclear plant restart? Other than the headline, this article has no mention of the rallies. It Interesting that whenever there is a protest, (the numbers of people attending), are always mentioned but NO mention of the number of supporters. Though I do feel bad for ANYONE who has lost their only form of income, I feel even worse for those who lost EVERYTHING, due to the disaster at Fukushima!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

'We saw Fukushima on TV, but it could very well have been the Philippines.' Being parochial is not cute or kawaii even at just 28 years of age.

The former mayor of Tokaimura, Ibaraki Pref., that had a pioneering role in the nation’s nuclear development expressed his opposition to nuclear power as an energy source. “It has been said that a local community can enjoy benefits by hosting a nuclear power plant, but it is just an illusion,” (Tatsuya Murakami)

Of course the weakest link will start up first.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Jerrysisland,

The former mayor of Tokaimura, Ibaraki Pref., that had a pioneering role in the nation’s nuclear development expressed his opposition to nuclear power as an energy source. “It has been said that a local community can enjoy benefits by hosting a nuclear power plant, but it is just an illusion,” (Tatsuya Murakami)

Indeed, why bother with experts when we have village mayors to impart their wisdom...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Why you guys are so anti nuclear power ?. Would you rather burn more dirty coals and keep choking the planet?.

Sure solar and wind are supplementary energy sources, but cannot be maintained as the required baseloads. There is no better baseload power sources atm. Hydropower schemes destroyed many ecosystems.. Lets look at China and Brazil experiences for the Yangtze and the Amazon rivers.....

The new Generation-4 reactor only generate 1% waste that require permanent storage..The fact is extreme natural disaster (earthquake & tsunami) caused the Fukushima radiation leakage. Unfortunately, Japan built most of their nuclear reactors in the wrong places for the start. Why can't they be moved to the more stable and protective places along the west-coast ?..

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Kenny76 "Baseload" is another term used by pronuke supporters to discredit antinuke movement . It is possible to have green energy sources to support the baseload . Just because green sources like solar and wind are intermittent doesnt mean we cannot store the energy . It is this kind of disinformation that stands in the way of green sources. To use the example of fukushima as an "extreme disaster" case is another pronuke way of misleiding as if nuclear accidents would ONLY occur in extreme tsunami / earth quake cases . How quickly did we forget aboput chernobyl three mile island etc .

It is impossible to build safe nuclear plants and it is irresponsible to continue with this technology as long as there i8s no solution for nuclear waste ( and no just burying it doesnt make it go away )

We have to make conscieous decisions about how to power the world in a sustainable way .

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

johndpugh... Please don't just complain, and please do provide some sustainable solutions for alternative clean powers and storage.

Storage for solar and wind powers using batteries, water and heat storages ?. How much mineral resources do you think we need to mine, keep on polluting the environment , and destroying the ecosystem to make more batteries, and build more dams ?

We probably much better off spending more money on cold fusion research and chasing after anti matter :)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Can it be centralized?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just wait a few more days, and we'll hear the that the Satsumasendai plant managers are behind this campaign, as they did a few years ago with orchestrated media broadcasts...

And of course they will then they deny that they had anything to do with it, until a memo or email surfaces...

Finally they will apologise and say it was a misunderstanding, they regret the miscommunication, and will reflect deeply on their behaviour...

Until the next time...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Kenny76 I disagree . Energy storage does not mean simply creating more batteries. It can be in many forms, from as simple as , pumping water uphill during sunlight and letting it run back downhill at night producing energy ,,,, to creating hydrogen and storing it etc , etc . Sun light has enough energy in it to sustain whole humanity for a long time to come . It is not just improving the technology of solar and wind but also the efficicency on production , usage , storage etc at all levels . There are many projects in every country being developed but far from adequate since the investments goes into traditional sources like coal and nuclear . Those huge investments need to be redirected for the development of green sources. Even though it may seem a bit more expensive than coal and nuclear at the moment , it is definitely worth the investment and some countries are beginning to see the light and switching to more and more green sources. I just hope its not too little too late .

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

All this happening in my prefecture!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We saw it on TV, but it could very well have been the Philippines. It didn’t feel like it was Japan.”

These people will never learn. I bet the people in Fukushima who are still in shelter but who had jobs because they lived close to the plant thought the same thing and now, if they have not committed suicide, are realizing how much more life is worth than a few bucks. It's not an 'if', it's a 'when', and these people are going to learn that the hard way. Need proof? how about the introduction to the article talking about Kyushu Electric widening the streets for disaster? If they cannot guarantee 100% that no problems will occur that is 100% reason why the NPPs should not be restarted.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

These people are 28years old

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@ Johndpugh,

Solar Energy do not come for free, as many People think, in fact their production is a highly toxic Process and very dangerous, but still much more harmless than Nuclear Waste!

We, as the Japanese Society are on a good way to be the champions in Energy Saving, We must continue to go this Way, let us ruin the price for Energy, let us be creative "and" responsible

We need a liberation of the energy market, the monopol (of Energy Production) is a Relict of the old Days but we are living in a global World where we must have a choice of the type of Energy we want to consume!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

spucky It is a problem with many aspects and challenges, you are right , even more the reason to try to invest to develop better environmentally sound , cheaper , more effective methods on one hand and all the above mentioned , usage ,transport , performance , population growth etc on the other . There are goals set each time by governments which cant be met and are getting adapted and readapted each year . One thing for sure though , nuclear is not going to bring us there to reach those goals and in fact its just bringing us further and further away . The mind set has to change . People have to realize that there is much more at stake here then just "cheap" electricty , or new jobs created at a city . If even in japan , only 3 years after fukushima , people are demonstrating to start nuclear plants , then the battle is already lost .

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A sensible town, I drink to them. It is so encouraging to see some common sense among all the irrational antinuclear hysteria.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@JohnDpugh,

actually the majority of the Japanese People decided to return to the nuclear Japan with the last Election and i can understand them because they want the old Times back, the Bubble time was a immense success for many and i fear for Japan when i see the decreasing Quality of Life for the People here.

To go "new Ways" need Time and a Plan, Japan do not have any Resources and Russia is a very bad business Partner, Japan also do not have any Space for new Hydro-Dams as well as we cant lose more spoiled Soil like we see in F'Shima, what we need and what we must support is our intellectual Capacity, we need and we will find Alternatives soon but until this Days (i expect 10-20 years) we need to go the old Ways but under a much harder Supervision from the Apparatus!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Spucky I would hope you were right ,, but i am afraid this will be just another excuse for getting back to business as usual . They are only waiting for the public to be ready to accept the fact that they are going back to nuclear,, it takes sometime after such a disaster but it seems 3 years was just about right to turn them back on .

WilliB It is not antinuclear hysteria , its just some people not being able to or wanting to comprehend the issue . There is some hope though , some countries like germany are beginning to come to their senses and started working on turning all nuclear plants off,, but obviously there are still a lot of disinformed people , sticking their heads in the sand and thinking widening a road would solve their problem :) Ignorance is bliss .

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

johndpugh/spuky.... Guys, I am with you on the sustainable green future.. Changing into solar, wind and hydrogen energy, etc would take a few decades, and surely will cost plenty for building new infrastructure. We cannot simply just shut down nuclear and fossil fuels powers and go green overnight. What Japan is doing atm is just simply impulsive reaction to nuclear, simply going backward burning more fossil fuels and create more environmental problems... and could go broke in a few years...

Using water storage for peak load creates it own problem, believe me, I involved in the design of a few water pumping schemes in Australia, and it can be eco-unfriendly as hydropower, and the power conversion efficiency is not that good.

What I am saying is... we need some reliable transitional power sources to reduce the green house gas emissions atm, giving us enough time to build those new green power infrastructure. Fission nuclear energy is that choice to keep the world economy running for a few decades or so. China seems to see it as a short-terms solution for saving their cities from choking.... Fusion energy will be the next step, and I have no doubt our children will eventually tapping our sun, and stars for power.

We can dream guys, but be realistic.... Cheers... Ken

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Until there is an efficient way to store energy, green schemes will only go as far as a government can afford to subsidize them. On their own, they are a road to nowhere. I am hoping that efficient energy storage can be developed. Until then, we need fossil and nuclear, and to close down all nuclear plants in a frenzy of emotional overreaction is simply stupid.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

WilliB: "Until then, we need fossil and nuclear, and to close down all nuclear plants in a frenzy of emotional overreaction is simply stupid."

"Stupid" is depending on nuclear power. Period. But do tell me, since we're talking about cost-effectiveness over safety and all that: how much will the Fukushima plant have costed by the time it's decommissioned? How many people who can't go home will have committed suicide? How many cancer patients will be fobbed off as "not necessarily related to the nuclear incident"? How long for the fishing industry to recover? (and how much have they lost, monetarily?).

I could go on, but you get the point. Japan only wants the NPPs back on line because the power companies are going into the red, and the government has major investments in them.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan sits on multiple megawatts of volcanic geothermal energy but does not seem to use much of it for electricity production. In Beppu where i live its almost all used for Onsen,

Almost everyone could have a ground heat pump here under their house if it was designed properly when it was built. Even the storm channels in many hilly towns could have micro hydro generators. Japan has no need for nuclear, its a country built on a geothermal hotspot and could be just like iceland which is 100 percent self sufficiant. Imagine how many billions of Yen would stay at home every year instead of leaving the country to pay for oil and gas

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Geothermal has it own issues if not done properly as a close system with fluid re-injection. Geothermal fluids contain elevated levels of arsenic, mercury, lithium and boron because of the underground contact between hot fluids and rocks. Geothermal fluids contain dissolved gases which are released into the atmosphere. The main toxic gases are carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S).

The open system where excess fluid waste is released into rivers or lakes instead of being injected into the geothermal field, these pollutants can damage aquatic life and make the water unsafe for drinking or irrigation..

Levels of arsenic in the Waikato River (New Zealand) almost always exceed the World Health Organisation standard for drinking water. Most of the arsenic comes from geothermal waste water discharged from the Wairākei power station.

What I am saying is almost all green power sources have their own issues.. It just a matter of doing it smarter, adopting the right technology for the suitable places... cheers...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" Japan only wants the NPPs back on line because the power companies are going into the red, and the government has major investments in them."

And we want better air quality than China. There's that, too.

We all hope renewables will be able to meet the needs of our cities and factories in the very near future. But we're not there yet. In the meantime, it's coal & oil + hydro + nuclear in some sort of proportion. Coal & Oil suck, too. Dams are also at risk of earthquakes, torrential rains, and old age.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

kenny76 I agree , there is no golden solution that will fix everything and have no side effects and i agree many countries cannot just switch to green sources in one day ; for many countries it will take decades to switch gradually to sustainable sources , but to do that the mind set has to change . First we have to admit we have a problem , and only then we can work on it , but unfortunately we are not even there yet . Still in this day and age many believe nuclear energy is a green source or cheap source or even that it is the future . With this kind of mentality we are not going to achive anything and we are doomed to faill as a species .

Everybody is saying they hope that green sources will replace nuclear and coal but it has no chance of happening with the mentality of today . Unless we make some serious changes , and start investing big time in green sources we will have no future . That is the sad truth .

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Still in this day and age many believe nuclear energy is a green source or cheap source or even that it is the future . With this kind of mentality we are not going to achive anything and we are doomed to faill as a species .

Is this a good time to quote what the leading climate scientists have said on the subject? What was it? Oh yeah we need an energy policy that combines nuclear with renewables.

Still, what do they know on the subject? I know that they use facts and figures to justify their conclusions and don't come up with 'it's impossible to tell so it must be true' that others argue, but still they probably have a general understanding of the subject.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

johndpugh... Have a little more faith in humanity's progress and don't hold such a doom view of our future will ya !.

We are all seeing the environmental issues from burning fossil fuels and nuclear, and not many are denying those problems either !. Japan is a practical and resourceful country and she will get it right !. I believe when given a choice of choking to death and financial ruin from burning more fossil fuels, and the risk of nuclear power, I would think many reasonable people would refer the later. My youngest son (Brandon) loves Japan for some reasons and wishes to study there.... naturally as a father I do have a keen interest seeing Japan to sort out this energy crisis to avoid air pollution and financial ruin.

Unfortunately 6 major nuclear plants located on the eastern coast line were selected, and built within the seismic active east seaboard during the peak of the cold war due to a geopolitical reason (away from the communist block). Those are the highest risk from seismic activities and should eventually be moved or decommissioned.

Perhaps restart some of the reactors on the protective west coast that passed the stringent safety check would give the government some breathing space to plan for a long terms sustainable green energy future. The green activists like us would then have a better influence on the country long terms energy policy then. No point in stirring up now without offering any practical and sustainable solution. We Aussies are inventive people too, but sit on so much mineral and fossil fuels... and we tend to become lazy thinkers and complacency...

Fossil fuels and nuclear fission materials are not finite resources and eventually run out. The natural development and progress alone would force us to seek for the next best available sources like hydrogen, fusion, solar, etc.

We are not there yet with the current technology, when hydrogen production at commercial scale from seawater still produce CO2 and the poisonous chlorine gas as byproducts.... There is a big efficiency breakthrough recently on solid state dye-sensitized solar cell (DSSC).. We are at 15% atm and targeting 25% for commercial by 2015. Just imaging tinting windows alone would turn our skyscrapers into megawatts solar plants.. Still need to resolve clean mineral mining, manufacturing and energy storage, etc.

I do agree with you that a huge resources, and mentally commitment are required to follow the greener energy development path.... So be patient, have some faith in humanity and be practical ey :)... Have a good day mate !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kenny76 You are definitely an optimist , i admire that :)

/// I believe when given a choice of choking to death and financial ruin from burning more fossil fuels, and the risk of nuclear power, I would think many reasonable people would refer the later///

I wish i could believe that too , but i dont see the reasonable people making the good decisions and right choices . The proof is all around us . From extinction of more and more species every year , to increase in polluiton in cities increase in death rates , cancer , melting icecaps rising sea level etc etc . It doesnt really look like a bright picture and i dont see any reasonable decisions . Politicians meet every year making guidelines , setting limits , promising investment in green sources etc etc but in the end its all about "ho much profit can i make today , and forget about tomorrow " In fact the above article is a proof of that . DO you think those people want the nuc plants to restart because they care for the environment ? Are those demonstrations about reasonable , responsible people who want to have a sustainable future or are they only worried about keeping their shops running ? I dont see those reasonabl people . These issues are not new , they have been known for decades and what did we achive till now ? It s just getting worse from bad and politicians keep making promisses and each year adapting the policy making new guidelines and limits , which eventually will not be met , and faill . I dont know if you have been following news for the last few decades but it doesnt look so promising . You dont hear success stories that often . Usually it s all about how it is "worse than previously thought " the pollution , the melting of the pole ice , disappearance of more and more species. etc etc . I am not as optimistic as you are . I wish i was. , i wish you were right .

/// There is a big efficiency breakthrough recently on solid state dye-sensitized solar cell (DSSC).. We are at 15% atm and targeting 25% for commercial by 2015.///

Many breakthogrughs many improvements could have been achived if more was invested in green energy and that is exactly what these discussions are all about . There needs to be much more investment in green sources than it is today .

HedaMadness Supporters of nuclear as a green source are in decline and as i mentioned earlier . It has been advertised for many decades as a green and a cheap source but after accidents like chernobyl three mile island , fukushima people are beginning to see the real cost of nuclear and many environmentalist now realise how misleiding the whole pronuke campaign has been . Why do you think germany decided to get rid of all nuclear. I am sure they have some experts , dont you think so ?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's your opinion that supporters of nuclear as a green energy are reducing. It's a fact that the leading experts in the field are saying that from an environmental point of view it should be a combination of nuclear and renewables.

It always makes me laugh when people use Germany as an example, even ignoring the fact they import energy from France (nuclear) as their Co2 emissions have increased for the second year running because of an increase in coal and oil. Germany is nowhere near the poster child of clean energy that the anti-nuclear brigade seem to think. It is actually increasing the number of coal fired power plants that will be built.

What a brilliant example of a green environmental policy.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

nuclear is far from a green source or a cheap source . Many reasons for that . If you take into account how much pollution it takes to build run decomision a nuclear plant , it is neither cheap , nor green . There is still no solution for nuclear waste , nobody knows what to do with it . There is not a single nuclear plant decomisioned yet and nuclear accidents like chernobyl fukushima will keep happening more and more as more nuke plants are being built. Pronuke lobby has been running a very succesful campaign in promoting nuclear for the wrong reasons and unfortunately even some green activists bought into their fairy tales. Even if we would forget about the costs , just the risk of radioactive isotopes in the environment should be enough to shut them all down , Unfortunately people cant see that because they are misinformed. Many people have absolutely no idea what radioactive isotopes are what kind of damage they are causing to all life on this planet .

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You keep saying that people are misinformed, yet if you actually bothered to read facts you may, potentially learn something. You claim that MILLIONS die each year - not true. You make comments about nuclear waste as though it is some huge mountain, yet it's actually a pretty small amount. I think the quote for the US was about 8 metres high, the size of a football field.

ust the risk of radioactive isotopes in the environment should be enough to shut them all down ,

Before you go any further, perhaps it's an idea to read up on environmental risk assessment. Because as far as your concerned everyone who ingests nuclear contamination will get cancer (hence the millions quote) whereas actually what the likes of Chernobyl and Fukushima tell us is that is not the case. Far from it.

Many people have absolutely no idea.

Very true. Nuclear is bad. It kills millions every year.

Absolutely no idea.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Herdamadness As i mentioned earlier , the nuclear lobby is very strong and they have been campaigning for pronuke policies for decades now .Secrecy is part of the campaign , just as it is to influence the media and the politicians / governments / organisations etc to promote nuclear energy as a green cheap source ,( which in fact is far from it .) and thus makes it hard to get the real facts . I could give you some independent sources about the "" real facts "" but having experience in previous forums and discussions i know that whatever i would say whatever facts i would give , they would be discarded as false . You and many other pronuke supporters have been convinced to believe in pronuke campaigners fairy tales , which shows how succesfull their campaigns are .

8 meters high , size of a football field is not the way to measure the risks of nuclear waste believe me . :) You are missing the whole point , we are not talking about some garbage bags here full of house garbage . :)

Environmental risks are extremely down played and the statistics are far from correct when it comes to nuclear waste and its risks . Again part of the pronuke campaign i mentioned earlier. Unfortunately my earlier efforts to go into further detail has been unsuccesfull since my comments are getting deleted straight away so i am not going to get into environmental / health risks , all i can say is don't believe everything you hear on the media . Try to get better informed , internet is a great source of information .

About Germany ; I never said germany has the perfect environmental policy . I just said there is a reason why they made that decision to phase out all nuclear , which you cant seem to understand . They have a long way to go ,, just like all other countries ,, until we can talk about green policies but at least people are beginning to see through the misinformation . They are beginning to wake up to the truth that nuclear has been only false promises strongly promoted by nuclear lobbyists who are absolutely not concerned about the environment , or your health or the sustainablitilty issues but only with making profits and filling their pockets . We see the same in many countries around the world , i am not just talking about japan or germany .

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It's interesting how you can be so dismissive of other people's opinions because the nuclear lobby is so strong. It must be brainwashing, the only way that someone could have a differing opinion to you. It certainly couldn't be down to science. Or facts. Or mumbo jumbo could it. Nope, we'll stick with the belief that millions of people die each year from nuclear because that is the only possible truth. And anything else is down to nuclear propaganda.

You could give me some independent sources to provide the facts - wow - thanks. If only I had access to such information as I was doing my Bachelors in Environmental science it certainly would have helped. I'm sure that the conclusions that I came up with, stupidly backed up with facts and figures should be ripped up and replaced with it's impossible to tell so it must be true, would have changed the examiners opinions and given me an even higher grade.

Environmental risks are extremely downplayed... you haven't demonstrated any knowledge on environmental risk except to say that nuclear is bad.

Germany made the decision to phase out nuclear to appease the Greens. The energy companies, having been told to get rid of the profitable nuclear, have now turned to coal, not only have they turned to the coal, they've gone for Lignite. Because it's cheap. Despite the fact that it spews more greenhouse gasses than any other fossil fuel . Six new power plants are to be built. Co2 is increasing. And will increase further. Apparently I don't seem to understand why this is a good thing. Apparently it's good because it's not nuclear. You dismiss anyone who can't see nuclear as being evil as being misinformed. Yet as I mentioned earlier the leading climate scientists disagree with you. They've produced facts and figures. They've even gone as far as saying that nuclear has saved in the region of 1.8 million lives and will save countless more. Written. Reviewed. Approved. Accepted by the science community. Rejected by you. Because you know some bloke who says something different.

Yep, it's all down to nuclear lobbyists.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Hedamadness First off i never called anyone evil or stupid , your words not mine . I dont think insults is any solution to any problem . You say i am discrediting experts , while in your words you say "' Germany made the decision to phase out nuclear to appease the Greens."' you dont seem to respect those (green ) experts opinions much either do you ?

I dont defend coal or fossil fuels and the fact that they are polluting does not make nuclear a good choice , both are bad in their own way . It s another pronuke propaganda to use the pollution by fossil fuels to promote nuclear . We do not need that .

//// nuclear has saved in the region of 1.8 million lives//// how many lives did it cost , what are your numbers on that ? Why dont you mention that ? Or should we just take the word of pronuke propaganda , " nobody died so fukushima is not that bad " :)

Even here , the censorship is so strong that we cant have a decent discussion ,,and you are still denying it . Japan has changed the LAW for gods sake ,( secrecy ) ,, what else do you need , what would it take , what does all that tell you ?

he facts are ; 1; Radiation is one of the main causes of cancer and many pother diseases . 2; Radiation in the environment has been increasing since the beginning of the nuclear era with no way of goiong down ,,, ever again . 3; The more people are subject to radiation the more people will be effected / die 4; The numbers / statistics are extremely down played partly because of tehnological challenges to prove the real numbers , and mainly because of pronuke lobby 5; Promoting nuclear has never been about environment or health issues but only about profits 6; Nuclear waste is a problem with no solution which sooner or later will come back to hurt us 7; The more nuclear plants there are , the older they get the more accidents we will see in the future , its inevitable 8 Nuclear accidents like chernobyl and fukushima are extremely down played by media / governments

The truth is , while you claim 1,8 million lives have been saved by nuclear its just the opposite , it has cost much more lives than that and keeps doing that for a long time to come . It s a silent killer , you cant taste you cant see or feel it , and difficult for many people to understand / comprehend it .

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thank you johndpugh... for your appreciation of my optimistic view of the future !. I just could not agree and say the same about your gloomy view of the future.... Spreading the doom and gloomy future scenarios is an effective shock tactic, adopted by some green activists to get the message across to the young people.. however it can be counter productive in this case.

Being a responsible dad, I always encourage my son to try his best, taking on the challenge with a positive attitude toward a brighter future. After all, when our young people have lost their hope and given up trying !... then, my friend.... we are looking at the extinction scenario of the human as a species.

I certainly hope young people including my son don't read too much into your negative comments here, and feeling hopeless about their future.

I do follow the environmental changes very closely, and agree that the immediate challenge is to get the greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution in our cities under controlled. My view is very clear on this matter. With our current limited technology min green energy, we do not have much of the choice but to accept nuclear fission as one of the transitional energy sources atm.

Whatever you say, just have some encourage words to our young people to try for a better future..

As for Germany, the country is paying the price now for closing down nuclear energy impulsively to attract green voters, without a proper long terms planning. Germany's experience with solar power is the big setback in terms of effective investment for the green energy industry. Its just a wrong place for the technology.... One would think the sunny Australia would be a better suit...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/04/should-other-nations-follow-germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power/ http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/335806/germany-shows-renewable-energy-has-failed-and-other-strange-ideas

Cheers...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kenny Instead of discrediting my view as doom gloom wouldnt it be better to keep an open mind and try to find the truth . I understadn that you want to keep optimistic , and you want to give a positive message to young people , but i would prefer to give them the reality of today .

My opinions may sound as doom and gloom because they are not what you usually hear on TV and media or from the politicians . we are all used to being indoctrinated into believing their narative and when faced with views like mine it creates a certain response,, people dont want to hear about it ,, or they want tp protect their kids from it ,, even some people told me " dont mention about fukushima , it depresses people " . That s where we are :) But i cant be an ostrich :)

I definitely want to encourage young people to try for a better future and that is my way of doing that ,, instead of letting them being kept in deep sleep ,, and claiming all is fine , i prefer to push everyone s nose into the reality of today . In fact the main reason i oppose nuclear is that i care for the future generations not for myself . . We are leaving a big mess for them ,, huge amounts of nuclear waste , unsolvable problems, a radioactvie world , damaged genome and so on . We dont have the right to do that , we are basically ruining it for them . And all that , because we believe in the fairy tales told on the main stream media , so that some company , some politician some organisation can make profit ,,

Check out these few sources if you like , enenews dot c om nukefree dot org greenroad project some experts hellen caldicot Dr busby fairewinds is a good informative site You can read about chernobyl in the online book "Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment " its online at nuclearfree planet .

In any case , in short , what we are told by the main stream media is not the truth . Lots of manipulation , lots of politics and misinformation . If you care for the future generations i think the best you can do is to give them the truth . Internet is a great source of information , but you must first stop seeing it all as doom and gloom , keep an open mind and try to see the other side of the story . Not an easy step to take.

Big thumbs plus for you that you encourage young ones to try for a better future ,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

johndpugh... I am an an open minded person and I agree that the truth must be told !. The sensationalized media industry have been doing such a sensational job already. Here you are, not so happy with that and want to do it many times more sensational :)...

It is time for us to focus on the solutions at hand rather than spreading fear among our young people.

What can, and must we do to make our Mother Earth greener and cleaner ?...We need them solutions John... the practical solutions mate !. Have a good day... cheers

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Greens are a political party.

/// nuclear has saved in the region of 1.8 million lives//// how many lives did it cost , what are your numbers on that ? Why dont you mention that ?

Do you think that leading scientists when they come to a conclusion that 1.8 million lives have been saved, forget to include the amount of fatalities that come from nuclear? And yet it still gets peer reviewed and accepted?

Promoting nuclear has never been about environment or health issues but only about profits

So why on earth was it brought in in the first place? It's pretty expensive to build a nuclear power plant... a lot cheaper to continue to burn coal, gas and oil. Those plants were already built.

The truth is , while you claim 1,8 million lives have been saved by nuclear its just the opposite , it has cost much more lives than that and keeps doing that for a long time to come

This is not the truth. It's a completely and utterly ridiculous statement to make. Can you produce one link to prove that millions die a year? Can you produce any evidence?

And then we come to realise that your 'independent' experts are Busby and Enenews and that just proves everything.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

kenny It s not about the sensationalism , its not about doom and gloom its not about just calling it a name and discarding it . Its about finding the truth . Its about trying to see through the misinformation . Media misinformation on this subject is not only sensationalism , its all about down playing the harmfull effects of radiation . It is easy to just call the opposite view , sensationalism and discard it .

Agreed , its time to focus on solutions , and the only way to do it is if you know the facts , you cant find any solutions if you dont know whats ACTUALLY going on ,,

Your heart is at the right place , and i respect that , but to me its a rather naive way of looking at it ,, just taking whatever is fed to you through media , no questions ask and believing in the fairy tales. I dont mean to disrecpect you , but its not as simple as that anymore , the world is not such a place. We cant just close our eyes and believe whatever is fed into our brains thporugh tv . I think that should be one of the main lessons to teach to the young ones .

The facts are clear ,, three simultaneous nuclear meltdowns and the media is still saying " nobody died so its oke " . Huge amounts of radioactive substances leaking into the environment , they dont even know how to deal with those 3 plants in meltdown , they dont even know where the coriums are , its the worst disaster in modern history , and still going on . And people are talking about whether to open the shops or not .Cant be more detached from the reality .

Hedamadness Still , we dont get no numbers from you :) Whats the number of people affected by radioactivity according to you , or your experts , surely you dont think radioactivity is not harmfull at all , do you ? So why not tell us the correct numbers instead of avoiding the question ? , i am ready to learn / change my opinion if you could give some info , any info with any logical explanation . You just say my numbers are wrong but you cant give any numbers yourself , how come ? Its a simple question , which requires a simple answer ; How many people are affected by radiation according to you (or your experst ) ? inform me .

All i am trying to say is , the numbers are extremely down played . I did not say just take busby and enenews as experts , but you can learn a lot from sites like that . Enenews is a collection of articles uopdated regularly , with links to scientific research . I dont even think the administrators are experts in the field . It s just a site where you can find lots of links to scientific articles , research . All i am saying is just hear the other side of the story before discarding it totally . It s about keeping an open mind to the possibility that we may not know everything as well as we think we do .

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I've stated that experts (and I can produce links) have said that 1.8 million lives have been saved. I can also produce links to prove that nuclear power isn't anywhere near as bad as you try to portray.

You have claimed that millions die every year from nuclear. Millions. You've claimed that it costs more lives than it's saved yet you don't have a single link to support it. I have produced facts and figures that are easily founf on google. You haven't.

Enenews is ridiculed by the science community. As is Busby.

I haven't avoided a question... you haven't posed one yet.

So once again I ask you to produce a single shred of evidence that states that millions die every year from nuclear. I will happily produce to numerous to counter that, but all I'm asking from you is one. One link that says millions die every year from nuclear.

And again having spent three years at university studying the subject, I'd like to think that I have studied both sides. In quite a lot of depth.

So please produce a link that states millions die every year from nuclear. Simple request and given your knowledge on the subject I would be expecting you to have loads at your finger tips.

But all I want is one.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Heda madness I am not asking how many have been saved according to your experts ,, but just asking how many die . I cant put it any simpler . Quetion : How many people die from radioactivity according to you ? Just the number . Nothing else.

If you cant answer such a simple question , that just proves your bias doesn't it ?

Enenews is not claiming ANYTHING ,,, its just a collection of links to other sites ,, to sites where you can find experts doing real research and presenting real numbers , did you even ever check that site before you claim its not credible ?

Well maybe we should conclude that , you must have missed the part where they mention the number of deaths from radiation ,, during your studies , cause after discussing this for days now , i still cant get a number from you ? But we all know why that is right ?

I could answer your question if you would answer mine , but i dont think you can ever put a number on it . Its against the rules , we cant talk about deaths right?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Discussing this for days? You mean you claiming that millions die every year from nuclear and saying that there's no proof so it must be true? That's what we've been discussing for days. Yet you still refuse to post a single link to corroborate that 'fact'.

You have now asked me one question and claimed you've been asking that for days. To hide that you simply made a number up, I understand that your beloved Arnie made a claim that two million would die from Fukushima but again, that goes against everything that science tells us.

There are definitely fatalities associated with nuclear energy, just as there are fatalities associated with any form of power. The deaths caused by nuclear, are, substantially lower than others (based on the power generated). There are many links on the internet that show how deadly your power is compared with how much power is generated. The vast majority of deaths from nuclear come from uranium mining. Even when considering the most extreme numbers for Chernobyl, the number of fatalities annually from nuclear is in the low thousands but that's the extreme figures. When you consider that there were 7000 cases of thyroid cancer in children but only 12 fatalities it's reasonable to dismiss the extreme claims.

Realistically the number of deaths on an annual basis from nuclear power is in the low hundreds.

So, before going any further. Where, is your evidence that it's actually millions.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

johndpugh... //Agreed , its time to focus on solutions , and the only way to do it is if you know the facts//

Excellent John !... at least we now agree on finding the practical solutions available at hand !. We do know the environmental problems need to be solved immediately are are excessive green house gas emissions & air pollution in our cities.. so lets work on those issues shall we ?

You do have your point about the the danger of legacy fissile nuclear waste. Long terms treatment, management, and disposal of radioactive waste are currently the real technical challenges... The next generation of nuclear transmutation & processing technologies will solve most of these issues, with minimum waste required permanent disposal...

Have a happy and safe Easter everyone !

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Kenny That is not exactly what i meant by focusing on solutions , i was talking about radioactive pollution , which nobody seems to care . It seems we can talk about anything except from radioactivity ,, on a discussion about fukushima ,, how interesting . ANything i say is getting deleted ,, so pronuke has to have the last word . Great job :)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites